LDS II: The Mormons

[Vortigern99]

Vortigern, We all have such knowledge within us, our Spirit knows... just listen.

But I have listened. I've read and studied and heard the teachings of Mormons, Jehovah's Witnesses, Lutherans and Catholics. And the ancient legendary material of an Iron Age desert-dwelling herding culture, with all its condoning of slavery and the subjection of women, does not resonate with the feeling of love I carry with me in my mind and heart.

Also, billions of people worldwide have "listened"... and they've reached wholly different conclusions from you and your people. They've become Buddhists, Hindus, Muslims, Jews. How can you look at global religion demographics and conclude that your chosen path to divinity is the sole, the best, the only way?

 

[catsmate]

You continue to commit the fallacy of Ignorantiam, argumentum ad, in which you use your lack of knowledge about something to imply that the opposite is the case. Madsen Pirie* puts it this way: "The fallacy consists of the intervention of irrelevant material, in the shape of our own ignorance, into an argument which is about something else." *Author, How to Win Every Argument: The Use and Abuse of Logic, Continuum, 2007.

The fact that you know The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is not a club and its buildings are not clubhouses does not absolve you of having committed the fallacy. Consequently, your rant about xianists and "amended scriptures" is difficult to take seriously.

It's difficult to take seriously the "arguments" of someone who focuses on the word "club" (and accurate description of the LDS church) and failes to address the gist of the argument made.

"Red herring" seems to fit exceptionally well.

Or "desperate attempt to evade the question" perhaps?

The beginning of the church.

In Fawn Brodie’s telling phrase, there is a “savagely cynical account” by one of Joseph’s early confidants, Peter Ingersoll, about the origins of the Book of Mormon. According to Ingersoll, Joseph told him he’d brought home some fine white sand wrapped in his shirt, and his family wanted to know what it was. Joseph said, “I happened to think of what I had heard about a history found in Canada, called the golden Bible; so I very gravely told them I had received a commandment to let no one see it, for says I, no man can see it with the naked eye and live. However, I offered to take out the book and show it to them, but they refused to see it, and left the room. Now, I have got the damned fools fixed, and will carry out the fun.”

The rest is history.

Reminiscent of the start of Scientology.

You have some rather odd Christian acquaintances, I must observe.

Yes, most 'holy books' really aren't printed on paper suited for sanitary uses.

As you keep repeating Craig. Do you think continually asserting incorrect opinions will somehow make them correct? Not so. Truth remains truth regardless of how many times the foolish and the ignorant rant and rave against it.

Then why do you do so?

I'd dare to suggest that the idea of a pervert and con man discovering the revealed word of god on some gold plates with the aid of an angel, a magic hat and some rocks is far more difficult to take seriously than anything Slowvehicle has to say about the club Cult of LDS.

Exactly.

 

[kerikiwi]

As you keep repeating Craig. Do you think continually asserting incorrect opinions will somehow make them correct? Not so. Truth remains truth regardless of how many times the foolish and the ignorant rant and rave against it.

Indeed. Now, how do you know your particular books are true and not the ranting and raving of the foolish?
Remember that continually asserting that they are does not somehow make you correct.
Over to you...

 

[dafydd]

I prefer "Cult of Mormonosity" myself.

I prefer Old Joe's supercon.

 

[halleyscomet]

Oh, the sacrifices we have to make...

It gets worse. They ended up marrying someone who is a member of the ex-gay movement. Their husband is a man who is so gay he needs Viagra to get it up for them.

It could be creepier though. He likes military guys, so I know for a matter of fact he's not going to be thinking about me what shagging them. As tempting as it is to say I hope they're all happy in this arrangement, I know he's not. I hope the girls are happy though.

One reason I haven't narked on this particular group is because they have a very firm policy against underage marriage. They believe people shouldn't get married until they reach the age where they can become an elder. It's hard to argue against polygamy when all the participants are of legal drinking age. (Not that they drink)

 

[skyrider44]

Does this mean that the fact that you know that atheists do not "choose" to "become faithless" will affect the misstatements you make?

