NationStates Jolt Archive

You are implying a fallacy here that the argument in favor of Mormonism is equal to the argument that Joseph Smith was a fraud. They are not equal arguments. The overwhelming balance of evidence supports the fraud theory. To believe otherwise is deliberate self-delusion.


I sincerely doubt that. I mean, that there's an "overwhelming balance of evidence [supporting] the fraud theory" I reject as but your opinion. Obviously there isn't an overwhelming evidence of fraudulence to the 12 million members, and to the hundreds of millions--perhaps billions--who don't feel that mormonism is fraudulent. Who's judgment on how "overwhelming" the "evidence" is are we to believe? Yours? Just because you're "right"?

Of course you're convinced you're right, and, of course, to you, there's an overwhelming balance of evidence towards--whatever it is you believe, in any arena. I don't think Grave n Idle, as well as you--by expressing conviction of a certain belief about mormonism--can be relied upon as unbiased judges of arguments' relative strength, as certainly there's a vested interest in the results. Which brings me back to my point. My point is that there's a line being crossed between expressing personal "convincement" due to evidence and asserting absolute truth. When I ask "how can those idiots think that the world is flat?", it's different from saying "I think Joseph Smith was a fraud because of this and this". Just because someone, or even a majority of people on this forum, feel certain evidence or arguments outweigh other evidence or arguments doesn't give person the right to declare it as absolute truth--and worth ridiculing those that disagree.

I sincerely doubt that. I mean, that there's an "overwhelming balance of evidence [supporting] the fraud theory" I reject as but your opinion. Obviously there isn't an overwhelming evidence of fraudulence to the 12 million members,
12 Million members? Okay, if you are going by the church records. Now, how many of those are actually active believing members? In the US, that might be around 40% overall. In many countries this figure dips down to 10% and possibly below. But we'll be fair and accept the (unusually high) US average of around 40%, which means only 4.8 million members are active and believing. 12 million is a statistical exaggeration.
Furthermore, the fact that this number is so low is surprising in and of itself. Falun Gong has reached 10 million numbers in less than two decades. Jehovas Witness posts far higher growth rates and membership than mormonism despite starting later and having several painfully abvious fallacies. The list goes on.

and to the hundreds of millions--perhaps billions--who don't feel that mormonism is fraudulent.
Whoa exaggerating! Hundreds of millions? Billions? Where are you getting this from?

How many times have you guys predicted the end of the world that didn't come?

I sincerely doubt that. I mean, that there's an "overwhelming balance of evidence [supporting] the fraud theory" I reject as but your opinion. Obviously there isn't an overwhelming evidence of fraudulence to the 12 million members, and to the hundreds of millions--perhaps billions--who don't feel that mormonism is fraudulent. Who's judgment on how "overwhelming" the "evidence" is are we to believe? Yours? Just because you're "right"?

Ad populum fallacy. Just because a lot of people believe it, doesn't mean it is right.

Of course you're convinced you're right, and, of course, to you, there's an overwhelming balance of evidence towards--whatever it is you believe, in any arena. I don't think Grave n Idle, as well as you--by expressing conviction of a certain belief about mormonism--can be relied upon as unbiased judges of arguments' relative strength, as certainly there's a vested interest in the results. Which brings me back to my point. My point is that there's a line being crossed between expressing personal "convincement" due to evidence and asserting absolute truth. When I ask "how can those idiots think that the world is flat?", it's different from saying "I think Joseph Smith was a fraud because of this and this". Just because someone, or even a majority of people on this forum, feel certain evidence or arguments outweigh other evidence or arguments doesn't give person the right to declare it as absolute truth--and worth ridiculing those that disagree.

All you have to do is look back on the debate in this thread and you can see how unequal the arguments are. Every single piece of evidence in defense of Smith has been shot down... and rather easily.

I don't think Smith was a fraud. That would make it a personal opinion, which it isn't. It is an established fact that he was a fraud. What I think on the matter means nothing.

It's hard to believe that, in this day and age, people can still believe that a man put a rock in his hat, then stuck his face in the hat, and read gold plates miles away and buried in the earth. You'd think he'd be eager to show off the magic, because even if nobody else could translate the work, at least they'd be marvelled to see it with their own eyes.

