Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I don't know if I'd say you were being rude. But you are in attack mode.
It is my firm opinion that I have not treated Katzpur any differently than I have treated any other believer on this forum. Not all of the other believers on this forum appreciate me either, but that is the nature of a dispute concerning basic one's basic view of reality. People do not like having their lifetime of indoctrination challenged. I have been an atheist for more than 50 years. I have developed a thick skin and the ability to back up what I say with hard facts. That tends to antagonize people. It is my modus operandi to be direct and factual. But not rude.
You seem to have quickly lost your taste for explaining "What Mormonism really teaches." That wouldn't be because you are aware that Mormon history is rife with violence, backroom intrigue by the founders, and questionable claims, and you don't wish to publicly air Mormon dirty laundry... would it? Or is the very act of asking the question an example of me being "rude?"
Yes, this thread is about "What Mormonism really teaches." It's abundantly clear that violence and backroom intrigue are not being taught in any Mormon churches. If we stay on topic, we may learn something about "What Mormonism really teaches" instead of going off on a tangent to look for the dirty laundry.
When I posted that Hitchens talk I first saw it with a lot of Hitchens quotes, one being "I'm always happy when the Ad Hominems satrt, as that means that I've won the debate" or something of the kind.
Katz has done her best to defend Mormonism, but so far it hasn't been very defensible. The archaeoloy, linguisic and DNA evidence we would expect just isn't there, and Katz has ben in the familiar position of not providing evidence that BoM and LDS teaching are true, but trying to explain away the negative evidence (which is of course as telling as positive evidence) to leave somewhere to fiddle in this Alternative LDS history.
Now, we all love Katz to pieces, but we all know that when the prodding at the person doing the arguing "Are you a scientist?" and of course the distraction of starting a fight with someone who is being So Wude begins, this is familiar to us as a way of avoiding admitting defeat. Really.
This is so looking like the Usual. There's a way that Katz could demolish us all totally - by defending LDS credibility against all thee objections. Anything else istrying to cover up a defeat.
I'm not painting just yet another aircraft on our tailplane, but so far, apart from the attempt to explain away the DNA evidence with 'genetic drift' which really makes no difference, there has been no effective counter -explanation.
Bottom line. It pains me to do this to a lovely person like Katz, but Mormonism makes no more sense than scientology. Really.
Yes, quite so. Strictly speaking, the Topic should be about correcting misconceptions about LdS teachings. Really it ought to have been a debate about Joseph Smith's original teachings having been modified later on - as the Hitchens talk said - One revelation that Polygamy had to go to enable Utah to become a state (the Mormons actually fought a small war with the US over this) and the other one that Blacks were as good as anyone else and could (presumably) become LDS top bods. Not that I can remember EVER seeing a black Mormon elder, spokesbod or official.
That leads into the other topic of what has been added to the teachings that J. Smith didn't say. Later 'revelations' (aka policy decisions) and of course where it differs from Christianity and whether it really does and Christians (I know Mormons claim to be Christians, but you know what I mean ) are misunderstanding or just getting all heretically -minded about someone Not under their roof.
But it would have been unrealistic to expect us to leave alone the Burning issue - is it believable? Does what it teaches stand up to scrutiny? Mormonism is very agressive as a missionary religion, it is very influential and is very determined in concealing its' dirty laundry of which there is an astonishing amount. We cannot sit back and quietly discuss Theological differences between LDS and some other type of Christianity when people (including its' own members) so urgently have to understand what this religion is.
I had a look at a few vids onMormonism vs. Christianity, and I'm disinclined to post any of them as there's so little of actual serious argument. It's all praying and Jesus coming into someone's heart and telling them that Mormonism is false.
There was jut one that argued that God is one and not many and not like a breeding family of gods ..this is something for Mormons and Christians to debate about and it doesn't interest me very much. Fo me the bottom line is not the theology and not even the dirty washing. It is about when examined, it looks believable and credible.
It was interesting on one phone -in testimony it was yet again people not being informed. 'We were nominally Christian...never read the bible..." Easy marks for a carefully compiled Evangelism package - Mormon, Islamic, Evangelical christian - even Scientology and the Moonies could do this.
More information can lead to a rethink - giving up one religion for another. More information leads to a rethink is what results in atheism, or at least irreligion. That will at least leave room for an Emotional attachment to what - on evidence - is not credible.
This is why Information is important, and why the Internet is such a fine weapon in the polemic war. Cults and the more cultlike religions know how vital it is to keep people from hearing anything but the party line. That's the ghetto wall that has to be broken down.
When I posted that Hitchens talk I first saw it with a lot of Hitchens quotes, one being "I'm always happy when the Ad Hominems satrt, as that means that I've won the debate" or something of the kind.