Your syntax is jumbled. Try recasting your sentence.

: Given that Webster's Random House Unabridged Dictionary, second edition (hereinafter WRHUD2) lists one of the definitions of "club" as, "...2. a group of persons organized for social, literary, athletic, political, or other purpose..." (p. 391, so you can find it); it is silly to argue that "club" is not an approptriate description for your sect (a word you have also objected to), you splinter faction, your cult, your sektebundt...

Given that Webster's Third New International Dictionary, Unabridged (2,662 pp.) does not refer to religion (neither does your Random House source) in its definition of club, it's obvious that your inappropriate and abrasive use of that word is designed to denigrate the LDS Church.

It is, indeed, silly to argue that club is an approptriate description for a religious organization--or for any organization.






Not only that, as I am sure you are aware, whatever word I use to describe the Joeites (Smitheterians?) does not change the demonstrable fact that their idea of marriages in the afterworld is not derived from xianist scriptures; not from (literally) a jot nor a tiddle therein. The words attributed to Jesus (said to be said the be "the Christ" {thus the term "christian" for clubs said to be established by his word}) flatly contradict the idea of marriage after the resurrection; neither does the xianist bible support the idea in any way.

Wherever your postumklasche got the idea of "eternal marriage" (or for that matter, "pre-mortal existence") it is not derived from the xianist bible; it is only supported by the same silly texts from which we are supposed to accept the inclusion of what is supposed to be Abraham's autographic account of his time in Egypt in standard Egyptian funerary texts; and all the unsupported claims about the pre-colombian Americas.

--which should be the actual issue, in a thread titled "CHRISTIAN SCRIPTURES".

But I'll make a deal with you: I'll stop using the neutral term "club" for your mob, and apologize; if you will stop using the pejorative "choose to become faithless" for the realization that there is no reason to believe in 'god', a 'god', your 'god', not yet any 'gods', and apologize.

What do you say?[/QUOTE]

 

[kerikiwi]

Your syntax is jumbled. Try recasting your sentence.

Nope. The sentence was just fine.
Unlike your post, which was jumbled!

 

[Cat Tale]

From the Heart of the Earth thread.

Since you have asserted you are a member of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, instead of confining your comments with your obsession of attacking and criticising me, respond in the thread CHRISTIAN SCRIPTURES: The Word of God. I am sure your skeptic friends and allies would love to know your actual beliefs in Eternal marriage and definition of Christian Scripture.

I'm sorry that it appears that I'm attacking you, Janadele. What I'm really attacking is your unwillingness to answer questions; or your claims that things are (or are not) LDS doctrine when the opposite is true, and easily documentable . If you wish not to be attacked by me, the best thing to do is don't fib about Church doctrine. BTW, I say nice things about you periodically, it's not always "attacking and criticising." Just look here, it's even on this thread. I've been responding here when I see a need to. BTW, I've even apologized to you, when the rest of the forum thought I shouldn't have, which is more than you've done in return, just sayin...

Christian Scriptures include: The Old and New Testaments of The Holy Bible... as far as translated correctly. The Book of Mormon. The Pearl of Great Price. The Doctrine and Covenants.

I answered this here already, but I'll give a deeper answer. The reason that I thought that was so hilarious is that for nearly 30 years I was declared dead to my favorite sister (and disowned by the rest of my siblings) for believing in additional scripture, they tried to get my parents to turn against me, but they wouldn't. I also remember right after joining the LDS Church, I went to the Christian bookstore to purchase an additional Book of Mormon to give to my parents. The Christian bookstore was all too eager to give me books about the Book of Mormon, but they sure weren't favorable toward the Church. So no, Christian Scriptures do not including the additional scriptures of the LDS Church. Go to an online Christian Bookstore Distributor and see how many Books of Mormon they have -- zero. How many anti-Mormon books do they have? A great many, I didn't count.

