DiscussMormonism.com

ldsfaqs wrote:It's funny that you say that, because in my perspective being both a convert, and having left the Church and been anti-mormon and anti-religion, to me it's the anti-mormon like you who are "lazy-minded"

Hi faqs, I have a friendly challenge for you. I don't think you knew much about religion, science, philosophy, and humanities before you joined the church, and I doubt you learned much about anything after you joined and certainly, whatever "anti-Mormon" and "anti-religion" things you learned must have been with the greatest superficiality. Certainly, one doesn't need to learn much about polygamy or the priesthood ban to be troubled by these issues. However, to overcome these issues, and to overcome the weight of factual problems with the Church in every way, that would require significant study of the critical positions and responses to them. It would also require a reasonable amount of background knowledge in history, science, and humanities to realistically say the positions are comprehended. You frequently tell the forum, the entire forum and there are several Phds/advanced degrees on this forum just sayin', that you know more than everyone and everyone here is lazy or they would have found the answer that you have if any effort was put forth.

I don't think your questioning of the Church more than scratched the surface and I don't think you comprehend the skeptical positions at all.

But you can prove me wrong.

Register a sock puppet on this forum with an atheist/anti-Mormon persona, and join in the conversation. This would require you to create posts outlining critical positions and if you were able to win the respect of EA, Dr. W, Darth J, and a few others, then I would be convinced that you really did understand what the positions are in the first place, in order to then proceed to be converted back to the Church.

Gadianton wrote:

ldsfaqs wrote:It's funny that you say that, because in my perspective being both a convert, and having left the Church and been anti-mormon and anti-religion, to me it's the anti-mormon like you who are "lazy-minded"

Hi faqs, I have a friendly challenge for you. I don't think you knew much about religion, science, philosophy, and humanities before you joined the church, and I doubt you learned much about anything after you joined and certainly, whatever "anti-Mormon" and "anti-religion" things you learned must have been with the greatest superficiality. Certainly, one doesn't need to learn much about polygamy or the priesthood ban to be troubled by these issues. However, to overcome these issues, and to overcome the weight of factual problems with the Church in every way, that would require significant study of the critical positions and responses to them. It would also require a reasonable amount of background knowledge in history, science, and humanities to realistically say the positions are comprehended. You frequently tell the forum, the entire forum and there are several Phds/advanced degrees on this forum just sayin', that you know more than everyone and everyone here is lazy or they would have found the answer that you have if any effort was put forth.

I don't think your questioning of the Church more than scratched the surface and I don't think you comprehend the skeptical positions at all.

But you can prove me wrong.

Register a sock puppet on this forum with an atheist/anti-Mormon persona, and join in the conversation. This would require you to create posts outlining critical positions and if you were able to win the respect of EA, Dr. W, Darth J, and a few others, then I would be convinced that you really did understand what the positions are in the first place, in order to then proceed to be converted back to the Church.

Nice..... The anti-mormon always has his "excuses" as to why they are smarter than the Mormon.
The Mormon simply must be stupid..... They didn't after all do all the things you've mentioned. After all, if they had, they would know all the things you know, that the church is stupid, a cult, etc. Yep, it can't be simply that the Mormon sees MORE objectively than the anti-mormon sees.

Further, you ignore the truth and facts. I've said several times on this forum that since the age of 7 I started to intentionally observe human behavior, etc. and read out of the best books, and this was before the internet. Also by the age of 7, I had already read the Bible in full. By the age of 10 I had been active in 5 different major and minor religions. Tell me. When you were 13, were you still reading the "comics" of the Newpaper (nearly all kids still are and for several years after)? I was reading the Articles having little interest in comics.

Not only that, but I lived in many city's, many homes, and have been friends and associated with many kinds of people, so I not only read, I learned things by observation and experience first hand, even intentionally being friends for example with the Stoners, etc. just so I could understand human and criminal behavior more. From age 7 I had decided I wanted to be a cop, and I was passionate about truth and right, so from that age I did everything I could to learn and understand anything of worth and value that would make me a better cop, and make me know what was really true, and what was really right, over falsehood and wrong. The experience was vital in connecting the dots.

You telling me I just studied the "surface" is a joke.... By the time I was 18 I had read around 500 books, and that's not including the fiction. I was still to some degree a kid and had some fiction I liked to read some for relaxation. My bookshelf, that was all my own, was 5 shelves with about 30 books per shelf, and I had read fully nearly every one. They were books on religion, martial arts, eastern philosophy's and practices, history, and more.

But, you keep believing your fantasy of Mormons and me rather than reality. It makes you feel "secure" and safe in your ignorance and bigotry.

Why not just take Gadianton up on his challenge?

ldsfaqs wrote:Further, you ignore the truth and facts. I've said several times on this forum that since the age of 7 I started to intentionally observe human behavior, etc. and read out of the best books, and this was before the internet. Also by the age of 7, I had already read the Bible in full. By the age of 10 I had been active in 5 different major and minor religions. Tell me. When you were 13, were you still reading the "comics" of the Newpaper (nearly all kids still are and for several years after)? I was reading the Articles having little interest in comics.

Fackso, what were the 5 religions you were active in by the age of 10? what do you define as being active in each of the 5?