When someone has built up a reputation such as Hitchens has, the only audience he's going to get is people who find his rhetoric amusing. I don't. Within seconds of starting his podcast, he had referred to Mormonism as a "ridiculous cult." That set the tone for the entire podcast and is quite frankly not the way to encourage believers to want to hear more. Calling him out on that is not an ad hominem.
Quote:
Katz has done her best to defend Mormonism, but so far it hasn't been very defensible. The archaeoloy, linguisic and DNA evidence we would expect just isn't there, and Katz has ben in the familiar position of not providing evidence that BoM and LDS teaching are true, but trying to explain away the negative evidence (which is of course as telling as positive evidence) to leave somewhere to fiddle in this Alternative LDS history.
Honestly, I don't know what you expected. I didn't start this thread to "defend Mormonism." I started it to address some inaccurate statements about what Mormonism teaches. I did exactly that. It was only after I did that the thread devolved into what it has now become. There have been four or five posters, all throwing out questions (but mostly accusations). One poster accused me of avoid addressing racism "like the plague" simply because I hadn't answered his question within what he considered reasonable. I was actually responding to his initial post at the same time he was lambasting me for ignoring him. His question pertained to racist polities within the LDS Church. And guess what? I admitted that he was right, and acknowledged that there was never any kind of a directive from God telling Brigham Young or anybody else to withhold our lay priesthood from men of African descent.
Keep in mind that it's a lot easier to bombard someone with questions than it is for even the most capable person on earth to actually address those questions. You can say, "Prove [such and such]" in a single sentence. For me to be able to actually give you a comprehensive answer is understandably going to take much, much longer.
Quote:
Now, we all love Katz to pieces, but we all know that when the prodding at the person doing the arguing "Are you a scientist?" and of course the distraction of starting a fight with someone who is being So Wude begins, this is familiar to us as a way of avoiding admitting defeat. Really.
You don't have to love me to pieces and you don't have to patronize me or coddle me. I asked "Are you a scientist?" because I wanted to know what your background was. I wanted to know whether I was talking to a scientist or to someone like myself who is not. When two individuals, neither one of whom is an expert, try to tell each other "You're wrong," neither one of them can do anything more than dig up someone else's work and try to pass it off as more legitimate than the other guy's. And this "so wude" crap, Transponder... Really? When I read that, the very first thing that popped into my head was an image of Donald Trump using those exact words. That was so unlike you.
Quote:
This is so looking like the Usual. There's a way that Katz could demolish us all totally - by defending LDS credibility against all thee objections. Anything else is trying to cover up a defeat.
Well, I can't disagree with you that it's looking pretty much like par for the course. I guess my first mistake was not recognizing that the people I was talking to assumed from the outset that I was actually looking for a debate. That wasn't my intent in starting the thread at all. I am reminded of a great quote I once heard: "Debating some people is like playing chess with a pigeon. No matter how good at playing chess you are, the pigeon is just going to knock down all the pieces, poop on the board, and walk around all triumphant." That's what I'm seeing in this thread. When you accuse me of "trying to cover up a defeat," you're the one walking around all triumphant when you haven't done anything more than say, "Prove it! Prove it! Prove it!"
Quote:
I'm not painting just yet another aircraft on our tailplane, but so far, apart from the attempt to explain away the DNA evidence with 'genetic drift' which really makes no difference, there has been no effective counter -explanation.
That's exactly what you're trying to do. In explaining "genetic drift," I provided you with an experiment you could do yourself, which would clearly illustrate how Lehi's Hebrew heritage would almost certainly not be detectable in a population 1000 years after the fact. I also provided you with a relatively recent study done in Iceland that yielded the same results. You didn't even attempt to address it. You say that genetic drift makes no difference, but you have yet to explain why it doesn't. And that, essentially, was why I asked if you were a scientist.
Quote:
Bottom line. It pains me to do this to a lovely person like Katz, but Mormonism makes no more sense than scientology. Really.
If that's how you feel, then there really isn't much point at all for me to continue working on my answers to your questions about archaeological and linguistic evidence to support The Book of Mormon. If you seriously think that Mormonism is on the same level as Scientology, then I'm sure there is nothing I could possibly say to change your mind. In other words, you've made your decision, and you're going to say, "it makes no difference," regardless of what new information I may provide. Tell me why I should spend any more time even trying.
Yes, quite so. Strictly speaking, the Topic should be about correcting misconceptions about LdS teachings. Really it ought to have been a debate about Joseph Smith's original teachings having been modified later on - as the Hitchens talk said - One revelation that Polygamy had to go to enable Utah to become a state (the Mormons actually fought a small war with the US over this) and the other one that Blacks were as good as anyone else and could (presumably) become LDS top bods. Not that I can remember EVER seeing a black Mormon elder, spokesbod or official.
