LogGrad98
Well-Known Member
Contributor
20-21 Award Winner
2022 Award Winner
2023 Award Winner
2024 Award Winner
Dude, in 1564 tries it was bound to happen.
This guy is Mormon?
- Thread starter Beantown
- Start date
Dude, in 1564 tries it was bound to happen.
If the test was based on how you treat people in this life, how come anyone who hasn't heard the gospel (most people) is eligible for redemption in the next? That would make this life completely obsolete.
Stating the biggest reason we are here is to gain a body, is circular reasoning... I won't touch on that... Is it possible to be here and not have a body? Thats like passing half the test just by showing up to class.
I do think the gaining knowledge thing has merit... by why then is the learned cynic damned? He had obtained significant knowledge to reasonably doubt the workings of god... So in following one of God's commandments he has broken another.
I think it's unlikely that Mormons have that many more pieces of the puzzle then any other religion. I believe any furthering of celestial knowledge they have... is the result of recent translation and not having the opportunity for doctrine to be tainted. I think we interpret the prophecy of the gathering of 12 tribes, as a gathering of many nations under one doctrine... I feel a more likely interpretation is the gathering of many doctrines and creating one nation.
Thanks for the discussion though...
Gyp Rosetti
Banned
Sounds like a bunch of hocus pocus to me.
A likely outcome...
Logic usually just falls flat dealing with any religion.
From New Testament scriptures alone, Jesus taught that there was a relation between believing and trying to live by his teachings, and actually coming to understand them. Encouraged folks to seek, said they would find. It'll always just look like hocus pocus until you choose faith.
Some folks just choose not to have that faith, and some even seem self-satisfied with that path. Nothing any "religious" person can say will make any difference so long as that is the case.
Funny thing about Christians. They keep hoping others will change. Saying prayers and stuff. Even fundamentalist Christians with ideas of a hell of everlasting torment for those who don't confess Christ in this life will still pray for their unbelieving loved kids/good spouses/parents/friends and hope for them, even after they've "gone on".
Last edited:
Gyp Rosetti
Banned
Mmmmm...I just burned my tongue.
LogGrad98
Well-Known Member
Contributor
20-21 Award Winner
2022 Award Winner
2023 Award Winner
2024 Award Winner
Religion cannot be proven on either side of the argument. No matter how hard anyone tries, they cannot provide objective evidence there is a God, and no matter how hard anyone tries they cannot provide objective evidence there isn't one.
I just thought I would add my amazing grasp of the obvious to help bolster this conversation.
Carry on.
I just thought I would add my amazing grasp of the obvious to help bolster this conversation.
Carry on.
Obviously I would think someone that disagreed with me on a/some passage(s) of scripture does not understand my point of view. I am generally willing to discuss it as long as it's a respectable discussion. If I understand it one way, why would I think I am wrong at the start of a discussion? There have been many passages of scripture I have come to understand better, or in a different way based on conversations with other people. I have generally never changed my mind on anything when it is more of an argument than discussion. I don't know if that answers your question.
It can be proven, it just has to be proven one person at a time. It also depends on what you think objective evidence means. Personally I think everything on the earth that is not man-made is objective evidence that there is a God.
Just adding my amazing disregard for what you think is obvious to keep the conversation going.
Safetydan
Well-Known Member
It didn't really answer my question but, you made some good points. I tend to think that just because somebody disagrees with my point of view doesn't necessarily mean that they don't understand my Point of View. In fact, I feel like it's a requirement to understand a large portion of my POV in order to effectively disagree with me, and vice versa, of course.
Last edited:
GVC
Well-Known Member
What a sanctimonious prick. Maybe you should pull your head out of your ***, you know, because not everyone fits these ridiculous self-serving stereotypes.
You could be the really sanctimonious person here. Is it important for you to believe you're some exception to the rule, because you fancy yourself to be reasonable or logical on your own terms? Inventing systems of belief which might be called ridiculous or self-serving, "sanctimonious", or judgmental of others didn't end when folks first begain not believing other people's religions.
You take your place in the panopoly of hate when you're so touchy you take it so personally that others think they're "right" in what they believe that you just have to roll out invective like this. A system of belief that can sustain our own self-esteem or feeling of self-worth when we realize we're not appreciated or supported very well by some others is useful. Some call it essential to being a "grown-up". It means you really don't just have to blow off when you realize others are smugly believing they're better than you are, which is in fact generally what "others" always do. They have whatever they believe, and they think their belief makes them "better" somehow. Of course if they didn't, they'd be changing it right now. . . So if they think they know what your belief is, they'll imagine theirs is better somehow, or quickly re-invent that fantasy right now.
You should go get yourself some Ambrose Bierce quotes to improve your sense of humor. What I said is descriptive of Christian belief based on the teaching of Jesus. He was not even the first to use this kind of self-conscious tautological "judgment". And of course, almost any other human belief system will find support in the psyche as adherents progressively act out their belief. It's human nature to justify our actions and become mentally invested in believing we do good.
Belief, or disbelief, will tend to follow what we choose to do, leaving others who don't do or "believe" as we do, despised or judged in our wake. . . .
