12 Reasons You Should Reject Mormonism
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
16-01-2014, 12:30 PM
RE: 12 Reasons You Should Reject Mormonism
(16-01-2014 12:24 PM)Timber1025 Wrote:  I guess we are left to our assumptions without his honest answer, which would have made these discussions move along much more smoothly IMO.

No, if you had given heed to my repeated statements about not asking me the question because I won't answer it, then we would have saved the most time.

My Blog
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
16-01-2014, 12:34 PM
RE: 12 Reasons You Should Reject Mormonism
(16-01-2014 12:27 PM)Cathym112 Wrote:  then why the fuck do you keep opening that hole in your face and keep claptrapping if there is no point in any discussion in which you won't answer questions central to your faith?

I've explained this multiple times over as well. I'm here to correct misunderstandings and misconceptions. I'm not here to be the pant leg against which the more randy posters on this board all get their emotional rocks off.

(16-01-2014 12:27 PM)Cathym112 Wrote:  Frusty Honestly, whats the point of talking about faith, if you refuse to answer why you believe?

Because the whole point of me being here is mitigating misunderstanding and misrepresentation. Talking about my personal reasons for my faith is absolutely immaterial. I've thought about this far, far more than any of you have, so please don't insult my intelligence by trying to convince me I'm an idiot. Not only are you barking up the wrong tree, but you're just wasting more and more of that precious time about which you every now and then seem so very concerned.

My Blog
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
16-01-2014, 12:45 PM
RE: 12 Reasons You Should Reject Mormonism
(16-01-2014 12:34 PM)maklelan Wrote:  Because the whole point of me being here is mitigating misunderstanding and misrepresentation. Talking about my personal reasons for my faith is absolutely immaterial. I've thought about this far, far more than any of you have, so please don't insult my intelligence by trying to convince me I'm an idiot. Not only are you barking up the wrong tree, but you're just wasting more and more of that precious time about which you every now and then seem so very concerned.

well thank god for you. Why, if it wasn't for people like you, us pant leg humping masturbaters wouldn't be able to read the BoM or mormon apologetics all on our own. Phew. I'm so incredibly relieved. Rolleyes

A little rudeness and disrespect can elevate a meaningless interaction to a battle of wills and add drama to an otherwise dull day - Bill Watterson
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Cathym112's post
16-01-2014, 01:00 PM
RE: 12 Reasons You Should Reject Mormonism
(16-01-2014 12:34 PM)maklelan Wrote:  Because the whole point of me being here is mitigating misunderstanding and misrepresentation.

What is, in your opinion, the most common misunderstanding or misrepresentation about Mormonism?

Religion is the sigh of the oppressed creature, the heart of a heartless world, just as it is the spirit of a spiritless situation. The abolition of religion as the illusory happiness of the people is required for their real happiness.

-Karl Marx
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
16-01-2014, 01:04 PM
RE: 12 Reasons You Should Reject Mormonism
(16-01-2014 11:43 AM)maklelan Wrote:  I do recall explaining that I rejected the inference that "inspired" unilaterally means "historically true."

Do you feel that conceding that The Book of Mormon is not historically true takes anything away from the theological message contained within?

Do you feel it would be a misrepresentation to say that the membership of the church does consider it to be actual history, on the whole?

Religion is the sigh of the oppressed creature, the heart of a heartless world, just as it is the spirit of a spiritless situation. The abolition of religion as the illusory happiness of the people is required for their real happiness.

-Karl Marx
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
16-01-2014, 01:21 PM
RE: 12 Reasons You Should Reject Mormonism
(16-01-2014 11:56 AM)maklelan Wrote:  
(16-01-2014 11:47 AM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  I wouldn't have to put words in your mouth if you would actually say anything besides dodging the fucking question; which is the entirety of your response.

All you gotta do is ask me. You ask me an honest question you will get an honest answer (unless it's the issue I've explained I will not address).

(16-01-2014 11:47 AM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  This is probably why people are calling you a condescending prick. You aren't answering direct questions, then get made at us when we can't figure out what in the fuck you actually mean... Dodgy

I am absolutely answering direct questions (except for the above-mentioned). What I'm not answering are leading and manipulative questions.



Right, so lets see if I can't break this down it itty-bitty little words small enough for you to understand and not hurt your frail ego. Remembering of course, that it's the 'why' that I'm interested in, because it's the 'why' that should be able to convince myself and others of the correctness of your position.

Here was my first question that you actually answered, by giving me a seemingly vague party line.

(15-01-2014 10:35 PM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  Okay, honest question maklelan. How do modern LDS square the claims of silk clothing and steel weapons in pre-Columbia America (such as found in the Book of Ether) when that seems to be at complete odds with modern archaeology and evidence?

(16-01-2014 05:27 AM)maklelan Wrote:  Well, some will insist that we've just not found the evidence yet, and others will insist that those words are just modern lexical approximations of similar yet distinct items from antiquity. Different apologists will approach it differently.

Great. You've already mentioned that "again you seem to think I am trying to defend the Book of Mormon", implying that you are not in fact here to defend it's historicity. Okay then. How and why do you personally square that circle?


Alternately, Chippy tried to answer the same question from your point of view, and that gave rise to another set of questions that have gone unanswered.

(15-01-2014 11:14 PM)Chippy Wrote:  Maklelan has already answered that question. He clearly stated that he doesn't consider the BoM to be historically accurate and I would guess that his LDS peers would be of the same mind on this.

To paraphrase Maklelan, he posted that no scripture is a source of historical truth and that scripture serves purposes other than to provide historical information hence his understanding of LDS doctrine is unaffected by the absence of historicity in LDS or Christian scripture.

(15-01-2014 11:33 PM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  Interesting, that's appears to indeed be a very liberal view. If that is so, then what is the point of the details then? If they're not there for historical accuracy in an attempt to lend credence to the story, are they instead just fluff and filler?

If the claims of steel and silk are unimportant or irrelevant and disregarded from a historical standpoint, then what is the 'point' of having a lost tribe of Israel in America if it is not historically accurate?

If he can just toss historical anachronisms to the wayside, what is to stop someone from placing the supposed historical existence of Christ, the Resurrection, or the Ascension into the same 'it didn't really happen' box?

I am genuinely curious how a modern liberal LDS member determines what is literal truth and what is not? Consider


(16-01-2014 07:19 AM)maklelan Wrote:  Well, that's one rhetorical leap beyond the evidence, and it actually raises a bunch of addition questions about the three and eight witnesses, Smith's own conviction about his experience, and a number of other things. The evidence best supports the conclusion that the text was the work of a 19th century mind, but to go from that directly to "fraud" is a false inference.

What in the hell do you mean by "The evidence best supports the conclusion that the text was the work of a 19th century mind"? And how does that affect your Mormonism?


(16-01-2014 08:50 AM)maklelan Wrote:  
(16-01-2014 07:33 AM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  Smith could believe he was right, he could have all of the conviction in the world; but without evidence you cannot move his book into the realm of non-fiction.
And what leads you to believe that's what I'm trying to do?

Okay. Do you consider the Book of Mormon fiction or non-fiction?

If you believe part of it is true, how do you determine which parts are literally true and which are not?

If you by chance consider it wholly fiction and none of it to be literally true, why then do you consider yourself a Mormon?


(16-01-2014 08:50 AM)maklelan Wrote:  
(16-01-2014 07:33 AM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  Fraud or not, why should I or anyone else lend any credence (and 10% of my net income) to a Church built upon the fictitious story of a 19th century man claiming to divine inspiration and entirely unable to substantiate it? Consider
That's for each person to decide.

Great. Why did you buy into it? Presumably your 'why', if compelling enough, should lead me to adopt your position. So once again, how and why did you decide to become a Mormon?



