Commentary: Discussion on Mormonism

It's no one's place to judge someone else for their lack of answer.
But that is precisely what you do. If you exclude the possibility that these people are honest and sincere and trying very hard to find the truth then you judge them dishonest, insincere and lazy.
 
Where do these laws come from and why are they important? Why can't I kill people?

Apparently, they're laws as set by God. How or where they came from before, it's not clear. But the laws are there to help *us* acheive perfection. We won't be perfect in this life, but at least they tell us how to be like God if you want to be a god yourself. The laws are designed to teach us how to love people.

You *can* kill people - no one is stopping you. But you are robbing the other person's choice to live. They didn't ask to be killed, did they?

You are being inconsistent in your definitions. You will need to redifine (see above).

Ah - like I said, God knows everything, and therefore qualified to do what needs to be done - including killing people. He know much more than we do - therefore I think what he is doing is not sin. Since he is the one who set up the laws in the first place, if you believe he has absolute knowledge, then it is in his rights to do what needs to be done.

Sin applies to us human beings - God is perfect and cannot change, so apparently sin cannot be applicable to him.

In the end killing children isn't inherently wrong it is just an arbitrary prohibition against a specific act.

Probably true - God's laws are either arbitrary as set up by him, or eternal and immovable. Probably the former.

Why is it sin when we intend to hurt others? What does not having all of the information have to do with anything?

Sin itself is a broad term, covering many kinds of behaviors and actions. It's difficult to simplify it to one definition - the best I can think of right now is that it's something which hurts a person or persons in an intentional way and which affects the perprator's ability to be good and perfect.
 
Then please, please, spare us the empty rhetoric, fair enough?

I *really* don't know what you mean - nothing from me is *empty*. I'm just stating my opinions and beliefs - is that so wrong? Isn't this a forum? :)

It was backhanded. If I said, "I'm sorry you are stupid" that is backhanded. If you don't intend to be backhanded then don't be.

It *wasn't* meant to be backhanded, but I apologize nevertheless.

How about leaving out the part that you are sad because we are going to hell, fair enough?

You're putting words in my mouth - I'm sad for a *different* reason. Because I actually care about people. Is that so hard to believe? I'm the sort of person who tries his best to respect people's choices and beliefs, so whatever people decide, it's their own choice to make, and I'm fine with that.

I didn't say that it is all fiction. Please don't put words in my mouth. I know that what the church teaches is woefully incomplete (typical of propaganda).

Incomplete because there is a need for faith. Just because something's incomplete doesn't mean the other parts are false or unnecessary.

And I'm sorry - "all" is not the right word to use. Nevertheless - how do you know it's largely fiction?

Hence two sources, one written the other a video.

Ah, interesting comparison. Thanks for pointing out that one of them was written - I overlooked it, sorry. But there is one big flaw in that comparison - the LDS Church doesn't teach that God will *kick* people in a big way - in other words, punishment, if anything, is only temporary, and even if people didn't kiss God's butt, God still wants the best for all of his children, and that's why he will be placing most of us on better worlds after this life on Earth. See, the core concept is *love*. I see Jesus Christ and I see the embodiment of love there. As the Son is, the Father is also. Whereas the Hank story presupposes that Hank is a vindictive and egostistical (in my perception) being, I think God is quite the opposite. :)
 
Heh - interesting comments. Well, really, you say you've met and known several LDS members, IIRC - would they be suffering from quirks in rationality or confirmation bias? Are they all fooled? Me and my family? The people I met in England who were converted? I really hope you are not simplifying all of my and their experiences - because if you are, you are making a fundamental mistake - ignoring the complexities of such experiences across cultures, ages, upbringings, knowledge, personalities, and so on.

FYI - the LDS Church's doctrines do not state at all that non-believers will suffer eternally. If punishment is to be meted, it's only temporary. Only very few non-believes will have eternal punishment - otherwise, most people will find themselves on a better world than the world we live on now - just not necessarily the best one. If there's *any* eternal punishment for a majority of the people, it's self-regret at the choices they made in this life - a punishment of their own making.

