Believing in Mormonism requires believing in....

The catch-all forum for general topics and debates. Minimal moderation. Rated PG to PG-13.
Post Reply
_Coggins7
_Emeritus
Posts: 3679
Joined: Fri Nov 03, 2006 12:25 am

Post by _Coggins7 »

To be a fully believing Mormon, one must believe:

1. in magic rocks


No such claim is made within the Church


2. in magic underwear that can protect the wearer


No such doctrine in the Church


3. God has a system of passwords and secret handshakes to get into heaven



Common to the Mysteries virtually everywhere throughout time. Nothing unusual in this


4. God sent an angel with a flaming sword to make Joseph Smith practice polygamy



Showing that it wasn't easy to accept, it was one of the "hard doctrines".


5. God demanded that Joseph Smith marry women who already had husbands



You're just upset that you couldn't join in all the fun, Beastie.


6. a massive Judeo-Christian culture inhabited ancient Mesoamerica and yet disappeared in an Atlantis way without the slightest trace



This is pure posturing; Latin America is bristling with the evidence. Strange that Beastie refuses to see what is before her own face. Or is it so strange? The real agenda here animates the interpretation of data and what counts as evidence.
The face of sin today often wears the mask of tolerance.


- Thomas S. Monson
_beastie
_Emeritus
Posts: 14216
Joined: Thu Nov 02, 2006 2:26 am

Post by _beastie »

Coggins,

You are a PERFECT example of what it takes to be a fully believing Mormon. You can even say things like this:


This is pure posturing; Latin America is bristling with the evidence. Strange that Beastie refuses to see what is before her own face. Or is it so strange? The real agenda here animates the interpretation of data and what counts as evidence.


with a straight face! LOL! Not even the apologists make this claim, coggie. Their claim is that one would not be able to "recognize" the traces of Judeo Christianity since the Lehites were completely subsumed into the larger culture.

If Latin America is actually "bristling" with evidence of a massive Judeo Christian culture, then please, please provide it. You will be informing experts such as Brant Gardner and John Clark as well, since apparently they don't know about it either. So don't hold back!
We hate to seem like we don’t trust every nut with a story, but there’s evidence we can point to, and dance while shouting taunting phrases.

Penn & Teller

http://www.mormonmesoamerica.com
_Coggins7
_Emeritus
Posts: 3679
Joined: Fri Nov 03, 2006 12:25 am

Post by _Coggins7 »

That a penis is actually a factory that must not be touched.


I'm sure you have little trouble on this wise Infy.


That you should tie your hand to the bedpost to keep from touching your factory.


Oh come on, let's get kinky and tie both hands to the bedpost...


God hates intellectuals, feminists and homosexuals. They are his biggest threat.


Sources? The Church does teach that God "hates" certain ideologies, ideas, and practices, but not individuals. As to intellectuals, the Church has had some of the best of this class, and is more pro-education than any other organization, religious or secular, that I can think of. How severe can one's detachment from reality be?


God hates criticism - keep it to yourself or be disciplined.



No such doctrine. Public criticism of the Church or its leaders, at least at a certain level of animosity and subversion, is excommunicatable to be sure. But of course, the Church, as a private organization, reserves the right to terminate its association with those openly hostile to it. Get over it.



Even if you are disciplined, God still wants his money. Put it aside so when He lets you come back, you can pay it back.


No such doctrine in the Church.

Let's play "how many lies can we tell in one post". Fun, isn't it?
Last edited by Dr. Sunstoned on Sun Mar 09, 2008 5:36 pm, edited 1 time in total.
The face of sin today often wears the mask of tolerance.


- Thomas S. Monson
_harmony
_Emeritus
Posts: 18195
Joined: Fri Oct 27, 2006 1:35 am

Post by _harmony »

beastie wrote:
Obviously not. And the "magic rocks", at least the Urim and Thummim, were taken from the Old Testament, like quite a lot of the rest. They were a Jewish device. Joseph usurped them in order to give his story more believability.


I'm not sure what you're obviously not referenced. Was it towards "does the gag reflex ever kick in"? It does seem that it only kicks in with a very small minority of human beings.


Something is getting in the way of me being clear. I'll blame it on daylight savings time and that lost hour of sleep. I'll be coherent again sometime in October.

yes, the "Obviously not" referenced the gag reflex question. If by human beings you mean only the human beings alive today, then we weren't talking about the same human beings. I was thinking of human beings as everyone who has ever existed, not just the ones alive today.

Joseph Smith utilized the urim and thummim to give a biblical reference, but he was using magic rocks for treasure digging long before that time. And it's THOSE magic rocks that ought to trigger the gag reflex, in my opinion. Yes, we live in a culture saturated in Judeo-Christian thought, so the magic rocks of the Urim and Thummim aren't going to seem ridiculous. But taken outside THEIR cultural background - ie, nineteenth century folk magic of New England - Joseph Smith' treasure digging magic rocks seem ridiculous. THAT is why they are treated like "meat" and hidden behind the "milk".


And yet the U&T were ancient, so there exists a precedent for Joseph's use of magic rocks. (Please keep in mind I'm not one of those that adheres unwaveringly to the whole rock in the hat thing, so I'm not going to be able to argue effectively on their behalf). I think Joseph hit upon a device that worked to teach the concepts he (and God, in my opinion) wanted taught. That the church today takes the whole thing literally is both self-serving and simplistic.

God himself is impossible, yet necessary to man's development. But that's not what I was getting at. My point was much more shallow. We don't discuss Mormons and Mormon culture so much as we discuss atheists.


Of course I disagree with your first sentence here. I think the god concept is entirely unnecessary to man's development.


Ancient man had no access to telescopes, space satellites, algorithms, or even an abacus. Ancient man had to explain the unexplainable in his world somehow. It should come as no surprise that an unexplainable God arose from such a beginning. Even in the face of science, some concepts that evolved in connection with "God" have benefit today.

In regards to your second point, the OP was quite specifically about Mormonism. It only becomes about atheism when posters respond by saying Mormonism is no worse than any religion in general. The only response to that, for an atheist, is to say: d'uh. And then it becomes about atheism. So if theists don't want to discussion to become about atheism, they ought to avoid that train of thought altogether.


I don't know if Scottie is a theist or not. But he did not say that Mormonism is no worse than any religion in general. He said Mormonism is no worse than Christianity. Christianity is not the only religion out there, so why would an atheist immediately respond with "d'uh" and then the discussion devolve into a discussion of atheism... again? Scottie's comment did not take the discussion out of a religious context; he actually framed it quite succinctly inside a religious context, albeit a wider context than Mormonism. We could bring the Quoran into the discussion too.

My point is, Mormonism is a subset of Christianity, which is a subset of religion in general. Rather than discussing Mormonism in any context, we devolve to discussing whether God exists at all, in virtually every single thread. The board is becoming an atheist board. I know. It was a shallow comment on my part. My bad.

*edited for clarity
Last edited by Yahoo MMCrawler [Bot] on Sun Mar 09, 2008 6:27 pm, edited 1 time in total.
_Coggins7
_Emeritus
Posts: 3679
Joined: Fri Nov 03, 2006 12:25 am

Post by _Coggins7 »

[quote]You are a PERFECT example of what it takes to be a fully believing Mormon. You can even say things like this:


[quote]This is pure posturing; Latin America is bristling with the evidence. Strange that Beastie refuses to see what is before her own face. Or is it so strange? The real agenda here animates the interpretation of data and what counts as evidence.
[/quote]
with a straight face! LOL! Not even the apologists make this claim, coggie. Their claim is that one would not be able to "recognize" the traces of Judeo Christianity since the Lehites were completely subsumed into the larger culture.

If Latin America is actually "bristling" with evidence of a massive Judeo Christian culture, then please, please provide it. You will be informing experts such as Brant Gardner and John Clark as well, since apparently they don't know about it either. So don't hold back![/quote]






To be both a fool and a knave is a substantial accomplishment Beatie. My hats off to you. Except for a few loose ends, primarily the anachronistic animals mentioned in the Book of Mormon, everything Joseph claimed, in general pattern, regarding the ancient Americas has been shown to be correct. From the megalithic architecture, to extensive roads, to cement and the use of metals, to the use of certain grains and fabrics similar to those of the old world, Joseph hit bullseyes again and again.

The Judeo/Christian elements may very well be staring us right in the face, but of course, since we cannot read most of the languages in which this evidence would have been preserved, you win the argument by default. Amerindian and Latin American Indian mythology and origin legends provide pregnant similarities as well to the Book of Mormon narrative.

You may be educated Beatie, but with regard to the Book of Mormon, you function not as a scholar seeking the truth, but as an ideologist, and ideologists do not seek the truth, but seek to fit reality to theory and personal agenda. Whatever you scholarly abilities, you do not seem able to take a balanced or nuance view of the evidence, as this would rain on your personal parade relative to the Church.

So you come here and strike a pose of certainty about things that are very much in play historically and interpretationally, and pretend to knowledge you frankly do not have.

Keep up the pose.
The face of sin today often wears the mask of tolerance.


- Thomas S. Monson
_beastie
_Emeritus
Posts: 14216
Joined: Thu Nov 02, 2006 2:26 am

Post by _beastie »

Beastie:
To be a fully believing Mormon, one must believe:

1. in magic rocks


coggie’s reply:
No such claim is made within the Church


OF COURSE no such claim is made within the Church. But it is a logical inevitability, as my previous posts demonstrate. Joseph Smith translated the Book of Mormon through the same process, using the same stone, that he used to find buried treasures – with a magic rock. There is no logically viable method by which you can deny the magic rock/treasure digging, while accepting the translation of the Book of Mormon.

Beastie:
2. in magic underwear that can protect the wearer

coggie:
No such doctrine in the Church

I’m not talking about “doctrines”. I’m talking about what is logically required to be a fully believing Mormon.

Beastie;
3. God has a system of passwords and secret handshakes to get into heaven


coggie:
Common to the Mysteries virtually everywhere throughout time. Nothing unusual in this

Sure, coggie. Nothing that would make most folks stare. Don’t get out in the larger culture much, do you?
Beastie:
4. God sent an angel with a flaming sword to make Joseph Smith practice polygamy


coggie:
Showing that it wasn't easy to accept, it was one of the "hard doctrines".


Indeed. Yet your next reply seems a bit contradictory….

Beastie:
God demanded that Joseph Smith marry women who already had husbands


coggie:
You're just upset that you couldn't join in all the fun, Beastie.


Fun? I thought it was “hard doctrine”. Now you’re saying it was “fun” some people got to “join in.” Hmmm. Hmmm. Slip of the tongue, no doubt.
We hate to seem like we don’t trust every nut with a story, but there’s evidence we can point to, and dance while shouting taunting phrases.

Penn & Teller

http://www.mormonmesoamerica.com
_beastie
_Emeritus
Posts: 14216
Joined: Thu Nov 02, 2006 2:26 am

Post by _beastie »

yes, the "Obviously not" referenced the gag reflex question. If by human beings you mean only the human beings alive today, then we weren't talking about the same human beings. I was thinking of human beings as everyone who has ever existed, not just the ones alive today.


That's what I was thinking, too. We agree on this point. I thought we did, just wanted to make sure.

And yet the U&T were ancient, so there exists a precedent for Joseph's use of magic rocks. (Please keep in mind I'm not one of those that adheres unwaveringly to the whole rock in the hat thing, so I'm going to be able to argue effectively on their behalf). I think Joseph hit upon a device that worked to teach the concepts he (and God, in my opinion) wanted taught. That the church today takes the whole thing literally is both self-serving and simplistic.


My point was that to accept that this "device" worked logically entails accepting that the device also worked when Joseph used it to find buried treasure.

Ancient man had no access to telescopes, space satellites, algorithms, or even an abacus. Ancient man had to explain the unexplainable in his world somehow. It should come as no surprise that an unexplainable God arose from such a beginning. Even in the face of science, some concepts that evolved in connection with "God" have benefit today.


Agreed.

I don't know if Scottie is a theist or not. But he did not say that Mormonism is no worse than any religion in general. He said Mormonism is no worse than Christianity. Christianity is not the only religion out there, so why would an atheist immediately respond with "d'uh" and then the discussion devolve into a discussion of atheism... again? Scottie's comment did not take the discussion out of a religious context; he actually framed it quite succinctly inside a religious context, albeit a wider context than Mormonism. We could bring the Quoran into the discussion too.


My response to scottie was specific to christianity and Mormonism in particular.

My point is, Mormonism is a subset of Christianity, which is a subset of religion in general. Rather than discussing Mormonism in any context, we devolve to discussing whether God exists at all, in virtually every single thread. The board is becoming an atheist board. I know. It was a shallow comment on my part. My bad.


I'm not sure that it devolved into that until you brought it up. ;) But yes, it seems an inevitable part of these discussions.
We hate to seem like we don’t trust every nut with a story, but there’s evidence we can point to, and dance while shouting taunting phrases.

Penn & Teller

http://www.mormonmesoamerica.com
_beastie
_Emeritus
Posts: 14216
Joined: Thu Nov 02, 2006 2:26 am

Post by _beastie »

To be both a fool and a knave is a substantial accomplishment Beatie. My hats off to you. Except for a few loose ends, primarily the anachronistic animals mentioned in the Book of Mormon, everything Joseph claimed, in general pattern, regarding the ancient Americas has been shown to be correct. From the megalithic architecture, to extensive roads, to cement and the use of metals, to the use of certain grains and fabrics similar to those of the old world, Joseph hit bullseyes again and again.

The Judeo/Christian elements may very well be staring us right in the face, but of course, since we cannot read most of the languages in which this evidence would have been preserved, you win the argument by default. Amerindian and Latin American Indian mythology and origin legends provide pregnant similarities as well to the Book of Mormon narrative.

You may be educated Beatie, but with regard to the Book of Mormon, you function not as a scholar seeking the truth, but as an ideologist, and ideologists do not seek the truth, but seek to fit reality to theory and personal agenda. Whatever you scholarly abilities, you do not seem able to take a balanced or nuance view of the evidence, as this would rain on your personal parade relative to the Church.

So you come here and strike a pose of certainty about things that are very much in play historically and interpretationally, and pretend to knowledge you frankly do not have.

Keep up the pose.


First, it's funny that someone who had to furiously backpedal the way you just did is lecturing me about "poses".

Heh.

Second, the author of the Book of Mormon - whoever that was - included information that portrayed exactly how nineteenth century New Englanders pictured ancient America, including Mesoamerica, where notable ruins had already been discovered. There was nothing new or radical in the Book of Mormon for the time period. If any of those became "hits", the credit is not due to the author of the Book of Mormon, but to nineteenth century conceptions about ancient America, some of which were right, and some of which were wrong.

Now you're backpedaling, as I already noted. My point was quite specific - that a massive Judeo-christian culture existed in ancient Mesoamerica and disappeared without a trace. Now you seem to be conceding that I'm actually correct on that point. Mighty big of you.

But "keep up the pose" that you actually possess enough background information on the topic to discuss it intelligently.
We hate to seem like we don’t trust every nut with a story, but there’s evidence we can point to, and dance while shouting taunting phrases.

Penn & Teller

http://www.mormonmesoamerica.com
_Coggins7
_Emeritus
Posts: 3679
Joined: Fri Nov 03, 2006 12:25 am

Post by _Coggins7 »

OF COURSE no such claim is made within the Church. But it is a logical inevitability, as my previous posts demonstrate. Joseph Smith translated the Book of Mormon through the same process, using the same stone, that he used to find buried treasures – with a magic rock. There is no logically viable method by which you can deny the magic rock/treasure digging, while accepting the translation of the Book of Mormon.


You're problem here is not with logic, but with the semantic games you are playing. There is no claim of the use of "magic" rocks in the Church because the Church does not believe in magic as commonly understood. This is just a smarmy secularist verbal conceit, not a serious argument, and it assiduously avoids engaging precisely what LDS actually do understand Priesthood Power to be.


I’m not talking about “doctrines”. I’m talking about what is logically required to be a fully believing Mormon.


No, you are not. You're logical argument is predicated upon personal and idiosyncratic definitions of terms that are not harmonizable with LDS understandings of the same terms and which you have provided no logical ground upon which to accept as correct.


I said:

Common to the Mysteries virtually everywhere throughout time. Nothing unusual in this



Sure, coggie. Nothing that would make most folks stare. Don’t get out in the larger culture much, do you?
Beastie:



Beastie here retreats to the first refuge of a secularist liberal: the popularity test. No comment is necessary in refuting such nostrums, nostrums that have been discredited for thousands of years. across many great religious and philsophical systems.



Fun? I thought it was “hard doctrine”. Now you’re saying it was “fun” some people got to “join in.” Hmmm. Hmmm. Slip of the tongue, no doubt.



No, just sarcasm.
The face of sin today often wears the mask of tolerance.


- Thomas S. Monson
_Coggins7
_Emeritus
Posts: 3679
Joined: Fri Nov 03, 2006 12:25 am

Post by _Coggins7 »

OF COURSE no such claim is made within the Church. But it is a logical inevitability, as my previous posts demonstrate. Joseph Smith translated the Book of Mormon through the same process, using the same stone, that he used to find buried treasures – with a magic rock. There is no logically viable method by which you can deny the magic rock/treasure digging, while accepting the translation of the Book of Mormon.


You're problem here is not with logic, but with the semantic games you are playing. There is no claim of the use of "magic" rocks in the Church because the Church does not believe in magic as commonly understood. This is just a smarmy secularist verbal conceit, not a serious argument, and it assiduously avoids engaging precisely what LDS actually do understand Priesthood Power to be.


I’m not talking about “doctrines”. I’m talking about what is logically required to be a fully believing Mormon.


No, you are not. You're logical argument is predicated upon personal and idiosyncratic definitions of terms that are not harmonizable with LDS understandings of the same terms and which you have provided no logical ground upon which to accept as correct.


I said:

Common to the Mysteries virtually everywhere throughout time. Nothing unusual in this



Sure, coggie. Nothing that would make most folks stare. Don’t get out in the larger culture much, do you?
Beastie:



Beastie here retreats to the first refuge of a secularist liberal: the popularity test. No comment is necessary in refuting such nostrums, nostrums that have been discredited for thousands of years. across many great religious and philosophical systems.



Fun? I thought it was “hard doctrine”. Now you’re saying it was “fun” some people got to “join in.” Hmmm. Hmmm. Slip of the tongue, no doubt.



No, just sarcasm.
The face of sin today often wears the mask of tolerance.


- Thomas S. Monson
Post Reply