But, as I said, people will believe anything. 12 million people are either not intellectually rigorous enough to question what they're being told, or they're not being honest about it when they are questioning/being questioned. To pretend that their arguments are equal to scientific inquiry is disingenuous. If the claims were true, science would have provided a wealth of supporting evidence. The grains and animals the Nephites were rumored to have brought would have remained. DNA links to Jews would be found in aboriginal Americans. Cultural influences would be found. Stone cities would be found. And other historical references would be found which corroborates, rather than negates, Smith's claims.

Science negates every one of Smith's claims. To continue to support Smith is to say you don't believe in science, in which case you should probably go join the Amish. You certainly shouldn't be sitting in front of a computer, an implimentation of pure science which accomplishes miracles right here in the real world, based on real world principles.

Let's see you post a message that can be instantaneously accessed by the entire world with a seer stone.

Nobody answered my questions, so I'll post em again.

1.While in his backyard, Smith claims to be visited by an angel "Moroni", no one claims to have witnessed these meetings.
Awfully conveinient isnt it?

2. The tablets and the device for translating this "angelic script"
No one was allowed to see either of these devices.
How do you know for certain they existed?

3. I have been told by at least one mormon that a few people were allowed to view these items, however, hey were close friends and family of Smith, and would almost certainly have corroborated his lies, if indeed no such items truly existed.

4. The idea of the tribe of Isrealites crossing the landbridge between russia, and modern day Alaska is ludicrous.
Considering that by the time there were people who identified themselves as Isrealites, the land bridge had been overtaken by water millennia ago.

5.When texts of Smiths writings were lost, or destroyed, Smith could not reproduce the texts exactly as they had originally appeared.
Indeed entire passages were not the same, and the new texts beared almost no resemblance to the former ones.

6. Correct me if im wrong, but the highest stage of Heaven, suppossedly, is to rule as a god yourself, over an earth of your own making.
Doesnt this clash a little of "Thou shalt not worship any God before me.."


I guess what Im saying is, if you read a little about Smith, its completely easy to think that he fabricated the entire story, and when his followers increased, mainly becuase spiritualism and alternate religion was so much in vogue at the time, the money started coming as well.
Once so many people began to believe Smith, there was no going back, to admit he had fabricated the whole thing was have been suicide by angry mob.

This illustrates my contention with the sentiment you've expressed. You're still suggesting that there is "the truth" to be ignorant of, and, more to my point, that you know it.

It's easy to say, "I know these things as the truth because of this, this, and this. Therefore, you're all wrong. How could you be so convinced of things that aren't the truth?" But is that statement really at all critically valuable? No. It's just plain naive to think that certain evidence--or portrayals of evidence--which convince you of something mean that that conclusion must be absolute truth, and that, subsequently, all who come to different conclusions are ignorant masses--wrong, and unable to sleep at night.

It's so amusing to me to think of the comparison here. Some mormons are doubtless thinking, as I type, "how can those non-mormons sleep at night without knowing the truth?" Meanwhile, many in this thread wonder "how can those mormons sleep at night without knowing the truth?" Neither understanding that the other is just as convinced that their viewpoint is the truth. I mean, one couldn't write better comedy.

I'm not quite sure I follow you...

I'm not saying I know any 'Truth'. What I can see, however, is where truth falls down.

In the case of the bible - although there are many contradictions, and things that just plain do not make any sense, UNLESS you can make the leap of faith... the scripture is protected by virtue of age. That is - we can ARGUE about who wrote the bible, and we can argue about how and why they did it.

There is some evidence - like Moses supposedly describing his OWN funeral, that make it likely that the CLAIMED author of a given text might not ACTUALLY be the sole author of the same text... BUT, there is no evidence that any of the bible texts are absolute works of fiction.

In the case of the Book of Mormon, however - we HAVE the text that supposedly was translated to provide the Book of Abraham. Smith CLAIMED it said one thing, if you could read heiroglyphic texts... and he relied on the fact that (for more than 2000 years) nobody had ACTUALLY been able to give aconcrete translation of Egyptian texts.

(Note: the Exodus story relied on the same thing - but at least Exodus doesn't CLAIM to be derived from an Egyptian text).

Of course - post Rosetta Stone, it is possible to decipher what the "small Sensen" actually says - and it IS NOT what Smith claimed it was.

