12 Reasons You Should Reject Mormonism
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
16-01-2014, 02:25 PM
RE: 12 Reasons You Should Reject Mormonism
(16-01-2014 12:34 PM)maklelan Wrote:  Was a huge deal. The authority of the living president unilaterally supersedes that of a past one.

Please understand, this is a fundamental problem in my mind. If the prophet speaks directly for God, by means of revelation, why would he ever be contradicted by another prophet at a later time? The implication concerning God's nature is by definition that he is fallible enough to need a clarification through a second prophet. In my opinion, it conflicts fundamentally with the infallible nature of God, which is a standard pillar of Mormon belief.

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
[+] 2 users Like Dark Phoenix's post
16-01-2014, 02:38 PM
RE: 12 Reasons You Should Reject Mormonism
(16-01-2014 01:00 PM)Dark Phoenix Wrote:  What is, in your opinion, the most common misunderstanding or misrepresentation about Mormonism?

Depends on the person doing the misunderstanding. That Latter-day Saints believe in some kind of inerrancy is quite common among non-Christian critics, but the notion that Smith was a "convicted conman" ranks up there just as high. Among fundamentalist Christians the biggest concerns are monotheism and grace, and there are plenty of misunderstandings there. Both are pretty heavily invested in the whole DNA proves the Book of Mormon false thing, but that's another area where it depends on the hermeneutic you bring to the text. God living on the planet Kolob is also quite prevalent through American culture, due in no small part to the appeal to that canard in the Book of Mormon musical.

My Blog
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
16-01-2014, 02:42 PM
RE: 12 Reasons You Should Reject Mormonism
(16-01-2014 02:25 PM)Dark Phoenix Wrote:  Please understand, this is a fundamental problem in my mind. If the prophet speaks directly for God, by means of revelation, why would he ever be contradicted by another prophet at a later time?

Because times, cultures, and circumstances change. Some Latter-day Saints trap themselves in a notion of unilaterally absolute commandments and morals, but people who take the time to think about generally shy away from making such dogmatic and brittle choices. It's not that God is thought to be correcting himself, but just to be changing his instructions to suit the ever-changing social, political, moral, and religious climate.

(16-01-2014 02:25 PM)Dark Phoenix Wrote:  The implication concerning God's nature is by definition that he is fallible enough to need a clarification through a second prophet. In my opinion, it conflicts fundamentally with the infallible nature of God, which is a standard pillar of Mormon belief.

I don't think a change in circumstances bears on the fundamental nature of God that much. Giving my daughter "the talk" in a few years will change her circumstances and rules and fundamentally alter how she views a lot of things, but it won't fundamentally alter me or my wife.

My Blog
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
16-01-2014, 02:43 PM
RE: 12 Reasons You Should Reject Mormonism
(16-01-2014 01:29 PM)Cathym112 Wrote:  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.

Absolutely untrue. I am just as sickeningly sweet with those atheists here who approach me respectfully.

My Blog
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes maklelan's post
16-01-2014, 02:43 PM
RE: 12 Reasons You Should Reject Mormonism
(16-01-2014 02:25 PM)Dark Phoenix Wrote:  
(16-01-2014 12:34 PM)maklelan Wrote:  Was a huge deal. The authority of the living president unilaterally supersedes that of a past one.

Please understand, this is a fundamental problem in my mind. If the prophet speaks directly for God, by means of revelation, why would he ever be contradicted by another prophet at a later time? The implication concerning God's nature is by definition that he is fallible enough to need a clarification through a second prophet. In my opinion, it conflicts fundamentally with the infallible nature of God, which is a standard pillar of Mormon belief.
Can you give me please as an example one revelation from God in the past that was contradicted by another prophet? I am sincere. I would like us to discuss it honestly.

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
16-01-2014, 02:45 PM
RE: 12 Reasons You Should Reject Mormonism
(16-01-2014 01:04 PM)Dark Phoenix Wrote:  l that conceding that The Book of Mormon is not historically true takes anything away from the theological message contained within?

Not really. Lessons and principles can be taught with both truth and fiction.

(16-01-2014 01:04 PM)Dark Phoenix Wrote:  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?

No, I think that would be broadly accurate.

My Blog
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
16-01-2014, 02:58 PM
RE: 12 Reasons You Should Reject Mormonism
(16-01-2014 01:21 PM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  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.

Hey, I'm not the one running home to mommy because someone shoved me on the playground.

(16-01-2014 01:21 PM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  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.

I don't think that was a vague party line. Those that try to defend that particular aspect of the Book of Mormon are generally going to appeal to one of the two approaches.

(16-01-2014 01:21 PM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  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?

I'm not trying to square any circle. I'm not fully invested in any particular dogma about the Book of Mormon apart from that it was the result of inspiration. Its historicity is not a concern of mine.

(16-01-2014 01:21 PM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  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.

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?

They're narrative. Narrative is the great cultural and ideological vehicle. It's what all religions use to convey their values and teachings. As I pointed out weeks ago, even the whole discipline of science gets couched in narrative in most people's conceptualization of it just because that's a cognitive predisposition we have.

