|
Post by gillianren on Sept 29, 2006 16:30:07 GMT -4
I don't believe in the absolute validity of my moral beliefs. I can recognize that other people have different moral compasses, that point in different directions than my own. I could be wrong, though I believe that, if the Christian God is right, He will accept "Forgive me for being human and fallible as You made me" to be a reasonable answer. If not, that seems kind of cruel to me.
Oh, and Jason, has it never occurred to you that, because he was behind a screen, he could have already written something down? As in, he could have been reading something he'd already written instead of making it up on the spot? While you're doing research (don't forget And the Band Played On, suggested to you in another thread), look up the "Kinderhook Plates."
And so you know. I have Mormon relatives. The local Mormon temple did Handel's Messiah every Christmas, though we never went. This is the extent of how much I cared about Mormonism until I saw its practical effects on people I knew and started doing research on my own. This is my attitude toward all faiths--do research before you have an opinion. And since when is asking for fair treatment an imposition?
|
|
Jason
Pluto
May all your hits be crits
Posts: 5,579
|
Post by Jason on Sept 29, 2006 17:08:59 GMT -4
I don't believe in the absolute validity of my moral beliefs. I can recognize that other people have different moral compasses, that point in different directions than my own. I could be wrong, though I believe that, if the Christian God is right, He will accept "Forgive me for being human and fallible as You made me" to be a reasonable answer. If not, that seems kind of cruel to me. I beileve you're right - if you couldn't tell which moral standard was the correct one and did the best with your own standard then He will accept your efforts as valid. That's a Mormon belief. But my point stands - everyone does believe their own moral code is the superior one, or believes that they are failing to live to a particular moral standard that they identify as the best. You have said repeatedly that you feel Mormonism is damaging to women - doesn't that imply that you feel your moral standard is superior to that of Mormonism? Even if he had written it before hand (which I don't believe he did), that still wouldn't explain how someone of Jospeh's education and background was able to produce such a work and fool others into thinking he had translated it in the manner described. Hey - I can only do so much research at once. I suppose you've asked them if the women in the family feel that their religion requires them to be eternally subservient to their husbands? An excellent attitude, and I encourage you to consult with Mormon as well as anti-Mormon sources. I'm not sure what you mean by the second sentence there.
|
|
Al Johnston
"Cheer up!" they said, "It could be worse!" So I did, and it was.
Posts: 1,453
|
Post by Al Johnston on Sept 29, 2006 18:12:31 GMT -4
I'm not sure what you mean by the second sentence there. Perhaps something to do with this? However, if they then insist that they receive the same legal benefits and social acceptance as other relationships then they are attempting to force their beliefs on others - a right they do not have. Surely to benefit from the same legal and social acceptance is the minimum right of any member of society?
|
|
|
Post by PhantomWolf on Sept 29, 2006 20:32:26 GMT -4
Anyway, the scripture is correct - marriages do not occur in the spirit world - and neither do baptisms. That is the reason Mormons perform baptisms and marriages for the dead by proxie here on Earth - so that "what is bound on Earth may be bound in heaven."
The scriputure isn't talking about getting married in heaven, the scripture is specially referancing the case of a marrige to people on Earth being carried through the ressurection., in particular in this case, a woman who has married several times and to who she would be married after the resurection. Jesus makes it quite clear that there is no married beyond that. If you are happy that the verse is correct, then because of the context you have a problem. As to baptism for the dead, there is nothing that indicates it as correct. It is mentioned by Paul as a point towards the resurection, but he never confirms it as a true way, rather the rest of scripture makes it pretty clear that baptism is an individuals choice, not something someone else can do for you.
|
|
|
Post by Bill Thompson on Sept 30, 2006 17:58:30 GMT -4
Bill, I'm going to take a crack at the inconsistencies you pointed out when I have a little more time. Time is on my side. I mean, I think I can find more than you can explain.
