F*** Religion.

[_JAK]

JAK,

You bet it’s a claim and an assertion! That’s what religion is all about. I believe it's a fact that Joseph Smith saw the Father although I can't prove it. That makes him special to me. That makes him special to all the other religions too.

You see, other religions (and it’s a fact) don’t share those claims, so Mormonism is special.

Paul O

Hey Paul,

“Other religions” don’t share the dogma of Roman Catholicism. Hence, one could claim Roman Catholicism is “special.” The word “special” is one which could/can be applied to anything. My children are “special.” You are “special.” My very own computer is “special.” By using such a broad idea of special, anything and everything can be characterized as “special.” It’s a mis-application of the term. One could characterize any religious dogma as “special” in that as it differs from other religious dogma, it is different. Different does not translate to “special.”

Your characterization of “special” as related to Mormon can be equality applied to any of the many Baptist religious groups or the Methodist groups, etc. Your home is “special.” My home is “special.” Hence, the adjective “special” is of no significance.

However, as you have applied “special” to Mormon, is equivalent to what we might apply to some of the many Baptist religious groups as “special.” It is to reduce “special” to a term of no value. My cat is “special.” There is NO other CAT that’s a duplicate of my cat. Thus, I can claim my cat is “special” just as you claim some version of a religion is “special.” It’s a play on words.

You’re right that religion is a “claim and assertion.” Religion is truth by assertion. Since religious assertions are lacking in consensus, religion is unreliable. Any religious dogma (including Mormon dogma) is unreliable.

Why is that? It’s because there is no genuine consensus about meaning, relevancy, and validity in matters of religion. If there were, there would be one religion. But we know there are many religions. And given any single religion, we know there are multiple interpretations of that religion.

You, Paul, have failed to address any of these issues and points of historically documented evolutions of religious dogmas. That you “can’t prove it” regarding Smith’s claims is to the point. You subscribe to a religious dogma which is truth by assertion. It is unreliable. Since all religious claims are truth by assertion, all are subject to intellectual scrutiny and skepticism. One can believe in the tooth fairy or one can believe in mythical organisms on the moon or some plant. Such belief gives no credibility to the truth by assertion claims as made by any pundits of such claims.

Paul states: You see, other religions (and it’s a fact) don’t share those claims, so Mormonism is special.

Likewise, “other religions” don’t share Roman Catholic dogma,” hence, Roman Catholic dogma is “special.”

What you do is reduce “special” to a non-descriptive term. As every religion is “special,” no religion is special. One can argue that various religions are different. Each makes different claims. Calling any of them “special” is a misnomer. They differ. They each make different claims.

Baptists (all many of them) don’t agree in claims with other denominational claims. Hence, one can claim “special” for every one of them. But, it’s a misnomer. They differ in their dogmas. The “claim” does not merit the assertion of “special.” It does not merit it any more than my spider merited it.

JAK

[_JAK]

JAK,

You bet it’s a claim and an assertion! That’s what religion is all about. I believe it's a fact that Joseph Smith saw the Father although I can't prove it. That makes him special to me. That makes him special to all the other religions too.

You see, other religions (and it’s a fact) don’t share those claims, so Mormonism is special.

Paul O

Paul stated in this post:
You bet it’s a claim and an assertion! That’s what religion is all about. I believe it's a fact that Joseph Smith saw the Father although I can't prove it. That makes him special to me. That makes him special to all the other religions too.

You see, other religions (and it’s a fact) don’t share those claims, so Mormonism is special.

Yes, religion is about “claim and assertion.” Since religions differ in their claims and assertions, they are unreliable.

You make an important point (but don’t recognize that point). Religion is about truth by assertion. That reality makes religious dogma/doctrine unreliable. What you “believe” is hardly relevant to objective, analytical analysis of evidence.

That J. smith is “special to me” (you) in no way makes him “special” to the larger conglomerate of Christian pundits.

JAK

[_EAllusion]

Yes, religion is about “claim and assertion.” Since religions differ in their claims and assertions, they are unreliable.

Awesome. So because scientific theories differ in their claims and assertions - occasionally contradicting one another - they must all be unreliable?

Since I'm fully prepared for you to now argue that scientific theories do not involve claims or assertions in a sentence that uses lots of grammatically inappropriate quotes and italics and the word "evidence" 7 times, I'll just flat point out that it doesn't follow from disagreement over assertions of facts (religious or other otherwise) that no assertion is reliably correct. In short, disagreement doesn't imply everyone is wrong or unjustified in their claims. All it implies that not everything everyone is asserting is right.

[_JohnStuartMill]

Let's see if we can rehabilitate JAK's point. What if he had instead said that "religions all use the same dubious method to get to the exclusively correct answer, but this method yields different answers, and is therefore unreliable"?

[_why me]

Both Dan and Why Me jumped on Marge at the same time. I figured Dan Peterson and Why Me are two peas in a pod. Perhaps I'm wrong, I often am.

Paul O

I never jumped on Marge. However, since she has not read the Book of Mormon and yet, comments on it as if she is an expert, I saw a contradiction. And I think that by not reading it, she renders her comments about the Book of Mormon amatuerish.

Marge has her own ideas and it is not as if she wishes to listen to anything that is outside her own belief system. But she should read the book.

[_why me]

JAK,

You bet it’s a claim and an assertion! That’s what religion is all about. I believe it's a fact that Joseph Smith saw the Father although I can't prove it. That makes him special to me. That makes him special to all the other religions too.

You see, other religions (and it’s a fact) don’t share those claims, so Mormonism is special.

Paul O

Mormonism is special also because it has 11 witnesses who testified to what they saw and never denied what they saw even though by doing so, they would have been famous for at least 15 minutes and made some money in the process. And it is those 11 witnesses who give the critics nightmares that maybe Mormonism is what it claims to be.

[_why me]

Also, the Mormon faith is a tough faith to disprove.

Only if your head is buried in a hat buried in a cement box buried in an Indian mound.

Stick your head in a hat and write a book with a scribe present. Good luck!

I love the hat trick. It is just one more item that makes Mormonism special.

[_why me]

Can I now count on # 2 being from the same post(er) as #1??

You are just expecting me to do too much work there Roger. .

But you can read the book. Just start by reading a chapter a day until finally you finish it. However, marg, your position that sidney wrote the book lacks teeth. But of course, false teeth could work for a while.

[_marg]

But you can read the book. Just start by reading a chapter a day until finally you finish it. However, marg, your position that sidney wrote the book lacks teeth. But of course, false teeth could work for a while.

I'll read a bit every day, but as I explained in the other thread my purpose is to appreciate the themes and concepts which Tom Donofrio concludes from the evidence he presents.

There are definitely 2 theories which lack teeth. There is the church theory which is supposed to be for the most believed based on faith. And the Smith only theory...which is essentially the church theory minus God.. but as I think it was Hugh Nibley who said something along the lines of it being ludicrous to think Smith wrote it on his own in the time frame he used, given his background. And I certainly agree.

[_karl61]

JAK,

You bet it’s a claim and an assertion! That’s what religion is all about. I believe it's a fact that Joseph Smith saw the Father although I can't prove it. That makes him special to me. That makes him special to all the other religions too.

You see, other religions (and it’s a fact) don’t share those claims, so Mormonism is special.

Paul O

Hey Paul,

“Other religions” don’t share the dogma of Roman Catholicism. Hence, one could claim Roman Catholicism is “special.” The word “special” is one which could/can be applied to anything. My children are “special.” You are “special.” My very own computer is “special.” By using such a broad idea of special, anything and everything can be characterized as “special.” It’s a mis-application of the term. One could characterize any religious dogma as “special” in that as it differs from other religious dogma, it is different. Different does not translate to “special.”

Your characterization of “special” as related to Mormon can be equality applied to any of the many Baptist religious groups or the Methodist groups, etc. Your home is “special.” My home is “special.” Hence, the adjective “special” is of no significance.

However, as you have applied “special” to Mormon, is equivalent to what we might apply to some of the many Baptist religious groups as “special.” It is to reduce “special” to a term of no value. My cat is “special.” There is NO other CAT that’s a duplicate of my cat. Thus, I can claim my cat is “special” just as you claim some version of a religion is “special.” It’s a play on words.

You’re right that religion is a “claim and assertion.” Religion is truth by assertion. Since religious assertions are lacking in consensus, religion is unreliable. Any religious dogma (including Mormon dogma) is unreliable.

Why is that? It’s because there is no genuine consensus about meaning, relevancy, and validity in matters of religion. If there were, there would be one religion. But we know there are many religions. And given any single religion, we know there are multiple interpretations of that religion.

You, Paul, have failed to address any of these issues and points of historically documented evolutions of religious dogmas. That you “can’t prove it” regarding Smith’s claims is to the point. You subscribe to a religious dogma which is truth by assertion. It is unreliable. Since all religious claims are truth by assertion, all are subject to intellectual scrutiny and skepticism. One can believe in the tooth fairy or one can believe in mythical organisms on the moon or some plant. Such belief gives no credibility to the truth by assertion claims as made by any pundits of such claims.

Paul states: You see, other religions (and it’s a fact) don’t share those claims, so Mormonism is special.

Likewise, “other religions” don’t share Roman Catholic dogma,” hence, Roman Catholic dogma is “special.”

What you do is reduce “special” to a non-descriptive term. As every religion is “special,” no religion is special. One can argue that various religions are different. Each makes different claims. Calling any of them “special” is a misnomer. They differ. They each make different claims.

Baptists (all many of them) don’t agree in claims with other denominational claims. Hence, one can claim “special” for every one of them. But, it’s a misnomer. They differ in their dogmas. The “claim” does not merit the assertion of “special.” It does not merit it any more than my spider merited it.

JAK

Why didn't I get this taught to me earlier in life. Seminary would have been a great place to start.