(16-01-2014 01:21 PM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  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?

The nature of every single detail of a narrative need not have an explicit rhetorical function.

(16-01-2014 01:21 PM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  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?

Absolutely nothing.

(16-01-2014 01:21 PM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  I am genuinely curious how a modern liberal LDS member determines what is literal truth and what is not? Consider

I can't speak for anyone else, but I generally suspend judgment on questions like that unless there's evidence available that illuminates the situation. In my worldview, of course, the possibility of the supernatural is not just unilaterally precluded.

(16-01-2014 07:19 AM)maklelan Wrote:  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?

I mean exactly what I said. The evidence supports the conclusion that the Book of Mormon was a production of an individual composing in the 19th century. It reflects 19th century mores, values, and cultural and literary idiosyncrasies.

(16-01-2014 01:21 PM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  Okay. Do you consider the Book of Mormon fiction or non-fiction?

Neither. I consider it a charter myth and don't really care to judge its historicity.

(16-01-2014 01:21 PM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  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?

Again, that's my business.

(16-01-2014 01:21 PM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  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?

I'm not here to try to convince you to adopt my position, I'm here to correct mischaracterizations and errors.

(16-01-2014 01:21 PM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  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?


When you refuse to give your 'why' and 'motivations', I am left with nothing but to infer them.

Nobody is forcing you to arrive at conclusions about my motivations, so why can't you just leave it alone and deal with what I'm actually here to do?

(16-01-2014 01:21 PM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  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

I'm not defending my cult, I'm defending honest and objective historical and ideological criticism. I will do the exact same for Judaism or the Bible as I will for Latter-day Saints and the Book of Mormon. If you're really here to get at the bottom of why I'm a Mormon then you're gonna have a bad time. If you start burping up accusations and assumptions just to try to nag me into answering your questions, you're gonna have a bad time. We can all get along a lot better if you would just let me function on my terms here and deal with what I'm saying rather than than why you think I'm saying it.

My Blog
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
16-01-2014, 03:43 PM
RE: 12 Reasons You Should Reject Mormonism
(16-01-2014 02:58 PM)maklelan Wrote:  The nature of every single detail of a narrative need not have an explicit rhetorical function.

I'd say the story of the Lost Tribe of Israel is not some kind inconsequential "single detail". No Concentrate please.

(16-01-2014 02:58 PM)maklelan Wrote:  I'm not defending my cult, I'm defending honest and objective historical and ideological criticism.
(16-01-2014 02:58 PM)maklelan Wrote:  I consider it a charter myth and don't really care to judge its historicity.

Make up your mind, fella.

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, 03:46 PM
RE: 12 Reasons You Should Reject Mormonism
(16-01-2014 03:43 PM)Cathym112 Wrote:  I'd say the story of the Lost Tribe of Israel is not some kind inconsequential "single detail". No Concentrate please.

How do you figure? The only possible real world relevance would be to patriarchal blessings, but even there the lineage is not conceived of as literal and physical.

(16-01-2014 03:43 PM)Cathym112 Wrote:  Make up your mind, fella.

I have already made up my mind to suspend judgment where I don't feel like a conclusion is necessary or warranted. It's not my problem that you guys can't figure me out.

My Blog
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
16-01-2014, 03:47 PM
RE: 12 Reasons You Should Reject Mormonism
(16-01-2014 02:43 PM)maklelan Wrote:  
(16-01-2014 01:29 PM)Cathym112 Wrote:  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.

Absolutely untrue. I am just as sickeningly sweet with those atheists here who approach me respectfully.

tell me then, what was horribly rude about my first statement to you. See below. Nothing, yet your reply was dripping with condescension.

(15-01-2014 04:00 PM)Cathym112 Wrote:  Makle - Not to get off topic here, but I have a question regarding the LDS.


I'm sure you will agree that - generally speaking - when one wants to determine whether or not information is credible, they consider the source, correct? If the source of that information is discredited, it calls into question the information communicated in its entirety. Do you agree?

However, considering the source of LDS is Joseph Smith, how do you get around his prior conviction of fraud, to not only consider him a credible source, but of his rather presumptuous claim that his information is divinely inspired?

Would you invest your money with a man that was previously convicted of bank fraud? I sure wouldn't. And yet this is exactly what you are doing, investing your life on the word of someone who is a convicted conman. How is JS fraud conviction addressed within LDS?

*edit: I have no personal experience with Mormonism, or mormons for that matter other than a handful of people. My next door neighbors seem to be really involved in the mormon faith and have been nothing but nice to me. We have keys to each other's houses and frequently do favors for each other. I bring in their mail and turn various lights on to make it look like someone is home. They occasionally let the dogs out for me if I'm stuck away from home longer than expected. The wife has been over to hang out on my back deck during the summer while we drank frozen drinks. Hers a virgin, mine alcoholic. She didn't utter a word and I received zero indication that she was silently judging me. They know I'm an atheist and they are cool with it. All and all, they are really cool people and I enjoy conversing with them.

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
Post Reply
Forum Jump: