Need help: I don't know if I'm a "Mormon" or not.

[_Livingstone22]

Livingstone22 stated:
You just bypassed that I said I was an Agnostic in the philosophical sense. A man named T. X. Huxley is responsible for the common usage of the term among English speakers, namely, the suspended belief of God. Philosophers such as Protagoras, Herbert Spencer, and others promulgated the relation of the term to be used with respect to the unknowable. Here, in this sense, Agnosticism is used apart from any belief or disbelief--but to the admitting of the inability of knowing God does or does not exist (Reese, Dictionary of Philosophy and Religion. I thought I made that clear, but hopefully this will shed more light on what I meant. Thanks.

How does this assist in solving your dilemma? That is, how does your statement reduce or mitigate your question?

JAK

It does not, but it clarifies your assertion that I was confused in what I was saying.

[Guest]

Livingstone22 stated:
It does not, but it clarifies your assertion that I was confused in what I was saying.

Well, you appear confused. Your extended definition not withstanding. Attempting to claim belief in God and in the same post claiming to be agnostic indicates your confusion.

Definitions are to be understood -- not debated.

You can construct any definition of exclusion/inclusion you wish. That construction doesn’t assist you.

agnosticism

Religion

You offer no refutation of my analysis.

To wit:

The burden of proof always lies with the one (or those) who make assertions. You have NO RESPONSIBILITY to attempt to prove a negative. Generally, a negative is not proved. Hence, failure of an affirmative claim to prove that claim reliable, one should disregard the claim.

You titled:
Need help: I don't know if I'm a "Mormon" or not.

JAK

[_Livingstone22]

Livingstone22 stated:
It does not, but it clarifies your assertion that I was confused in what I was saying.

Well, you appear confused. Your extended definition not withstanding. Attempting to claim belief in God and in the same post claiming to be [b]agnostic indicates your confusion.

Definitions are to be understood -- not debated.

You can construct any definition of exclusion/inclusion you wish. That construction doesn’t assist you.

agnosticism

Religion

You offer no refutation of my analysis.

To wit:

The burden of proof always lies with the one (or those) who make assertions. You have NO RESPONSIBILITY to attempt to prove a negative. Generally, a negative is not proved. Hence, failure of an affirmative claim to prove that claim reliable, one should disregard the claim.

You titled:
Need help: I don't know if I'm a "Mormon" or not.

JAK

Oh, sorry. I was under the impression that you were saying that being agnostic and believing in God was an oxymoron; that's what I wanted to clarify that the definition I used noted that the two are very well able to be concurrently true.

see here

[_JAK]

Livingstone22 stated:
I'm not sure what you mean. If a claim is not falsified, when is it then not still a relevant possibility? (at least to a philosophical agnostic like myself) Also: as to unique doctrines, I like them not because they were pulled out of somebody's hat (well, perhaps they came from Joesph Smith's hat :), but that there is actually some good reasoning that I have applied to their possibilities. For example: the doctrines regarding spiritual matter/spirit bodies is something I have been studying a lot recently. It is the belief of "Materialist Dualism," as it is called in the philosophy of mind, and it is rather unique as most dualists subscribe to "Cartesian Dualism." On of the few philosophers and theologians who had this view in recent times is a man by the name of Orson Pratt--who influenced Mormonism greatly. My understanding at this point is that if one believes that the immortality, than Materialism is a better view. That's what I hold, and Mormonism is quite unique to other contemporary Christian denominations in that regard.

How to be more clear, I don’t know. Evidence is critical. Hearsay or claims even of a few people who join to espouse claims should be viewed with skepticism. Doctrine over discovery leads to false conclusions. Religion of any kind relies upon doctrine. That a particular doctrine is different does not justify its acceptance. You appear to argue this latter in the final sentence above.

While Mormonism is a late comer, philosopher/theologian Paul Tillich (1886-1965) is even later. Sidney Hook (1902-1989) said of Paul Tillich the following:

“With amazing courage Tillich boldly says that the God of the multitudes does not exist, and further, that to believe in His existence is to believe in an idol and ultimately to embrace superstition. God cannot be an entity among entities, even the highest. He is being-in-itself. In this sense Tillich's God is like the God of Spinoza and the God of Hegel. Both Spinoza and Hegel were denounced for their atheism by the theologians of the past because their God was not a Being or an Entity. Tillich, however, is one of the foremost theologians of our time.”