The other, or opposite trend, sometimes called "repentance" in religious terms, or adopting a new ideal of reality in secular terms, takes effort, deliberate effort, after recognisiing something we don't like about what we're doing.
Now, having obviously outdone even myself in this kind of sanctimonious acrimony about all other humans, I think I'll repent and just be a humble unquestioning believer in Jesus and specialize in contructing some kind of frame of mind where I can unconditionally love others, or imagine I do. . . . even you. . . . or at least laugh at myself. But the really sad thing is, I just don't see any way people can really escape being this way. It's the way we are.
Even Ambrose Bierce didn't escape from himself, although it's rumored he tried to, with elaborate efforts. And, seeing that, I long ago grew up and realized how useful it is to fortify our belief/faith with devout christian principles such as realizing that "faith" really isn't supposed to be used as a weopon of self-righteous hypocrisy. Admittedly, this is an advanced concept most "christians" don't pick up on real quick, and in fact a failing that has cost millions of unbelievers their lives. And man, sometimes I wish secular humanists or atheists had an element like that in their creeds. Could have saved millions of believers their lives in the past one hundred years.
Last edited:
*anticipating tldr response from GVC
LogGrad98
Well-Known Member
Contributor
20-21 Award Winner
2022 Award Winner
2023 Award Winner
2024 Award Winner
objective evidence
Definition
Information based on facts that can be proved through analysis, measurement, observation, and other such means of research.
No matter how much someone believes (or disbelieves), you can't really prove it. Even for one individual. The individual can become convinced that their belief is true, even to the point of laying down their life for the belief, but it is still, at it's core, a belief. It cannot be proved through analysis, measurement, or observation. On either side of the coin. Two people can look at the same rock. One can say, this is a great example of natural processes and involves nothing like a God. The other can say, this is a perfect example of the work of a God in creating this world. Which is right? Neither and/or both?
But I am not discounting faith. In the end it could be argued that nothing is really objective, because in every individual every bit of experience/information goes through each person's personal lens of perception. Here come all the stupid arguments we got into in philosophy classes. The old cliche story of the philosophy professor asking his class to prove through philosophical discourse that a chair he sets in the middle of the room really does not exist. The only person who got an A simply wrote "What chair?" The point is, your perception matters, to you. And your perception, no matter how closely aligned to any ideas from anyone else, will always be unique. But your perception only "proves" the reality of the topic to you and to no one else. You cannot take your perception of anything, measure it, analyze it, and give it to someone else so they get the exact same perception.
Even staunch die-hard unmoving mormon to staunch die-hard unmoving or staunch die-hard unmoving athiest to staunch die-hard unmoving the perceptions will always be different, even if almost imperceptibly.
So really, to the individual, beliefs are often much stronger than knowledge, because they are the final construct of who you are based upon your perception of whatever knowledge you may have. Proof of this (see what I did there? =) is in the fact that we have so many scientific publications and yet plenty of disagreement and discourse on whether the "science" is right or not. Everyone views those results through their own lens, which is always different from anyone elses, even if only by fractions of a degree, so there is always the possibility that the "science" is wrong or incomplete. Not necessarily because of any "objective evidence" but simply because we know that anything we learn is biased by the lens of the person presenting it. It is unavoidable. But it means that in the end belief is the stronger influence on the individual.
GVC
Well-Known Member
That's what was missing from your first post, the last paragraph of which was absolutely ridiculous (without the addition above). It certainly seemed like you were painting "Non-believers" as obstinate jack asses and "Christians" as loving brothers.
We're all subject to the same ape emotions/instincts/behavior, regardless of the creed we pretend to adhere to. I try to keep this in mind when making judgements about others (and myself).
GVC
Well-Known Member
Obviously, I try not to be offended by others' opinions of what is right/true (and, obviously, this takes some effort at times). Why the **** should I care (all other things equal, of course...those going on killing sprees for their beliefs deserve some attention)? Again, I called you sanctimonious because you seemed to take a "we're good, you're bad" tack. I don't think responding to such statements with harsh words makes the responder sanctimonious. Touchy, short-tempered, hateful...maybe.
All that other **** about choosing systems of belief to sustain a feeling of self worth I have no problem with. If this is the only shot we get, why waste it away being miserable?
Even if everything a person says or observes is biased, the other person can prove out the truth of it for them. Let's just say that God created the earth and everything in it. If I say this rock under my foot is a creation of God, and give my reasons to you, and then you say it is not a creation of God and give your reasons to me... that will not change the nature of what it is. "What's in a name? That which we call a rose
By any other name would smell as sweet." I am just saying, it is what it is, and whatever we say will not change the nature of anything. Truth is Truth whether we understand it or not.
That being said, how do we prove what is Truth and what is not?
I have tried to prove to myself the Bible is true, and the Book of Mormon is true by first reading them, trying to understand what the meaning is, or the message... and then I have tried to prove it by living it, and really living it (not halfheartedly). If it is true I will see the changes and results expected. I have also gone through times where I am not living it, and I do notice the difference. Try this with music. Listen to some Death Metal and see how you feel inside. What are your moods, your feelings? Is it positive? Listen to some "church music" or hymns that are about Christ. How do you feel inside, what are your moods and feelings? Is it positive? I have proven that out that even though the church music may be boring sometimes and its hard to stick with it, I feel much happier and am more positive of a person when I do. That is as scientific a way of proving something as anything else in my opinion.
