Flip Side of the Coin

[_KevinSim]

I'm ok with shades of grey. I can think of many reason's lying would be ok. Not in many of Joseph's situations. What I see is you not being consistent with Joseph as you would say for Warren jeffs.

If you're really okay with shades of grey, then how do you conclude that I was inconsistent with Joseph Smith? There is no inconsistency between when I said I "mind it very much" and when I said, "It bugs me that Smith lied to Emma."

I agree with the dictionary definition. My point is that you have not been consistent, and I give an example above.

I repeat, if you're really okay with shades of grey, then how did you conclude that I had "not been consistent"?

There may have been more but this one made me think you were suggesting God would under certain circumstances give a no answer for the Book of Mormon or church being true.

That's my point! They're ready for a yes answer; they're not ready for a no answer; and until they are they can't count on God giving them the answer God wants them to have.

How in the world do you conclude that this statement implies "God would under certain circumstances give a no answer for the Book of Mormon or church being true"?

[_KevinSim]

I really can't see anything in it that subverts the points I made in my post, despite his repeated use of bold italics to aid my feeble understanding. Can anyone else explain what I may have missed?

Chap, there isn't anything in it that directly "subverts the points" you made in your post. All I was trying to say was that it's a parent's responsibility to teach her/his children that seeming inconsistency exists in the world, and to teach those children how to make sense of that inconsistency. Once that parent has done that job, those children will hopefully recognize the perils of treating natural language as if it was always mathematically precise, and they'll be ready for messages that don't necessarily sound all that consistent. At that point God can talk to them, and since they've learned the limits of natural language I see no reason to believe that God is going to try to be mathematically precise with them either.

And I don't mind if KevinSim is as cruelly hard on me as he can be. My withers will remain wholly unwrung.

I certainly hope this post isn't "cruelly hard on" you, Chap. It wasn't intended to be. It might be difficult to believe this, but I actually want your withers to "remain wholly unwrung."

[_KevinSim]

KevinSim may have twitch of conscience.

Twitch of conscience about what? Great cartoon by the way.

[_Themis]

If God doesn't exists there is no work of God.

The job implies the job holder?

I don't think that's true. It's possible to recognize that something must be done, before someone arises that's capable of doing it.

Calling it the work of God implies God. Not a big deal. Sure one can imagine some of of work/job they think people should work towards.

[_Themis]

Then give your own example on what you mean.

I already did. I said that in common language every once in a while someone will ask someone else a yes or no question, and the latter will respond, "Yes and no." Have you never heard someone give that answer?

Now if every term in a natural language was rigorously defined, then there wouldn't be room for an answer of, "Yes and no"; such an answer would be inconsistent and a contradiction. But terms in natural languages aren't rigorously defined. The answer, "Yes and no," means that the answer is yes if the terms in the question mean one thing, and the answer is no if those terms mean something else. In that case the answer, "Yes and no," is exactly the truth, even though such an answer in a mathematical setting would indeed be inconsistent.

This why I asked you for an example, a real world example. This discussion has always been about the question of the church being true or the Book of Mormon being true. Fairly simple questions. I agree with past church presidents who state it is all true or all false.

[_Themis]

Do you agree that if the Roman Catholics, Evangelicals, and Methodists are right, that these three statements describe their deity?

If that is what they say, then it would be right by definition since you defined it that way in your question.

No, I just didn't realize we were talking about a deity's existence; you said "evidence against it," like you did just now; that didn't strike me the same way as it would have if you'd said "evidence against it's existence."

I may not be clear enough to what I mean. When I say LDS God or or Catholic God, etc I mean the God as they describe him/her/they. If we have evidence against one of these churches as not being true in it's claims then their God is less likely to really exist as they claim. As such the LDS God has more evidence against it since we have so much more evidence against Joseph's and his claims about this God then we do these pother religions. Even as wacky as Scientology may seem, we don't really have as much evidence against their beliefs then LDS. This also true for the three religions you are asking about.

If we can't evaluate whether a deity is good or not based on things like that deity's treatment of the unsaved that I mentioned, then how in the world do we know whether or not that deity is good? What good is the existence of an allegedly supernatural being if one doesn't know whether or not it is good? The God described up above, associated with the Roman Catholics, Evangelicals, and Methodists, is a monster, and I don't see how anybody can in clear conscience worship it even if it does exist.

Whether a God is good is not relevant here as to evidence against their existence. Many believe in Satan's existence without thinking Satan has to be good. You are evaluating other God based on whether you like them, which is fine, but it doesn't really answer the question of their possible existence, only your choices of whether you want to believe and follow what you think they are, and are saying to you.

The Roman Catholic, Evangelical, and Methodist deity causes infinite damage to the souls of the unsaved. What attributes of God as believed by Latter-day Saints cause infinite damage?

Not relevant to whether God exists, but sure I like, or would prefer, some LDS claims about God or the afterlife better then many religions.

[_Themis]

I'm ok with shades of grey. I can think of many reason's lying would be ok. Not in many of Joseph's situations. What I see is you not being consistent with Joseph as you would say for Warren jeffs.

If you're really okay with shades of grey, then how do you conclude that I was inconsistent with Joseph Smith? There is no inconsistency between when I said I "mind it very much" and when I said, "It bugs me that Smith lied to Emma."

Shades of grey doesn't somehow make it consistent. The real problem I see is not just you, but members who know about it, and even me back as a believer(I am sure I am still not perfect here). We treat Joseph very differently then say Warren Jeffs even though they are guilty of some of the same things. Again I like what runtu said about realizing this and his mind coming to the realization the church is not true.

How in the world do you conclude that this statement implies "God would under certain circumstances give a no answer for the Book of Mormon or church being true"?

I thought it was more then that, but if you are not saying that, then that's fine.

[_KevinSim]

If I had to make a list of only three, then I will try to list the three that other problems could be placed under.

1) It is based on the fraud of Joseph Smith and that he profited from it.

This isn't any different than Scientology being based on the fraud of L. Ron Hubbard. It is however fatal to the LDS Church's claims, while not necessarily to them as a religion. That Joseph Smith was such an obvious shill, much like Hubbard is probably one of the biggest problems that the LDS Church faces. His translations in the Book of Abraham are false and there isn't a shred of reliable and independent evidence for the Book of Mormon. Joseph Smith profited from his religion in so many ways which fundamentally undermined the religion that he began, but so do many who begin such movements.

Why should I believe Joseph Smith's "translations in the Book of Abraham are false"? And if you are correct and "there isn't a shred of reliable and independent evidence for the Book of Mormon," does that of necessity mean God did not inspire the Book of Mormon?

Of course Smith profited from the things he said God told him to do. Why is that a problem?

I would be lying if I said things critics have told me about the LDS Church haven't affected my testimony at all. In fact, they have affected my testimony so much that I have sometimes thought about what I would do if I ever left the LDS Church, and I came to the conclusion that in such an event I would probably set up my own faith group. In my plans for setting it up, I took great care to find a way I could do it and still earn a living doing it. The reason is simple; setting up my group would be a full time job; it would take all my time and therefore if I didn't profit by it I'd be in a pretty bad situation, potentially homeless. So why is it so bad that Smith profited by the things that God revealed to him?

2) The LDS Church's teachings about women and minority groups

Joseph Smith and the LDS Church he created unfortunately do not have a good track record when it comes to these groups of people. His illegal polygamy and its accompanying doctrines while they helped him to benefit and live the lifestyle he desired resulted in seriously disastrous consequences for his community. Those consequences are still being felt in the offshoots which should be called orthodox Mormonism not fundamentalist.
With minority groups the worst is probably the inclusion within their scripture that skin color orginates from sin and then the places that doctrine took the church. That those scriptures both in the Book of Mormon and the Book of Abraham that skin color is changed based on righteousness is a huge problem for the LDS Church. The Church's attacks on normal sexual development of individuals and their funding of propaganda through coercing the membership to make donations is disgraceful. Of course other religions have the same problems for example the Moonies have situated the Garden of Eden in Korea and believe that God says their race is superior and the Scientologists teach similar discriminatory doctrines about homosexuality and contributed with Proposition 8.

It's interesting that you mention "illegal polygamy" in the same paragraph with the LDS Church's "attacks on normal sexual development of individuals." Proposition 8 got mentioned in association with Scientologists, but it got mentioned nonetheless. How in the world can you condemn polygamy in the same paragraph as you condemn Proposition 8? Is allowing gay couples to marry somehow less morally wrong than allowing straight polygamous triples to marry?

I'm kind of leaning toward the conclusion that you have a point when it comes to "the places that doctrine took the church." It looks to me like the easiest explanation for the pre-1978 ban on giving the priesthood to blacks, is that it was a simple mistake, that God never intended to ban the priesthood from anybody. So the question is, if the LDS Church did simply make a mistake, does that in itself mean God didn't inspire it? Is it impossible for God to inspire a faith group that God knows is going to make such a mistake in its future?

3) The manipulative deceptive aspects of the LDS Church's indoctrination and recruitment program.

