Ask a Mormon

[SARL0]

Michael Noire

SARL0

militant atheism rant

I'm always fascinated by how atheists can be both militant and anti gun.

But seriously though, stop picking on the Milk Toast Molly Mormon. Mormons have multiplied vastly in numbers over the past few decades and their doctrine, along with the size of their temples, has been watered down and diminished.

You are clearly in combat with a Salt Lake Temple mormon. Old, crusty, majestic, filled with mason secrets and murder stories. Molly Mormons of the 21st century don't know anything about the massacres, about the presidential run by their founder, that he was into Alchemy, or about how to defend their theories with knowledge of the mexican pyramids, omecs, etc. They certainly aren't going to know that the description of their golden and brass plates have perfect geographical and geological counterparts over in Eurasia as evidence of the "oldest book". Why would they know that? They probably don't know what the Kolob hymn is about. They don't likely know they have a Goddess in their religion either. They likely don't know about the salamander letters, and have no way of knowing about all the fraudulent attacks on their religion since the early 1800s.

They probably don't even know they are responsible for the gold rush that created the state of California. A few might know a few things, but you are trying to fight with a Bruce R. Mckonkie Mormon, and instead, you are debating children. It's pathetic. Did you squish bugs as a child for amusement?

i'm not picking on the mormon. i find that many of their beliefs are totally unbiblical, like , their Jesus doesn't even fit the description of the biblical Jesus, so in my opinion, they can't even be considered Christian. but i do feel that some of it sounds magical and romantic, namely that bit about the husband pulling his wife through a veil in order to bring her to an exalted place in heaven. awwww.. how romantic. but what i dont get is how do mormons explain the verses where Jesus says that we wont even be married in heaven?

no, i didnt squish bugs as a child, i rescued bugs and other small critters and animals from danger. i'm also not an Atheist, i'm Christian.

[Faustine Liem]

Maltese_Falcon91

To be honest i see women and children from the FLDS occasionally at the store. Its like a once every other two months deal and they ALWAYS dress like they are pilgrims on the mayflower and ALWAYS have a cap on their heads. Mostly people just ignore them and never much interact with them. Though like I said some people I know actually admire them and their commitment to the 'true' gospel.

Sadly sometimes I dread if my cousin joins up in this cult of a cult. I don't WANT her to be sad, and I wish her well, but its sad to see people longing for the day that they get husbands and fart out babies as fast as possible. I believe I mentioned a very unwell lady, and still, ((just saw her at the store)) she wants to be a mother. She is VERY sick. to the point she has to use a walker to get anywhere, and it depresses me. It gets my instincts of protect the innocent up. I'd like it if no one felt the pressure, and were raised to do, have children.

BTW, its always fun whenever you have a family gathering like a birthday and EVERY SINGLE PERSON is there asking you when you are getting married and having kids. Always fun that part.

[SARL0]

Arcoon Effox

SARL0

Arcoon Effox

SARL0

mormonism seems magical , like disney land.

...says the lady who believes that a cosmic, undead Jew who is his own father can make people live forever if they telepathically ask him to remove a curse that was put upon humanity because the female clone of the first human was convinced by a talking snake to eat a piece of magic fruit.

Glass houses, yo.

Glass houses?

Yes, glass houses - as in "People who live in glass houses shouldn't throw stones." In other words, I'm saying that someone with a bunch of unfalsifiable beliefs shouldn't go around mocking the beliefs of others.

SARL0

says the little whiney atheist who a few weeks ago was crying about being "disenfranchised" and "insulted"

neutral What does any of that that have to do with 'glass houses'...?

SARL0

Anyhow, i meant that mormonism seems magical like disney land in a romantic sense due the husband being some sort of prince figure who rescues and pulls his wife through some weird veil thingy.

Suuuuure you did. And that thread you made called "I want to be comea Moron" totally wasn't mocking an LDS-oriented thread named "I want to become a Mormon" either, right...? talk2hand

SARL0

i read this the other day on Stan's website--

Ah yes, the illustrious Stan, your new go-to source for attacking people who don't share your narrow-minded Fundamentalist beliefs.