Yes, I think so. Clearly. What makes you think your knowingness is more likely to be true than the hijackers of 9-11-- would you risk your life if you believed your god mandated it... afterall, you believe that god speaks to people in a way that is not distinguishable from other delusional experiences--Lots of people have claimed to be gods and prophets through history--and to have revelations. Jim Jones, Marshall Applewhite, Kim Jong Ill, David Koresh. Are you asserting that you somehow are superior than all the believers of these faiths because your knowingness is more likely to be true. If magic underwear really protects it should hold up to scientific testing--not mere anecdote, you know.

And scientists can duplicate near death experiences... http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/na...24,0,6720531.story?coll=bal-sports-highschool

But none of these feelings stand up to scientific testing. None of Joseph Smiths genetic and historical claims do either-- none. I think the people who are the most certain that they can't be fooled are the easiest ones to fool-- at least Randi thinks so-- and he's fooled scientists (watch or read about the alpha project.)

Your feelings evolved to guide your survival and reproductive success--not to tell you truths. The earth truly "feels" flat. But science shows us quite clearly how easy humans are to fool. And why would I presume Mormons to be the exception? Their proselytizing techniques are similar to the most successful religions and cults-- including "excommunication" from one's community. They lie and say people stop believing because they want to sin... but read or listen to Tal Bachman or Bob McCue or any ex-mormon and see if that is the truth. That, itself, is an ugly little lie designed to encourage "testimony" and silence dissent. You just have no experience with similar conversions in different religions where the feeling is just as strong--maybe stronger. And you have no way except confirmation bias to prove that your feelings is more reflective of some nebulous "truth" than others are.

Lots of Mormons and evangelicals of all sorts have converted people only to realize that they had been fooling people in the same way they, themselves, had been fooled by the people they trusted most... who were fooled by those who came before. Mormonism encourages lots of vectors in which to insert these rather bizarre "claims" from birth. It takes a big person to admit they were in error after producing a whole bunch of new humans for an illusion.

Every woo thinks they have the true woo. That's why skeptics demand evidence-- and not the kind that all woos proffer either. There is one truth that is the same for everyone. The earth is spherical no matter how much you believe it to be flat. And skeptics would prefer not to know then to fool themselves (and others) with a lie. There is NOTHING measurable in any manner that shows that there is any form of consciousness outside of a living brain-- despite eons of belief. And check out the link above. Science loves to know stuff-- look at what we've discovered about DNA and atoms and electromagnetism and the nature of our universe-- with no help from any divine source I might add... though surely one would imagine that such an entity would be aware of such things.
 
Last edited:
But that is precisely what you do. If you exclude the possibility that these people are honest and sincere and trying very hard to find the truth then you judge them dishonest, insincere and lazy.

Am I doing that? Where have I said this? I *don't* judge people like that at all. Please - give me time and as we discuss more and more, you'll understand me better as a person, all right? :)
 
Oh, I'm not worried, really - I'm used to being ridiculed and mocked for my views. It's not a popular one, I know - but sometimes knowing the truth means that you have to take an unpopular stand. Jesus was popular with some people, but the leadership of the country thought otherwise. Even though, the Church after he left, under Peter, didn't survive for very long, probably because the ideas as espoused by Christ were, in some ways, radical.

Anyway, I've written hundreds of posts in defense of the LDS Church on another forum, but in the long run, does it matter? I think it does, because they will stand as a testament for who do not choose to listen, and honestly, I actually mean this with a sad heart, because I actually care about people. I know I'm new to this forum and I don't have much of a reputation yet, but I hope I come across favorably and honestly. I look forward to more discussions if the occasion arises. :)


But of course... which is why there is hazing... the more one suffers for one's belief, the more true or valuable he thinks it is. Tom Cruise's ridicule makes him more sure of his beliefs, no doubt. I'm sure he thinks, "I'm rich and successful, clearly I'm doing something right"-- everyone has a way of proving they are right when there isn't evidence to go on. Google Leon Festinger-- "When Prophesy Fails..." What do doomsday cultists do when the world doesn't end on the day predicted? Become MORE faithful. really. If your religion tells you you will be persecuted and mocked for your faith (and the most successful religions, cults, and regimes do), you will take it as yet another sign of "truth"-- no matter what faith it is. I will never understand how people can see that billions have been fooled by all sorts of made up religions for eons (like Scientology) and not wonder if they might not also have been similar fooled. The evidence and techniques and confirmation bias is identical. And no religion is supported by actual science-- if it was, believers would be hijacking such talking points just like they repeat anecdote and hearsay and so on-- JUST LIKE YOU. THE SAME. REALLY. You give us no more reason to believe you than all the people on this forum who come to preach different woo-- untenable belief systems that are clearly incorrect even to you.
 
