God says this, and God says that

[QUOTE]Originally posted by gene90:
[B]

quote:

---

You rejected each of my source links as biased, yet refused to provide any information or sources critical of LDS which you would approve of.

---

quote:

---

As I recall, all your sources were either sites dedicated to atheism or ministries dedicated to opposing the LDS Church. Hardly unbiased sources. You said yourself that you could not find any LDS member sites that were critical of the church, and you used that as evidence of brainwashing or something similar. It could just mean there are a lot of happy customers but of course you didn't mention that possibility. Were you able to find middle ground perhaps the debate would have fared better, but you weren't able to find middle ground, were you? Everything was polarized.

---

No, think I linked to a site for gay LDS members who loved their church but not their church's homophoboic policies.It is possible that there are a lot of happy customers (interesting you would use that word), but it is also true that members speaking out against the LDS church is very strongly discouraged, and that many people have been excommunicated for openly criticizing the church.Maybe people are happy, and maybe they are afraid of speaking out. Maybe the reason there is very little moderate, middle of the ground criticism is because members get in trouble if they go public. This is exactly what many ex-Mormons claim happened to them. Are every single one of them lying?You still have not pointed me to or helped me find anything critical of the LDS church that you would approve of.

quote:

---

AND you rejected the official LDS history as unreliable. So I wasn't the only one rejecting sources.

---

Well, do you have any independent, non-Mormon sources which verify your claims?Why should I simply accept that which church people say is true of their church founder as historically-accurate if there isn't any outside verification?

quote:

---

I also know that it has done damage to several families which I personally know.

---

quote:

---

Hence a possible motive for axe-grinding.

---

Tuue, it's possible. I also happened to have done the most research into Mormonism compared to other sects.

quote:

---

Oh, by the way: see my recent messages in the "homosexuality" thread, re: use of "so-called".

---

Will do.

quote:

---

Originally posted by gene90:

quote:

---

'Religiously-based morality seems much more dangerous to me than humanistically-based morality because of this ability to dictate to large groups of people who will accept a moral code in it's entirety.

---

​

Humanistically based morality is weaker and it has no bite and no ability to spread, so that's why it's less dangerous? Interesting...

---

Um, noooo...It most certainly has the ability to spread, but it is actually stronger because it is not based upon what faith you may or may not have.It is stronger because it is not based upon fear of punishment, but upon doing good for it's own sake.Don't get me wrong; certain parts of Christian morality are wonderful. Other parts are not so wonderful, and others still are downright awful.The dangerous part is, like during the crusades, or during legalized slavery, or what have you, is that harmful, dehumanizing, despicable "Christian Morality" is accepted by large numbers of people who simply do what they are told to get into heaven/stay out of hell.

[QUOTE]Originally posted by gene90:
[B]

quote:

---

Well, do you have any independent, non-Mormon sources which verify your claims?

---

quote:

---

There weren't any online. It was all too polarized. PBS did a show entitled "American Prophet" which I have not yet seen.

---

Well, that should tell you something.

quote:

---

Are every single one of them lying?

---

quote:

---

I'm sure that some members probably resent their leaving, but I've never heard of anyone 'getting in trouble'. What troubles me is that you're insinuating that the church policy is to make people that leave miserable. It's ridiculous.

---

No, I am stating that people leave the church because they were made miserable while they were in it.

quote:

---

I also happened to have done the most research into Mormonism compared to other sects.

---

quote:

---

Another sign that you have an axe to grind.

---

...or that I know a bit of what I am talking about.

quote:

---

[b]Why should I simply accept that which church people say is true of their church founder as historically-accurate if there isn't any outside verification? [/QUOTE]

​

[QUOTE]What kind of verification? Journal entries? All of these such things are under Church control, so you can do like Nos did and claim we edit everything (a claim that is non-falsifiable). We're fascinated by our own history, of course. [/B]

---

So, does the church ever let outside scholars study the historical documents?Also, since the Church is a church, and not an academic institution, why couldn't the records have been altered over time? I mean, your church does a lot of secret things. Secercy is very big in the LDS mythos.[This message has been edited by schrafinator, 12-16-2002]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by gene90:
[B]

quote:

---

If they want to live within a social structure with other people, yes.

---

quote:

---

But they don't have to live in any social structure.

---

It is quite difficult to live completely outside of society. Nearly everyone lives inside a social structure.

quote:

---

Or they could design their own social structure.

---

Sure, like all primates have done for a LONG time. Social structure is our thing.

quote:

---

And even in the current US social structure we cannot agree on what is morally acceptable or not. And besides, if you can elude the law, theoretically an atheist can do whatever he wants. God's law cannot be eluded.

---

If God said it was moral to rape and kill, would it then be moral to rape and kill?If not, then God is bound by morality, not the other way around.

quote:

---

Therefore the theist is obligated to follow morals or face justice, the atheist is merely encouraged to have morals and possibly face justice. Or the atheist can just move somewhere where the laws are different.

---

Well, isn't that kind of why we have hunderdes of flavors of Christianity alone?

quote:

---

There is no evidence, BTW, that Christians/religious people behave more morally that non-theists.

---

quote:

---

Bit religious people generally have morals that non-theists do not.

---

Unsupported assertion.

quote:

---

In fact, there is evidence that certain kinds of behavior, like child molestation, is more common among fundamentalist Christians than among the general population.

---

quote:

---

That could be a statistical fluke or cultural problem amongst a sect or in a geographic area where lots of fundamentalists happen to live. You can use statistics to support anything if you're creative enough.

---

Or it could be true.The following is a link to an extensive list of sex abuse incidences put out by a progressive Epicopalian website. It lists all denominations:Sustainable Women's Clothing and Accessories | Reformation84 Baptist Ministers219 "Bible" Church Ministers (fundamentalist/evangelical)39 Episcopalean Ministers32 Lutheran Ministers32 Methodist Ministers12 Presbyterian Ministers32 various Church Ministers

quote:

---

No, I am stating that people leave the church because they were made miserable while they were in it.

---

quote:

---

I don't know about that. I've heard that some congregations are 'cold' but I'm glad I joined.

---

The fact that you cannot even consider the possibility that someone might have been mistreated, even though there are probably thousands of personal stories to that effect out there, is beyond all comprehension.

quote:

---

...or that I know a bit of what I am talking about.

---

quote:

---

Of that, I'm not sure.

---

Of course you wouldn't be, because I do not agree with you.

quote:

---

But I do know you did this 'research' for a reason. And I'm fairly sure I know why. You're out on a vendetta against the LDS church.

---

I don't have a vendetta, but it is convenient for you to decide that I do, because you can then ignore and discount any and all criticism I raise against it.

quote:

---

So, does the church ever let outside scholars study the historical documents?

---

quote:

---

We publish a lot of the documents as History of the Church. I don't know how the system works beyond that.

---

I would be very curious to know if they have ever released the original documents to a university (not BYU) for study, and if so, what the conclusions were of this independent study.If they haven't allowed any non-mormon scholars to study the documents, then it is basically religious doctrine and not really verified history.

quote:

---

Also, since the Church is a church, and not an academic institution, why couldn't the records have been altered over time?

---

quote:

---

As I said, the claim is unfalsifiable.

---

Well, no, it really isn't unfalsifiable. There could be evidence of editing, or not.

quote:

---

Also, as I've said, you'll say just about anything to justify your position, won't you? Including unfounded accusations of intellectual dishonesty?

---

And you will continue to reject any and all criticism of the LDS policies and doctrine simply because it is critical. Because you consider that I have a "vendetta", and therfore you can ignore everything I say.

quote:

---

By the way, I didn't know we had secrets.

---

All of the temple ceremonies are supposed to be secret.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Chara:

quote:

---

Originally posted by schrafinator:

​

Religions say they know. I say that nobody can know. Therefore, religion is not valid. Not any of it.

---

​

Schraf,
Can you explain how you got to "therefore" from the previous statements? I'm confused.

---

Hmm. Religions claim to know the unknowable. If someone claims to know the unknowable, their claims are not valid.

quote:

---

Originally posted by gene90:

quote:

---

It is quite difficult to live completely outside of society.

---

​

quote:

---

But not impossible.

---

​

OK.

​

quote:

---

And even within a social structure, if I am able to escape the law of the land then there is no reason for me to have any morals at all (without God).

---

​

Absolutely false. There is a great deal of social pressure to behave in certain ways.

​

Being shunned socially is very painful for us social creatures. We usually do a lot of conforming in order to avoid that pain.

​

quote:

---

Therefore, morals are not absolute. Do you believe that morals change when you move from one country to another?

---

​

No, morals are not absolute. They never have been, as I have pointed out.

​

quote:

---

If not, then God is bound by morality, not the other way around.

---

​

quote:

---

An interesting (and feasible) theological perspective.

---

​

Right, so morals may not be absolute, and may not originate with God, but are human constructs.

​

quote:

---

The following is a link to an extensive list of sex abuse incidences put out by a progressive Epicopalian website.

---

​

quote:

---

Sex abuse is inevitable in any large organizations, people (even ministers) aren't perfect.

---

​

But one would expect, if your claim is that morality is better spread and enforced by religion/Christianity is true, that the incidence of immoral behavior, such as sex abuse, would be lower in the religious community, not higher.

​

quote:

---

However this does not support your claim that religious people are responsible for more sex offenses. It merely shows that it happens. Plus even the relative number of offenses per denomination is irrelevant because each denomination is not the same size.

---

​

True, true.

​

My above statement still stands.

​

[This message has been edited by gene90, 12-16-2002]

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by gene90:

quote:

---

Can you explain how you got to "therefore" from the previous statements? I'm confused.

---

​

She assumes God is unknowable therefore all religions are false.

​

Her problem is not that she turns a lack of evidence into positive evidence that there is no God (as the atheist does) but that she turns a lack of evidence into positive evidence that God (by definition) is unknowable. Same fallacy, minor distinction.

---

I have a lack of evidence of God.I do not know if God exists.It pretty much ends there.I retaract any statements I may have made that might indicate anything other than this.I am not sure why theists make the assumption that God is knowable, even if God does exist.

[QUOTE]Originally posted by gene90:

quote:

---

Religions say they know. I say that nobody can know.

---

quote:

---

The position of an agnostic is that there is insufficient information to make a decision.

---

Correct so far.

quote:

---

Therefore, it is impossible for an agnostic to claim that a religion is false, because they, by definition, do not know.

---

The Agnostic might also say that nobody has sufficient information to make a descision.

quote:

---

So the agnostic does not know if there is a God or anything about God,

---

Right, and many also believe that nobody knows if there is a God or knows anything about God.

quote:

---

yet they know that all religions are false, and all religions must be false, by definition? That is inconsistent.

---

Is it better if I say "The Agnostic does not accept any religion as true because there is not enough information to evaluate the truth of any religion?"

quote:

---

Originally posted by gene90:

quote:

---

It most certainly has the ability to spread, but it is actually stronger because it is not based upon what faith you may or may not have.

---

​

That's a valid argument, however humanistic morals are still 'optional', as whether or not you follow them the outcome is still the same.

---

Well, I would rather hang around people who choose to do the good, moral, and just thing simply because it is good, just, and moral than hang around people who seem to think that they would behave completely immorally if they didn't fear punishment in the afterlife.Which group has great moral fiber, do you think?The latter group scares me, frankly; those who say that without church -imposed so-called "absolute morality" they would run amok.

[QUOTE]Originally posted by gene90:
[B]

quote:

---

And your analogy is not like the claim made by religion about God.

---

????

quote:

---

Just like God the money in the bank is not generating any evidence you can detect with the senses. Therefore, if a lack of evidence is sufficient to disbelieve God, then a lack of evidence is sufficient for you to avoid investing in banks. Or else you are inconsistent.

---

Except that I can go to the bank and pull out the money and hold it in my hands. Other people can see it and hold it. Even people who had never seen money before could see it and touch it.You cannot do any of these things with God, so the analogy doesn't work.

[QUOTE]Originally posted by gene90:
[B]

quote:

---

The fact that you cannot even consider the possibility that someone might have been mistreated, even though there are probably thousands of personal stories to that effect out there, is beyond all comprehension.