Also, no offense son, but the use of apostrophes and plurals is not a fancy part of the written language, it is pretty basic, you would engage your readers much more if you did not distract them with incorrect usage.

cwald wrote:Why not just take Gadianton up on his challenge?

Why would I need to waste my time pretending to be something I've already been (before the internet by the way)?
I've read nearly every anti-mormon book written, and read nearly every anti-mormon website on the internet..... what makes you think it's some sort of "skill" to "regurgitate" the arguments of another?

How hard do you think it is to always say the Church is a cult, members are brainwashed zombies, etc. etc.?

Further, long ago I've already pretended to be a non-member who simply respected the church etc., and it went well.
I have no need or desire to pretend to be an anti-mormon. Ben there done that for real.

ldsfaqs wrote:

cwald wrote:Why not just take Gadianton up on his challenge?

Why would I need to waste my time pretending to be something I've already been (before the internet by the way)?
I've read nearly every anti-mormon book written, and read nearly every anti-mormon website on the internet..... what makes you think it's some sort of "skill" to "regurgitate" the arguments of another?

How hard do you think it is to always say the Church is a cult, members are brainwashed zombies, etc. etc.?

Further, long ago I've already pretended to be a non-member who simply respected the church etc., and it went well.
I have no need or desire to pretend to be an anti-mormon. Ben there done that for real.

To prove your point. If you were able to do this, it would shut your critics up. And lets be honest...you already waste a tremendous amount of time arguing on this board.

It's a put up or shut up type of thing. You boast and boast you know and understand all the anti and critical information. So why not prove it as Gadianton challenged you to do so?

ldsfaqs wrote:

cwald wrote:Why not just take Gadianton up on his challenge?

Why would I need to waste my time pretending to be something I've already been (before the internet by the way)?
I've read nearly every anti-mormon book written, and read nearly every anti-mormon website on the internet..... what makes you think it's some sort of "skill" to "regurgitate" the arguments of another?

How hard do you think it is to always say the Church is a cult, members are brainwashed zombies, etc. etc.?

Further, long ago I've already pretended to be a non-member who simply respected the church etc., and it went well.
I have no need or desire to pretend to be an anti-mormon. Ben there done that for real.

what am I, chopped liver !?! How come you don't answer my questions, ldsfaqs?? Am I too new? Too scary? I've asked a bunch lately (home sick with a cold) and asked very nicely-- come on, answer!!!!

Lemmie wrote:

ldsfaqs wrote:Further, you ignore the truth and facts. I've said several times on this forum that since the age of 7 I started to intentionally observe human behavior, etc. and read out of the best books, and this was before the internet. Also by the age of 7, I had already read the Bible in full. By the age of 10 I had been active in 5 different major and minor religions. Tell me. When you were 13, were you still reading the "comics" of the Newpaper (nearly all kids still are and for several years after)? I was reading the Articles having little interest in comics.

Fackso, what were the 5 religions you were active in by the age of 10? what do you define as being active in each of the 5? ...

I wonder what he means by "religions"? Somehow I doubt he mean Mahayana Buddhism, Episcopalianism, Zoroastrianism, Shinto and the Aztec Sun Cult.

So what does he mean?

Lemmie wrote:Fackso, what were the 5 religions you were active in by the age of 10? what do you define as being active in each of the 5?

Also, no offense son, but the use of apostrophes and plurals is not a fancy part of the written language, it is pretty basic, you would engage your readers much more if you did not distract them with incorrect usage.

1. Born and Baptised Catholic, went to it the most.
Lutheran
Baptist
Some black church
Some random christian/evangelical church, can't remember name.
I also wasn't active in any religion some of that time.
Also, technically it was six religions being active in, including Mormonism first exposed when 7 years old or so, and there were some others I just attended a few times, but not counting those.
Technically I had been in around 10 religions by the age of 10, which is also when I decided to be Baptised into the LDS Church.
My reading the Bible for myself and being exposed to other religions helped me see clearly that religions were man-made, and only when I came upon the LDS Church did a religion actually fit what the Bible actually said.
I also attended other religions many times over the years after being baptized into the LDS Church, as well didn't attend a religion some periods, not only when being anti-mormon and anti-religion. Like I said, moved around alot, and lived many places and homes.

2. Being regularly active, attending church, going to it's classes, etc. What else would "being active" mean?

3. No offense son, but all my moving around, I didn't "master" some English rules, so when I write, I write according to what's natural in speech and for effect and emphasis.
If there is a pause in explaining something, then I use a comma, or if I need to emphasis a word, then I use quotes. Sorry you don't like it, but it's what things are for, and easy when writing on a forum and not writing a term paper.

4. Your pet peeve is not my problem. I read and read and read, and am not fazed at all by someone's mastery or the lack thereof of English.
Those of us who expose ourselves to other cultures and language speakers are especially not phazed in one iota. Maybe you need to step outside of your box and get out in the world?

Gadianton wrote:Register a sock puppet on this forum with an atheist/anti-Mormon persona, and join in the conversation. This would require you to create posts outlining critical positions and if you were able to win the respect of EA, Dr. W, Darth J, and a few others, then I would be convinced that you really did understand what the positions are in the first place, in order to then proceed to be converted back to the Church.

Just to impress all you highfalutin intellectual types?

Dude, its just not that hard ... he was; in the church and felt good (youth) , left for a while and felt bad (teens), came back and again feels good.