Good cults make you afraid of losing faith... they tell you faith is required for salvation and that it's wrong to "bite from the tree of knowledge". Why? But some people need facts... they can't just will themselves to believe stuff--especially when they learn how easy it is to fool people... to fool themselves.

Theists all want to believe they have the truth... skeptics want to know how in the world they all seem so convinced of such different unbelievable stories-- Skeptics are fine with other people opinions, but we don't just adopt them as are own with silly salesman conversion techniques. We want evidence. And we know that if cannot know something-- that it's unlikely anyone else can know it either-- even though they claim to know.
 
Are you asserting that you somehow are superior than all the believers of these faiths because your knowingness is more likely to be true.

I don't assert myself to be superior at all - I only assert that I know God exists and that the LDS Church is true. Simple as that - I have no desire or need to be better than anyone else. I just want to do the best I can for my life - and I do want to share what I know because they're true. It's okay with me if people don't believe me, but at least the opportunity is there for people to try and find out for themselves whether these things are true.

If magic underwear really protects it should hold up to scientific testing--not mere anecdote, you know.

But none of these feelings stand up to scientific testing. None of Joseph Smiths genetic and historical claims do either-- none. I think the people who are the most certain that they can't be fooled are the easiest ones to fool-- at least Randi thinks so-- and he's fooled scientists (watch or read about the alpha project.)

The problem is - at its simplest, if God is not willing to reveal himself to the mass population or to science, then what makes people think that anything genuinely associated with God will also stand up to scientific scrutiny? Science and religion have different roles. Religion is to answer the *whys* of life - not the hows. The *only* way scientists will ever know about God is to ask God directly, perhaps under specific conditions. Otherwise, science won't get the answers that people seek about God or his official associations. Either way, God intentionally made it so that faith is always present, without direct scientific evidence of his existence. For that is one of the main purposes of our own existence - to learn without dependence on God.

So whatever people's feelings about the lack of scientific support for things associated with the LDS Church, that doesn't change anything as far as truth is concerned. The truth is - God exists. You just can't verify that with science.

You just have no experience with similar conversions in different religions where the feeling is just as strong--maybe stronger. And you have no way except confirmation bias to prove that your feelings is more reflective of some nebulous "truth" than others are.

Ah - but since I'm assuming you have never gotten the answer in the form of the Holy Spirit, I don't expect you to understand, because there is nothing like the Holy Spirit. It's a very powerful source of testimony. It just happens that testimony can be diminished or forgotten through the trials of life and people do leave the Church for various reasons, having lost their testimonies or an inability to continue to follow the practices of the LDS Church.
 
I have gotten an answer... it was from a different belief system. My thinking evolved. If your lucky yours might too. If you don't care whether your belief is truer than others who feel just as certain as you do but believe different things, then you probably stumbled across the wrong forum. Lots of people claim truths through faith or feelings-- they don't agree with each other at all-- and they sure don't stand up to scrutiny. If god has a rubric and he's only speaking to people by feelings or in ways indistinguishable from schizophrenia-- then it doesn't say much for his benevloence or anyone's naive worship. The Catholics have stigmata-- and saints-- and the Pope is infallible and traces his descent from Paul... and there are a lot more Catholics than Mormons-- people claiming miracles and moved to tears...

but it still doesn't make it true. You've been deceived. Faith and feeling are very poor ways of knowing anything useful or true, but they are great ways for deceiving yourself and others. They are also great for making people feel moral and above others without actually doing anything good or useful. Read others on this forum... other believers of things you don't believe in... and tell us why you should be respected more than them-- more than maatorc or plumjam or Wolf(something) or the truthers or the Sylvia Browne believers...