Thus - while I do not claim to be a bearer of 'Truth', I can clearly see that Smith was no more a prophet than I, and, in fact, more of a charlatan... since he CLAIMED to be bringing an inspired text, but clearly, invented the whole thing.

Smith claimed to have seen a Native American angel. Aren't angels supposed to be otherworldly beings, not ghosts of people or whatever?

I sincerely doubt that. I mean, that there's an "overwhelming balance of evidence [supporting] the fraud theory" I reject as but your opinion. Obviously there isn't an overwhelming evidence of fraudulence to the 12 million members, and to the hundreds of millions--perhaps billions--who don't feel that mormonism is fraudulent. Who's judgment on how "overwhelming" the "evidence" is are we to believe? Yours? Just because you're "right"?

Of course you're convinced you're right, and, of course, to you, there's an overwhelming balance of evidence towards--whatever it is you believe, in any arena. I don't think Grave n Idle, as well as you--by expressing conviction of a certain belief about mormonism--can be relied upon as unbiased judges of arguments' relative strength, as certainly there's a vested interest in the results. Which brings me back to my point. My point is that there's a line being crossed between expressing personal "convincement" due to evidence and asserting absolute truth. When I ask "how can those idiots think that the world is flat?", it's different from saying "I think Joseph Smith was a fraud because of this and this". Just because someone, or even a majority of people on this forum, feel certain evidence or arguments outweigh other evidence or arguments doesn't give person the right to declare it as absolute truth--and worth ridiculing those that disagree.

Just as a by-the-by... until this point, I haven't expressed ANY opinions about Mormonism.

My only comments have been about the validity of Mormon texts... nothing to do with whether or not the Mormon view of religion is the correct one.

Of course - in the ABSENCE of those 'Mormon' texts, there is little EMPIRICALLY to separate Mormonism from any other sect of christianity... perhaps you are confusing THAT assertion with my support for other christian sects, or lack of support for Mormonism?

There is MUCH evidence... as the other poster stated, OVERWHELMING evidence, to support the fact that Smith created fraudulent documents... and very little evidence (if any) to support the actual 'inspiration' of those texts.

It isn't a matter of opinion - it is a matter of the evidence.

Example: We set up a camera... to film cars as they drive past. A red car is photographed passing by... then another red, then another. Finally, a white car passes... then yet another red.

The evidence suggests that 4 out of 5 cars that have passed the camera were red. Is this opinion? No - this is observation.

Similarly, when texts exist in Smith's OWN HAND, that give evidence suggesting that a Mormon text is a fiction... how is suspecting fiction a matter of opinion?

It isn't a matter of opinion - it is a matter of the evidence.

Example: We set up a camera... to film cars as they drive past. A red car is photographed passing by... then another red, then another. Finally, a white car passes... then yet another red.

The evidence suggests that 4 out of 5 cars that have passed the camera were red. Is this opinion? No - this is observation.

Similarly, when texts exist in Smith's OWN HAND, that give evidence suggesting that a Mormon text is a fiction... how is suspecting fiction a matter of opinion?

Friend, evidence is an opinion. You are taking someones word for everything you read. The news and media don't report facts... They report their opinion of events. You have thus far presented no facts. Historical inaccuracies? Not really the "historical" reports are opinions. Opinions based on observation to be sure. But they are still Opinions.

Did you see Smith "fake" the BOM? Where you there? Nope... So you are taking someones word on it. So it's an opinion.

As far as your little analogy. All you proved was that 4 out of 5 cars that passed the camera were red on the side that faced the camera. What if the cars can change colors. Are the cars still red? The sun bleached them out or the paint rusted off. Are they still red cars?

You think it's fake. Actually you "know" already so why go on asking when you are not really curious about getting an answer... Not going to happen buddy. You can't take that attitude to prove anything. I can show you something logically and you are still going to say "SO WHAT" and dig up more garbage. You still haven't offered up to anyone what you actually believe.

Lets make this a discussion. What is really deep down important to you?

The Optic

Friend, evidence is an opinion. You are taking someones word for everything you read. The news and media don't report facts... They report their opinion of events. You have thus far presented no facts. Historical inaccuracies? Not really the "historical" reports are opinions. Opinions based on observation to be sure. But they are still Opinions.

Did you see Smith "fake" the BOM? Where you there? Nope... So you are taking someones word on it. So it's an opinion.