|
|
Jason
Pluto
May all your hits be crits
Posts: 5,579
|
Post by Jason on Oct 2, 2006 11:36:58 GMT -4
The scriputure isn't talking about getting married in heaven, the scripture is specially referancing the case of a marrige to people on Earth being carried through the ressurection., in particular in this case, a woman who has married several times and to who she would be married after the resurection. Jesus makes it quite clear that there is no married beyond that. If you are happy that the verse is correct, then because of the context you have a problem. Matt 22:23 "The same day came to him the Sadducees, which say that there is no resurrection, and asked him..." The Sadducees were trying to create the most ridiculous situation they could think of to prove that the idea that anyone living again after this life was equally ridiculous, hence the (theoretical - not actual) seven brothers all having married one woman. Christ was not attempting to explain to them in detail how marriage worked in the resurrection, but to tell them there is a resurrection - hence the end of the passage is "God is not the God of the dead, but of the living." Fortunately we have modern-day revalation that clarifies the issue of marriage in the afterlife. D&C 132 15:17: "15 Therefore, if a man marry him a wife in the world, and he marry her not by me nor by my word, and he covenant with her so long as he is in the world and she with him, their covenant and marriage are not of force when they are dead, and when they are out of the world; therefore, they are not bound by any law when they are out of the world. 16 Therefore, when they are out of the world they neither marry nor are given in marriage; but are appointed angels in heaven, which angels are ministering servants, to minister for those who are worthy of a far more, and an exceeding, and an eternal weight of glory. 17 For these angels did not abide my law; therefore, they cannot be enlarged, but remain separately and singly, without exaltation, in their saved condition, to all eternity; and from henceforth are not gods, but are angels of God forever and ever." The additional marriages required by the law of Moses in the Sadducees examples are of this nature - they do not last beyond this life, and so their participants can be said to not marry or be given in marriage in the hereafter. What is the point in citing an untrue example to prove your point? Couldn't Paul's critics immediately say "but baptising for the dead is a false doctrine, so it doesn't prove anything." In fact, wouldn't it weaken Paul's position to cite an incorrect example as evidence of his point? Accepting a baptism performed on your behalf is certainly the individual's choice. The point of performing baptisms for the dead is so the dead have the option of accepting the baptism should they chose. I am not aware of any scritpures that state outright that no one can be baptised for someone else. In fact, all of Christianity is based on the idea that vicarious action can be valid (Christ's atonement on our behalf).
|
|
Jason
Pluto
May all your hits be crits
Posts: 5,579
|
Post by Jason on Oct 2, 2006 11:47:28 GMT -4
Surely to benefit from the same legal and social acceptance is the minimum right of any member of society? Yes, so long as they are the same. If you want the same legal and social acceptance for something entirely different then you are attemting to impose your beliefs of what is acceptable and legal on others. If I really enjoy canibalism, for instance, and lobby for legal and social acceptance of canibalism, then I am attempting to impose my beliefs of what is a valid dietary choice on others.
|
|
Jason
Pluto
May all your hits be crits
Posts: 5,579
|
Post by Jason on Oct 2, 2006 12:49:15 GMT -4
I have looked up some refrences to the "Kinderhook plates." It was apparently an attempt to disprove Joseph's translating ability by providing him with forged metal plates and then springing the fact of their forgery on him after he had made some kind of translation. Although the forgers claim the hoax was a success and there is some evidence that some church leaders (Oliver Cowdery in particular) were fooled there is no evidence that Joseph made or attempted a translation. If he had made a translation this would be worrisome, but since he didn't I consider the case closed.
|
|
|
Post by Bill Thompson on Oct 2, 2006 13:48:18 GMT -4
I thought of this last night. Human beings have a very unintelligent and illogical way of thinking. I have read a lot about how our methods of processing ideas and information changes during our live time. Starting with the palindromes of early infancy to adulthood we have very fuzzy ways of grouping and associating ideas.
Here are three examples. (#1) People associate fear with respect. Fear is not respect. And yet in prison yards it is regarded as the same thing; in the mafia it is regarded as the same thing; And in the decal ridden parking lots where teens gather in their pick-up trucks late at night it is regarded as the same thing. But it is not. Not with humans should it be. I mean, it is in other more survival-of-the-fittest species but human beings pride themselves as being above that. (#2) Attacking someone’s religion is regarded as a personal attack on a people. I have gotten into several religious debates where the people I am debating get rude, defensive and personal with me. I never understand that. (#3) If a belief gives you peace-of-mind does not make that belief true.
Now this third example I would like to focus on... If you have already made up your mind about the book of Mormon because it gives you peace of mind, then you are already lost. I mean, you are already incapable of thinking about the book of Mormon in any logical capacity. But consider this. Just because something gives you peace of mind does not make it real.
Consider the first space shuttle disaster. Peace of Mind: President Regan talked at length about how the astronauts all understood the risks involved and knew that this sort of think could happen. The Awful Truth: The astronauts had been interviewed and had said that any risk of their death was unthinkable. The only female astronaut on that mission talked about how confident she was of the safety of the mission by mentioning that there once was a shut down because one computer that monitored the capacity of another computer to monitor the safety of the shuttle might have had a problem. Peace of Mind: The Astronauts died instantly and did not spend their last moments in terror. The Awful Truth: They did not, in fact die when the shuttle exploded but evidence showed that they were busy at the controls trying to save themselves as the compartment they were in plummeted to the ground.
Believing in something because it gives you peace of mind does not make it true.
|
|
|
Post by Bill Thompson on Oct 2, 2006 14:04:02 GMT -4
I have looked up some refrences to the "Kinderhook plates." It was apparently an attempt to disprove Joseph's translating ability by providing him with forged metal plates and then springing the fact of their forgery on him after he had made some kind of translation. Although the forgers claim the hoax was a success and there is some evidence that some church leaders (Oliver Cowdery in particular) were fooled there is no evidence that Joseph made or attempted a translation. If he had made a translation this would be worrisome, but since he didn't I consider the case closed. How do you explain the changes made to the book of Mormon? Let me guess, you are going to say something like "the english language had changed and so the book needed to be updated" or you will deny there were even any changes at all or you will say that Smith was only human and thus mistakes were expected that would later need to be corrected or you will say that the changes were superficial and did not change any meaning of the text. 1 Nephi1830: Behold, the virgin whom thou seest is the mother of God. Now: Behold, the virgin whom thou seest is the mother of the Son God. 11:18 1830: Behold, the Lamb of God, yea, even the Eternal Father! Now: Behold, the Lamb of God, yea, even the Son of the Eternal Father! 11:21 1830: yea, the everlasting God was judged of the world Now: yea, the Son of the everlasting God was judged of the world 11:32 1830: and Jesus Christ, which is the Lamb of God Now: and the Messiah, which is the Lamb of God 12:18 (This was changed to avoid contradicting 2 Nephi 10:3, which first reveals to Nephi the name of Christ.) 1830: ...the Lamb of God is the Eternal Father... Now: ...the Lamb of God is the son of the Eternal Father... 13:40 1830: ...and are come forth out of the waters of Judah, which swear by the name of the Lord... Now: ...are come forth out of the waters of Judah, or out of the waters of baptism, who swear by the name of the Lord...20:1 2 NephiFirst appearance of the word "Christ" in the modern BoM. "Christ" appeared earlier (1 Nephi 12:18) in the 1 830 edition, but was changed to "Messiah" to avoid contradicting this verse. 10:3 1830: seraphims Now: seraphim The 1830 edition copied the KJV error in the plural of seraph. 16:2, 6 1830: Wo me! Now: Wo is unto me! 16:5 The omitted italicized word "is" was later corrected. 1830: Here I; send me. Now: Here I am; send me. 16:8 The omitted italicized word "am" was later corrected. 1830: ...they shall be a white and delightsome people... Now: ...they shall be a pure and delightsome people.... 30:6 "White" was changed to "delightsome" to try to soften the obvious racism of this prophecy. Mosiah1830 version: "...that king Benjamin had a gift from God..." Now: "...that king Mosiah had a gift from God..." 21:28 Since King Benjamin was dead at the time, this change was needed to avoid the obvious error. Alma1830: ... the Son of the only begotten of the Father ... Now: ... the only begotten of the Father ... 5:48 1830: cherubims (as in the King James Version) Now: cherubim 12:21 (Cheribims is the incorrect plural of cherub.)
|
|
Jason
Pluto
May all your hits be crits
Posts: 5,579
|
Post by Jason on Oct 2, 2006 14:32:32 GMT -4
(#2) Attacking someone’s religion is regarded as a personal attack on a people. I have gotten into several religious debates where the people I am debating get rude, defensive and personal with me. I never understand that. The reason is that religion is often closely tied to personal identity. Either you're entire family, nation, or culture shares your religion (in which case an attack on it is an attack on your family, nation, or culture's judgement) or you personally chose it (in which case an attack on it is an attack on your own judgement). It's very easy to see an attack on one's religion as the same thing as saying "you (or your family, nation, or culture) are uneducated and make poor choices," which is an insult. I believe in the Book of Mormon because I followed Moroni's challnge in Moroni 10:3-5 - I read it, thought about it, prayed about it, and then received an answer that it is true. In short, an empirical, repeatable test.
