Monday, August 06, 2007

Eight Hour Lunch Podcast

For those who have wanted to hear my temple story, you can hear about it on the Eight Hour Lunch Podcast. Their podcasts are worth listening to even if you're not an ex-mo, but...are really entertaining if you have even a passing fascination with Joseph Smith's vision (punny, huh? I honestly didn't see the pun until editing).

Anyway, it would seem that one of their LDS listeners was really pissed. Here's their reaction to the EHL podcast:
Jazz fan said: You are a miserable human with Satan's tongue and ways. Going through the temple is a sacred experience and you befouled it. Heavenly Father should cast you into outer darkness for hearing the sacred words of Moroni and participating in our holiest of holy rituals. You only look like a sad atheist, bereft of Heavenly Father's guiding hand. Do you remember the punishments that you heard for those who would commit such acts of apostasy? There will come a day when Christ will return and reign for hundreds of years. You have already taken up the sword of Satan. Your record will show your acts of disregard for His ordinances. D&C 76:82 is your fate. You are a daughter of perdition.

Hello Jazz Fan,
First of all, I have a passing knowledge of LDS theology (not great, but passing) and I happen to know that I don't qualify for apostasy. I was never baptized into the LDS faith! Therefore, how could I possibly leave something that I was never a member of in the first place? As for being a "daughter of perdition",...again, are you sure you're LDS? My understanding of the "sons and daughters of perdition" is that they are people who were given the full and complete gospel (according to Joseph Smith and his hierarchy of rich, white, dead polygamists) and THEN rejected it. The term only applies, as I understand it, to those who received a spiritual witness or calling within the LDS faith, but then chose to go against that calling. As I was never LDS, I'm pretty sure it could be argued that I never received the full and complete gospel (according to Joseph Smith and his hierarchy of dead, white, polygamists (TM)).
I also think it's completely hysterical that you expect your "heavenly father" to toss me into the outer darkness because his secret-spidey-septuagenarians were unable to use their gifts of discernment to keep me out of the temple. Like I said in the podcast, I can think of at least four ways in which I didn't qualify to be there:
1. Unmarried female.
2. No mission or calling.
3. Not baptized LDS...and, actually, worse- I was a baptized CATHOLIC.
4. I'm pretty sure I'd drank a Pepsi Clear right before going into the temple. So, the WoW was clearly broken.
The Pepsi Clear, in and of itself, is something I deeply regret drinking (because, it shows my age and it was nasty!).
Why did no one "discern" that I shouldn't be there? I'll tell you why! Because, the whole "spiritual discernment" thing is a load of crap. People might have instincts, but they definitely didn't come from a deity. And, if they had discernment, the people who let me go through the ENTIRE CEREMONY had it turned off. Maybe it was they who should have been smote down for allowing me in?
Sincerely,
Possummomma, Temple Crashers Union 101

Discuss.
Oh...and for those who imbibe, the EHL also has nice little drink recipes in their podcasts. Yum.

115 comments:

Terra said...

Damn,

I reacted to Jazzy in the comments and you had it well in hand. ;) I should have known you'd be delivering the smack down.

Ha ha...Pepsi clear. That's hilarious. I was thinking recently that I wish Pepsi was clear nowadays, because I think it stains your teeth but I just can't get enough of the stuff. Mind you, I drink the caffeine free kind, so I guess I wouldn't have broken any silly rules.

Perpetual Beginner said...

My husband actually is an apostate as far as the LDS church is concerned, thanks to a serious romantic relationship with an LDS girl. It's proved really handy with the missionaries. One quick mention and they scurry off as if we're horribly contagious. Even in Salt Lake City in the Temple area we got to tour the public areas completely unmolested - the first guide approached us, we informed her of his status, and she apparently spread the word because no one else came near.

Mattias said...

"Heavenly Father should cast you into outer darkness"

He's telling his god what he should do! :D

Anonymous said...

Martin's way of disagreement

Atheist in a mini van. said...

??? What? A link to the iron chariots wiki is always great, but I don't understand what your point is.
You have until morning to put a name with your post or it will be deleted.

Mattias said...

Even the file's gone now... that was indeed weird.

robd said...

PM,

Love the podcast.

But, using logical arguments as reply to Jazz Fan?

Will never work.

Matt D. said...

Two things..

1. Great job on the podcast.
2. "Anonymous" is Dan Marvin, the Christian troll that Martin banned from the Atheist Experience blog. The file he linked to was a screenshot of his banning...Russell promptly deleted the file and his account at the wiki was banned.

Chuck C said...

Don't know nuthin 'bout perdition, but "the sacred words of Moroni" would be a pretty good name for a rock band.

Matt D. said...

Mac Maroni would be a great drag name.

