There's not a damn Mormon on here worth engaging with...

[_Coca Cola]

However, I saw very little conscious emphasis placed upon this (developing charity, becoming "born again") while a member (even though, oddly enough, the Book of Mormon is all about this). Lessons taught in church were more about guilt and fear of underachievement. There is little difference here.

Most Mormons here countenance this self righteous air of entitlement bearing little attribute of what they ought to understand.

Many self proclaimed Mormons here remind me of Bruce McConkie who reprimanded members for seeking a relationship with Christ.


I am primarilly here to figure out what I am willing to keep from this trainwreck called Mormonism.

With many notable exceptions, it appears to me the majority of church members are too concerned about the "letter of the law" - keeping the outwardly observable commandments like the WoW, chastity, not watching R rated movies, tithing; and not enough concern about an inner attitude of love, tolerance and charity for others. I'm not talking about bringing in food to the sick, etc. I'm talking about not judging others, thinking oneself is holier than thou, criticism of others with differing points of view, and not willing to "live and let live."

Mormonism also makes us feel special, because we have "the truth" and are therefore better and more enlightened than everyone else, no matter how learned, successful, or kind they are.

[_wenglund]

You are about to read my most unbecoming post ever (and that's really saying something :P).

There doesn't seem to be one damn Mormon on here worth engaging with seriously about the church.

Nehor seems like a nice enough guy - but that's probably because he doesn't seem to take the church all that seriously. Moksha (edit: this should be Harmony) likes to imagine she's a Mormon even though she rejects Mormonism's most fundamental authority claims. BCSpace sounds like a total pothead, spontaneously inventing pure nonsense and believing it as though it were a collection of the most profound insights ever.

Coggins sounds like one of those older inactive guys who just sits around reading church books, fancying himself a real expert on everything, a guy who's gotten just to that point where Mormonism seems to make sense, but hasn't taken that next step of analysis, which would reveal that it makes no sense at all. Schryver kind of reminds me of myself as a Mormon, though I'm sure he would snort at that. He says many of the same sorts of things I used to.

For reasons of charity, Wade's comments probably shouldn't even be responded to, ever. I've never seen Ray A produce one original, thought-provoking comment on Mormonism, ever. Charity - 'nuff said.

Where are the Mormons you can have a rational conversation with about Mormonism?

When one considers the source, Tal's subject-line makes perfect sense.

I think it somewhat axiomatic that the more inflatted one's intellectual self-perception, the less able one is in finding a near equal with which to seriously converse. Too oft there is only room for one head in such clouds. ;-)

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[_Mercury]

Tal, what the hell man? people before me have outlined many mo's here on the board that are engaging. Just because you are turned off by the bile-filled cardboard cutouts on here does nto mean there are worthwhile debaters on here. Stick around or go make another record.

[_Tal Bachman]

Yes, I've got a few names, Merc: Jason Bourne, Dr. Steuss. Who else?

[_moksha]

Yes, I've got a few names, Merc: Jason Bourne, Dr. Steuss. Who else?

Harmony
Liz
Asbestosman
Gaz
Coggins
Wade
Crockett (Don't call me Bobbie!)
Will Schryver
LifeonaPlate
RichardMDborn

and more...

[_the road to hana]

After all, I am a multiple-published FARMS author,

Two FARMS articles constitutes "multiple?"

[_Coggins7]

With many notable exceptions, it appears to me the majority of church members are too concerned about the "letter of the law" - keeping the outwardly observable commandments like the WoW, chastity, not watching R rated movies, tithing; and not enough concern about an inner attitude of love, tolerance and charity for others. I'm not talking about bringing in food to the sick, etc. I'm talking about not judging others, thinking oneself is holier than thou, criticism of others with differing points of view, and not willing to "live and let live."

Mormonism also makes us feel special, because we have "the truth" and are therefore b

Here's another classic example of the kind of post I really shouldn't respond to, as its difficult to keep either a straight face or a civil demeanor.

The WoW, tiithing, avoiding pornography and vulgar language, and...chastity, are "outward observable commandments" somehow separated form "inner attitude of love, tolerance and charity for others"?

And here, all my life, I thought the keeping of these commandments was a manifestation of an inner orientation. Silly me. Let's see, 1 Corinthians 7:19 says "Circumcision is nothing, and uncircumcision is nothing, but the keeping of the commandments of God."

Funny, this verse seems to equate the keeping of the commandments with the inner spiritual life, as over against ritual observances (outward symbolism).

