DiscussMormonism.com

Res Ipsa wrote: ↑

Wed Mar 22, 2023 5:10 am

Thanks Reverend. What is interesting to me is that, in the LDS Church I grew up in, it never would have occurred to members to bristle over what you describe. Our religious identity was based on the differences between our religion and that of other churches. We were one and only true church of God on earth, and we were proud of the differences between Mormonism and all other churches.

We were a peculiar people and were damn proud of it. We didn’t want to be seen as being like other sects. It was common knowledge that the Catholic Church was the Great and Abominable Church, and was referred to as the GAC. The “Christian” churches were in apostasy. The Christian Churches with their paid ministers were corrupt and were doctrines of men (and even the devil).

We learned and memorized the verses in the Bible that showed we were “right” and other churches were “wrong” through scripture chase competitions. Missionaries would Bible Bash against missionaries from other sects.

As the only and only true church on the face of the earth, we didn’t want to share labels with all those false churches in apostasy. We were Mormons, and we were damn proud of it.

I’m not a religious historian or scholar. What I’m describing is a difference I personally observed between how the Bible was used in Mormonism and how it was used by other Christian churches. I think that the way Mormonism approaches the Bible is heavily influenced by the qualifier “as far as it is translated correctly.” It allows for what I described as a cherry picking approach to the Bible. Any part of the Bible that appears inconsistent with Mormon doctrine can be simply ignored.

Other Christian sects don’t have that qualification. I think that’s part of the reason I noticed non-Mormon Christians grappling with the text as a whole in a way that I had never experienced in Mormonism.

From my atheistic perspective, I think of Mormonism as a Christian religion. But I also think it has unique characteristics that differ from other Christian sects, and see nothing disrespectful in discussing them.

MG 2.0 wrote: ↑

Sat Mar 18, 2023 12:51 am

* * *Anyway, I will look a bit more, but my instinct, knowing that it came out of Berkeley and was printed in a journal that specifically appeals to the scientifically inclined rather than the religiously inclined causes me to think that this study was designed by and carried out by secular humanists.* * *

Regards,
MG

malkie wrote: ↑

Tue Mar 21, 2023 8:55 pm

To me, especially in light of what Res Ipsa is saying, what is really interesting is the way in which [c]hristianity uses specific verses of the Bible, including "quotes" from Jesus, to determine how people - believers or not - should live.

This is sometimes complicated by the many different translations available now, and the dependence of derived points of doctrine on specific translations.

The practice of baptism for the dead, justified by 1 Corinthians 15:29, might be said to be one such. As far as I know, no modern branch of Christianity other than LDS takes that verse to mean that vicarious baptism for the dead is valid. In ancient time it appears that, apart from the Corinthians of Paul's time, there were sects, such as he 2ndC Marcionites, who were 'dead-dunkers'. If I remember correctly, Mormons see baptism for the dead as one of the 'plain and precious things' that became lost over the years due to apostacy of Christendom in general, the evil deeds of priests who were responsible for deliberately introducing errors during copying of texts, and translation errors that occur naturally in a process that was not effectively overseen by god.

The overall effect, in any case, is that only one major organization today practises baptism for the dead, and the rest justify their rejection at least in part on lack of corroboration from the rest of the Bible, and on the specific pronouns in the verse.

Sorry - a bit more of a ramble than I intended.

If I, in turn, have introduced errors, ...

Res Ipsa wrote: ↑

Tue Mar 21, 2023 5:27 am

Well, that was … something.

I feel like I need a debrief. Or a beer.

Probably both.

What secularists do say is that in debates on public policy purely religious arguments should carry no weight. In a Voltaire-like defence of freedom of expression, we absolutely do not wish to suppress or forbid such arguments being voiced – but we do say that by convention they should count for nothing in the minds of politicians and decision-makers. By all means let the religious argue, say, against assisted dying with warnings of a slippery slope – an argument we can all understand and assess – but if they argue that life is the gift of God and that it is not for us to take it away, then in the process of public decision-making their words should be ignored. Such arguments cannot be legitimately admitted in a society where there are so many competing beliefs that reject its very premises.