Atheist in a mini van. said...

Ahhhh...so, Dan came to play over here, huh?

Bring it, Danny.

Aerik said...

The Martin's Way of Disagreement is an asshole troll from the atheist experience podcast blog who is reacting to the fact that they've had to turn on comment moderation and are immediately deleting anonymous comments.

Aerik said...

Dan did it to my blog, too. He was probably trying to do it to every atheist blogger who's commented at atheist experience's blog he could find, but I outed him so quickly, his accounts to both blogger and the iron chariots wiki have been deleted.

Martin Wagner said...

Acknowledging that it's morally dubious to talk about a guy behind his back (though I don't think p-momma has banned Dan from here yet), I think it's in everyone's best interests to warn other bloggers about the blight that is Dan Marvin. Dan is a pathological liar and a narcissist, who wants to spread it about that I banned him unfairly and because I couldn't take his brilliant arguments. Anyone is welcome to read his comments (and the tidal wave of responses they drew) at the AE blog to judge for yourself his intellectual rigor.

But in truth, the reason he was banned was because he did something stupid even for him. He threw down the gauntlet and offered a final challenge, as it were. He claimed to have brilliant proof of God's existence, and promised that if we successfully refuted it, he'd go away for good and leave us alone. (He had been commenting regularly for two full months at this point.) His "proof", as I recall, didn't really amount to much, and regular commenters plus myself destroyed it easily.

What Dan wasn't expecting was that I'd take him at his word when he promised to leave for good if his argument failed. When he continued to comment after the fact — in a delerious spasm of immaturity, he boasted that his challenge was an April Fool's joke, which, while dumb in and of itself, was extra dumb since he posted it on April 3! — I banned him on the grounds that he'd lied for the last time, and that if he couldn't keep his own promise to us, I would enforce it. He immediately went into such hysterics that I had to initiate comment moderation, as he began trying to comment anonymously. (A recent anonymous troll whom I am about 85% sure is Dan once again has forced me to ban anonymous commenting altogether. This still leaves AE far more wide open than Dan's own blog, where he doesn't allow comments at all.)

So when you see Dan trying to claim that "my way of disagreement" is simply to summarily ban poor sweet guys like him, be aware that he's deceiving you on several grounds. Dan had been allowed to comment at AE for two solid months, and virtually every one of his comments was refuted in exhaustive detail not only by myself but by dozens of the site's regular readers. Which is a very different "way of disagreement" than what the serial liar Dan is claiming.

Dan is so desperate now to find anyone to buy his story that I threw him out without a fair hearing that he's reduced to what he attempted on Iron Chariots, which got him banned yet again. As morons go, I gotta hand it to Dan, he's tenacious. Why, after all these months, the guy still has such a teeny-tiny little hard-on for me is rather disquieting. But I can't speak to the complexities of mental illness, except to say that it isn't intelligently designed.

jazz fan said...

Not enough knowledge but you know how Heavenly Father feels about your attempt to obtain what was not yours to be obtained. I wish others would leave the LDS alone.
We don't go into your confessionals and tell everyone what happens between you and your pope.

You were not baptized LDS but you seem to have an understanding of LDS principles. You have been exposed and therefore are responsible for your eternal salvation.

Joseph Smith was a poor man. He was a humble servant of our Father. I know that the Church of Jesus Christ Latter Day Saints is the one true church. I know that Joseph Smith was the prophet.

Matt D. said...

I've rarely heard a more brainwashed, cult-like response.

'You know that you were unworthy to behold the mysteries...God's gonna get you...Joseph Smith was the one true prophet to found the one true church.'

*YAWN*

Here's one of my favorite quotes from this past month. It's from a fundamentalist Christian and the irony is so thick - it burns.

"I heard that mormons believed that Jesus came to america after his resurrection and that there were all these great cities in america, but there's no record of any of these cities ever being here. Why would anyone believe something like that if there's no record of it accept for in their books? I don't get it, I dont wanna sound rude because I have mormons friends and theyre good people, but it just seems dumb to believe in something that history has no record of ever happening."

Martin Wagner said...

Huh. A Mormon troll. Don't see a lot of those.

Sean the Blogonaut F.C.D. said...

I thought John was PM's Troll. Jazz fan - the jobs taken buddy.

But hey Pm might have a spot open for villiage idiot, don't know if you have the required IQ though?

Andrew G said...

Why is a practining Mormon visiting an atheist site? I am pretty sure I heard on EightHourLunch that that behavior was against church rules.

So Jazz, are you a sinner or just curious? All those nagging doubts in the back of your mind that you may not even acknowledge are justified. I sincerely wish you good luck.

Eight Hour Lunch said...

There's so much wrong with Jazz Fan's complaints I thought it better to address them in person:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VxvFqhWtD9c

Matt D. said...

