Agreeing to Disagree

[_beastie]

And what I really don't understand is why anyone who feels personally attacked when the LDS church is criticized would keep coming to a site where they KNOW it's going to be criticized. Is it a form of masochism, or perhaps the speculated upon persecution complex?

[_Ray A]

In order for claims to have credibility they require evidence. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.

Your comment does not reflect what I stated. Here, I have added dimension to the comment.

Anyone can make a claim. For that claim to have credibility, it requires evidence which is transparent, open to examination, and open to skeptical review.

For example, your computer works and the Internet works as a result of applied information and knowledge which meets all three of the criteria mentioned here.

That's fine, JAK. I'm not talking about Mormonism or the Book of Mormon here, or whether the Garden of Eden is in Missouri.

Let me put it another way. Are you "open" on the idea of extra-terrestrial life? Or do you believe it's "impossible"?

[_Moniker]

And what I really don't understand is why anyone who feels personally attacked when the LDS church is criticized would keep coming to a site where they KNOW it's going to be criticized. Is it a form of masochism, or perhaps the speculated upon persecution complex?

Absolutely! That would be like me going on the Male Chauvinist Pigs of America board.

[_charity]

I haven't had time to read the whole thread, so perhaps someone has already pointed this out, but this is the type of behavior that, in my opinion, is part of the problem.

Charity stated:

If runtu's "agree to disagree" were without insults and mocking, I could live with that. But too often, the disagreement with LDS theology, history and leaders is couched in the most defaming terms possible.

So far, so good. But then she can't stop there:

2 Ne. 10: 16 Wherefore, he that fighteth against Zion, both Jew and Gentile, both bond and free, both male and female, shall perish; for they are they who are the whore of all the earth; for they who are not for me are against me, saith our God.

Are you KIDDING me??? You complain about "defaming terms" and then proceed to share a scripture that states those who are against the LDS church are "WHORES OF THE EARTH"?

Do you imagine that just because your statement is couched in RELIGION that it is not defaming, insulting, and, frankly, obscene? Yes, you believe it's true, and it's your right to believe it's true, but it's not your right to throw these statements around while pretending that it's only the OTHER side doing the defaming.

Oh, for Pete's sake. The passage does NOT mention the LDS Church. Someone who has her own Meso-American website is too smart to misread a simple verse of scripture to that degree. You are just acting super outraged for effect.

There is only one group of people who will be offended by Jacob's statement. Those who really are "against" God. There is no statement in there that further defines the "whores of the earth."" So, if you are offended it is because you identify yourself as someone who fights against God. And in that case, then the scripture perfeclty fits.

[_harmony]

I haven't had time to read the whole thread, so perhaps someone has already pointed this out, but this is the type of behavior that, in my opinion, is part of the problem.

Charity stated:

If runtu's "agree to disagree" were without insults and mocking, I could live with that. But too often, the disagreement with LDS theology, history and leaders is couched in the most defaming terms possible.

So far, so good. But then she can't stop there:

2 Ne. 10: 16 Wherefore, he that fighteth against Zion, both Jew and Gentile, both bond and free, both male and female, shall perish; for they are they who are the whore of all the earth; for they who are not for me are against me, saith our God.

Are you KIDDING me??? You complain about "defaming terms" and then proceed to share a scripture that states those who are against the LDS church are "WHORES OF THE EARTH"?

Do you imagine that just because your statement is couched in RELIGION that it is not defaming, insulting, and, frankly, obscene? Yes, you believe it's true, and it's your right to believe it's true, but it's not your right to throw these statements around while pretending that it's only the OTHER side doing the defaming.

Oh, for Pete's sake. The passage does NOT mention the LDS Church. Someone who has her own Meso-American website is too smart to misread a simple verse of scripture to that degree. You are just acting super outraged for effect.

There is only one group of people who will be offended by Jacob's statement. Those who really are "against" God. There is no statement in there that further defines the "whores of the earth."" So, if you are offended it is because you identify yourself as someone who fights against God. And in that case, then the scripture perfeclty fits.

Just to offer some clarity: Actually, the scripture doesn't say "fight against God" at all. It says "fight against Zion". It might help if someone defined what is meant by "Zion" in this verse. Because Zion is usually defined as the Jews, but Mormons have tried to co-opt it to mean the LDS church. But nowhere does it say "fight against God".

[_charity]

2 Ne. 10: 16 Wherefore, he that fighteth against Zion, both Jew and Gentile, both bond and free, both male and female, shall perish; for they are they who are the whore of all the earth; for they who are not for me are against me, saith our God.

Just to offer some clarity: Actually, the scripture doesn't say "fight against God" at all. It says "fight against Zion". It might help if someone defined what is meant by "Zion" in this verse. Because Zion is usually defined as the Jews, but Mormons have tried to co-opt it to mean the LDS church. But nowhere does it say "fight against God".

Just to clear up the fog that harmony tried to lay down, please read the last phrase in the verse. I wil boldit so you will be sure you know what I am talking about.

2 Ne. 10: 16 Wherefore, he that fighteth against Zion, both Jew and Gentile, both bond and free, both male and female, shall perish; for they are they who are the whore of all the earth; for they who are not for me are against me, saith our God.

And yes, haromony, the reason we "co-opted" the word if found right in this verse where Zion is specifically stated to be independent of "Jews."

[_Dr. Shades]

Last night on the other board some folks were going on about how the flood absolutely had to be global because "the prophets said so." I noted that no LDS scripture insists on a global flood, . . .

I know this isn't where you are going with this discussion, but I'm afraid I'm gonna have to pipe in here.

Those other folks are right. According to the scriptures, the flood had to be global for three reasons:

• If it wasn't global, Noah wouldn't have built an ark. He would've just walked uphill.
• If it wasn't global, even if Noah did build an ark, he wouldn't have gathered any animals.
• If it wasn't global, when God (supposedly) put the rainbow in the sky, what, exactly, was He promising He'd never do again?

[_asbestosman]

Those other folks are right. According to the scriptures, the flood had to be global for three reasons:

• If it wasn't global, Noah wouldn't have built an ark. He would've just walked uphill.
• If it wasn't global, even if Noah did build an ark, he wouldn't have gathered any animals.
• If it wasn't global, when God (supposedly) put the rainbow in the sky, what, exactly, was He promising He'd never do again?

Maybe Noah lived on an island with creatures that could only be found there. I think the Galapogas islands might be a good candidate. Do you suppose Darwin every found any evidence of the Ark while sailing on the Beagle?

[_cacheman]

I haven't had time to read the whole thread, so perhaps someone has already pointed this out, but this is the type of behavior that, in my opinion, is part of the problem.

Charity stated:

If runtu's "agree to disagree" were without insults and mocking, I could live with that. But too often, the disagreement with LDS theology, history and leaders is couched in the most defaming terms possible.

So far, so good. But then she can't stop there:

2 Ne. 10: 16 Wherefore, he that fighteth against Zion, both Jew and Gentile, both bond and free, both male and female, shall perish; for they are they who are the whore of all the earth; for they who are not for me are against me, saith our God.

Are you KIDDING me??? You complain about "defaming terms" and then proceed to share a scripture that states those who are against the LDS church are "WHORES OF THE EARTH"?

Do you imagine that just because your statement is couched in RELIGION that it is not defaming, insulting, and, frankly, obscene? Yes, you believe it's true, and it's your right to believe it's true, but it's not your right to throw these statements around while pretending that it's only the OTHER side doing the defaming.

Oh, for Pete's sake. The passage does NOT mention the LDS Church. Someone who has her own Meso-American website is too smart to misread a simple verse of scripture to that degree. You are just acting super outraged for effect.

There is only one group of people who will be offended by Jacob's statement. Those who really are "against" God. There is no statement in there that further defines the "whores of the earth."" So, if you are offended it is because you identify yourself as someone who fights against God. And in that case, then the scripture perfeclty fits.