MG 2.0 wrote: ↑

Mon Mar 27, 2023 3:33 pm

Res Ipsa wrote: ↑

Tue Mar 21, 2023 5:27 am

Well, that was … something.

I feel like I need a debrief. Or a beer.

Probably both.

Yes, that was something, indeed. To start a thread and within the span of a few days be called a racist, a bigot, a supporter of pedophilia, and being labeled as “retarded” and an idiot was an eye opener as to the extent that secular atheists will go to in order to distort and/or dispose those views that run contrary to their worldview. I am none of those things, but certain posters will twist words and context in order to make what they will ‘the truth’.

I would recommend that anyone who has been a non participant in this thread and you are coming across it for the first time, read it with open eyes and fairness. There is a great divide between those that believe in God and those that don’t. The argument in the OP article referred to is whether civil society (a society in which we all get along and every voice is heard and valued) can continue as each generation moves towards a secularistic non belief in God.

Posters in this forum seemed to believe that I am somehow against free thought and/or separation of church and state. Not at all.

Here is an interesting article:

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfr ... on-atheism


There is much food for thought in this defense of secular thought and practice. One thing in particular was of concern to me.

What secularists do say is that in debates on public policy purely religious arguments should carry no weight. In a Voltaire-like defence of freedom of expression, we absolutely do not wish to suppress or forbid such arguments being voiced – but we do say that by convention they should count for nothing in the minds of politicians and decision-makers. By all means let the religious argue, say, against assisted dying with warnings of a slippery slope – an argument we can all understand and assess – but if they argue that life is the gift of God and that it is not for us to take it away, then in the process of public decision-making their words should be ignored. Such arguments cannot be legitimately admitted in a society where there are so many competing beliefs that reject its very premises.

It is those “competing beliefs” that might be a concern to all of us. Including secularists. We have examples in history where large swathes of humankind were exterminated because of those competing beliefs. Civil societies ceased to exist.

It is that ultimate result of the human condition in which the elite, who have no belief in accountability to a god, are in charge of society and have the military force to dictate their whims, that we ALL ought to be concerned with. THAT was the point of the article. But then we steered towards a discussion as to whether or not the very premise of the article could be trusted and/or the results really had any basis in reality.

Rather than discussing the type of society we ALL would want to live in as we think about the world our grandchildren will grow up in.

Do we want a totalitarian government? Of course not. Do we want a governing establishment that does not value the essential value of life within and without the womb? We’ve already slid down the slippery slope in some respects where we have seen the value of life diminished. And on the whole it’s not by the religionists. It’s the secular humanists with “competing beliefs” that have held sway. If we have a myriad of examples throughout history of societies in which competing beliefs have resulted in large scale death and destruction of individuals, families, and religious beliefs…ought we not to be concerned that this could happen within our country/society?

Some (mostly secular humanists) say no. Others say yes, it is a concern we ought to pay attention to (mostly religionists)..

This dichotomy becomes evident on a board such as this. And when you have majority voices using whatever means necessary to drown out the minority voice(s) you have the perfect example of ‘uncivil society’.

Anyway, yes, Res Ipsa, this was an interesting and even enlightening thread. If nothing else, we have a record of two differing world views being laid out for others to see and observe.

I appreciate the opportunity of being the minority voice. And no, I don’t accept the accusation that I’m a bad representative of my faith. That’s simply a concoction made in order to smear my good name and the good name of the LDS Church.

There, that may wrap things up.

Regards,
MG

Res Ipsa wrote: ↑

Mon Mar 27, 2023 4:30 pm

MG 2.0 wrote: ↑

Mon Mar 27, 2023 3:33 pm

Yes, that was something, indeed. To start a thread and within the span of a few days be called a racist, a bigot, a supporter of pedophilia, and being labeled as “retarded” and an idiot was an eye opener as to the extent that secular atheists will go to in order to distort and/or dispose those views that run contrary to their worldview. I am none of those things, but certain posters will twist words and context in order to make what they will ‘the truth’.