Doug, you rock...but you went way too easy on Jazz. :)

Poodles Rule said...

Jazz fan said:
"You were not baptized LDS but you seem to have an understanding of LDS principles. You have been exposed and therefore are responsible for your eternal salvation."

Does this mean that mormonism is like a virus. So when the missionaries approach me in the parking lot of Albertsons I should probably ask them to please put on a condom?

Eight Hour Lunch said...

Well Matt D., I have to admit to having felt the slightest bit of pity. I mean come on, he believes in God and the Jazz. Life must be horribly bleak for him. ;)

Fiery said...

Poodles, if you EVER do that will you please oh please blog their response?

I wonder if I should consider myself exposed? About 13 years ago a mormon tried to sell me a kirby vaccuum and then seeing a cross displayed on a shelf got him started on his schpeel.

Should I get myself checked? Exorcised? Demystified?
;-)

Poodles Rule said...

Fiery,
Well, I had a one night stand with a return missionary once. There was a blood test for that though.

I think this would be best left to the mental health community to test for.

HiveRadical said...

andrew g--"Why is a practining Mormon visiting an atheist site? I am pretty sure I heard on EightHourLunch that that behavior was against church rules."

That's your problem, getting your view of what is and isn't correct for Mormons from an apostate.

I'm curious as to what source the 8hrlunchers were using to claim that being on the same website with atheists constituted infringing against Church law. I mean the Church pays it's people to archive these very items. Anything anti-Mormon, or referencing Mormons at all, is archived in the Church's archives. They pay people in full time positions to scan media and archive these things.

It's agreeing with the atheist in certain points that constitutes a sin. Simply listening to their points is not such.

ESCartist said...

hiveradical-

Are you saying the Mormon church elders conduct covert surveillance on any and all internet forms that publicly acknowledge their existence?

That's kinda creepy. Ok, no, that's actually extraordinarily creepy.

Romney's run for present must be keeping you guys pretty busy though;)

Poodles Rule said...

hiveradical:
Game on. I am so going to start plastering my site with anti mormon crap. At least I am keeping someone employed.

Eight Hour Lunch said...

Hive radical. Hmm. Name sounds appropriate.

You said:

"That's your problem, getting your view of what is and isn't correct for Mormons from an apostate."

Oh please.

First of all, you can't even depend on faithful members of the Mormon or any other church to properly recount their own doctrines.

For the record, I was a fifth generation Mormon. I've read the Book of Mormon over thirty times, attended faithfully for 29 years, and always paid a full tithe. I was an Elder's Quorum President, served a full mission, made 144 converts while I was there(yes, I regret that) and returned home "honorably". I've read thousands of pages of

Don't tell people I don't know your religion. I know it very well, thank you. And if, by chance I've made any mistakes in describing Mormonism as it is (and has been), please point them out with references and I'll be happy to post corrections.

Maybe instead of tearing down the apostate straw man, you might consider addressing my actual issues. Chances are, I'm not be the evil deceitful meathead you're making me out to be. In fact, you might discover that I'm (gasp!) a pretty decent guy.

Jazz Fan said...

Do you think I care what a bunch of apostates and satanists think of what I know to be the one true church? I expected a little respect for bearing my testimony to you all. Possummomma has this entire website to witness to and I can't use a piece to try and fill you with the true spirit? That's not right.

HiveRadical said...

ESCartist, it's not covert. They simply archive what comes within the public domain that references our faith in some way.

HiveRadical said...

poodles,

doesn't take much effort to archive a few more pages on the internet.

shaun said...

Stupid comment - really more of a request - but how did you get the OutCampaing logo on your blog? I'd like to put in on my page! =)

Atheist in a mini van. said...

Shaun,
Pharyngula had a easy cut/paste jobber that made it a breeze. :)

shaun said...

"I heard that mormons believed that Jesus came to america after his resurrection and that there were all these great cities in america, but there's no record of any of these cities ever being here. Why would anyone believe something like that if there's no record of it accept for in their books? I don't get it, I dont wanna sound rude because I have mormons friends and theyre good people, but it just seems dumb to believe in something that history has no record of ever happening."


Haha! That's too funny. I believe I read that on Fundies Say the Darndest Things. I suggest it for some scary, though humorous reads to those who haven't had the opportunity to see the site themselves...

shaun said...

Thanks for the head's up on the copy/paste job, Pmomma! Much appreciated....

Atheist in a mini van. said...

Here ya' go!
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2007/07/come_out.php

Eight Hour Lunch said...

Gawd, is it time to feed the troll again already?

Do you think I care what a bunch of apostates and satanists think of what I know to be the one true church?

You must, or you wouldn't be here arguing with us. By the way, I'm not a Satanist. I don't believe in Satan.