SARL0

Stan has extended an invitation to you to come debate him on Atheism over on his site, if you're up to the challenge. i'm sure you're not since debating a grown man like yourself would be out of your comfort zone from debating the Christian stay-at-home-mommy's here on Gaia.

here's Stans bit on your wussy little lack of belief nonsense

Your kids must be so proud of their hypocrite bully of a mother stare

Also, if this "Stan" guy would like to speak with me, he can invite me himself.

Stan from Atheism Analyzed

Many religious philosophers have created theodicies, which are logical arguments for various levels of belief in deism or theism---

Full stop. That's not what theodicies are.

To quote the Christian apologetics website GotQuestions, "Theodicy is the branch of theology which defends God's goodness and justice in the face of the existence of evil." It is a theological construct that attempts to vindicate an all-knowing, all-powerful, all-good God, in response to the Problem of Evil.

One sentence in, and this guy has already given a bullshit definition for the thing he's basing his argument on, meaning that whatever point he's building towards will most likely also be bullshit.

Stan from Atheism Analyzed

What do modern Atheists have? Atheodicy: "Lack of belief".

4laugh Called it ~♪

"Atheodicy" would not be "lack of belief", but a dismissal of theodicies; in other words, "atheodicies" would be arguments in favor of God's nonexistence, based on the Problem of Evil.

Stan from Atheism Analyzed

What, exactly do they lack belief in? Theodicies? The Qur'an? The Bible? Buddha? Ganesh? Well that's not the point.

A guy talking about atheism is saying that he doesn't know what it is they don't believe in... and then says whatever it is they don't believe in "is not the point".

Y'know, I'm starting to understand why you think this guy is so smart, SARL0...

Stan, from Atheism Analyzed

Here's the point: what are the Atheodicies which support the Atheist position of "lack of belief"?

As far as Stan is using the word, "Atheodicies" don't even exist because atheism has no dogma. His entire argument is predicated on a tired-a** strawman that's been debunked over and over again.

SARL0

i quoted you in the comment section, you can read the response there. honestly, i doubt you will since "people in glass houses, yo"...

emotion_facepalm You really don't understand the meaning of that idiom, do you...? You're just doing that thing you always do, where someone says something to you, and, even though you don't get it, you try to use it back at them like some kind of zinger.

Anyway, you did not include the context of that comment (which I guess should be no surprise, since you seem to struggle with that concept so much), so "CJ's" response is pretty much meaningless to me. Furthermore, he makes the same tired-a** strawman which "Stan", ShockofGod, and the rest of your anti-atheist heroes make about atheism being a religion, so I care even less about what he has to say.

The only positive claim I'm making is a personal one, concerning my lack of belief in god/s. You're making a positive claim that some god or other exists, and saying that people ought to believe in it. If a skeptic challenges your claim, the Burden of Proof for it is upon you. That's how it works.

SARL0

I suggest everyone check out Atheism Analyzed. It's ran by an intelligent guy

Anyone who insists that atheism is a religion discredits themselves, as well as any point/s they were attempting to make. As such, "an intelligent guy" would not claim that atheism is a religion.

Stan is not an intelligent guy.

SARL0

To you Christians who feel frustrated with the Atheist nonsense and the lying and denying that goes on in this forum, go check the website out to help you make sense of these deceptive hypocrites.

...by showing them how to be deceptive hypocrites like you and Stan? That's terrible advice!

SARL0

I suggest starting here since it explains what Arcoon wants me to "get through my precious skull" and probably you too if you're not convinced of his "lack of belief" or "disbelief" isn't a rejection of God / Christ Jesus.

What I wanted you to get through your skull was that disbelieving in something is not the same thing as rejecting something. Myself and others had explained this to you over and over again, but you've just kept on making the same assertion with zero regard for accuracy or intellectual honesty, because of your all-consuming my-way-or-the-highway biases.

