There's not a damn Mormon on here worth engaging with...

[_LifeOnaPlate]

---What you can make is that I'm not all that familiar with your posts. Maybe you're the one devout Mormon on here who doesn't sound like an asylum inmate, I don't know.

I think I found the solution to your problem of not finding a damn Mormon on here worth engaging with.(With?)

You aren't paying enough attention. (That, and almost no Mormon is worth engaging.)

[_Tal Bachman]

Coggins7

If you can show that you are capable of having a rational (respectful of the constraints of empiricism and logic) conversation about Mormonism by proposing a test or two whereby, in your view, Mormonism could be reliably falsified, then I'll give you a whirl. If you can't, then you've made it obvious upfront that you're not willing to have, or capable of having, a "rational" conversation on this topic at all, and so it would be totally pointless to spend my time trying.

Ball's in your court:

If Mormonism were a fraud, how would you know?

[_Coggins7]

There are several, but pehaps it is the case that serious engagement is not your forté? I don't perceive that to be the case. bc is an intelligent and knowledgeable individual regarding Church doctrine and teachings. His various theories regarding tertiary issues relative to such doctrines exist at the periphery of LDS theology, and he, as I, is trying to work through some of the stickier problems, such as BYs teachings about Adam, the nature of the creation etc. None of it affects core, settled doctrine. Just because he flummoxes you periodically is no reason to label his arguments "pure nonsense" You're problem Tal, is that you just don't get it. I don't go to Church except periodically, but I wouldn't call myself "inactive" in the traditional sense. I'm active in missionary work, I do my home teaching, and work on myself in the meantime. I do read Church books on occasion, but most of my reading is not directly Church related, and when it is, in all likelihood it will be the scriptures. The Church has made perfect sense to me since a very young age, and my testimony of its truth predates even that. I have done far, far more analysis Tal, of Church doctrine, philosophy, and teachings, than you ever have and, given your generally intellectually shallow approach to Gospel teachings and issues surrounding them, it would not surprise me to see this state of affairs continue indefinitely into the future (as your thread here proves). Based upon a retrospective of your posts and general approach since you begin posting here, its quite possible that I've forgotten more Church doctrine, and the philosophical implications of them, then you've ever known. Wade really, really, sends you folks off because he carefully and critically explores and questions the psychological crux of anti-Mormon criticism--a perfectly justifiable exercise, but one that's bound to start the juices flowing, especially among the exmos (for what are, to me, fairly obvious reasons). No one dare look at the Gorgon directly. I dare you Tal, to give it a try with me. I defy you to do it. Let's see if your money is where your mouth is. I've said over and over again that it is the critics here who have created a desert for serious, ratoinal debate, and I've shown again and again that I'm quite willing to enter into such discussion if others will meet me halfway. Let's see if you're up to it. Start a thread. Then, when Scratch, or someone of that ilk, starts to derail it, we can move it somewhere else until that gets derailed. My personal email is coggins59@alltel.net We can discuss the issues you have privately if you wish (interestingly, for all my infamy here, no one has yet emailed me to discuss things one on one). I don't duck and cover like Scratch and hide behind a veil of anonymity. I'm right here.

Its us that can't engage in serious, rational debate?

[_asbestosman]

I missed the memo where "wet exmo" was defined. Did Abman actually give it up?

Remember the lame term of dry Mormon? This is going the other way, the correct way...

Hand abestosman a towel and viola, he be exmo.

Frankly I resent that. Guess I'll have to work harder on becoming more like Gaz and Nehor. I wish to consider myself faithful LDS, but perhaps my cynical outlook on life is getting too much in the way.

[_Coggins7]

Coggins7

If you can show that you are capable of having a rational (respectful of the constraints of empiricism and logic) conversation about Mormonism by proposing a test or two whereby, in your view, Mormonism could be reliably falsified, then I'll give you a whirl. If you can't, then you've made it obvious upfront that you're not willing to have, or capable of having, a "rational" conversation on this topic at all, and so it would be totally pointless to spend my time trying.

Ball's in your court:

If Mormonism were a fraud, how would you know?

In other words, here's the chess board. Tal has all his pieces, but now he's going to make some changes. First he's going to put some of my squares off limits. My pieces won't be able to use those. Next, I'm not going to be able to use some of my pieces at all. I can't use my Rooks, and my queen can only move three squares at a time. There, now we're ready to play.

Does anyone else here see the obvious transparency of this? Tal wants a debate in which he has total control of its terms and boundaries. You know what, I might bite, because I don't think Tal is really as deeply attuned to the rigors of philosophical thought as he thinks he is.

On the other hand, here's the problem with his rules: he wishes to treat the Gospel and its claims as a scientific, empirical problem that can be solved by recourse to the tools of science and philosophical argument. The bare fact that the Gospel is not, per se, amenable to that kind of analysis (albeit some of its historical claims and cosmological claims are, in principle amenable to this kind of approach), delimits the degree to which a defender of the Church can make his case.

I might give it a try just to see if Tal can hang it there for more than to or three posts for a change.

[_antishock8]

Its us that can't engage in serious, rational debate?

Pfft. Listen, Mojo. As soon as you produce something with Reformed Egyptian on it I'll start offering up serious discussion, but until then...

[_Coggins7]

Its us that can't engage in serious, rational debate?

Pfft. Listen, Mojo. As soon as you produce something with Reformed Egyptian on it I'll start offering up serious discussion, but until then...

Isn't there a curfew around here for people under the age of 18?

[_antishock8]

Here, let me translate that into Reformed Egyptian and then back into English for you, Mojo:


Isn't there a curfew around here for people under the age of 18?

*translates into R.E.*

/.7 -=' ^J_< /.k Z:'

*translates back into English*

And it came to pass, that a curfew was imposed of those who were of the ages 18 years and under?

[_guy sajer]

Maaaaaaaan, there ain't a damn thing about Mormonism that makes sense. Is it any surprise that anyone who adheres to it post-Internet doesn't exactly seem like the most rational person on Earth? You have to contort your mind into a million little knots in order to make Mormonism sensible.

not one? Hardly. From a religous standpoint there is plenty that makes sense. Unless you think are religion is nonsensical.

I gotta agree with Sethbag here. There is much in Mormonism that makes sense, but this tends strongly be be ideas/teachings that are broadly shared across society. Outside of this, with regards to the peculiarities of Mormon doctrine, little makes sense from outside the Mormon cosmos.

And yes, I do think religion is, for the most part, nonsensical.

Many, many religious adherents are reasonable, rational people, much like you Jason, but they beliefs they cling to are, sadly, nonsensical.

I ask in all sincerity, for example, why is the notion of a all supreme being (perfected immortal or disembodied spirit) whom no one has seen or heard (or whom no one can prove he/she has seen or heard), but who controls everything, including the minute details of individual's lives, any more reasonable or rational, ex ante, than leprechauns, fairies, or other magical creatures?

Other than, that is, that is what one has been raised to believe, or that is the belief tradition of the society in which one lives?

I am certain that it would be possible, as an experiment, to create a society that believes fervently in leprechauns as fervently as religious adherents believe in God. That such a society exists, that its members hold these beliefs as "self-evident," as it were, would this make their belief any more reasonable or rational to you believers out there?

Why don't believers admit the obvious--that their beliefs are are result of upbringing and culture (specifically--Mormonism--or culturally--Christianity) and not the result of anything remotely resembling a valid, legitimate, objective search for truth?

If, Jason, you had been born K-Dub, you'd probably be on a skeptic J-Dub discussion board going through the same motions.

Once one admits that their beliefs are culturally determined, and that the search for truth can really begin, it is quite an exhilarating experience. It beats the hell over torturing oneself to justify a belief in a religion to which one belongs not by choice but by a mere accident of birth.

[_moksha]

I think I did mix up Moksha and Harmony. My apologies Moksha.

Well, that's better. I thought I might have to drop my fig leaf for a minute there.

Tal, you might want to reflect back on that line of wisdom from the Desiderata, that says there will always be those lesser and greater than yourself, but they all have their story and you should listen to them.

Are you frustrated that we do not all give stereotypical answers?