Give us something other than your pedantics, naivete' and opinions states as facts. Your feelings about the truth are not any more valid than anyone elses feelings about the truth. And there is no evidence than any actual higher truth exists--much less that any religion or book or prophet or pope can access it via feelings or revelation etc.
 
You've been deceived.

How do you know? For one, I'm a psychologist, and I've been trained to be a skeptic of many things, yet I know God exists.

Read others on this forum... other believers of things you don't believe in... and tell us why you should be respected more than them

Personally, I don't need respect at all. I know what I know, and that works for me. I'm also happy to be with my family who shares the same beliefs, because we do our best to live up to the truth.

Give us something other than your pedantics, naivete' and opinions states as facts. Your feelings about the truth are not any more valid than anyone elses feelings about the truth. And there is no evidence than any actual higher truth exists--much less that any religion or book or prophet or pope can access it via feelings or revelation etc.

There are *no* facts that will convince many people on this forum regarding God's existence. God works by revelation, through subjective experiences. Scientific evidence isn't going to be there - never will be. You are left with personal experiences from people who say they know God exists.
 
One thing learned thus far in this moderated debate experiment: the commentary thread created to discuss the moderated debate has been easily sidetracked. Perhaps that's OK - it's just an observation. ;) Perhaps a moderated debate thread doesn't need a commentary thread?
 
Last edited:
Oh, no! I just lost my big reply I was writing - I just finished, and I had links to give, but I have not yet reached 15 posts. Consequently, I pushed Post Reply and then the warning came up and I lost all of what I was saying. :(

Yikes! I've had that happen before, and it can be very frustrating.

A question - do you think there may be a specific action or process that needs to be done in order to get the specific answer you want? Vague queries don't work too well, don't you think? "God, are you there?" and you might get an answer that *might* be questionable if it really was from God or not. In my previous reply, I had suddenly thought of an idea - it's like a map to a treasure. Many people are looking for treasure (God), yeah? And the map is something that lists specific details and actions which are needed to reach the treasure. In other words, perhaps there's something specific that needs to be done so that God can finally reveal himself to you. :)

This is a very interesting take. It is also odd, because after I was convinced that my brand of Christianity was not the correct route, my prayer became much like Joseph Smith's ("Which denomination is right? Point me in the right direction.") I wonder why his prayer was supposedly answered, and mine wasn't. I can assure you I was quite sincere, as my entire world seemed to be falling apart around me.

Oh, that is what I'm saying, yes - the early Christian church as led by Jesus and Peter had the same doctrines as the LDS Church does now. There are practices and doctrines that are found in the LDS Church which are spoken of in the New Testament but are not commonly found in many mainstream Christian churches. Three things come to mind: 1 - 1 Corinthians 15:29 - "Else what shall they do which are baptized for the dead, if the dead rise not at all? why are they then baptized for the dead?" That refers to temple work for those who are dead and are in need of saving ordinances. 2 - Various mentions of laying on of hands in several blessings documented in the New Testament - this is the power of God manifested in such blessings, and I have seen it manifested through the laying on of hands - and it only works if the authority is present. Men in the LDS Church have this authority. And 3 - Ephesians 4:11 - "And he gave some, apostles; and some, prophets; and some, evangelists; and some, pastors and teachers" - we have these types of people in our organizational hierarchy.

There are others to be sure, but those three come to mind.

I know that there are verses of the Bible which can be interpreted in a Mormon light. This may or may not be retrofitting. I am interested more in the actions of the early church. Certainly nothing in the Didache resembles the peculiarities of Mormonism, and the LDS Faith seems nothing at all like the faith of the church fathers (Clement, Polycarp, etc.). I know the belief is that the church was corrupted fairly quickly, but is this based on some sort of evidence, or just on the fact that we can't find Mormon practices in the early church records?

The LDS Church is emphatic that God can and does answer directly to specific queries, whether the person is asking about the validity of the Book of Mormon, or if Joseph Smith was indeed a true prophet of God, or some specific question. And such queries are answered directly with the Holy Spirit, whose role is to confirm the truth of all things.