Actually, since you have recently provided us with your interpretation of who this scripture is referring to, then we can safely assume who you are targeting with these verses.

You've defined fighting against Christ as:

Teaching that God is only a spirit, that once saved always saved, that authority of the priesthood is not needed, that there can no longer be prophets on earth and that the scriptural canon is closed, are all fightng agaisnt Christ.

and

Those who fight against Christ's true doctrine, by teaching creeds and corruptions of the Gospel--most denominations of so-called Christianity.

You cut a pretty wide swath when defining who is "the whore of all the earth". Basically anyone or any organization that teaches anything contrary to the LDS church.

cacheman

[_JAK]

In order for claims to have credibility they require evidence. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.

Your comment does not reflect what I stated. Here, I have added dimension to the comment.

Anyone can make a claim. For that claim to have credibility, it requires evidence which is transparent, open to examination, and open to skeptical review.

For example, your computer works and the Internet works as a result of applied information and knowledge which meets all three of the criteria mentioned here.

That's fine, JAK. I'm not talking about Mormonism or the Book of Mormon here, or whether the Garden of Eden is in Missouri.

Let me put it another way. Are you "open" on the idea of extra-terrestrial life? Or do you believe it's "impossible"?

Ray A,

Nor was I talking about “Mormonism” as you say you were not.

In addressing you remarks, I was addressing what we know and how we can know it. I used the example of your computer since the computer is our common denominator in this forum.

In your example (and a good one) of “little green men,” you present the case for evidence. If one makes a claim (for little green men), that person has the responsibility, the burden of proof for the claim.

Ray A stated:
Why "disregarded"? Even someone like Bertrand Russell said he was agnostic. Wouldn't "disregarding" something be tantamount to saying it does not, and cannot exist? Isn't it a bit presumptions for humans, a speck in the universe really, to disregard anything they can't observe? Who is to say that little green men don't live at the opposite end of the Milky Way galaxy? How can we know this isn't so?

In the questions (bold emphasis), you seem to imply that the skeptic has some responsibility to refute. He doesn’t. The affirmative claim (in your illustration) is made that little green men…. Absent evidence by the claimant, the claim should be disregarded.

“Who is to say that little green men don’t live at the opposite end of the Milky Way galaxy?” begs the question for the implied affirmative claim. It is the kind of question frequently employed in an attempt to shift the burden of proof. He who claims is obligated to prove.

Bertrand Russell wrote a number of books including “Why I Am Not a Christian.” As an agnostic (or atheist), he found (as did others) no evidence for numerous claims made by Christianity. And he did disregard claims absent evidence.

Your next statement is an incorrect interpretation.

“Wouldn’t ‘disregarding’ something be tantamount to saying it does not, and cannot exist?”

The answer is no to that full question. Open and transparent evidence, skeptical review, and testing are generally intended to establish the validity of a claim. Hence, evidence is generally affirmative.

Quality and level of evidence was referenced in my earlier post.

For example: If I say a tree has fallen in my back yard, that is not an extraordinary claim. But, it requires evidence all the same. My neighbor on the opposite side of my house cannot see the fallen tree. He comes over to the back of my house for skeptical review. If he, along with several neighbors, see evidence that my claim is accurate (they see a fallen tree), we need no further evidence. My claim has been established.

On the other hand, if I claim to have a space ship which has landed in my back yard, that’s an extraordinary claim. Again, my neighbor comes to see (skeptical review). If he sees no space ship and nothing other than a normal back yard with trees and grass, he should disregard my claim. (He might want to call mental health services for me.) The claim is not established by the one who made the claim.

Could a space ship ever land in my back yard? I don’t know. But given what I do know, the probability is so low as to be regarded as zero.

Again, absent clear, transparent evidence which is open to skeptical review by others, claims should be disregarded. And, the more extraordinary the claim, the more extraordinary the evidence required to establish such claim.

(Sorry this must be so far removed from our original discussion. Since there is no thread view on this forum, it’s just the way posts appear.)

JAK