This is what I have "proven" to myself through observation and experience. There is more to human's than just our body. When the light leaves the eyes of a person, I am convinced that person is not there anymore, and that the body is just a shell or housing for something more.
A person's Spirit is who they really are, and living people are bodies connected with spirits to make up that person as a whole.
Spirit is a matter that is more fine than physical matter, with different properties, but is just as real. There are many "Spiritual" laws, properties, etc that we don't understand, or know how they work that are difficult to "prove out" or test. I personally think this is where "Faith" and religion come into play. I believe God is real, and that he knows the physical laws and properties on this earth as well as the spiritual laws and properties. He knows how they work individually, and together. He knows what He's doing, and what He's teaching. Faith is a power of spiritual nature, and we need to learn how to put our spirit in charge of our physical natures. That is one of the main points of faith and many of the spiritually based things God asks us to do. There is not one commandment, or thing God asks us to do that is not spiritual in nature even though we often see them as a physical task.
I could go on but I think that's enough of a start to see what the reactions are before I decide to continue or stop.
GVC
Well-Known Member
I've tried your little experience over 10 years, and it resulted in more misery than anything else. Mormons don't have a monopoly on positive media, contrary to what you're told in church.
LogGrad98
Well-Known Member
Contributor
20-21 Award Winner
2022 Award Winner
2023 Award Winner
2024 Award Winner
That first question is really the core of it, isn't it.
My sister-in-law is a staunch anti-mormon. She started out LDS, very active in her childhood and into her 20's. She went to BYU-Idaho (then it was Rick's). Then she went back east and her attitudes changed. She started sleeping around and all that crap and left the church and for a long time was very very bitter. It consumed her, the animosity she felt to the church and, in her words, the "devastating culture of guilt and shame" that ruined her life, tainted her relationships with everyone. We had some long, often painful, discussions of what the church meant to all of us (my wife and I and her siblings). I really felt for her, even while her siblings lashed out, since they were also dealing with some of the emotional issues from their shared childhood (if you look up "dysfunctional family" in the dictionary you get a photo of my wife's family).
Finally, after about a decade of this, it seemed almost overnight, my SIL had a change of heart. I got her to talk about it one day and what she said mirrored what you say here almost exactly.
Her change of heart was not coming back into the LDS fold, but rather, being at peace with her own belief system. She felt at odds with her family, and herself, and she realized it was not "their" problem, it was hers. What you described about feelings is EXACTLY what she said brought her peace. She had fasted and prayed and read the bible, wanting to find peace. She had an epiphany (her words) that, although the mormon church is ABSOLUTELY wrong, it isn't necessarily evil. It doesn't have to be viewed as the enemy. She said her feelings told her that the path she was on was ABSOLUTELY correct. She described "feeling the spirit" exactly how we learn about it in the MTC (no she never went on a mission). She said the spirit helped her forgive the mormons she felt set her up to fail in her young life (my wife confirms her ward was like this more than others, driving every little thing home as if it were another chain dragging you to hell with no hope of release). And she felt she received forgiveness from the spirit for the contentions she caused in her family. She has worked to make amends since then as well.
It very obviously brought her peace, as the discussions around religion do not get mean and ugly any more. She "bares her testimony" of the falseness of the mormon church, of the truth of the bible and the freedom and warm spirit and peace she felt after her long nights "pouring out her soul" to God, and accepting, and being accepted and forgiven by, her Savior. She says she knows God lives, and knows that the LDS church is not his church since the spirit whispered it to her so clearly.
The evidence in her is astounding, if you knew her. She is very outspoken and often puts her foot in her mouth (even today but much less so). This is in no way something she could fake. She was always so bitter it showed in her face. She could not be around mormons without making comments. Even in random conversation she would blurt out that they were going to hell and they are destroying their children and should go to jail for raising their kids in such a damaging environment. It was painfully obvious she was not living a happy life. She has been far happier since her "spiritual rebirth" (her words), and I would say one of the most spiritual people I have known. She shows long-suffering and charity in ways she never even could before. And it has now been over a decade.
She is now far more christian in her words and deeds than her (somewhat overly-pious) brother who has been in the bishopric and/or stake presidency for the past 12 years or so, since he was about 26. My SIL shows a true testimony of Christ far stronger in its outward manifestations than my BIL ever has. I would be forced to say that I think she truly had a mighty change of heart, and received his image in her countenance. And it was in opposition to the Church.
So did the spirit whisper the truth to her? If not, how do you explain it?
Even though I am a staunch Mormon, I think the Spirit can direct people to other places besides the LDS church. That is, the Spirit may well have hold her "This church is not for you", which she interpreted as "This church is not true". Take Mother Teresa, for example. If she had ever run across LDS missionaries, would God have directed her to join the LDS church? I kind of doubt it, because that is not where her mission in life lay. She probably did much more good for the world as a Catholic, than she would have been able to do as an LDS church member.