I expected a little respect for bearing my testimony to you all.

You might say you had faith that you'd be respected here. In other words, you believed something without evidence. Hmmm...sounds like there's a pattern developing here. I wonder what it could be?

Thanks Possummomma for letting me clutter your comments. Very fun. I'll try to behave now. :)

HiveRadical said...

eight hour lunch,

Is it okay if I reference you as 8hrL ?

First of all, you can't even depend on faithful members of the Mormon or any other church to properly recount their own doctrines.

I never claimed you could. Such makes your next claim a bit superfluous, if not irrelevant--

For the record, I was a fifth generation Mormon.

I always thought this was one of the funniest credential seeking claims. I know plenty of fifth generation individuals in about every significant faith who know next to nothing about their faith, but that just reinforces your previous point. Which would hi-light my amusement and befuddlement with regard to this litany of yours--

I've read the Book of Mormon over thirty times,

Wonderful. Since when does repetition inherently render one understanding? This whole accounting of numerating the motions taken is humorous for someone who's left the faith.

attended faithfully for 29 years,

steadfast attendance I can believe, faithfulness. That's not a term I believe can be supported in your case--at least not for the whole duration.

and always paid a full tithe.

I'm curious since we're on the topic of tenant enumeration and quantification, if you recall, what was the time between when you started doubting and the time you stopped paying tithing and also between the first event and the time you halted attending meetings.

While we're on such relatively non-relevant items I thought I'd venture an inquisition that peeked my curiosity.

I was an Elder's Quorum President, served a full mission, made 144 converts while I was there(yes, I regret that) and returned home "honorably". I've read thousands of pages of

So you had a calling and served a mission. That still doesn't make you a reliable authority, because as you state

"you can't even depend on faithful members of the Mormon or any other church to properly recount their own doctrines."

Don't tell people I don't know your religion.

You make it pretty plain to me that you don't know it as well as myself and many I know that are in it.

You are not inherently an expert by virtue of being a disaffected mormon/critic just as someone's tenure doesn't inherently render them such.

I know it very well, thank you.

An assertion you must make to have your rebellion from the faith be something that can be portrayed as laudable to anyone.

And if, by chance I've made any mistakes in describing Mormonism as it is (and has been), please point them out with references and I'll be happy to post corrections.

Here's your chance. Post to me, if you can, and if andrew g is correct in his assertions about what you've had on your site, where in our doctrine it says
"that that behavior(reading a post or site by an apostate or atheist or centered around such) was against church rules."


Maybe instead of tearing down the apostate straw man, you might consider addressing my actual issues.

Where was I tearing down "the apostate straw man"?

" Chances are, I'm not be the evil deceitful meathead you're making me out to be."

I'm not going to pretend to know the probabilities either way. But I know that I've not called you anything more than an apostate. If you recall the scriptures, as the LDS hold them, proclaim the reach of the wiles of Satan, so I could very well hold you as a very elect person that was deceived, but not inherently being intentionally deceptive, or evil, or a meathead, on your own part.

I'm not naive enough to think that only the depraved get deceived. That kind of mentality is the first step into being deceived.


In fact, you might discover that I'm (gasp!) a pretty decent guy.

Atheist in a mini van. said...

EHL: Thanks Possummomma for letting me clutter your comments. Very fun. I'll try to behave now. :)

Clutter away.

Jazzfan: Do you think I care what a bunch of apostates and satanists think of what I know to be the one true church? I expected a little respect for bearing my testimony to you all. Possummomma has this entire website to witness to and I can't use a piece to try and fill you with the true spirit? That's not right.
1. If you don't care, why bother reading and replying?
2. I don't believe in Satan.
3. Your testi-monkey might be well-and-good in your church, but there's really no value for it in this blog (or in real life). I could bear my testimoney that I know the combined IQ of evangelical Christians is, on average, ten points less than the average atheist. But, simply claiming something is truth doesn't make it so. I should have to prove my claims with evidence.
4. I don't care if you post here...please, by all means, keep giving us something to talk about. But, you should be aware that you, too, can have a website/blog.

Eight Hour Lunch said...

*Sigh*. Why do I always feel like I'm teaching a special ed calculus class?

Ok, fine. You claim there's a god, and that he's running your church. Great. Prove it.

Martin Wagner said...

Uh Jazzy? If you want someone to respect you, how about you not open your spiel by calling them "a miserable human with Satan's tongue and ways"?

Go to the bank. Take out some money. Buy yourself a clue.

Jack Jackal said...

(H)jiveradical said:
"It's agreeing with the atheist in certain points that constitutes a sin."