Absent evidence for any characterization of immortality, the claim should be rejected. The evolution of religious myth is not at an end. And Mormonism along with other religious doctrines hardly represents the latest in philosophical/theological evolution of thought.

“In their book Fashionable Nonsense (published in the UK as Intellectual Impostures) the two physicists Alan Sokal and Jean Bricmont have criticized falsifiability on the grounds that it does not accurately describe the way science really works. They argue that theories are used because of their successes, not because of the failures of other theories. Their discussion of Popper, falsifiability and the philosophy of science comes in a chapter entitled "Intermezzo," which contains an attempt to make clear their own views of what constitutes truth, in contrast with the extreme epistemological relativism of postmodernism.” (Wikipedia)

Livingstone22 stated:
My understanding at this point is that if one believes that the immortality, than Materialism is a better view.

Why a “better view”? You offer no analysis to support the conclusion. Given part of your analysis, you have a larger issue than what you describe. No evidence for a theistic entity has been confirmed. It relies on doctrine/dogma of ancient time. That time was when constructed stories (assertions) were sufficient to satisfy many or the masses. It still satisfies the masses (we could argue). That fact does not support the conclusions of theists. It remains truth by assertion. --not good enough at today’s level of information.

JAK

[_ajax18]

I would think the only people who have a say in that would be God and you...certainly not random people on a message board.

What about a bishop or Church authority? I always thought the Church defined what you had to believe to be a member by throwing you out if you didn't meet the criteria. Until he does that, I guess anything goes.

[_harmony]

There is nothing inherently wrong with being confused.

[_Polygamy Porter]

You left off a choice of IDIOT.

Any adult or older teenager who joins the Mormons is clearly an idiot.

[_Roger Morrison]

Hi JAK, you said:

...larger issue than what you describe. No evidence for a theistic entity has been confirmed. It relies on doctrine/dogma of ancient time. That time was when constructed stories (assertions) were sufficient to satisfy many or the masses. It still satisfies the masses (we could argue). That fact does not support the conclusions of theists. It remains truth by assertion. --not good enough at today’s level of information. (Bold added by RM)

In this i agree. This is the crucible in which theistic-religion, as anciently/currently professed, has cooked its goose to a blacked indigestible clunker... Is this to say, "Jesus, never left a 'saving-message'?" No, it is (i am) not saying that.

What i suggest: IF/WHEN the need of individuals to gather in groups to lament the failure of "God" to rescue them from mortality, and the responsibility of accepting their stewardship of being "...(y)our brothers keeper..." is seen as escapism, THEN the real philosophical seeds of Christianism will sink roots through the "stony-ground" of religon, on which they were cast.

The TRUTH, the TRUTH!! RELIGION HAS FAILED ITS PURPOSE IF ONE BELIEVES, IN ANY WAY, THE TEACHINGS OF LOVE, FORGIVENESS AND JUSTICE BY THE MAN TRADITIONAL CHRISTIANITY MISREPRESENTS BY THE MOMENT...

Mormon or not? Irrelevant! What really matters, IMSCO: Folks who are empathetic, just, honest, caring, sharing in service of the "2-new-admonitions"... Ya know what i'm saying? Warm regards, Roger

[_Livingstone22]

Okay, so the "poll" was really just for fun, I'm not going to take stranger's advice on what I choose to believe or do. So why this topic at all? I think as individuals, we all have a want and need to understand our personal and cultural identities. It is something that helps define our values and acquaintances--as well it gives our lives particular meaning. Not that one must ally themselves with a particular religious group or organization to have meaning in their lives, but within the cultural definitions we have set within our world, we find better understanding of ourselves and our places in the world/universe around us.

--Thank you all for your comments, Livi22 :)

[_Loquacious Lurker]

I picked "other". I think you are a New Order Mormon. Which, as near as I can tell, means anything a self-proclaimed "New Order Mormon" wants it to mean. "Drink coffee? No problem! I'm a NOM! Don't believe in the divinity of the LDS church? No problem! I'm a NOM!"