I'm not talking about bringing in food to the sick, etc. I'm talking about not judging others, thinking oneself is holier than thou, criticism of others with differing points of view, and not willing to "live and let live."

Oh goody, more liberalism. Coke wants us to stop judging people, making discriminations and critiquing the secular world and its behaviors, ideologies, attitudes, and fashions. Eallusion and I were just hashing this out on another thread. Its called value relativism.

Mormonism also makes us feel special, because we have "the truth" and are therefore better and more enlightened than everyone else, no matter how learned, successful, or kind they are.

This is utter pap, not taught by the Church, and expressed by almost no LDS I have ever known. You might try just a little harder next time to be credible.

[_Moniker]

With many notable exceptions, it appears to me the majority of church members are too concerned about the "letter of the law" - keeping the outwardly observable commandments like the WoW, chastity, not watching R rated movies, tithing; and not enough concern about an inner attitude of love, tolerance and charity for others. I'm not talking about bringing in food to the sick, etc. I'm talking about not judging others, thinking oneself is holier than thou, criticism of others with differing points of view, and not willing to "live and let live."

Mormonism also makes us feel special, because we have "the truth" and are therefore b

Here's another classic example of the kind of post I really shouldn't respond to, as its difficult to keep either a straight face or a civil demeanor.

The WoW, tiithing, avoiding pornography and vulgar language, and...chastity, are "outward observable commandments" somehow separated form "inner attitude of love, tolerance and charity for others"?

And here, all my life, I thought the keeping of these commandments was a manifestation of an inner orientation. Silly me. Let's see, 1 Corinthians 7:19 says "Circumcision is nothing, and uncircumcision is nothing, but the keeping of the commandments of God."

Funny, this verse seems to equate the keeping of the commandments with the inner spiritual life, as over against ritual observances (outward symbolism).

I'm not talking about bringing in food to the sick, etc. I'm talking about not judging others, thinking oneself is holier than thou, criticism of others with differing points of view, and not willing to "live and let live."

Oh goody, more liberalism. Coke wants us to stop judging people, making discriminations and critiquing the secular world and its behaviors, ideologies, attitudes, and fashions. Eallusion and I were just hashing this out on another thread. Its called value relativism.

Mormonism also makes us feel special, because we have "the truth" and are therefore better and more enlightened than everyone else, no matter how learned, successful, or kind they are.

This is utter pap, not taught by the Church, and expressed by almost no LDS I have ever known. You might try just a little harder next time to be credible.

I strive (not always so successful at this endeavor) to live my life with love, compassion, and charity. I find it sad, Coggins, that you don't deem those traits as important as demonizing those that disagree with you. How can you love someone or feel compassion for someone when you hurl insults at them? When you attempt to shame them for not adopting the lifestyle you deem appropriate? How does that work? This is a serious inquiry -- I should probably start a new thread.

[_Sethbag]

The problem here is that it not making sense from within the reference frame of another worldview tells us nothing regarding the legitimacy of that worldview, or whether the perception of the Gospel not making sense from within that reference frame is not as much a function of the deficiencies in that world view as it is a claimed deficiency in Gospel cosmology.

The trick is in being able to recognize that it's just as possible for your own worldview to be wrong, as it is for everybody else's to be, and to be ready, and willing, to seek for yourself meaningful tests that will help you recognize whether it is or not.

The LDS worldview is so chalk full of things that hardly any rational person on the face of the planet can still defend as true, that this really ought to be a lot easier than you're making it. Of course, Gazelam is living proof that some arguments can be made however idiot-proof we want, and faith will somehow respond by making a better idiot. Take Noah's flood for example. That this flood actually happened, 5000ish years ago, and on a worldwide scale, resulting in the extermination of literally every man, woman, and child except Noah's family, is undeniably part of the LDS worldview. It's also undeniable, except to the uber-idiot faith head, that this global flood simply never happened.

This is evidence, Coggins, that should lead a rational person to seriously question the validity of this worldview. But it doesn't. People just make excuses for it and drive on.

[_wenglund]

The trick is in being able to recognize that it's just as possible for your own worldview to be wrong, as it is for everybody else's to be, and to be ready, and willing, to seek for yourself meaningful tests that will help you recognize whether it is or not.

I would go one step further and suggest that the trick is being able to grant that opposing views may be reasonable and rational. In other words, one need have tolerance for views that differ from one's own.

Is that a common point of view here?

Thanks, -Wade Englund-