Why concern yourself with sin arising out of agreement with an atheist on any matter? Remember, you were born in sin and you will never be without it (at least here on earth) just like every other member belonging to your club. Real neat life stance…glad that's working for you.

Notwithstanding and at the risk of adding to your self-imposed misery, I'm obliged to point out that other than lacking a belief in a god, the spectrum of beliefs, ideas and thoughts held by all atheists is so broad that you can’t help but be in agreement with numerous atheists on a multitude of points at any given time.

You probably agree with atheists on the issue of love and compassion as it relates to friends and family and even humanity as whole. Of course, you’ll say that’s a point of agreement that you don’t view as a sin. The point is, is that we really do care about you and don’t like to see you expressing (and propagating) unhealthy cognitive behaviors. We’re all hoping the best for you.

Cogito said...

You have to give one thing to the garden-variety Christians - at least there is mystery around Jesus and who wrote the gospels and such. Sure, there's not a lot of historical support, and much of the selection and transcription of the bible is dubious, but mostly it rises to the level of us not really knowing things.

On the other hand, Joseph Smith is a well-documented historical person - who was a convicted con artist! And we have accounts of his "revelation," which pretty much boils down to "God gave me these magical golden tablets . . . er, no, you can't see them. Only I'm allowed to look at them, but I'll read them to you from behind this sheet." And then when he was asked to repeat things, the Word of God etched on the tablets oddly managed to change. Imagine that!

So I think the self-delusion and denial of reality is even greater for Mormons than for other religions. It's right up there with Scientology.

AlisonM said...

You know, I don't know why anyone who "witnesses" expects to automatically be treated with respect. I mean, come on - it's like some stranger coming to your door trying to sell magazine subscriptions for a charity that may not be real. Or guys with a truck who say they have extra asphalt and can repave your driveway, cheap, right now, if you give them cash.

Proselytizing is as welcome and respectable as telemarketing, and the whole transaction should go the same way "Hi, I'm calling as a courtesy about your. . ." "Please put me on your do-not-call list." Click. That was just the right amount of respect.

Nobody asked to learn about the "one true church" (or any of the other one true churches, for that matter). The irony, as well, of people from a religion that is posthumously baptizing people into its faith complaining about outsiders intruding into their churches or not understanding their principles is indeed rich.

HiveRadical said...

jack jackal,

You missed the word "certain." By missing that word your entire post is attacking a strawman rather than any real stance I hold. There are a great many things I agree with a great many atheists on, but CERTAIN points I do not agree with them on. You don't also, by chance, go by a different name on YouTube?


8hrL,

My intent has never been to prove my faith or the existence of God. It's left to each individual to judge for themselves. I'm just here to demonstrate that it's not an open and shut case in favor of your conclusions.

HiveRadical said...

cogito,

There's error in the way, and what, you present things.

"On the other hand, Joseph Smith is a well-documented historical person - who was a convicted con artist!"

He was not a convicted con-artist. I defy you to prove otherwise.

" And we have accounts of his "revelation," which pretty much boils down to "God gave me these magical golden tablets . . . er, no, you can't see them. Only I'm allowed to look at them, but I'll read them to you from behind this sheet." And then when he was asked to repeat things, the Word of God etched on the tablets oddly managed to change. Imagine that!

That's also false. One would almost think you were pulling your history from an erroneous and poorly presented view of history as per South Park.

So I think the self-delusion and denial of reality is even greater for Mormons than for other religions. It's right up there with Scientology.

No. You are wrong on this. One needs but study the history of the present orthodox Christian past to see how wrong you are.

HiveRadical said...

alisonm

Nobody asked to learn about the "one true church" (or any of the other one true churches, for that matter).

If there was one true Church wouldn't it make sense that seekers of truth would seek it out and finders of it would seek to spread it?


The irony, as well, of people from a religion that is posthumously baptizing people into its faith complaining about outsiders intruding into their churches or not understanding their principles is indeed rich.

We never claim that baptisms for the dead are forced on anyone. And I've found it funny that people get offended who openly deny the efficacy of what we do.

Why would any of that preclude us from justification in seeking to be correctly understood?

I don't follow what you see as 'rich' in that.

Matt D. said...

"If there was one true Church wouldn't it make sense that seekers of truth would seek it out and finders of it would seek to spread it?"

Wouldn't it also make sense that the very idea that there could possibly be one true Church would prompt people to be convinced that their preferred Church is that one and then to spread news of it?

You can substituted 'religion', 'god' and a number of other words for 'Church'.

However, instead of skipping to the end, why don't we first demonstrate that there is "one true X" or that ANY X is true.

Atheist in a mini van. said...

HiveR,
Have you ever done an objective study of your religion?? I think there are a lot of things that you would find at odds with what you were taught in, even, primary.