I would recommend that anyone who has been a non participant in this thread and you are coming across it for the first time, read it with open eyes and fairness. There is a great divide between those that believe in God and those that don’t. The argument in the OP article referred to is whether civil society (a society in which we all get along and every voice is heard and valued) can continue as each generation moves towards a secularistic non belief in God.

Posters in this forum seemed to believe that I am somehow against free thought and/or separation of church and state. Not at all.

Here is an interesting article:

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfr ... on-atheism


There is much food for thought in this defense of secular thought and practice. One thing in particular was of concern to me.



It is those “competing beliefs” that might be a concern to all of us. Including secularists. We have examples in history where large swathes of humankind were exterminated because of those competing beliefs. Civil societies ceased to exist.

It is that ultimate result of the human condition in which the elite, who have no belief in accountability to a god, are in charge of society and have the military force to dictate their whims, that we ALL ought to be concerned with. THAT was the point of the article. But then we steered towards a discussion as to whether or not the very premise of the article could be trusted and/or the results really had any basis in reality.

Rather than discussing the type of society we ALL would want to live in as we think about the world our grandchildren will grow up in.

Do we want a totalitarian government? Of course not. Do we want a governing establishment that does not value the essential value of life within and without the womb? We’ve already slid down the slippery slope in some respects where we have seen the value of life diminished. And on the whole it’s not by the religionists. It’s the secular humanists with “competing beliefs” that have held sway. If we have a myriad of examples throughout history of societies in which competing beliefs have resulted in large scale death and destruction of individuals, families, and religious beliefs…ought we not to be concerned that this could happen within our country/society?

Some (mostly secular humanists) say no. Others say yes, it is a concern we ought to pay attention to (mostly religionists)..

This dichotomy becomes evident on a board such as this. And when you have majority voices using whatever means necessary to drown out the minority voice(s) you have the perfect example of ‘uncivil society’.

Anyway, yes, Res Ipsa, this was an interesting and even enlightening thread. If nothing else, we have a record of two differing world views being laid out for others to see and observe.

I appreciate the opportunity of being the minority voice. And no, I don’t accept the accusation that I’m a bad representative of my faith. That’s simply a concoction made in order to smear my good name and the good name of the LDS Church.

There, that may wrap things up.

Regards,
MG

LOL! Claiming victim status and then more allegations about people who do not believe in God based on sheer bigotry. That's not a "debrief" -- that's quadrupling down.

What you do to nonbelievers is every bit as bad as Trump siccing his mob of sycophants against anyone who opposes him: threats of violence and actual violence. You accuse them of outrageous things like wanting pornography in public school libraries (without any evidence that the librarians and other school officials are nonbelievers), which is exactly what leads to a barrage of threats that leads them to quit those jobs. You claim to be all about civility, but your words promote thuggery and mobocracy.

It is you -- the guy who portrays folks who don't share your believes as existential threats -- who is driving the divide wider and wider.

I found it enlightening, but I suspect you weren't among the enlightened.

Dr Exiled wrote: ↑

Mon Mar 27, 2023 4:39 pm

MG 2.0:

Stop being so preachy and condescending and you might get a better response. You come here thinking that you need to save us from something imaginary when it is you that are mistaken in your beliefs. It rubs people the wrong way. Why not just join the discussion somewhere here, in some thread of interest, and shed the belief that yours is a superior belief, and then discuss as equals, trying not to incite. I promise you that you will see a different reaction from people here.

However, unfortunately, that is not your purpose.

But the working out of how the principles of secularism should be applied in practice has received too little attention, allowing its opponents to create a bogeyman of "militant atheists" and the like.
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfr ... on-atheism