(16-01-2014 11:43 AM)maklelan Wrote:  
(16-01-2014 11:38 AM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  So you're a Mormon that doesn't think the Book of Mormon is divinely inspired?
I don't recall saying that at all. I do recall explaining that I rejected the inference that "inspired" unilaterally means "historically true." No one ever engaged that point, though. Would you like to? Oh, and stop putting words in my mouth.

It's a simple question, and you refused to answer and instead dodged and accused me of putting words in your mouth. This wouldn't have happened had you answered my earlier questions, such as...

If that is so, then what is the point of the details then? If they're not there for historical accuracy in an attempt to lend credence to the story, are they instead just fluff and filler?

If the claims of steel and silk are unimportant or irrelevant and disregarded from a historical standpoint, then what is the 'point' of having a lost tribe of Israel in America if it is not historically accurate?

If he can just toss historical anachronisms to the wayside, what is to stop someone from placing the supposed historical existence of Christ, the Resurrection, or the Ascension into the same 'it didn't really happen' box?

I am genuinely curious how a modern liberal LDS member determines what is literal truth and what is not?



(16-01-2014 11:43 AM)maklelan Wrote:  
(16-01-2014 11:38 AM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  Yeah, why? That's what I don't get. What do you get out of it if it's not literal truth, historically accurate, or divinely inspired? What do you get out of it that couldn't be had outside of your cult? I'm just not seeing it. Huh
And you're not going to, particularly when you keep making assumptions about my motivations and worldview and keep putting words in my mouth.

When you refuse to give your 'why' and 'motivations', I am left with nothing but to infer them. So either present them, or pull that stick out of your ass whenever I work with what little information I have. I honestly do not see what you get out of being a Mormon, and why you're here defending your cult. So explain it, unless you think my asking for an explanation from you is putting words in your mouth. Dodgy

[Image: GrumpyCat_01.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 4 users Like EvolutionKills's post
16-01-2014, 01:26 PM
RE: 12 Reasons You Should Reject Mormonism
(16-01-2014 12:30 PM)maklelan Wrote:  I don't want my daughters hanging out with the kinds of kids I hung out with in high school, and not because they weren't Mormons and didn't hold the priesthood, but because I broke the law regularly and experimented with a bunch of different drugs as a direct result of their influence. It impeded my emotional and intellectual growth as a young adult. When my daughters are in high school, I will tell them we don't associate with those kinds of people, and if anyone wants to scoff at that or call it prejudice, I will be happy to show them where they can stick it. It is not prejudice to refuse to allow association with specific people so as not to compromise the health and safety of me or my children. It is prejudice when it's a question of whether or not they watch R-rated movies, or go out to eat on Sundays, and that kind of exclusion is remarkably few and far between.

I agree entirely with the basic need to protect one's children from danger. I concede that point entirely.

My experience, which might possibly be isolated, was clear in this area. My family, and those of my friends, would in fact reject others based on whether or not they went out to eat on a Sunday. I did know of a few member families who did things like that anyway, but my parents took care to condemn them verbally to me, and to ridicule their lack of integrity. It was taught to me, that those who moderate their religion, are not true believers, and thereby surrender their right to be considered a faithful, worthy, member.

In my travels, I have encountered both types of Mormons all the time. I didn't notice any major differences in each community, except for those related to non-religious culture or tradition. I feel at least moderately comfortable insisting that judgmental and prejudicial people do exist by the hundreds in the church, even if I must admit that this behavior is not supported by the church authorities. It is my opinion that they will go on being prejudicial, and will continue to claim divine support, or at the very least that of his authorities, regardless of the church and its actual position.

Religion is the sigh of the oppressed creature, the heart of a heartless world, just as it is the spirit of a spiritless situation. The abolition of religion as the illusory happiness of the people is required for their real happiness.