As far as your little analogy. All you proved was that 4 out of 5 cars that passed the camera were red on the side that faced the camera. What if the cars can change colors. Are the cars still red? The sun bleached them out or the paint rusted off. Are they still red cars?

You think it's fake. Actually you "know" already so why go on asking when you are not really curious about getting an answer... Not going to happen buddy. You can't take that attitude to prove anything. I can show you something logically and you are still going to say "SO WHAT" and dig up more garbage. You still haven't offered up to anyone what you actually believe.

Lets make this a discussion. What is really deep down important to you?

The Optic

If we are standing on a planet with gravity, and you hold a hammer in your hand, and you let it go, I do not have to observe it to know that the hammer will fall.

I believe that there is plenty of evidence already presented in this thread that goes beyond opinion that shows the factual gaps in the underlying premise behind the idea that somehow Joseph Smith "translated" the Book of Mormon from some original text.

And rather than argue any of those points, you try to reduce facts to opinions. And beyond that, you then take the step of trying to make this a conversion conversation.

Want to know how I know that? Because I did the same thing to three missionaries who showed up at my house (not all at once - did them one at a time, since they show up in pairs).

You really should stop sending young men out on jobs like that because it's too easy for a Pentacostal to get a hold of them. The local ward knows now that sending missionaries to my house is a big mistake.

I even got angry phone calls from Utah, from parents who wanted to know what I had told their son.

If we are standing on a planet with gravity, and you hold a hammer in your hand, and you let it go, I do not have to observe it to know that the hammer will fall.

I believe that there is plenty of evidence already presented in this thread that goes beyond opinion that shows the factual gaps in the underlying premise behind the idea that somehow Joseph Smith "translated" the Book of Mormon from some original text.

And rather than argue any of those points, you try to reduce facts to opinions. And beyond that, you then take the step of trying to make this a conversion conversation.
Want to know how I know that? Because I did the same thing to three missionaries who showed up at my house (not all at once - did them one at a time, since they show up in pairs).

You really should stop sending young men out on jobs like that because it's too easy for a Pentacostal to get a hold of them. The local ward knows now that sending missionaries to my house is a big mistake.

I even got angry phone calls from Utah, from parents who wanted to know what I had told their son.

Well said.

Friend, evidence is an opinion. You are taking someones word for everything you read. The news and media don't report facts... They report their opinion of events. You have thus far presented no facts. Historical inaccuracies? Not really the "historical" reports are opinions. Opinions based on observation to be sure. But they are still Opinions.

Did you see Smith "fake" the BOM? Where you there? Nope... So you are taking someones word on it. So it's an opinion.

As far as your little analogy. All you proved was that 4 out of 5 cars that passed the camera were red on the side that faced the camera. What if the cars can change colors. Are the cars still red? The sun bleached them out or the paint rusted off. Are they still red cars?

You think it's fake. Actually you "know" already so why go on asking when you are not really curious about getting an answer... Not going to happen buddy. You can't take that attitude to prove anything. I can show you something logically and you are still going to say "SO WHAT" and dig up more garbage. You still haven't offered up to anyone what you actually believe.

Lets make this a discussion. What is really deep down important to you?

The Optic

The last refuge of those with neither facts nor logic on their side: "you cannot prove anything, it is all subjective."

Relativism as a justification for religion. The irony is sweet.

Read any Kierkegaard? Christian existentialism. It is what you are arguing.

The last refuge of those with neither facts nor logic on their side: "you cannot prove anything, it is all subjective."

Relativism as a justification for religion. The irony is sweet.

Read any Kierkegaard? Christian existentialism. It is what you are arguing.

Cat,

I'm a fundamentalist Christian (a Pentacostal), but oddly, I don't go around proselytizing, especially on the Internet.

However, if someone comes to my door trying to convert me, I figure that they're fair game. They are usually already weak on the underlying tenets of their own faith, and they always send the young - too gullible to be sent out to preach faith to others.

I have this mental picture of Mormon boys visiting your house, and leaving as confirmed atheists in 30 minutes of quiet discussion.

Cat,

I'm a fundamentalist Christian (a Pentacostal), but oddly, I don't go around proselytizing, especially on the Internet.

However, if someone comes to my door trying to convert me, I figure that they're fair game. They are usually already weak on the underlying tenets of their own faith, and they always send the young - too gullible to be sent out to preach faith to others.

