Mormon REVERENCE FOR JOSEPH SMITH

[_Polygamy Porter]

Mormons are comprised of deceivers and deceived.

Nehor is mostly deceived.

So when God "SPEAKS" to you, does he tell to stop seeing Sister Rosey Palm and go get a woman?

You are not following the counsel of the men who you believe speak with God.

[_The Nehor]

Mormons are comprised of deceivers and deceived.

Nehor is mostly deceived.

So when God "SPEAKS" to you, does he tell to stop seeing Sister Rosey Palm and go get a woman?

You are not following the counsel of the men who you believe speak with God.

He tells me to find a woman, yes. So far I have failed. I don't know this Sister Rosey Palm but I hope she makes you happy.

[_silentkid]

But if that doesn't help I will give you an experiment you can do to prove the existence of God to you skeptically and disinterestedly. Kill yourself using the method of your choice. You will find an afterlife and eventually God. Tell me how it goes.

Ouch. This is kind of harsh. You are still making an assertion about an afterlife and god. You could reword it to say, "you may find an afterlife and might meet god. If so, tell me how it goes." Sometimes it's okay to say "I don't know". It frees the mind. I remember being taught during my youth to declare "I know" to things that no one could possibly know for certain. Now I recognize that there are many things that I can't know. I think this has been a healthy realization.

[_Inconceivable]

Probably time for a new thread here.

I can understand the frustration and impatience Jak has for sharing a forum with those that have a belief in God - let alone, those that profess a belief in the LDS church.

I began to discover how betrayed I had been by the LDS church begining a couple of years ago (just after my son left on his mission). I am still extremely angry. I have not felt "the spirit" for quite some time. Although previously, I have felt "impressions" and "clues" my entire life.

I'm begining to discover that there are not a few former Mormons that now even reject a belief in God - throwing the baby out with the bathwater so to speak. For those of us that grew up in this Mormon society, we've been indocrtinated with an ALL or NOTHING mind set. In other words, the baby goes too.

If you are going to reject the Mormon church, I strongly recommend to reject this philosophy first.

There may be a God, or at least something out there in the ether that is good and personally quantifiable that brings peace to our troubled souls. What little I know is that I'm having difficulty finding it until I get over my anger. I'm not there yet.

Nehor, when the dynamite goes off between your ears and you discover how much fiction there is in the faithful history, don't give it all up. There is some good clay mixed with the iron.



ok, that's it. I'm starting a new thread with a few minor changes.

[_The Nehor]

Probably time for a new thread here.

I can understand the frustration and impatience Jak has for sharing a forum with those that have a belief in God - let alone, those that profess a belief in the LDS church.

I began to discover how betrayed I had been by the LDS church begining a couple of years ago (just after my son left on his mission). I am still extremely angry. I have not felt "the spirit" for quite some time. Although previously, I have felt "impressions" and "clues" my entire life.

I'm begining to discover that there are not a few former Mormons that now even reject a belief in God - throwing the baby out with the bathwater so to speak. For those of us that grew up in this Mormon society, we've been indocrtinated with an ALL or NOTHING mind set. In other words, the baby goes too.

If you are going to reject the Mormon church, I strongly recommend to reject this philosophy first.

There may be a God, or at least something out there in the ether that is good and personally quantifiable that brings peace to our troubled souls. What little I know is that I'm having difficulty finding it until I get over my anger. I'm not there yet.

Nehor, when the dynamite goes off between your ears and you discover how much fiction there is in the faithful history, don't give it all up. There is some good clay mixed with the iron.



ok, that's it. I'm starting a new thread with a few minor changes.

I find it strange that if JAK finds that frustrating....he comes here of all places.

I avoid storing dynamite between my ears. In my experience when I fall I tend to fall in the direction of hating God, not denying him.

[_The Nehor]

But if that doesn't help I will give you an experiment you can do to prove the existence of God to you skeptically and disinterestedly. Kill yourself using the method of your choice. You will find an afterlife and eventually God. Tell me how it goes.

Ouch. This is kind of harsh. You are still making an assertion about an afterlife and god. You could reword it to say, "you may find an afterlife and might meet god. If so, tell me how it goes." Sometimes it's okay to say "I don't know". It frees the mind. I remember being taught during my youth to declare "I know" to things that no one could possibly know for certain. Now I recognize that there are many things that I can't know. I think this has been a healthy realization.

I am, but I think I've taken the closest thing to that experiment without dying so am confident of the results. I know that there are many, many things I can't know. Unfortunately I tend to try to find out anyways.

[_Inconceivable]

I find it strange that if JAK finds that frustrating....he comes here of all places.

I avoid storing dynamite between my ears.

In my experience when I fall I tend to fall in the direction of hating God, not denying him.