When a child stops believing in their imaginary friend, they don't generally reject their existence; they just stop believing it's real. Why would that child say "I don't believe in you!" to something they don't even think is there? Now, I'm sure that some kids might be bitter about finding out that the imaginary friend isn't real, but even being angry about how something doesn't exist is not a rejection of that thing, so your assertion that atheism is a rejection of God is just bullshit, through-and-through.

Would you like it if an atheist was propagating some malformed definition of Christianity, wouldn't you? No? Then why should atheists allow Christians misrepresent them by spreading a malformed idea of what atheism is?

Atheism is only the lack of belief in any gods - and that's it. The belief that god/s do not exist is anti-theism, and atheism, in and of itself, does not include that belief, regardless of what any random Evangelical on the internet says. Hopefully this will sink in this time.


BTW, way to go off on a tangent which had absolutely nothing to do with the topic of Mormonism.

Stan

That argument is from intellectual cowardice; this Atheist cannot support his actual beliefs, and uses this "mama's skirt" to hide behind.

Tell him he's a coward who has no intellectual substance, no arguments to support his phony worldview, and that I said so. Then do this: Ask him this one question: "Is there a creating deity?"

He'll blather and refuse to answer. So ask it again, just the same, word for word, and say nothing else.

Keep doing that, and occasionally repeat that I say that he's an intellectual coward, and that he's very likely a juvenile living in Mommy's basement, with computer privileges, for now. Because that is the truth. A bully who won't fight anyone but the ill prepared to fight back is just despicable. Even more despicable when he's a chickenshit.

You may reproduce this in full.
Stan

So glad that someone else is able to see that it's you who is the real bully. willing to fight, like Stan points out, the ill prepared, ie, Christian stay-at-home-mommy's, but are chicken**** when it comes to a grown man who isn't in the least ill prepared to debate you. That's exactly how a bully behaves, thank you for the demonstration, arcoon.
So Arcoon, being the intellectual coward that you are, i doubt you'll answer this question but, is there a creating deity?

Stan

Also, read my reply to "anonymous" just above your comments. That person is probably the same one you are addressing, the cowardly use of "anonymous" is a tell for the troll mentality.

You are being trolled by a mental midget, not a mature Atheist.

come back and debate under a name other than "anonymous". Let's see how your glass house holds up under the not so ill prepared.

did you read Stans reply to your anonymous comment that you ended with "just thought i'd add a little context" ? if not, i'll post his reply.

Stan

Here's a little context regarding Atheism:

The Atheist who thinks he can fool anyone at all with the claim of having no opinion or belief regarding a deity is more than just a fool; that Atheist is a liar and a poor deceiver who doesn't believe his own deception, and thinks that others are so incredibly stupid that they can't tell what a liar he is. Of course the Atheist has an opinion regarding the existence of a deity. If he does not, yet attacks theism, then he is a liar. If he does not and is totally ignorant, then he is merely a sack of mindless minerals and nothing more than that. As such he is worthy of no response, any more than is a bag of rocks.

All that this Atheist "argument" does is to reinforce the obvious observation that Atheists cannot be trusted in any sense of the word, "trust". These Atheists think that they have acquired extra metaphysical knowledge by merely using denialism as a tactic for support of their worldview of active deception. But all they have acquired is unwarranted self-esteem based on the fog of floating, ungrounded, unprincipled, unstable and volatile, personal opinion of the day. There are no material facts which support Atheism. There are no principled deductive arguments which survive Reductio in support of Atheism.

Atheists cannot prove that their worldview is in any manner or detail accurate, much less that it is true. Atheists cannot prove that their necessary Philosophical Materialism/Naturalism is accurate, much less true. Atheists cannot prove that their own minds (such as they are) derive from the necessity of Materialist determinism, nor that their actions derive from prior initial states acted upon deterministically by the four forces of physics, all the way back to the Big Bang - yet that is a necessity of Atheism even though those necessary corollaries to Atheism leave Atheists having no more meaning than the existence of mud after a rain. But those are the consequences of Atheism.

Atheism is constituted solely of a mindless denialism which is coupled to massive hubris and ego-centric intellectual anarchy, based on the necessity of fitting all of the universe into causation by the four forces of physics, and inherited initial conditions. The Atheist is functionally denying that he, himself, has even a modicum of value, because he cannot produce valid, principled deductive cases for his own principles, existence, and characteristics which thus renders him without discernible value - and further, he is an accident of the unfalsifiable cult-cant of evolution: a continuation of ancient accidental mutations and heritable errors, which have no meaning and therefore no value, remotely lost in a value-free universe that doesn't give a s**t about him.

Atheists are commonly held in contempt, exactly due to their inability to be intellectually and morally honest, the honesty which is given up in achieving the "freedom" from authority the Atheist VOID, and thus is a requisite defect in their worldview.

If anyone else is interested, here is the link to the thread where Arcoon has posted on Stans website arrow Atheodicy

to see if Arcoon shows up to a fair debate with an educated grown man like he himself claims to be or if he'd rather continue debating those weaker in debate w/ far less experience than he has, which imo, appear to be mostly Christian stay-at-home-mommy's. Keep in mind , arcoon's already commented under "Anonymous" in the thread and Stan has replied to him and also encouraged him to select a name other than anonymous which at this point, makes Arcoon nothing more than a troll.

[Maltese_Falcon91]

Faustine Liem

To be honest i see women and children from the FLDS occasionally at the store. Its like a once every other two months deal and they ALWAYS dress like they are pilgrims on the mayflower and ALWAYS have a cap on their heads. Mostly people just ignore them and never much interact with them.

I've seen pictures of Mormon women dressed in creepy cult attire, but, I didn't know they wore hats. Usually they just seem to have a Johnny Bravo style haircut.

Have you ever tried talking to one?

Faustine Liem

Though like I said some people I know actually admire them and their commitment to the 'true' gospel.

Hmm, that's not good. How widespread do you think polygamist sympathizers are?

Faustine Liem

Sadly sometimes I dread if my cousin joins up in this cult of a cult. I don't WANT her to be sad, and I wish her well, but its sad to see people longing for the day that they get husbands and fart out babies as fast as possible. I believe I mentioned a very unwell lady, and still, ((just saw her at the store)) she wants to be a mother. She is VERY sick. to the point she has to use a walker to get anywhere, and it depresses me. It gets my instincts of protect the innocent up. I'd like it if no one felt the pressure, and were raised to do, have children.

Yeah, I agree. The pressure the Mormon church puts on people to reproduce is irresponsible at best, outright dangerous at worst.

I remember ages ago, I worked with this mormon guy. He was only part time, I think maybe three days a week, but, by the end of month two, he just started trying to get himself fired; kept reading books instead of working. And the real messed up part is, the deadbeat had two kids. His wife didn't have an income, they couldn't afford a car, and they were still living at his mother's house.

I cannot, for the life of me, comprehend the logic behind encouraging a man who'd rather play video games than get a job to become a parent.

Faustine Liem

BTW, its always fun whenever you have a family gathering like a birthday and EVERY SINGLE PERSON is there asking you when you are getting married and having kids. Always fun that part.

Meh, I just stopped showing up to my family gatherings ages ago.

[Lucky~9~Lives]

SARL0

Stan

Atheists cannot prove that their worldview is in any manner or detail accurate, much less that it is true. Atheists cannot prove that their necessary Philosophical Materialism/Naturalism is accurate, much less true. Atheists cannot prove that their own minds (such as they are) derive from the necessity of Materialist determinism, nor that their actions derive from prior initial states acted upon deterministically by the four forces of physics, all the way back to the Big Bang - yet that is a necessity of Atheism even though those necessary corollaries to Atheism leave Atheists having no more meaning than the existence of mud after a rain. But those are the consequences of Atheism.

Atheists aren't necessarily philosophical materialists (they can believe in mind-body dualism, for example), nor necessarily determinists (they can believe in quantum indeterminacy, for example) - they merely don't believe in a specific non-material entity (deity).

[SARL0]

Lucky~9~Lives

SARL0

Stan

Atheists cannot prove that their worldview is in any manner or detail accurate, much less that it is true. Atheists cannot prove that their necessary Philosophical Materialism/Naturalism is accurate, much less true. Atheists cannot prove that their own minds (such as they are) derive from the necessity of Materialist determinism, nor that their actions derive from prior initial states acted upon deterministically by the four forces of physics, all the way back to the Big Bang - yet that is a necessity of Atheism even though those necessary corollaries to Atheism leave Atheists having no more meaning than the existence of mud after a rain. But those are the consequences of Atheism.

Atheists aren't necessarily philosophical materialists (they can believe in mind-body dualism, for example), nor necessarily determinists (they can believe in quantum indeterminacy, for example) - they merely don't believe in a specific non-material entity (deity).

Lucky, i posted your reply to the portion of Stans comment in this thread over
on his site, and here is his response.

Stan

It's one thing to say such things as the positions stated as Atheist positions just above here. It's quite another to find an Atheist who will seriously defend them. For example, quantum indeterminism is not a physical fact, it is a limit on observation; further, QM indeterminism can be fully refuted parsimoniously (and is) by quantum field theory, which is deterministic. Even so, it makes a bad case for Atheists, implying that the Atheist mind is controlled, not deterministically, but indeterminately, which is the implication being made. It also makes for a bad case in defending science, which is wholly dependent upon voluntary materialism and the presupposed principle of universal determinism. And both dualism and indeterminancy refute evolution – dualism allows external intelligence into the theory, and indeterminancy refutes the “law” of “common ancestor” part of the theory.

False claims and false worldviews will always lead to circularity, infinite regresses, and/or internal contradiction, as well as fail Reductio Ad Absurdum. Atheism and its adherents demonstrate this all the time.

The internal contradiction between claiming indeterminacy on the one hand and mind-body dualism on the other hand is glaring. The source of indeterminacy under the Copenhagen understanding of QM is in observation/measurement and is purely material; mind-body dualism is deducible, but not materially falsifiable and therefore is purely philosophical. Between few and none of Atheist philosophers (materialists, all) support dualism. Thus, both of these are Red Herrings. So these examples are excuses, transparent attempts to divert, and nothing more.

And as always, “absence of belief” applies to minerals, plants, archaea and prokaryotes, not to intelligent adult humans, who can and do form opinions regarding the validity of propositions. For an aggressive Atheist to make the claim of “absence of belief” is an indicator of a massively dishonest individual, one who is basically a troll, intent on bullying, disruption and chaos, and who will not be honest about much of anything.

One can easily conclude that such an Atheist is dishonest in other aspects of his life as well, and cannot generate any trust due to his lack of foundational grounding, both intellectually and morally.

The facts in this matter are that the Atheist cannot prove that any, ANY, of his statements are true, and that is exacerbated by the transparently false claim which he wants everyone else to believe. As it happens, he can’t prove the truth of that claim, either. But: to sit fast on a lie is pitiful.

(obviously he is showing up here without engaging: intellectual cowardice on display, right here)

Some of his reply is aimed at Arcoon tho, i'm sure you're smart enough to figure it out. biggrin

[Lucky~9~Lives]

SARL0

Stan

The internal contradiction between claiming indeterminacy on the one hand and mind-body dualism on the other hand is glaring.

They're not necessarily both claimed.

SARL0

Stan

And as always, “absence of belief” applies to minerals, plants, archaea and prokaryotes, not to intelligent adult humans, who can and do form opinions regarding the validity of propositions.

Including the opinion that they are absent of enough validity to believe in them.

[Gravity is Just a Theory]

Hello; I am Stan.
Anyone here care to say anything to me, face to face? You seem very brave behind my back. And yet not brave enough to identify yourself when you access my blog. Interesting.

Since you are very literalistic in your translation of the term, a-theist, we should establish that theism refers to a deity which goes beyond deism and can enter into the personal domains of humans.

Deism refers to a creating, intelligent agent which created all that exists. So a-deist would be the correct term for having no belief regarding the source of all material existence.

Your attacks here against theists refutes your claims to be a-theist. You definitely have opinions and beliefs regarding the ecclesiastic portion of theistic religion.

So we know by the evidence trail that you are not a-theist in the sense you choose to project; you are overtly anti-theist in the sense of anti-ecclesiastic, anti-authoritarian, and aggressively elitist.

But are you a-deist, or are you anti-deist?

Anyone care to self-identify and engage head-on?

[Gravity is Just a Theory]

Quote:

Lucky~9~Lives

SARL0

Stan

The internal contradiction between claiming indeterminacy on the one hand and mind-body dualism on the other hand is glaring.

They're not necessarily both claimed.

STAN: And yet Atheists have the capacity for holding these incompatible beliefs, indicating a lack of discriminatory power in their worldview.

SARL0

Stan

And as always, “absence of belief” applies to minerals, plants, archaea and prokaryotes, not to intelligent adult humans, who can and do form opinions regarding the validity of propositions.

Including the opinion that they are absent of enough validity to believe in them.

Ah! A belief has been betrayed, and so early on. It is now firmly established that the a-theists hold the belief/opinion that there is "no validity" to theist propositions. That belief is either based in deductive logic or material evidence, or absent that, it is a belief held without any reason or reasoning: a blind belief without either logic or evidence to support it.

So. Go ahead. Support your stated belief with either material reasons or intellectual deductive reasoning. Be sure to address ALL theist propositions, since your universal claim is all-inclusive.

[Lucky~9~Lives]

Stan just Stan

Lucky~9~Lives

SARL0

Stan

The internal contradiction between claiming indeterminacy on the one hand and mind-body dualism on the other hand is glaring.

They're not necessarily both claimed.

STAN: And yet Atheists have the capacity for holding these incompatible beliefs, indicating a lack of discriminatory power in their worldview.

More a lack of discriminatory power in human cognition.
- ninja

Stan just Stan

Lucky~9~Lives

SARL0

Stan

And as always, “absence of belief” applies to minerals, plants, archaea and prokaryotes, not to intelligent adult humans, who can and do form opinions regarding the validity of propositions.

Including the opinion that they are absent of enough validity to believe in them.

Ah! A belief has been betrayed, and so early on. It is now firmly established that the a-theists hold the belief/opinion that there is "no validity" to theist propositions. That belief is either based in deductive logic or material evidence, or absent that, it is a belief held without any reason or reasoning: a blind belief without either logic or evidence to support it.

There may be some validity - just not enough; typically, it's induced from the lack of evidence.

[Arcoon Effox]

SARL0

Well, Stan says--

I don't care what Stan says about what I said to you, because I wasn't talking to him. If he'd like to respond to that, he can do it himself... although he shouldn't do it in this thread, because you've already driven it off-topic enough as it is.

SARL0

So glad that [Stan] is able to see that it's you who is the real bully.

...says the one engaging in unprovoked name-calling, and trying to demean people by bringing up stuff from weeks ago which has nothing to do with the subject of this thread. rolleyes

SARL0

You only debate those weaker in debate w/ far less experience than you, which appear to be mostly Christian stay-at-home-mommy's.

While both of those things are demonstrably untrue, I'm looking forward to seeing the evidence that you're obligated to provide for this claim you've made.

SARL0

You are chickenshit when it comes to a grown man who isn't in the least ill-prepared to debate you.

If he's genuinely interested in talking to me, as I said, he can do it here.

SARL0

...fair debate

Fair debates require neutral venues and neutral judges, so commenting on Stan's blog would hardly be "a fair debate". If that's genuinely what you're interested in seeing, then Stan can talk to me here, where he doesn't have moderator abilities.

SARL0

That's exactly how a bully behaves.

I agree. Stan does sound kind of like a bully, what with how he's slinging assumptive insults at a person he's never even spoken with before...

SARL0

Let's see how your glass house holds up under the not-so-ill-prepared.

emotion_facepalm SRSLY...? I already explained to you in my last post what "glass houses" meant, but here you are, misusing it anyway!

SARL0

is there a creating deity?

Since you know I'm an atheist, you ought to already know my answer to this question, but here you go anyway: "There's no reason to believe that there is one".

Now, if you don't mind, you are utterly derailing this thread. If you want to keep talking about atheism, make a new thread about it and discuss it there.

[Arcoon Effox]

Stan just Stan

Anyone here care to say anything to me, face to face? You seem very brave behind my back. And yet not brave enough to identify yourself when you access my blog.

Since you're referring to me, I'd like to point out that I made a total of two comments on your blog, and that neither of them were even aimed at you.

As such, I wasn't "talking about you behind your back" or whatever, so drop the whole "righteous indignation" pretense, would you...?

Stan just Stan

Since you are very literalistic in your in your translation of the term, a-theist, we should establish that theism refers to a deity which goes beyond deism and--

Yeah, yeah, equivocations. Whatever.

Listen, this isn't the place for this. The subject of this thread is about Mormonism, and your fangirl SARL0 has completely derailed it with all of her your anti-atheism bullshit. If you want to talk further, do like I encouraged her to do and make your own thread about it, as per forum rules.

[Gravity is Just a Theory]

Quote:

Listen, this isn't the place for this. The subject of this thread is about Mormonism, and your fangirl SARL0 has completely derailed it with all of her your anti-atheism bullshit. If you want to talk further, do like I encouraged her to do and make your own thread about it, as per forum rules.

Interesting. That didn't seem to stop you from your exchanges above. Now, it's "just go away, leave me alone".

You cannot provide a single shred of logic or evidence to support your worldview, can you? Yes, you are motivated to be left alone. OK, then. You're predicament is obvious.

[Arcoon Effox]

Sorry it took so long to get back to you.

keito-ninja

Arcoon Effox

...Anyway, the point I was making was in reference to what Snow said about wives being "received" by their husbands. In order for her to be received by someone, the person doing the receiving (ie her husband) must already be there in order to receive her, right? He's Exalted because he followed through with Baptism and Eternal Marriage on Earth, but she needs to be "received" by him to get through the Veil and enjoy her Exalted-ness.
...
My point again was about how if the woman's husband doesn't "receive her", she can't enter the "elite tier", and is instead appointed as someone's angelic servant.

To clarify--do you think it is possible that a man might refuse to receive his wife into exaltation, thereby denying her those blessings? Someone who would do that would not be worthy of exaltation in the first place, so he wouldn't be there.

Citation, please? The early Prophets and apostles made a big deal out of a woman's "worthiness", which as far as I can tell has continued to this day (ie Temple recommends, etc). Can you show me something that indicates that a man who wouldn't take a wife through the Veil wouldn't himself be worthy of Exaltation?

keito-ninja

I see "receiving" as going ahead to hold the door open. I call that chivalrous.

I can certainly see the chivalry in the idea; I just also see the potential for abuse, because I'm a pessimist and a skeptic.

keito-ninja

You mentioned polygamy--I've always thought that the reason polygamy in necessary is because God must foresee that there will be more women than men who will become worthy of exaltation, so a strict 1:1 sealing restriction would mean any "extra" would not have the opportunity to be exalted.

So, rather than just changing the rules to accommodate for that, God says that women have to share husbands so that there's enough men to go around...? Why not just "poof" some more men into existence to even the tables, or something?

keito-ninja

Retcons don't bother me.

How not? I mean, look what they did to Superman!

Well, if you're OK with such things, then 'nuff said... but I sure as hell couldn't do it. Far too much potential for enabling people to avoid accountability, there.

keito-ninja

I think I've mentioned before--I'm under no illusion that the church is a perfect organization. Church leaders make a lot more outright errors than most members like to think. To me this does not create a crisis of faith--it makes sense to me that no one is perfect. Of course, even I used to believe the misconception that anything any prophet ever said is automatically truth, so I understand why most members think that.

Would you mind explaining it, then? (Why you think so many members might think they're infallible, I mean.) Also, how do you determine what's erroneous and what's not? If anything a given prophet says could be wrong, how do you know what isn't?

keito-ninja

Arcoon Effox

...I'd like to know your opinion about the Church telling it's members (directly or otherwise) to donate their money, time, and votes to make sure Proposition 8 passed, despite claiming that they are neutral in political matters. Essentially, I'm asking if you think it's OK for the LDS Church (or any other religion, for that matter) to use its money and influence to directly affect the outcomes of elections.

I don't really know anything about politics. I know what's legal, what's politically and socially correct, or what is commonly accepted in matters like this--I've never thought about it and have no basis to form an opinion of whether it was okay.

Fair enough.

keito-ninja

As for why I think the church did it: I think they saw legalizing gay marriage as the state infringing on religion... I think they were trying to protect the religious definition of marriage.

I know you said that you're not knowledgeable enough about political matters to form an opinion on this matter (kudos for admitting that instead of just giving some arbitrary response, BTW) so let's look it it from an ethical point of view - that of fairness.

Separation of Church and State is a two-way street; the State does not get involved in religious matters, and the Church does not get involved in government. You intimated the Church/State split by mentioning how "the state infringing upon religion" - but wasn't the Church doing the exact same thing when they became involved in a legal matter? The pitch of ProtectMarriage (the organization behind Prop 8) was that it was "defending the traditional definition of marriage"... and that "traditional definition" was based on the Bible. Doesn't that mean the Church was infringing upon the State, by invoking the religious definition of something in a legal matter?

I heard a lot Christians (not just LDS ones) talking about how they were concerned about gay couples forcing them to performing marriages in their Churches, but that really made no sense at all because they were protected from that happening by the very same concept you mentioned - Separation of Church and State. People cite the whole "Gay Wedding Cake" thing as "proof" that legalization of gay marriage would have such-and-such consequence for churches, but that bakery was a business, and not a Church, regardless of the religious affiliations of its owners, so it's fundamentally different. If things actually worked like that, then the LDS Church would have been obliged to perform Temple Weddings to anyone who wanted one (regardless of their sexual orientation) for over a hundred years now - but they haven't, because the Church/State split protects them.

Speaking of Temple Marriage, doesn't the Church teach that civil marriages are simply Earthly contracts, and that only marriages for Time and All Eternity really "count"? As such, how could civil marriages even affect that in the first place?

keito-ninja

Marriage is originally a religious ceremony...

Actually, no.

As far as we know (and by "we", I mean it's the general consensus among anthropologists), before the idea of marriage became a thing, families consisted of loosely organized groups of as many as 30 people, with several male leaders, multiple women shared by them, and children. As hunter-gatherers settled down into agrarian civilizations, society had a need for more stable arrangements, and thus developed a form of legal contract which divided these large groups into smaller units. The terms of these contracts were decidedly legalistic, and existed mostly for the purpose of determining paternity. Marriage bound specific women to men, thus guaranteeing that a man’s children were indeed his biological heirs.

Marriage developed independently in hundreds of human civilizations, so it’s difficult to pinpoint history’s first marriage, or even the society that first conceived of marriage as an institution (though it's thought to be ancient Sumeria), but we know that the earliest marriages on record were purely legal contracts, with worldly consequences for those who broke them.

[Gravity is Just a Theory]

Arcoon,
We are set up with a new topic, called "Debating Atheism With Arcoon Effox". My comment is first; now I'll wait for yours.
Stan