-Karl Marx
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
16-01-2014, 01:29 PM (This post was last modified: 16-01-2014 01:39 PM by Cathym112.)
RE: 12 Reasons You Should Reject Mormonism
This was just brought to my attention by another TTA user. Its funny, Makle, how you can be so condescending and impatient with Atheists, yet you are just so damn sickeningly sweet to someone who is on your team, so to speak. Confirmation bias much? Thats disingenuous dude.

http://danielomcclellan.wordpress.com/about/

A little rudeness and disrespect can elevate a meaningless interaction to a battle of wills and add drama to an otherwise dull day - Bill Watterson
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
16-01-2014, 01:51 PM
RE: 12 Reasons You Should Reject Mormonism
(16-01-2014 12:30 PM)maklelan Wrote:  I don't know many people who refuse association with others purely in the interest of preserving their faith. Certainly there are Latter-day Saints who break off relationships with friends and families because they are being subjected to verbal and emotional abuse, but to blame that on them is an egregious, egregious misrepresentation of the situation. I know someone who used to love hanging out with his brother but had to limit their relationship because any time (absolutely any time) they went out to a restaurant, bar, or social event, the brother would try to force him to drink beer, and would yell at him and insult him in public when he politely refused (and my friend made a point of doing it as politely as humanly possible). Once the brother became drunk and physically attacked him. It broke my friend's heart to do it, but he told his brother that he could not be accompanying him to any social gatherings in the future if he continued to act like that, which effectively ended their relationship. The brother then insisted my friend's faith ruined their relationship, and that my friend cared more about his religion than about his family. I have spoken with other relatives and friends of my friend's brother, and they firmly believe the brother's account. Now there are multiple people outside of the Church going around Arizona telling a story based on personal experience about how Mormons ruin and split up families and prohibit association with people who believe differently. Tell me, do you think that's fair to my friend? Do you think that's an accurate representation of the events? Do you think this kind of situation is all that rare?

Just as a start, I don't much care for the idea, which I have encountered often, that use of alcohol is some means of judging friendship and character. I would say that your friend's belligerent brother is most definitely and obviously in the wrong. As far as his claim to be a victim of religious discrimination, I find it insulting. As you have shown here, there are situations in which the members of the church are victims of unfair and deceptive slander. This kind of situation makes it harder for me to be considered seriously when I tell the stories of those facing the reverse circumstances. The only sensible thing I can say, is that there must be both situations all throughout the church, and that neither disproves the existence or occurrence of the other. Both are deplorable and regrettable, as well as being a poor representation of what the Mormon community would like to be.

Religion is the sigh of the oppressed creature, the heart of a heartless world, just as it is the spirit of a spiritless situation. The abolition of religion as the illusory happiness of the people is required for their real happiness.

-Karl Marx
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
16-01-2014, 02:09 PM
RE: 12 Reasons You Should Reject Mormonism
(15-01-2014 09:52 PM)Chippy Wrote:  In fairness to Maklelan I am embarassed by much of the crap that village atheists (or "hobbyists" as Maklelan calls them) post on this forum. I don't have a degree in NT or OT studies but I endeavour to be as factual and well-reasoned as I am able to be (on those subjects that I do have formal educaion on and on those that I don't). This isn't a burden that someone like Cathym appears to carry or even recognise. I don't agree with much of what Maklelan posts but I nevertheless respect him because he does recognise and bear the burden that I have described.

Maklelan repeatedly advised that he does not believe that the Mormon undergarment has any supernatural power and that it is only a symbolic reminder of a covenant but the idiots of this forum just kept belabouring that point. This really just showed that these people weren't really interested in engaging with what Maklelan posts but are just reflexively unloading their rehearsed anti-Mormon diatribes. You will find these same idiots reflexively regurgitating their canned arguments even in debates with other atheists.

I think Maklelan's behaviour has been reasonable and I would very much like to see him around here more often.

Chippy, I liked you and your style to communicate with people. Now I like you even more. Who cares that we do not agree with each other? But we always can have nice debates.

English is not my native language.
that awkward moment between the Premortal Existence and your Resurrection
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: