F*** Religion.

[_Gazelam]

Ray,

We'll leave the light on for you. Please come back soon.

[_msnobody]

What does F*** stand for?

FLDS

[_why me]

the Mormon faith is a tough faith to disprove.

Funny how you don't see that it is tough to prove..

All religion is tough to prove. And no one will disprove the existence of god. But the Mormon church with its witnesses to the Book of Mormon is much more interesting than other faiths to try to understand and figure out.

[_why me]

The LDS Church is no more difficult or hard to prove a fraud than any other religion. Why you think it is beyond others in this area is beyond me. Can you explain?

If the LDS church only had the word of Joseph Smith, I would agree with you. But with the 11 witnesses and most likely with their wives, all keeping their mouth shut about a fraud is quite remarkable. And this is the strength of the LDS church. People saw something. It becomes only a question of what they saw.

[_why me]

Maybe. But I don't think so. You have too much invested in it.

I have nothing invested in Mormonism, why me. Four of my five children are Mormons by baptism, none believe or practise it. I have no Mormon friends that I'm even faintly close with, and the only time I discuss Mormonism is here. However, I do plan to say more about it on my blog in the near future, by way of advice to others.

You do have something invested in Mormonism and that is why you are here on this board and on MAD. And why you still have something invested in Mormonism is because all critics like yourself come from a position of uncertainity. It does not matter if one is an adament critic, there is still uncertainity about the LDS church.

Now if the LDS church was actually proven false, you would not feel the pull to post on such boards as this over a period of time. And your posts would be different in tone and in content. One reason why critics stick around is because the LDS church has not been proven false.

[_Gadianton Plumber]

I can only speak for myself, but Mopologetics is interesting because it is interesting to see people defend the absurd. I also like to watch ghost hunters, alien weirdos, and government. I don't have any sneaking suspicions that just because a dozen losers say it's true, it's true.

[_Ray A]

You do have something invested in Mormonism and that is why you are here on this board and on MAD. And why you still have something invested in Mormonism is because all critics like yourself come from a position of uncertainity. It does not matter if one is an adament critic, there is still uncertainity about the LDS church.

That may have well been true two-plus years ago, in a very liberal way. But the older I get, the more skeptical I get, and while even three years ago I might have given the Book of Mormon a 10-20% chance of being historical, I give it zero chance now. Absolute Zero. The only remaining question for me is whether it's a deliberate or pious fraud. As I've said before, things like beastie's website helped me sort this out quite a lot. Perhaps you'd like to ask her about when I used to email her to ask questions about Mesoamerica, where my knowledge was weak but hers much stronger. Once I saw the impossibility of their being a "Nephite civilisation" my hopes of historicity, as low as they already were - end up like a plucked and roasted chicken. That significantly altered my views. Brant is just good at semantics and the apologetics of denial.

Now if the LDS church was actually proven false, you would not feel the pull to post on such boards as this over a period of time. And your posts would be different in tone and in content. One reason why critics stick around is because the LDS church has not been proven false.

It doesn't have to be proven false, why me. If I told you that God is a spaceman who lives in an inner core of Jupiter you can't prove that false. But by reasoning you can deduce that it's very unlikely to be true. So when Joseph Smith says that God is an exalted man who lives near the planet/star Kolob, I can't prove that false, but by reasoning I can deduce it's unlikely to be true, particularly if I combine other statements such as there being "men in the Moon", and "men living in the Sun" (Brigham Young, JD), etc, and Joseph's penchant for wild stories like there being three 2,000 year old Nephites roaming the earth and preaching the gospel, and his "meeting" "John the Beloved". Further, when you realise that the Book of Mormon is often a retelling of and expansion of Biblical themes, you quickly come to the conclusion that its pseudepigrapha, not history.

I believe your attachment is emotional. It isn't based on properly weighing the evidence. That's where you associate me with yourself, but you're incorrect to do so. If I have an "attachment" now, it would be to help others escape unhealthy emotional attachments like yours, not because I have some remaining "doubts" that it "might be true".

[_marg]

So what are your beliefs now Ray? Is the Book of Mormon divinely inspired? How about other stuff. Is there any connection of a God with the Book of Mormon? with the Bible? Any connection with a God and Jesus per the Bible? Did a Jesus die for mankind's sins. Is the story of Jesus in the Bible true?

[_Ray A]

So what are your beliefs now Ray? Is the Book of Mormon divinely inspired?

No more than Shakespeare or Milton.

Is there any connection of a God with the Book of Mormon?

No.

with the Bible?

No.

Any connection with a God and Jesus per the Bible?

No. If you look through my previous posts here you'll see that I've long doubted that Jesus even existed.

Did a Jesus die for mankind's sins.

See above. I have long disbelieved in the "second coming" of Jesus. So why would I believe he "died for the sins of mankind"? I've often compared him to Mithra, who was a mythical deity.

Is the story of Jesus in the Bible true?

Like Jefferson, I recognise some aspects of the gospels as having "moral relevance" and "ethical relevance". Apart from that I think he (if he existed) was a divider of people and appealed to some of the worst aspects of human nature. It's possible, I think, that the gospels are embellishments of a real life figure who was not "supernatural" in any way, but those stories were added so he would be able to compete against the gods of other religions.

[_Ray A]

Here is my 2006 post, marg:

The Christ Conspiracy.