Ray A wrote:...., and I don't consider Catholicism a fraud, though they have a more tarnished history than Mormonism, including incestuous popes. I would consider some popes to be frauds, but not the majority. Likewise, I don't consider Mormonism a fraud, and you're right, you won't convince me. I believe there are some false ideas in Mormonism, but that's not the same as fraud.
I don't understand how someone can have both of these beliefs. Both the RCC and LDS church claim exclusivity to the fullness and whole truth. Doesn't that make one of them then fraudulent?
I guess what I don't understand is the picking and choosing of some ideas as false from an institution with the absolute claims of Mormonism.
VegasRefugee wrote:I am no longer involved with Mormonism. THis alone justifies my anger. By removing me from its mind prison the anger I extend towards Mormonism has MUCH worth.
Anger precipitates action.
It may be of worth to you, but I don't think it helps anyone else on the board. Do you?
Jersey Girl wrote:Can you give me say, 3 examples of the type of mocking you're thinking of? Maybe you could do it by issue or topic? Whatever you think works...or if you'd like to name names...go ahead.
I'll be back in a few minutes to see if you've posted.
There's been some mocking here, certainly, but I wouldn't say it's the primary purpose of this board. And not too many times has God been mocked, just a fake church.
\
The LDS Church is not fake. It is a church. One may reject it, believe it is built on a house of cards, be mad about certain aspects of it and so on. One may love it and believe every word. It is a Church as much as any Church. It has a right to claim validity, as much as any other church. It is not fake, though you are entitled to believe it is full of false ideas.
christopher wrote:I don't understand how someone can have both of these beliefs. Both the RCC and LDS church claim exclusivity to the fullness and whole truth. Doesn't that make one of them then fraudulent?
I guess what I don't understand is the picking and choosing of some ideas as false from an institution with the absolute claims of Mormonism.
Chris <><
That's looking at it from the perspective of someone who thinks that religions must be true or false. Religion is a part of society, just like sport is a part of society, just like there are different cultures. Are you going to say one culture is true, and another false? I look at this from a sociological perspective, not a religious one. From a Christian's POV Mormonism may be false, and vice versa, but for someone like Campbell, this is all part of humankind, people seeking meaning, and drawing up artificial dichotomies of true/false. The notion is created by competing theologies or worldviews. I am not in a "competing theology" and I try to understand religion from sociological perspectives. The meanings we attach are our own creation. If Mormonism adopts pomo wholesale and there's a prophet in 2106 who teaches that Jesus was just a great teacher, I wouldn't define that as fraud, but evolution or change in the religion. Every religion, without exception, changes over time. Therefore religion is a part of cultural evolution and changing understanding. Looking at it from the "fraud" perspective is a narrow definition.
Jason Bourne wrote: Nobody is obliged to offer the actual identity in an open public forum such as this one. It is foolish to do so for various reasons. It is a dangerous world out there. Why put ones name out for all to see? And while many may know who you are you currently use an alias as well. Get over your fixation on this issue. For a bright fellow it is a dumb, dumb argument. Courage has nothing to do with it.
No, no one is obliged to offer their real identity. But we all know who Daniel C. Peterson is, Juliann Reynolds, and anyone who does a search of Plutarch's history can find out who he is in minutes. He has not been coy about this. Maybe Jason Bourne is your real name, I don't know. I admire those who have the guts to put their real names to their comments, or their real identities are easily traceable. And we have them on both sides. Tal Bachman, for example. Steve Benson. I don't know who could be exposed to more danger than these people, yet they post under their real names. (I hear that Benson may have been posting under a pseudonym lately, however. I don't know if this is true.) Perhaps there are real dangers in this, but think of the above people who risk this. Dan Peterson didn't always post under his real name, he posted as "Truthseeker" on ZLMB, but I think everyone knew that. I picked it just by his writing style - it's unmistakable. There's another reason I picked it, he's really a very generous and benign person, and the humour is clear. I attacked "Truthseeker" on Z a lot, yet he never retaliated with nastiness. To me it was a sign of a benevolent soul, behind the uncompromising beliefs. He, in fact, transcends all of the name calling directed at him. I really wish it would stop. It's all so very petty and small minded, and mostly done by posters hiding behind pseudonyms.
Plutarch is just too hung up on this. That is my point. Using another name does not mean cowardice, but P retreats to this constantly. It is just a dumb argument and says nothing about ths substance of what his opponent may offer.
beastie wrote:I'm not convinced mocking is always rooted in anger, either. Let me give an example from my own life:
If I respond with an example from my own life, who wins the anecdotal war?
Nobody seemed to really answer my question as to whether it would be reasonable to mock living persons and the liturgy of local Jews -- anonymous hit pieces against your local synogogue. What they wear to service, their devotion, their holy days, what the wear on ordinary days?
P
I think mocking has no place in any decent or reasonable dialogue. Mocking Jews, EVs, Mormons, or anyone for wha tthye do or sincerely believe is bad form. Yes there is too much of it here. Much of it is debase and vile and reflect badly on those who do it.
Plutarch wrote:This board exists primarily to mock Mormons principally and the religious faith of Christians secondarily. . .God will not be mocked. P
God will not be mocked, I agree. Mormonism, on the other hand, leaves itself open to mockery at every turn. Its rambling changing doctine leaves itself open to criticism for its changing contradictory nature. Its tenets of cobbled together 19th century christian principles have not held up very well over time. The test of time is a very stringent test indeed.
Funny how God and Mormonism can be mutually exclusive, at least under an objective assessment.
Plutarch wrote:This board exists primarily to mock Mormons principally and the religious faith of Christians secondarily.
Plutarch wrote:Would you feel good about participating anonymously on a board to mock the Jews in your town -- their personalities, their professions, their practices?
Would you feel good about anonymously mocking the liturgy of the Methodist Episcopal Church?
Yes, if I had the emotional investment in them like I did Mormonism and found out it was all based on lies. Chris <><
Former Mormons who felt lied to are not the only group who continually denigrate the Mormon Church. There are also devout Evangelicals on a mission from their higher power who spend a great deal of time in this pursuit as well as their parishioners who engage in a similar nastiness. There are those who have relatives that are Mormon who have somehow offended them. There are the miscellaneous attackers. Lastly, there are the Fascist Mormons who invite so much of this trouble and attack those other Mormons who they regard as not equally pugnacious in the Gospel.
I could see all these groups turning on the Jews if they didn't have Mormons or JWs or SAs or liberals to kick around.
Anyone who would choose one of Truth Dancer's post as a demonstration of "mockery" and/or bigotry/prejudice has as much credibility as someone who believe that Roger Loomis is likely a bigot... hey, wait a minute...that was the same guy...
The problem with these sorts of accusations is, as I've said many times before to Wade, that real bigotry, real prejudice really does exist against LDS (as with atheists or just about any other group). Launching the accusation in scenarios where it is pretty unfounded simply dilutes the charge. Someone criticizes your beliefs??? Wah!!! Wah!!! Bigot!!!
Today's LDS are soft. They've lost touch with the real meaning of bigotry and prejudice, which is odd, considering how the early LDS were the victims of real bigotry, prejudice, and abuse.
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.
"Tolerating somebody else's beliefs is not failing to criticize them. It's not persecuting them for having those beliefs. That is absolutely important. You should not persecute people for their beliefs. It doesn't mean you can't criticize their beliefs."
--Colin McGinn
From his interview with Bill Moyer
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.