|
|
Jason
Pluto
May all your hits be crits
Posts: 5,579
|
Post by Jason on Oct 2, 2006 14:42:25 GMT -4
How do you explain the changes made to the book of Mormon? Let me guess, you are going to say something like "the english language had changed and so the book needed to be updated" or you will deny there were even any changes at all or you will say that Smith was only human and thus mistakes were expected that would later need to be corrected or you will say that the changes were superficial and did not change any meaning of the text. My basic position would be that the changes are superficial, and do not signficiantly impact the meaning of the text. Stating that Joseph Smith was only human and that insignificant mistakes were therefore to be expected is also plausible. Some of the changes (such as the majority of the insertions of "son") are clarifications which the current church is perfectly within its authority to make. I was already aware of the changes you list. Many more basic punctuation and spelling changes which you didn't note have been made as well. Again, the Book of Mormon itself acknowledges that mistakes may be present. It does not claim infallibility. Joseph Smith said it was "the most correct book" on the earth, but "most correct" does not mean "perfect". That makes the whole issue of mistakes or changes rather academic. The argument that "if it were an inspired translation there would be no mistakes" is a straw man.
|
|
|
Post by Bill Thompson on Oct 2, 2006 16:35:14 GMT -4
What if the LDS church on an official level threw up its hands and admitted, basically that although the book of Mormon is a historical fantasy, the ethics of the church are good and so that is why people should belong? That is what they have done. If you refuse to see it or see the impact of this, then you are on your own. There are lots of good reading material on Amazon.com and you can contribute as the lone voice of defense against the publications that reveal the truth. Editorial ReviewsFrom Publishers Weekly Book Description
|
|
|
Post by Bill Thompson on Oct 2, 2006 16:38:12 GMT -4
How do you explain the changes made to the book of Mormon? Let me guess, you are going to say something like "the english language had changed and so the book needed to be updated" or you will deny there were even any changes at all or you will say that Smith was only human and thus mistakes were expected that would later need to be corrected or you will say that the changes were superficial and did not change any meaning of the text. My basic position would be that the changes are superficial, and do not signficiantly impact the meaning of the text. Stating that Joseph Smith was only human and that insignificant mistakes were therefore to be expected is also plausible. Some of the changes (such as the majority of the insertions of "son") are clarifications which the current church is perfectly within its authority to make. I was already aware of the changes you list. Many more basic punctuation and spelling changes which you didn't note have been made as well. Again, the Book of Mormon itself acknowledges that mistakes may be present. It does not claim infallibility. Joseph Smith said it was "the most correct book" on the earth, but "most correct" does not mean "perfect". That makes the whole issue of mistakes or changes rather academic. The argument that "if it were an inspired translation there would be no mistakes" is a straw man. Correct how? There are people in Egypt who have left islam who say they believe that Mohamed was basically a politician and that he did what he did because it was "the most correct" thing to do. Times change. Times change and history repeats himself. Lacking the education to actually be involved in politics, Smith, I believe, did the next best thing. He did what he thought was the most correct thing to do.
|
|
Jason
Pluto
May all your hits be crits
Posts: 5,579
|
Post by Jason on Oct 2, 2006 17:25:01 GMT -4
What if the LDS church on an official level threw up its hands and admitted, basically that although the book of Mormon is a historical fantasy, the ethics of the church are good and so that is why people should belong? That is what they have done. If you refuse to see it or see the impact of this, then you are on your own. Uh, no they haven't. The world General Conference yesterday and the day before featured many of the church's leaders standing and testifying that they knew the Book or Mormon is true and that Joseph Smith was a prophet. If the Church admitted that the Book of Mormon was not an actual translation of an ancient record I would leave the church. The foundation of the Church's claim to divine authority rests firmly on Joseph Smith and his translation of the Book of Mormon. A retraction of the Book of Mormon's historicity would be tantamount to a retraction of the claim to divine authority. It doesn't matter if its ethics are good - if it is not actually the creation of God then its rituals do not actually have saving power and I might as well stay at home. Current LDS scholarship does hold some views that are quite radically different from things that were believed before - such as the idea that the narrative of the Book of Mormon takes place in a much smaller area than supposed by the early Saints, and that other peoples may have been present in the Americas at the same time - but these views are all consistent with the Book of Mormon being an actual ancient record. The fact that there are disaffected Mormons who believe the book is a fantasy (as pointed out by your posts) doesn't mean anything. I addressed the DNA evidence earlier in this thread, and I remain firm in my opinion.
|
|