Joseph Smith was a conman who was into shady land deals and numerous other manners of con-artistry.

1 - Why are there so many different versions of the first vision- PUBLISHED BY JOSEPH SMITH? And, more importantly, why do you not know about them?

2 - How could he translate a language that doesn't (and never did) exist (Reformed Egyptian)?

3 - In direct contradiction to the bible, it states that Jesus was bom in Jerusalem (Alma 7:9-10) and not in Bethlehem (Micah 5:2, Matthew 2:1) and that the darkness after Jesus crucifixion lasted 3 days (Helaman 14:20) and not 3 hours (Matthew 27:45, Mark 15:33). Also there has not been found any archaeological evidence to validate the existence of the Nephite civilization that supposedly lasted 1000 years. Not even one shred of evidence. AND- the DNA just isn't there to suggest an transplanted civilization. I don't put any store in the Bible (as an atheist), but since you're proclaim to consider the BoM to be an expanded testimony, you would think that the critical details of Jesus would be right.

4 - Book of Mormon suspiciously contains hundreds of quotations from the King James version of The Bible (and even whole chapters; compare Isaiah chapters 2-14 to 2 Nephi chapters12-24, Isa 48-49 to 1 Nephi 20-21, Isa 50-51 to 2 Nephi 7-8). The alleged prophet Nephi allegedly made the gold plates in 600-500 B.C. but the King James version wasn't published until 1611 AD. Either Nephi lacked enough to write about and so magically transported to the future to copy out of the bible, or Joseph Smith copied out of the King James Bible (which was available to him).

5 - The Pearl of Great Price is simply a product of Joseph Smith's imagination. Charles Crane, author, college professor, and expert on Mormon archaeology, said "Joseph Smith did not get right even one word in this whole translation. In fact he took one little letter that looks like a backwards "e" and translated it into 76 words." Pity for Smith that the Rosetta Stone was found and his papyrus (supposedly the Book of Abraham) was nothing more than a COMMON Egyptian Death Scroll. And, the Doctrine and Covenants has been changed so many times it's not even funny.

6. . He prophecied in 1835 that Jesus Christ would return within 56 years. (History of the Church Vol 2 p 182). - WHOOPS!

7. He declared that the moon was inhabited by people about 6 feet tall who dressed like Quakers and lived to be 1000 years old. (The Young Womans Journal, Oliver B. Huntington 1892 Vol 3 p 263). - OH CRAP!

8. He prophecied that both a city and a temple were to be built in western Missouri before his death. (Doctrines and Covenants 84:15, 31). Neither were built before his death and even now have still yet to be built. - DOH! Guess he shouldn't have pissed off the townsfolk, huh?

9. He prophecied "In a few years the government will be overthrown and wasted" (History of the Church Vol 15 p 394). - Is this why Mitt is making a bid?

10. And, my favorite "problem" for the LDS Church... how can you call yourself a monotheist when you clearly believe in polytheism? How can you claim to be Christian when part of your doctrine and your ritual/ceremony/doctrine distinctly states that YOU may become a God over your own planet someday? If you believe that, you believe in the possibility of multiple Gods...that's a direct contradiction of the commands of the God of the Bible.

That's just ten examples, off the top of my head, that are problematic for Joseph Smith and his teachings. Want more?

Atheist in a mini van. said...

DOUG! - In your video response, you said there was no such thing as a "daughter of perdition". I think I found where this clown got his statement from:
http://books.google.com/books?id=nGhgDPOuuj8C&pg=PA431&lpg=PA431&dq=%22sons+and+daughters+of+perdition%22&source=web&ots=seBm59DENn&sig=-h-Te_2gPmja4_QHF8SgKRXeBtc

Ironically, this book was written by William Archer Butler. He was raised a Catholic, but became a Protestant. He was obviously an equal opportunity perditionist. ;) I think it's interesting that Jazz Fan would adopt the phrase of a Catholic-Protestant writer, when LDS scriptures never mention daughters of perdition (as you pointed out in your vid).
http://scriptures.lds.org/moses/5

HiveRadical said...

matt said-

However, instead of skipping to the end, why don't we first demonstrate that there is "one true X" or that ANY X is true.

That's kind of an odd way to go about it. If there is one truth, and it would need to follow logic, that being that there would be but one of it, then as far as relative studies go, and it's presence as a ratio of alternate false Xs would be the only real demonstration that any X is true.

On the topic of any 'X' being true. Do you believe that physics is ultimately ruled by more than one fundamental unified set of principles?

robd said...

PM,
great takedown; I knew they were strange, but that much...

And you forgot to tell him that Moroni is a form of Latin plural...

Eight Hour Lunch said...

My intent has never been to prove my faith or the existence of God. It's left to each individual to judge for themselves. I'm just here to demonstrate that it's not an open and shut case in favor of your conclusions.