Why would God nitpick? What is the thought process there? "Wow, prewitt81 is really having a hard time with his faith. If only he knew the secret special prayer. Oh well, back to making sure the Cubs don't win another pennant!" ;)

Heh - interesting comments. Well, really, you say you've met and known several LDS members, IIRC - would they be suffering from quirks in rationality or confirmation bias? Are they all fooled? Me and my family? The people I met in England who were converted? I really hope you are not simplifying all of my and their experiences - because if you are, you are making a fundamental mistake - ignoring the complexities of such experiences across cultures, ages, upbringings, knowledge, personalities, and so on.

I'm sure someone else has made this point, but has every Muslim been fooled? Has every Catholic been fooled? Have all those who have converted to Pentecostalism in Africa been fooled? I would answer yes to all of the above.

Yes - good effort shows that you are serious and sincere about finding God. Just merely asking God, "Where are you?" - is usually a poor and lazy question. If I was "God", and someone asked me where was I in a half-hearted way, why should I respond?

If I were "God", I would love my creation enough to give revelation to everyone instead of a few shady, untrustworthy characters. Or, if I was adamant about letting people decide for themselves, I would not make the stakes so high if they made the wrong choice.

Am I doing that? Where have I said this? I *don't* judge people like that at all. Please - give me time and as we discuss more and more, you'll understand me better as a person, all right? :)

I believe you are a sincere person. However, it seems to me that there is no way, in your perception of the world, that someone can honestly and sincerely follow Moroni's advice and not receive an answer. When confronted with honest, sincere people who have tried this out and not received an answer, you either consciously or unconsciously conclude that they are doing something wrong.

Ah - but since I'm assuming you have never gotten the answer in the form of the Holy Spirit, I don't expect you to understand, because there is nothing like the Holy Spirit. It's a very powerful source of testimony. It just happens that testimony can be diminished or forgotten through the trials of life and people do leave the Church for various reasons, having lost their testimonies or an inability to continue to follow the practices of the LDS Church.

This is a textbook example of mislabeling belief as "knowledge". If the witness of the Holy Spirit is powerful enough that it becomes knowledge, how is it that it can be diminished or forgotten? It sounds like this "knowledge" is on shaky ground.

God works by revelation, through subjective experiences. Scientific evidence isn't going to be there - never will be. You are left with personal experiences from people who say they know God exists.

Exactly. And with so many people saying so many things, each with their own spirit of truth, one sounds no different than the other to an outsider. If one of them really is the Supreme Ultimate Truth, it should stand out. Mormonism fails to do this just as much as the rest of them.
 
One thing learned thus far in this moderated debate experiment: the commentary thread created to discuss the moderated debate has been easily sidetracked. Perhaps that's OK - it's just an observation. ;) Perhaps a moderated debate thread doesn't need a commentary thread?

I agree. I think I'll take a look at splitting this later. Keep up the good work though, everybody. We probably won't all agree in the end, but we can at least see where we are all coming from.
 
Nice idea, the moderated thread.

RandFan and rcronk are both fair and respectful debaters, if the opinion of someone who's quite often not means anything. :rr:

As an agnostic-atheist, I don't agree with most of rcronk's argument of course, but I appreciate his careful exposition of the logic of his faith.

A question about the BoM: is it the inerrant Word of God to Mormons? Or, as with non-Mormon christians, is there a range of attitudes -- fundamentalist (100% historical); liberal (part history part metaphor, open to [individual] interpretation); humanistic (maybe 100% metaphor, but ethically true nonetheless); etc.
 
Last edited:
Thanks for the compliment. I am sincerely seeking out my own BS and logical errors and trying to eliminate them.The Book of Mormon states within it that if there are errors, they are the errors of men, but it delivers the message it is supposed to deliver as another testament of Christ. I myself have found it to be a strong witness of Christ.
 