Not so strange. The quote, "people can leave the church but can never leave it alone" is a fundamentally true statement. Not for the reasons the GA's say, but because when a person leaves they are torn from nearly everything else they hold valuable. Family, friends, community, inheritance. It's a rebuild. Many of us want validation for what I consider a betrayal of trust - among other things. But for those that are overcome by their anger, sometimes misery just loves company.

Nehor, it's there. I had no idea I had some there until it went off. It's more just a matter of time. Just being here means the slow burning fuse may be lit.

In this case, I don't consider it a "fall". I didn't fall. I'm still the same person I was before. I'm just aware of things now that have disturbed my soul. Yes, there are days when I am unhappy for the truth and perhaps God could be tangled up in all this. I remind myself that I shouldn't let it change who I want to be though.

[_Jersey Girl]

JAK

I have found that people such as you generally don’t understand that three-word phrase. You have never addressed it nor have others.

In my own words...

It means that if I state a thing without supplying proof, I think that my stating it makes it true.

As in "God talks to me"

In which case, I have asserted God without supplying proof of God. I assume God. I even assume that you assume God. I cannot in all intellectual honesty claim that God talks to me, if I haven't first established God. The claim that God talks to me is contingent on my first proving the existence of God. The Burden of Proof is on me to prove the existence of God by providing empirical evidence for my positive claim. If I am able to do so, I still have to prove that God talks to me. Otherwise I am using...

truth by assertion

(No applause please)

Jersey Girl
:-)

Excuse me, JAK. I haven't received my grade yet.

Jersey Girl
:-)

[_The Nehor]

JAK

I have found that people such as you generally don’t understand that three-word phrase. You have never addressed it nor have others.

In my own words...

It means that if I state a thing without supplying proof, I think that my stating it makes it true.

As in "God talks to me"

In which case, I have asserted God without supplying proof of God. I assume God. I even assume that you assume God. I cannot in all intellectual honesty claim that God talks to me, if I haven't first established God. The claim that God talks to me is contingent on my first proving the existence of God. The Burden of Proof is on me to prove the existence of God by providing empirical evidence for my positive claim. If I am able to do so, I still have to prove that God talks to me. Otherwise I am using...

truth by assertion

(No applause please)

Jersey Girl
:-)

A quibble. Wouldn't God talking to you be evidence for God?

[_JAK]

JAK

I have found that people such as you generally don’t understand that three-word phrase. You have never addressed it nor have others.

In my own words...

It means that if I state a thing without supplying proof, I think that my stating it makes it true.

As in "God talks to me"

In which case, I have asserted God without supplying proof of God. I assume God. I even assume that you assume God. I cannot in all intellectual honesty claim that God talks to me, if I haven't first established God. The claim that God talks to me is contingent on my first proving the existence of God. The Burden of Proof is on me to prove the existence of God by providing empirical evidence for my positive claim. If I am able to do so, I still have to prove that God talks to me. Otherwise I am using...

truth by assertion

(No applause please)

Jersey Girl
:-)

I am just now reading this, Jersey Girl. Others have posted to you and this will show a long way from where you originally placed it.

Second, you actually are addressing what I contended others had not. And they had not. But you are.

I do applaud. You have spoken well, with thought, and with directness.

Websites you might see:

God Is Not Great: How Religion Poisons Everything, a book by Christopher Hitchens

Article by Michael Novak

excerpts from Christopher Hitchens' new book

Brief Biography of Christopher Hitchens

I think you do understand the phrase based on your response here. The phrase is by no means limited to Christianity or any of its many organized groups and not so organized groups.

Before genuine information became important to humans, those with power such as kings and emperors along with their subordinates controlled what public communication there was. Spoken sounds became language in a primitive way before the intellectuals actually used art and ultimately early language to communicate. And early on, only a most limited number of people could read or write.

The printing press changed that. Education changed that.

People viewed as with authority or power could get away with truth by assertion and remain unquestioned. The entire movement of the Protestant Reformation is a result of questioning. And as more and more questions are/were raised, the Protestant Reformation continues. In a previous post on this forum (which is much too time consuming to link), I posted multiple links to the history of these (now many) groups.

One of the things Hitchens points to (among many) is that the nature of religion is that it must be right. That is, it does not yield to tolerance. It cannot yield to tolerance.

The moment any religious doctrine yields to tolerance, it admits tacitly or actually that another view which is different might be right.

And so, religion, by necessity (self preservation) must deny any validity, truth, credibility, etc. in a competing different religion.

Hitchens expresses the analysis far better than I in his book which is linked above.

But you are correct as you offer thought and others previously had not which I had read. And I must say, it’s very difficult or laborious for one to know what has been said as a result of how this particular bb functions.

JAK