Ooookay...

Let's say you walk up to me one day and say that you have a waffle tree in your back yard. As evidence, you bring a plate of waffles to my house and ask me to try them and see if they are not indeed waffles.

They seem to be waffles, so I ask to see the tree, and you tell me no.

Does it make any sense at all to argue about the size of the squares of the waffles, their color, histories of waffle trees, and journals of waffle tree orchard owners in ancient Wafflonia when we haven't even established that THE GODDAMNED TREE EXISTS IN THE FIRST PLACE??

I won't talk to you about Joe, his visions and personality traits because they're all just leaves on the waffle tree, and a waste of time to talk about.

AlisonM said...

hiveradical -
If there was one true Church wouldn't it make sense that seekers of truth would seek it out and finders of it would seek to spread it?

If there were one true church, wouldn't it be the only one in the world? Wouldn't it be able to convince everyone, everywhere, with ease because it was true? If seekers of truth all found it, would they really need to spread it, since it would be so easy to find by people seeking truth?

We never claim that baptisms for the dead are forced on anyone. And I've found it funny that people get offended who openly deny the efficacy of what we do.


Of course they're not forced on anyone. You can't force a dead person to do anything. I had a Jewish friend once who found out that her grandparents had been posthumously baptized, and force or no, she and her family were pretty angry about it. Nobody's denying the efficacy of it, either, whatever that is supposed to mean. What, are they angry that their dead relative was whisked off to heaven because he/she was finally baptized into the "one true church"? They're ticked off because they can't deny that their ancestors who were suffering eternal torment have been transported to eternal bliss? I'm having a little problem with understanding what kind of efficacy you're claiming, and how you can prove it. For myself, I don't give a rat's patootie whom you posthumously baptize or how, because it's an imaginary thing that has no effect whatever on reality. But people who care about that stuff have plenty of justification to protest, whether it's because they take their religion seriously, or because they're aghast at the hubris of it all.

The mormons are at quite a disadvantage. All that accurately recorded history that contradicts the dogma (just like Scientology!) Other religions have had far more time to embellish their interpretations and hone their apologetics. And yet, they're nearly as easy to disbelieve as more recent entries in the field. Joseph Smith, along with Sun Myung Moon, L. Ron Hubbard, and most of the Moral Majority, are at a disadvantage because their lives are not mysteries that theologists have to research and write theses on. And when it comes to competing with all the other religions on earth for the title of "one true church", having a reputable leader and a plausible dogma (is that an oxymoron??) would get a sect much further than simply stating that it's "the one true church" louder and more vigorously.

HiveRadical said...

Aiamv said

HiveR,
Have you ever done an objective study of your religion?? I think there are a lot of things that you would find at odds with what you were taught in, even, primary.


Is an objective study of any all encompassing theory of the universe something humans can execute?


Joseph Smith was a conman who was into shady land deals and numerous other manners of con-artistry.

That is not so. That is merely your distorted comprehension of history.


1 - Why are there so many different versions of the first vision- PUBLISHED BY JOSEPH SMITH?

Because he was telling them to different audiences in different settings. Aside from a chronological variance, one that could be explained by mere human error--not inherently falsifying the accounts. The other differences are not items that are mutually exclusive.

" And, more importantly, why do you not know about them?"

That's funny. Why is it that an even keeled atheist and 'rational' thinker would assume I didn't know about them?

2 - How could he translate a language that doesn't (and never did) exist (Reformed Egyptian)?

Are you versed in every form of egyptian? Hieratic, Demotic, Old Coptic, Coptic? Do you have much a knowledge at all of languages other than English? You're making, again, untenable claims. When I get back a book I've lent out I'll show you three different forms of Egyptian, depicting the very same word, and looking NOTHING like each other.

3 - In direct contradiction to the bible, it states that Jesus was bom in Jerusalem (Alma 7:9-10) and not in Bethlehem (Micah 5:2, Matthew 2:1)

Bethlemem is a virtual suburb of Jerusalem. When the land was under siege those in Bethlehem took shelter in Jerusalem because that was the fortified part of the community. This is like saying that someone would be born in Salt Lake City, and because they were born in the city of North Salt Lake, you have a proverbial cow over it.

and that the darkness after Jesus crucifixion lasted 3 days (Helaman 14:20) and not 3 hours (Matthew 27:45, Mark 15:33).

Just because it's raining in Rome means I'm getting wet?

Since when does darkness in one hemisphere mean it's inherently occurring in the other? There are actual variances in the nature of darkness. But it is rather silly for you to think that this would be applicable to the whole globe.

Also there has not been found any archaeological evidence to validate the existence of the Nephite civilization that supposedly lasted 1000 years.