I might point out that some people have the "gift" of speaking in tongues--isn't that a sign that god is speaking through them? They sure believe it is. They are moved to tears...swear that they have the holy spirit... oddly enough, if you don't read the book of Mormon and pray for the "sincere truth", you just aren't lead to Mormonism. I suspect that if you did as Scientologists advised to discover rather they had the truth--you'd find yourself having similar conviction of a different belief system. And, no, psychology doesn't make people immune to errors in logic. As Randi shows again and again--anyone... even scientists can be fooled. It's too easy. People want to believe they are chosen and special and somehow have the really true truth. They always have. Every believer in a god swears they know what god wants-- the trouble is, they don't agree... god wasn't clear... and not one belief system has any more evidence in it's favor than any other. There's lots of evidence that people fool themselves readily... (see the OBE link above)-- but no evidence that anyone really has any divine knowledge...or even that there is divine knowledge to be had. I think it would be counter productive to note all the various belief systems of psychologists who think themselves as equally "skeptical" as you are. And yet you are the true woo, right? Aren't they all? Doesn't everyone think that those who believe as they do are the most moral people of all-- the chosen. But the evidence isn't there.

Scot, can you tell us why we should take your beliefs more seriously than those of maatorc. http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=86922&page=7

He seems as sure of his "truths" as you do. It would help to know that you weren't like him.
 
Last edited:
I would like to post the lyrics from the song "God Thinks" by Voltaire. I highly suggest you download and listen to the song. The lyrics are brilliant.

-------------------------------------

God thinks all blacks are obsolete farm equipment
God thinks the Jews killed his son and must be punished
God thinks the white man is Satan
God, they know what God thinks

God thinks we should all convert to Judaism
God thinks we must all be Christians and
God thinks we should all embrace Islam
God thinks the only true religion is Hinduism

And I
I know what God thinks
God thinks you're a waste of flesh
God prefers an Atheist

God thinks all people like you are hateful
God thinks all people like you are an embarassment to creation
self-righteous, judgemental, first to throw the stone
and use His name for your own protection

God thinks the sun revolves around the Earth
God thinks there was something very wrong with Copernicus
God thinks abortion is murder and
God thinks everything that science gave us is wrong
God thinks women deserve it
God thinks AIDS is a form of punishment

I hate people who blame the Devil for their own shortcomings and
I hate people who thank God when things go right

And I
I know what God thinks
God thinks you're an idiot
God prefers a heretic

God God
God thinks all people like you are hateful
God thinks all people like you are an embarassment to creation
self-righteous, judgemental, first to throw the stone
and using His name for your own agenda

God is a liberal
God is a democrat
God wants you to vote republican
never trust a man who puts his words in the mouth of god
and says it's absolute truth
its lies and it smells like death
its all in a day's work taking money from the poor
Why do you think that God would need your dirty money
if he wanted to start a holy war?

self-righteous, judgemental, first to throw the stone
and using His name for your own protection

God thinks puppies need to die and
God thinks babies need to drown
'cause God is neither good nor bad
God is you and me
God is Everything
 
Last edited:
Apparently, they're laws as set by God. How or where they came from before, it's not clear. But the laws are there to help *us* acheive perfection.
What is perfections? Does it include killing people? God is perfect but he kills people.

You *can* kill people - no one is stopping you.
Am I not subject to legal punishment? God's punishment?

But you are robbing the other person's choice to live. They didn't ask to be killed, did they?
I don't think the babies that were drowned in the flood asked to be killed.

Ah - like I said, God knows everything, and therefore qualified to do what needs to be done - including killing people.
So, sin is about what one knows. If one knows all then one can kill, rape, etc. Interesting.

Sin applies to us human beings - God is perfect and cannot change, so apparently sin cannot be applicable to him.
Right. That's consistent. If we lie we can't be with god because that would filthy rags in the sight of god. God can kill however. He can torture. He can maim. Some character this god. He sounds very much like Stalin, Pol Pot, Mao Tse Tung, etc.

I hope that an egotisical bully that can torture and kill so many children when he doesn't have to doesn't exist. If it is ok for god then why is it not ok for anyone else? Oh, yeah, he's god. Right.
 
I *really* don't know what you mean - nothing from me is *empty*. I'm just stating my opinions and beliefs - is that so wrong? Isn't this a forum?
We have Catholics, Christians liberals, conservatives, etc., etc. who come here to tell us they are victimized and persecuted. It gets old. You are entitled to share your opinion. I just hope you don't dwell on that aspect.

It *wasn't* meant to be backhanded, but I apologize nevertheless.
Thanks.

You're putting words in my mouth - I'm sad for a *different* reason.
What reason?
 

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