---

quote:

---

Strawman.

​

I don't reject the possibility. I even admitted that some congregations aren't what they should be.

---

You seriouly downplay any examples I give and always, without fail, provide justification or an excuse for everything the church has ever said or done.

quote:

---

I don't have a vendetta

---

quote:

---

Despite the circumstantial evidence that you do?

---

Yes, despite your persecution complex, I do not have a vendetta. I have lots of problems with the Catholic church, too, and probably know more about it. I just haven't had cause to talk about it as much.

quote:

---

You have a motive, and you admit to spending a disproportionate amount of time researching LDS beliefs, and you spend a disproportionate number of posts debating against LDS theology.

---

You have no idea if the time I have spent researching anything is "disproportionate" so this is a baseless assertion.Perhaps you would like it better if I simply spoke from complete ignorance??Hey, it takes two to tango, baby.

quote:

---

All in all, I think that strongly indicates a vendetta.

---

Sounds like you are annoyed at your church being criticized.Like I said, if you consider that I have a vendetta, it makes it easier for you to ignora and discount my criticisms.

quote:

---

There could be evidence of editing, or not.

---

Such as?Dunno. That's why you need the independent study by experienced historians who don't have a religious agenda to maintain.

quote:

---

All of the temple ceremonies are supposed to be secret.

---

[QUOTE]Sacred, not secret. If they were secret we wouldn't send people knocking on doors trying to get them to qualify to attend the temple. [/B][/QUOTE]http://www.mormonstoday.com/001103/P2Laake01.shtml(emphasis added)"In a tribute to Mormon journalist Deborah Laake, who committed suicide earlier this year, Phoenix journalist Terry Greene Sterling says that Laake blamed her clinical depression on "Mormonism and the men in her life." Laake was the author of the controversial tell-all "Secret Ceremonies," which detailed LDS Temple ceremonies and led to her excommunication from the LDS Church.If the ceremonies weren't secret, then why did putting her experiences of them in a book lead to her excommunication?[This message has been edited by schrafinator, 12-16-2002]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Chara:

quote:

---

Originally posted by schrafinator:

​

Hmm. Religions claim to know the unknowable. If someone claims to know the unknowable, their claims are not valid.

---

​

And what is it that you define as "unknowable"? Just trying to get a sense of what you're saying here.

---

Something is unknowable if we cannot detect it with our senses.It doesn't mean it doesn't exist, but it does mean that we can't detect it, so it is effectively and for all practical purposes non-existent.

[QUOTE]Originally posted by gene90:
[B]

quote:

---

Absolutely false. There is a great deal of social pressure to behave in certain ways.

---

quote:

---

But if morals are defined by society then morals are not absolute and can change.

---

Well, yes, but what does this have to do with living in society and the pressures to conform?

quote:

---

For example, in Afghanistan in 1998, it was "moral" to deny women an education.

---

Yes. I don't understand the point you are trying to make.I agree that morality changes all the time, particularly religious morality. My argument is that morality based upon humanistic ideas are less about strict simplistic rules and more about reason and common sense and are very basically concerned with, "live and let live", and, "let's come together for the common good" ideas.

quote:

---

Plus, social pressure is irrelevant if you "sin" in secret. If you evade the law and hide from society then you have no need for morals.

---

Well, that's true, except that in the non-religious view, if what you are doing doesn't hurt anyone, it isn't immoral. Sin is an invented religious tool to keep people in line out of guilt and fear.I would much rather have someone do something purely out of concern for others rather than out of fear of going to hell, or out of trying to get into heaven.

quote:

---

Originally posted by gene90:

quote:

---

Maybe you're reading too much into this.

---

​

Could be. I wonder whenever we get into this debate but I really don't know.

---

Thanks for the benefit of the doubt, Chara.Gene, I know it is difficult for you to step back and look at things objectively where your religion is concerned. It might very well be impossible for you to be objective at all.However, I examine and pick apart religious practices the same way I pick apart everything else. I have very definite bulldog tendencies but this is the case no matter what the subject. I do not apologize for that.