I am sure your skeptic friends and allies would love to know your actual beliefs in Eternal marriage

Yep, I believe in eternal marriage, exaltation, and life eternal. I bet that just shocks the dickens out of my "friends" on this forum. Some of them know LDS doctrine as well as I do, so where's the surprise? I don't expect others on this particular forum to agree with me, so there are just some things that we agree to disagree on an go on from there.

The reason that I have "friends" on this forum is that I have a great respect for people with different beliefs (have to since I came from a home where my siblings, parents and I represented 5 different denominations, and later married the love of my life, an atheist and skeptic), and different lifestyles. One thing my parents taught me from a very early age is to treat others the way I would want them to treat me, to try to walk a mile in their shoes, and think about if the shoe was on the other foot. Okay, so there are a lot of clichés there, but those are exactly what I was taught, and it is what I have tried to do on the forum.

I also acknowledge that, when I am on the Randi forum, I am in the "home" of skeptics who have been gracious enough to allow both of us in, we should be kind enough to abide by their rules or leave.

 

[halleyscomet]

it's obvious that your inappropriate and abrasive use of that word is designed to denigrate the LDS Church.

Oh look. It's the "dogma" argument all over again. I would've been hard-pressed to think of way to make the "dogma" argument even sillier, yet here we are.

 

[Resume]

We all have such knowledge within us, our Spirit knows... just listen.

I listened to my spirit which advised me to drink alcoholic beverages, scratch what itches, and tell off-color jokes in mixed company.

So I'm good with your suggestion.

 

[halleyscomet]

From the Heart of the Earth thread.





I'm sorry that it appears that I'm attacking you, Janadele. What I'm really attacking is your unwillingness to answer questions; or your claims that things are (or are not) LDS doctrine when the opposite is true, and easily documentable . If you wish not to be attacked by me, the best thing to do is don't fib about Church doctrine. BTW, I say nice things about you periodically, it's not always "attacking and criticising." Just look here, it's even on this thread. I've been responding here when I see a need to. BTW, I've even apologized to you, when the rest of the forum thought I shouldn't have, which is more than you've done in return, just sayin...







I answered this here already, but I'll give a deeper answer. The reason that I thought that was so hilarious is that for nearly 30 years I was declared dead to my favorite sister (and disowned by the rest of my siblings) for believing in additional scripture, they tried to get my parents to turn against me, but they wouldn't. I also remember right after joining the LDS Church, I went to the Christian bookstore to purchase an additional Book of Mormon to give to my parents. The Christian bookstore was all too eager to give me books about the Book of Mormon, but they sure weren't favorable toward the Church. So no, Christian Scriptures do not including the additional scriptures of the LDS Church. Go to an online Christian Bookstore Distributor and see how many Books of Mormon they have -- zero. How many anti-Mormon books do they have? A great many, I didn't count.







Yep, I believe in eternal marriage, exaltation, and life eternal. I bet that just shocks the dickens out of my "friends" on this forum. Some of them know LDS doctrine as well as I do, so where's the surprise? I don't expect others on this particular forum to agree with me, so there are just some things that we agree to disagree on an go on from there.



The reason that I have "friends" on this forum is that I have a great respect for people with different beliefs (have to since I came from a home where my siblings, parents and I represented 5 different denominations, and later married the love of my life, an atheist and skeptic), and different lifestyles. One thing my parents taught me from a very early age is to treat others the way I would want them to treat me, to try to walk a mile in their shoes, and think about it the shoe was on the other foot. Okay, so there are a lot of clichés there, but those are exactly what I was taught, and it is what I have tried to do on the forum.



I also acknowledge that, when I am on the Randi forum, I am in the "home" of skeptics who have been gracious enough to allow both of us in, we should be kind enough to abide by their rules or leave.

Every now and then the Lutheran in me gets all worked up to attack Mormonism viciously and bitingly and then you go and post something like that and take all the wind out of my dogmatic sails.

If more religious people were like you, there would be fewer problems in the world overall.

 

[Belz...]

Why do some people bother posting on forums where they know they will never convince anyone ? It's like if I went to a Christian forum to "preach" atheism. The only reason I can think of for me doing so is trolling, but that gets old real quick. So why do they do it, then ?

 

[halleyscomet]

Why do some people bother posting on forums where they know they will never convince anyone ? It's like if I went to a Christian forum to "preach" atheism. The only reason I can think of for me doing so is trolling, but that gets old real quick. So why do they do it, then ?

Martyr complex.

 

[Pup]

Given that Webster's Third New International Dictionary, Unabridged (2,662 pp.) does not refer to religion (neither does your Random House source) in its definition of club, it's obvious that your inappropriate and abrasive use of that word is designed to denigrate the LDS Church.

It is, indeed, silly to argue that club is an approptriate description for a religious organization--or for any organization.

Hope I've got the quoted parts attributed right; it was hard to tell who was saying what in the post.

From Merriam-Webster:

"Club... 3a. an association of persons for some common object usually jointly supported and meeting periodically"

I think calling a religion a "club" describes what it's like without the supernatural aspect: regular meetings, mutual support, a common mindset and goal.

I, like others here, don't believe the supernatural part is real, so all that's left is the rest, and since the rest functions very much like a club, it seems a reasonable way to look at it.

To those who believe the supernatural part is real, describing the group as if the supernatural weren't real must seem like an insult. But that's just part of being in a club which encourages members to believe the supernatural part is real and to take offense when others claim it isn't.

 

[desertgal]

Why do some people bother posting on forums where they know they will never convince anyone ? It's like if I went to a Christian forum to "preach" atheism. The only reason I can think of for me doing so is trolling, but that gets old real quick. So why do they do it, then ?

Janadele isn't trying to convince anyone. She's playing people here to disagree with her to sustain her martyr/superiority complexes. This isn't her first rodeo.

 

[Belz...]

Martyr complex.

Tell me more !

 

[skyrider44]

. . . I think calling a religion a "club" describes what it's like without the supernatural aspect: regular meetings, mutual support, a common mindset and goal.

That's like saying football is a sport minus a pigskin and goal posts.

I, like others here, don't believe the supernatural part is real, so all that's left is the rest, and since the rest functions very much like a club, it seems a reasonable way to look at it.

You make a tortured rationalization about what you believe. You can't change the definitions of words on a whim or on the basis of a political agenda.

 

[MattusMaximus]

If more religious people were like you, there would be fewer problems in the world overall.

QFT

And there'd be much more civility. I can only aspire to emulate Cat Tale in this regard.

And, btw Cat Tale, I'm an atheist and Mrs. Maximus is a Christian, so I get what a "mixed" marriage is like. There's a lot of good life lessons in making such a relationship work.

 

[Tassman]

...and the truth is that Jesus, said to be said to be the christ, is said to have specifically repudiated the idea of marriage in heaven...in the xianist bible. (Nor is he ever said to have said a single word about homosexuality.)
If your "scriptures" claim otherwise, your "scriptures" disagree with the xianist bible. Which is the subject, in a thread entitled "CHRISTIAN SCRIPTURES".

Exactly right:

Mark 18.25: "When the dead rise, they will neither marry nor be given in marriage; they will be like the angels in heaven". Nothing in scripture indicates that marriage is anything more than an earthly relationship. "There is neither Jew nor Gentile, neither slave nor free, nor is there male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus". Galatians 3.28

Standard Christianity is absurd enough without the ludicrous 19th century Mormon spin being added to it. At least the original form of of Christianity had the excuse of originating in the pre-scientific era when gods and magical thinking were commonplace.

 

[Janadele]

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is not only a Christian Church, but it is the true Church of Jesus Christ, and ALL Scriptures of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints are Christian Scriptures.