The LDS Church's current missionary program appears to be a cult to indoctrinate the missionaries who are supposedly going into the world to convert it. It is extremely ineffective as a missionary program and not only that it provides the missionaries with half-truths and sends them out into the world to basically lie and deceive people while providing limited service opportunities.

It is "extremely ineffective as a missionary program"? Where do you get that? In the USA it came out of obscurity to become the fourth largest church in the nation, and all that with an "extremely ineffective" missionary program? Critics say church growth in the USA is currently stagnating, but it continues to grow in other places in the world. I don't see how your description fits the agent behind that growth.

I've been on a mission. The LDS Church does put young adults who become missionaries through a pretty intense two years. It's a pretty intense two years that usually turns them into responsible adults. People go off not much more than children, and they come back fully mature. I don't see a problem with that at all.

For the above reasons though as a brand I consider Mormonism too tainted and I doubt it will ever recover from its own history.

People have been calling the LDS Church tainted and expecting its history to kill it for 180 years.

[_Cylon]

But I'm firmly convinced that our consciences demand that we spend some amount of time on a regular basis (even as little as a few seconds every month or so) thinking about what we would have to do to benefit the whole human race, including all of the descendants of those currently living.

You keep asserting this, but thus far you've offered no evidence for it. I'm certainly willing to believe that your conscience drives you to work towards that very specific goal, but what makes you think it's a human universal?

Why should I believe Joseph Smith's "translations in the Book of Abraham are false"?

Uh, are you really not aware of the issues with the Book of Abraham papyri? We have at least some of the papyri that Joseph said he used to translate the Book of Abraham, and we now know how to translate Egyptian. The papyri don't say anything even slightly related to what the Book of Abraham says, therefore, Joseph's translation of the papyri is false.

And if you are correct and "there isn't a shred of reliable and independent evidence for the Book of Mormon," does that of necessity mean God did not inspire the Book of Mormon?

No, because of course you can't prove a negative. What it does mean is that there's no good reason to believe God did inspire the Book of Mormon.

[_KevinSim]

I think there are a number of factors which while maybe not all unique to the LDS Church when compared with other more conservative and fundamentalist groups also play a large role in increasing the number of suicides among LGBT people.

I will concede that there are a number of changes that need to be made in the LDS Church regarding gay family members.

1) The feeling of hopelessness seems to be more predictive than depression alone.

I read an article about an LDS bishop who told one of his youths (who was gay) that God would rather have him alive and outside the LDS Church than suicidal and in the LDS Church. I think we need more bishops like this one.

2) Those who are socially isolated are at higher risk

Mormons definitely need to maintain loving relationships with their friends and family members, regardless of what those people's sexual orientation turns out to be.

3) Homelessness and being kicked out of their homes.

Same thing here. There's no excuse for a Latter-day Saint to kick a family member out of her/his house due to sexual orientation.

We can speculate, but it is likely that the Church's anti-gay stance with Proposition 8 most likely caused a huge amount of tension and problems. It is difficult for an individual to volunteer their money and time in phone banks spreading discrimination about gay people and about how they are destroying society and then to go home and be tolerant with their gay children.

I didn't find it difficult at all.

Granted, although I volunteered my time to help promote Proposition 8, the LDS Church never actually used me to do anything. But my willingness to support the proposition didn't affect my attitude toward my self-declared bi-sexual daughter one little bit.

I've made my position on gay marriage pretty clear in previous posts. In the United States of America, the land of liberty, gay and lesbian couples should be allowed to marry. I admit that. But in that same land of liberty, straight triples should also be allowed to marry. The polygamists tried to legalize their alternate sexual lifestyles first; they shouldn't have their wishes fulfilled second. If legislators were to put forward a bill that would make it legal for two or three adults of any gender combination to marry, I would support that bill. That doesn't change my unconditional love for my daughter one iota. I have actually never made any comments to her at all about what she perceives as her sexual orientation.

4) Bullying in School

Another thing that needs to change. As I understand it Utah is currently 70% LDS, and of that 70% roughly half are active, so the LDS Church doesn't have complete control of what happens at school, but that still leaves roughly 35% of the students around the bullying incident that can be encouraged to intercede on behalf of the victim. As long as the bully doesn't get the victim off by himself/herself somewhere that should be enough to let the victim know the majority of her/his peers are decent human beings, not bullies.

5) The LDS requirement to serve a mission

Another thing that needs to change, though I think the problem isn't as big as you think. Nobody in my ward is putting any pressure on my son to go on a mission. Although by his own choice he's been going to the Young Single Adult for two months now, and I don't know if anybody there is putting any pressure on him.

6) The LDS Church impacts on their self esteem and their self image

I think the cure for this is the bishop I referred to in item (1).