I have this mental picture of Mormon boys visiting your house, and leaving as confirmed atheists in 30 minutes of quiet discussion.

:D

We are similar in our approach, although different in our starting point.

I'm always very nice to the missionaries and I usually follow a catch and release policy. But I have shaken the faith of more than a few that persisted in talking to me. I do worry that their heads may explode. :eek:

The last refuge of those with neither facts nor logic on their side: "you cannot prove anything, it is all subjective."


Not really, my point was mearly that I or someone else could explain with "facts" of my own but it wouldn't make any difference. You're already convinced and not really interested in discussion. You either are convinced against religion all together (aetheism is a religion BTW) or you have serious doctrinal issues with LDS folk. You guys are in Attack mode.

There are people that claim to have indisputable proof that the earth is only 6000 or 8000 years old or whatever the number of years are. If I was to make such a claim you guys could pull up article after article that they were wrong just like they can pull up research paper after research paper to support their theory. Just because you can't see or haven't seen anything to support the opposite "theory" doesn't make it false.

I am not hiding in opinion vs fact. I am just merely saying that what ever research your digging up may have false assumptions. Or better yet they started out with the assumption to prove "mormonism" wrong. It's easy to find things agreeing with you when that's what you are looking for, no matter what your outlook.

The Optic

Not really, my point was mearly that I or someone else could explain with "facts" of my own but it wouldn't make any difference. You're already convinced and not really interested in discussion. You either are convinced against religion all together (aetheism is a religion BTW) or you have serious doctrinal issues with LDS folk. You guys are in Attack mode.

There are people that claim to have indisputable proof that the earth is only 6000 or 8000 years old or whatever the number of years are. If I was to make such a claim you guys could pull up article after article that they were wrong just like they can pull up research paper after research paper to support their theory. Just because you can't see or haven't seen anything to support the opposite "theory" doesn't make it false.

I am not hiding in opinion vs fact. I am just merely saying that what ever research your digging up may have false assumptions. Or better yet they started out with the assumption to prove "mormonism" wrong. It's easy to find things agreeing with you when that's what you are looking for, no matter what your outlook.

The Optic

Now you are backing away from the abyss -- but still at the edge.

Credibility. Authority. Qualifications. Reliability. Peer review.

Original documents. Hard research. Reproducible results.

Not all "research" is equal. Not all sources are equal. Not all opinions are equally valid.

Some "facts" are untrue. Some are true. We use judgment to weigh the credibility and reliability of sources.

Simply saying well "it's all subjective" is a feeble attempt to avoid admitting you cannot defend your position. That is fine. You don't have to.

But don't act like that is wisdom.

Cat,

I'm a fundamentalist Christian (a Pentacostal), but oddly, I don't go around proselytizing, especially on the Internet.

However, if someone comes to my door trying to convert me, I figure that they're fair game. They are usually already weak on the underlying tenets of their own faith, and they always send the young - too gullible to be sent out to preach faith to others.

I have this mental picture of Mormon boys visiting your house, and leaving as confirmed atheists in 30 minutes of quiet discussion.

Speak of the devil and they ring your doorbell.

Sweet, malleable brains. Yummy. ;)

Not really, my point was mearly that I or someone else could explain with "facts" of my own but it wouldn't make any difference. You're already convinced and not really interested in discussion. You either are convinced against religion all together (aetheism is a religion BTW) or you have serious doctrinal issues with LDS folk. You guys are in Attack mode.

There are people that claim to have indisputable proof that the earth is only 6000 or 8000 years old or whatever the number of years are. If I was to make such a claim you guys could pull up article after article that they were wrong just like they can pull up research paper after research paper to support their theory. Just because you can't see or haven't seen anything to support the opposite "theory" doesn't make it false.

I am not hiding in opinion vs fact. I am just merely saying that what ever research your digging up may have false assumptions. Or better yet they started out with the assumption to prove "mormonism" wrong. It's easy to find things agreeing with you when that's what you are looking for, no matter what your outlook.

The Optic

My questions got ognored twice now, so I'll ask one directly to you.

In the face of overwhelming evidence of forgery on Smiths part, what makes you believe that he was truly visited by an angel and given these texts?

Lets not debate semantics and question the validity of evidence, lets just acknowledge that it exists.
So then, what inside you makes you believe, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that Smith is truly a prophet?

Furthermore, do you believe, that it is at all possible that Smith MAY have lied at all?

My questions got ognored twice now, so I'll ask one directly to you.

In the face of overwhelming evidence of forgery on Smiths part, what makes you believe that he was truly visited by an angel and given these texts?

Lets not debate semantics and question the validity of evidence, lets just acknowledge that it exists.
So then, what inside you makes you believe, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that Smith is truly a prophet?

Furthermore, do you believe, that it is at all possible that Smith MAY have lied at all?

Smith? Prophets should have cool names like Superman, Maximus Genitalius and Bogstonia!

Now you are backing away from the abyss -- but still at the edge.

Credibility. Authority. Qualifications. Reliability. Peer review.

Original documents. Hard research. Reproducible results.

Not all "research" is equal. Not all sources are equal. Not all opinions are equally valid.

Some "facts" are untrue. Some are true. We use judgment to weigh the credibility and reliability of sources.

Simply saying well "it's all subjective" is a feeble attempt to avoid admitting you cannot defend your position. That is fine. You don't have to.

But don't act like that is wisdom.

On an alternative method of converting a Mormon (which I've done several times), some of them seem to be very anxious to personally experience God. You know, something authentic that they can experience as a personal truth or observation. Something more authentic than a book.

For each of the times I was successful, it only took one Pentacostal prayer session, and they were personally experiencing the Holy Spirit in a way they had never felt in the LDS church. They never went back to being Mormon.

You can approach it from one of two directions - either by pointing out the gross inconsistencies and outright plagiarism in the Book of Mormon, or by giving the young missionaries the experience with God that they crave.

Friend, evidence is an opinion. You are taking someones word for everything you read. The news and media don't report facts... They report their opinion of events. You have thus far presented no facts. Historical inaccuracies? Not really the "historical" reports are opinions. Opinions based on observation to be sure. But they are still Opinions.

Did you see Smith "fake" the BOM? Where you there? Nope... So you are taking someones word on it. So it's an opinion.

As far as your little analogy. All you proved was that 4 out of 5 cars that passed the camera were red on the side that faced the camera. What if the cars can change colors. Are the cars still red? The sun bleached them out or the paint rusted off. Are they still red cars?

You think it's fake. Actually you "know" already so why go on asking when you are not really curious about getting an answer... Not going to happen buddy. You can't take that attitude to prove anything. I can show you something logically and you are still going to say "SO WHAT" and dig up more garbage. You still haven't offered up to anyone what you actually believe.

Lets make this a discussion. What is really deep down important to you?

The Optic

Interesting attempt to trivialise.

Smith's handwriting is not an opinion... it matches other documents attributed to Smith, and is found on the text that documents "Small Sensen".

This gives us two possibilities: either Smith was NOT responsible for ANY of the texts supposedly written by his own hand; or the "small Sensen" text was 'translated' by Smith.

If Smith did NOT write all the other texts attributed to him... then Mormonism is founded on a lie - that NONE of the texts were inspired.

If Smith DID write all the other texts, then he ALSO wrote the Book of Abraham - which means that the handwriting linking "small Sensen" to the Book of Abraham is genuine... and also means that Smith FAKED the Book of Abraham... since "small Sensen" clearly does NOT have anything to do with Abraham.... being part of Egyptian funeral preperation.

I am not listening to an opinion... nor is this MY opinion.

The documents ARE available for you to see, if you choose....

Then, perhaps you can come up with an objective assessment of the evidence.

Why do you try to assert that I "know" the text was faked... you seem to imply that tht clouded my thought? That I based my assessment on a preconceived notion. On the contrary, I read the Book of Mormon with EXACTLY the same motives and standards as any other 'scripture'... but, unfortunately, the factual evidence makes a liar of Smith.

Deep down... what is really important to me? To be honest - I am looking for truth. I have looked in many places, the Book of Mormon among them... and I'm still looking.

Here's a new question for you:

How do you feel about Southpark?!!! :p

aww, where'd the mormons get off to?

aww, where'd the mormons get off to?

washing and mending their holy underwear perhaps. you always want to be wearing presentable armour of god skivvies just in case of unforeseen hospital visits.

aww, where'd the mormons get off to?

Logic chases them away I suppose.

don't you have something about only drinking soda drinks, thats what our history teacher told us.

What's with the LDS stance on homosexuality?

why do women have to be invited into mormon heaven by their husband?

I have the feeling that this thread was not really started to "ask a Mormon" interesting questions about their religion.

It was started purely with the idea of trying to convert someone.

Disingenuous, to say the least. That's why they're not back defending anything, because they feel it isn't worth talking to us if there's no chance of conversion.

I have the feeling that this thread was not really started to "ask a Mormon" interesting questions about their religion.

It was started purely with the idea of trying to convert someone.

Disingenuous, to say the least. That's why they're not back defending anything, because they feel it isn't worth talking to us if there's no chance of conversion.

No, that's a pretty ignorant statement and conclusion. Here's why:

1) if you read the early pages, there are legitimate questions and legitimate attempts at answers.

2) Even if it were just an attempt at conversion, it's the thread starter's right to do so, and taking him or her off-track and making statements about the mormon religion instead of asking sincere questions about it is thread hijacking (a punishable offense). That's disingenuous. If you want to "disprove" the mormon religion, start your own da** thread!

AND, here are some more likely reasons the thread starter isn't around:

a) not back at NS or not back at the NS forums

b) doesn't know/isn't on when it's updated

or c) unwilling, like me, to exchange words with intolerant know-it-alls.

In other words, the thread starter not back defending his or her beliefs because there's no need to defend them. When those attacking what you believe are (a) doing so in the wrong place and (b) convinced of their own conclusions with psychotic zeal, why bother responding? Ignorant persecution is just as threatening as no persecution.

No, that's a pretty ignorant statement and conclusion. Here's why:

1) if you read the early pages, there are legitimate questions and legitimate attempts at answers.

2) Even if it were just an attempt at conversion, it's the thread starter's right to do so, and taking him or her off-track and making statements about the mormon religion instead of asking sincere questions about it is thread hijacking (a punishable offense). That's disingenuous. If you want to "disprove" the mormon religion, start your own da** thread!

AND, here are some more likely reasons the thread starter isn't around:

a) not back at NS or not back at the NS forums

b) doesn't know/isn't on when it's updated

or c) unwilling, like me, to exchange words with intolerant know-it-alls.

In other words, the thread starter not back defending his or her beliefs because there's no need to defend them. When those attacking what you believe are (a) doing so in the wrong place and (b) convinced of their own conclusions with psychotic zeal, why bother responding? Ignorant persecution is just as threatening as no persecution.


Making counter-arguments to someone's posted beliefs is not thread hijacking. If you truly believe that it is so, then go complain to the mods about it. I haven't flamed anyone here, and I haven't changed the subject of the thread to something completely different (which is what hijacking is). You'll notice from the very early posts that I do have a very clear idea of what the LDS church beliefs are, and I also posted why I don't believe them.

Not hijacking. In a public thread, you've got to expect discourse, which means automatically that someone will disagree with you.

Not hijacking. In a public thread, you've got to expect discourse, which means automatically that someone will disagree with you.

The topic is about asking mormons honest questions about their religion. Discourse related to questions and answers is expected. But there's a difference between responding to answers to a question and making unsolicited statements denouncing the religion--which is what has happened the past few pages. Understandable discourse is unequal to the statements you and Grave n Idle have made which are not directly related to an honest question or an answer to one, and which have persisted long past the point of reasonable discourse.

AND, as you've pointed out, the thread starter is not responding anymore--in fact he stopped responding regularly a long time ago. Yet, the unwarranted, disingenuous statements (not questions) continued. That is hijacking. Perhaps I will report it to the mods--if I have the time later today, and if the behavior continues.

And If I were you, I'd be grateful that I haven't already rushed to Moderation in an effort to skewer you with a mod-sentence, rather than indignant that I point it out.

And If I were you, I'd be grateful that I haven't already rushed to Moderation in an effort to skewer you with a mod-sentence, rather than indignant that I point it out.

Saved you the trouble. I reported the thread to Moderation so they could make a judgment.

I don't have a problem with anything that I've posted in this thread. No ad hominems, no thread hijacking - nothing.

The two of you settle down I understand it is hard once locked into an argument but please settle

The topic was originally about a question and answer session but it is not outside of the realm of natural thread wandering to be just discussing issues with the faith. While not exactly on original topic it is well within the natural course of any thread in general

iLock pending Moderator review.

--The Modified Democratic States of Cogitation