You want to talk about polygamy? You want to talk about the priesthood bad? That's fine with me. Do you want me to put those items at the top of the list of all of the other issues you've thrown out there, or at the bottom? Because I can't get to all of them before lunch, or maybe not even until lunch on Friday.
Quote:
That leads into the other topic of what has been added to the teachings that J. Smith didn't say. Later 'revelations' (aka policy decisions) and of course where it differs from Christianity and whether it really does and Christians (I know Mormons claim to be Christians, but you know what I mean ) are misunderstanding or just getting all heretically -minded about someone Not under their roof.
Well, you've pretty much got to expect that a church founded on the premise that God never stops talking to mankind is going to implement changes from time to time. It's like phetaroi said a few posts back: "Well, it seems as if you're being damned if you do and damned if you don't. You're bad if the church sticks to dogma. You're bad if the church modernizes its thinking."
If you want to talk about where Mormonism "differs from Christianity," I'm all game. That's one of my favorite topics of discussion.
Quote:
But it would have been unrealistic to expect us to leave alone the Burning issue - is it believable? Does what it teaches stand up to scrutiny? Mormonism is very agressive as a missionary religion, it is very influential and is very determined in concealing its' dirty laundry of which there is an astonishing amount. We cannot sit back and quietly discuss Theological differences between LDS and some other type of Christianity when people (including its' own members) so urgently have to understand what this religion is.
It's believable to 16 million people, including several hundred thousand new converts each year. That certainly doesn't mean that it is going to be believable to someone who doesn't even believe in God, much less any form of Christianity.
You want to talk about polygamy? You want to talk about the priesthood bad? That's fine with me. Do you want me to put those items at the top of the list of all of the other issues you've thrown out there, or at the bottom? Because I can't get to all of them before lunch, or maybe not even until lunch on Friday.
What's to talk about Polygamy? It was claimed as something permitted, and was later dropped. We can't seriously be expected to believe that tis was a true 'revelation' either time.
Quote:
Well, you've pretty much got to expect that a church founded on the premise that God never stops talking to mankind is going to implement changes from time to time. It's like phetaroi said a few posts back: "Well, it seems as if you're being damned if you do and damned if you don't. You're bad if the church sticks to dogma. You're bad if the church modernizes its thinking."
That is not the point. If your religion doesn't move with the times, it will get left behind. If it does...why couldn't it get it right the first time?
This is the reason we don't believe Any of the religions and see them as man -made.
Quote:
If you want to talk about where Mormonism "differs from Christianity," I'm all game. That's one of my favorite topics of discussion.
No doubt. But it's not one for me. Since I don't believe Christian theology, why should I mark down LDS for differing - if it does. It's for Christians but as i said the Christians videos or objections weren't too impressive.
Quote:
It's believable to 16 million people, including several hundred thousand new converts each year. That certainly doesn't mean that it is going to be believable to someone who doesn't even believe in God, much less any form of Christianity.
There are always converts and deconverts. I doubt that even stats would help us much as I repeatedly see how lack of information and being economical with the facts is a fave way of sucking in people who don't know anything about this or that religion. If LDS isn't losing a lot of converts every year, given Online reviews such as this, I shall be surprised.
It isn't so significant - as you say - that a hardened atheist like me is not going to be convinced, but it's the ones who - when they allow themselves to face facts - such as have been looked at here, failt to remain believers.
When someone has built up a reputation such as Hitchens has, the only audience he's going to get is people who find his rhetoric amusing. I don't. Within seconds of starting his podcast, he had referred to Mormonism as a "ridiculous cult." That set the tone for the entire podcast and is quite frankly not the way to encourage believers to want to hear more. Calling him out on that is not an ad hominem.
Honestly, I don't know what you expected. I didn't start this thread to "defend Mormonism." I started it to address some inaccurate statements about what Mormonism teaches. I did exactly that. It was only after I did that the thread devolved into what it has now become. There have been four or five posters, all throwing out questions (but mostly accusations). One poster accused me of avoid addressing racism "like the plague" simply because I hadn't answered his question within what he considered reasonable. I was actually responding to his initial post at the same time he was lambasting me for ignoring him. His question pertained to racist polities within the LDS Church. And guess what? I admitted that he was right, and acknowledged that there was never any kind of a directive from God telling Brigham Young or anybody else to withhold our lay priesthood from men of African descent.
Keep in mind that it's a lot easier to bombard someone with questions than it is for even the most capable person on earth to actually address those questions. You can say, "Prove [such and such]" in a single sentence. For me to be able to actually give you a comprehensive answer is understandably going to take much, much longer.
You don't have to love me to pieces and you don't have to patronize me or coddle me. I asked "Are you a scientist?" because I wanted to know what your background was. I wanted to know whether I was talking to a scientist or to someone like myself who is not. When two individuals, neither one of whom is an expert, try to tell each other "You're wrong," neither one of them can do anything more than dig up someone else's work and try to pass it off as more legitimate than the other guy's. And this "so wude" crap, Transponder... Really? When I read that, the very first thing that popped into my head was an image of Donald Trump using those exact words. That was so unlike you.
Well, I can't disagree with you that it's looking pretty much like par for the course. I guess my first mistake was not recognizing that the people I was talking to assumed from the outset that I was actually looking for a debate. That wasn't my intent in starting the thread at all. I am reminded of a great quote I once heard: "Debating some people is like playing chess with a pigeon. No matter how good at playing chess you are, the pigeon is just going to knock down all the pieces, poop on the board, and walk around all triumphant." That's what I'm seeing in this thread. When you accuse me of "trying to cover up a defeat," you're the one walking around all triumphant when you haven't done anything more than say, "Prove it! Prove it! Prove it!"
That's exactly what you're trying to do. In explaining "genetic drift," I provided you with an experiment you could do yourself, which would clearly illustrate how Lehi's Hebrew heritage would almost certainly not be detectable in a population 1000 years after the fact. I also provided you with a relatively recent study done in Iceland that yielded the same results. You didn't even attempt to address it. You say that genetic drift makes no difference, but you have yet to explain why it doesn't. And that, essentially, was why I asked if you were a scientist.
If that's how you feel, then there really isn't much point at all for me to continue working on my answers to your questions about archaeological and linguistic evidence to support The Book of Mormon. If you seriously think that Mormonism is on the same level as Scientology, then I'm sure there is nothing I could possibly say to change your mind. In other words, you've made your decision, and you're going to say, "it makes no difference," regardless of what new information I may provide. Tell me why I should spend any more time even trying.
This is not addressing any point, but excuses for not doing so. The genetic drift experiment is pointless if it doesn't have anything to do with the unchanging Y and X chromosomes that are the markers. It's like arguing that a company will become lost because staff changes. You can still trace the descent of a firm or company if you can check the records. I gather that DNA is like that.
Why should you carry on? Because it is really the only line where you still have a chance to make a good point - Jewish DNA in Native Americans (I even gave you a line to follow up to prove it) or at least to give a valid excuse as to why we don't find it. Genetic drift to me seems irrelevant. It doesn't in itself seem to wipe out the haploid markers. That argument might be followed up. Otherwise i can't see that you have any promising lines of argument.
I don't mind how you take it that none of this is personal. If you see it as 'patronising' so be it. Whatever your intentions were in starting the thread, you can't have thought that it would just allow you to lecture on LDS without the Goddless who infest the place calling you on it.
Some pretty solid points have been made - 'Biggies' as you say. Hitchens in face more or less gets the history of LDS right. I know, I've read books on it, by both sides. Pointing the finger at terms that Hitchens uses - not without justification - I'd say (yes, it does strike me as daft as Scientology - sorry about that) merely points up that what he actually says is right. It does seem to be ad hominem, but even if not, is a red herring.
I'm inclined to say the same with you comments on Brigham Young and racist revelations and reversals (I gather the racist one was Smith's and the reversal quite recently and nothing to do with Brigham Young other than he didn't change it. But the red herring is someone arguing about these race -related revelations and missing the point, or that is how you posted it. Even if so, the point is valid - Smith's views on native Americans and a later 'revelation' about a third group of even worse people who became cursed to be black. It is just the views of his time, just as a reversal revelation was done to keep up with social views. Tell me that you still think that these 'Revelations' were anything more than corporate decisions.
I might mention a person who interested me - David Whitmer, a convert who wrote quite a revealing amount on the early days. I was rather interested inhis struggle to get a Vision (which you had to do to 'arrive' in Smith's circles. The others had the - no problem. He struggles and sweated and eventually 'had' his vision.
The perfect stream of visions he had after that (I doubt not, anything that popped into his head) moved Smith to take him aside and tell him straight that He, smith would be the one to have visions in future if any were needed, thanks very much. Whittmer records all this quite innocently unable to read between his own lines.
I'm just saying that there is so much more and none of it particularly edifying. Not even Smith being gunned down by a posse of annoyed townsfolk being tarted up by a later Mormon biographer becas a sort of miracle with glowing lights and the killers runningaway not because they'd just done a homicide, but with a sort of terror at a miracle like Matthew's tomb guard.
But this is the sort of stuff that we get, like flying saints and Peter's supposed bones in Catholicism.
And now I'm rambling, so let's find a video...
Last edited by TRANSPONDER; 09-04-2018 at 11:47 AM..
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
) are misunderstanding or just getting all heretically -minded about someone Not under their roof.
well....
But it's not one for me. Since I don't believe Christian theology, why should I mark down LDS for differing - if it does. It's for Christians but as i said the Christians videos or objections weren't too impressive. 