There hasn't been any to disprove it. Nor has there been any to remove it's plausibility.

On the same note there's not been a single piece of Horse remains that can be dated to the time and location of the Hun empire. Are we to discount the records then because the archeology has failed to yet back it up?


Not even one shred of evidence. AND- the DNA just isn't there to suggest an transplanted civilization.

There are massive civilizations all over. Just recently non-LDS researchers realized they'd sorely underestimated the size of an Amazon Basin Civilization as they discovered that that civilization was far more advanced, and that they could agriculturally sustain a population to dwarf previous determinations.

And the DNA that's been tested is FAR FAR FAR from conclusive in what it has been able to show. See some of my YouTube vids to get more info on that.

I don't put any store in the Bible (as an atheist), but since you're proclaim to consider the BoM to be an expanded testimony, you would think that the critical details of Jesus would be right.

You're implying they are wrong. Do detail what you're specifically referencing.


4 - Book of Mormon suspiciously contains hundreds of quotations from the King James version of The Bible (and even whole chapters; compare Isaiah chapters 2-14 to 2 Nephi chapters12-24, Isa 48-49 to 1 Nephi 20-21, Isa 50-51 to 2 Nephi 7-8). The alleged prophet Nephi allegedly made the gold plates in 600-500 B.C. but the King James version wasn't published until 1611 AD. Either Nephi lacked enough to write about and so magically transported to the future to copy out of the bible, or Joseph Smith copied out of the King James Bible (which was available to him).

Or the lingua franca for the day had it's archtype in the King James Bible. Since it was the Archtype for the language of Christianity then translations of the same Bible prophets would generally line up.

What would have been, in your view, a more apropos language for a God trying to connect with people that had a remnant of his word in a bastard language such as English?

5 - The Pearl of Great Price is simply a product of Joseph Smith's imagination. Charles Crane, author, college professor, and expert on Mormon archaeology, said "Joseph Smith did not get right even one word in this whole translation. In fact he took one little letter that looks like a backwards "e" and translated it into 76 words."

The assumptions used by the professor Charles Crane are erroneous.

And for the fact that Apocalyptic Abrahamic literature from the East that only came to light several decades after Joseph Smith's death has massive amounts in common with both Egyptian Books of the Dead and things in common with the Book of Abraham Joseph translated I'd say it's quite the 'product' produced by quite an 'imagination' one that happened to correlate well with yet unknown traditions of Abraham AND managed to lead to a religion that was as focused on Eternal Life and Resurrection and a deified existance as were the Egyptian funerary texts on the snsn papyrus that was what Joseph got the facsimiles from is quite the feat.

" Pity for Smith that the Rosetta Stone was found and his papyrus (supposedly the Book of Abraham) was nothing more than a COMMON Egyptian Death Scroll."

You need to look into this a bit more. It's not the open and shut case that a certain ever reposted 'documentary' on youtube paints it as. The Joseph Smith Papyrus: An Egyptian Endowment would be an interesting book for you to look at. Especially for yourself.

And, the Doctrine and Covenants has been changed so many times it's not even funny.

Any specific change you want to discuss?

6. . He prophecied in 1835 that Jesus Christ would return within 56 years. (History of the Church Vol 2 p 182). - WHOOPS!

It's not saying that. "wind up the scene" or "if you live" are key words in these kinds of claims by critics that Joseph made a false prophecy.

7. He declared that the moon was inhabited by people about 6 feet tall who dressed like Quakers and lived to be 1000 years old. (The Young Womans Journal, Oliver B. Huntington 1892 Vol 3 p 263). - OH CRAP!

The Young Womans Journal is not doctrine. And that was taken from merely one source that didn't disclose this fact until several decades after it purportedly happened.

8. He prophecied that both a city and a temple were to be built in western Missouri before his death. (Doctrines and Covenants 84:15, 31).

First off your citation is wrong. And if you're referencing the prophecy I think you are meaning to then you're missing a key item.

Aside from not considering implications of the word generation you also fail to see what it's actually saying--

"beginning at this place, even the place of the temple, which temple shall be reared in this generation."
--D&C 84:4

From the heading of the same section

"Revelation given through Joseph Smith the Prophet, at Kirtland, Ohio"

You see the "this place" was referencing KIRTLAND the location at which the prophecy was given.

Neither were built before his death and even now have still yet to be built. - DOH!

It's not just a single temple in Missouri that will be built There will be a great many built there.


Guess he shouldn't have pissed off the townsfolk, huh?

Yeah. Those 'rational' people who thought the answer to someone's dogma was to kill and rape and plunder. When you do that when your 'pissed off' you have greater problems than merely some zealous annoying neighbors

9. He prophecied "In a few years the government will be overthrown and wasted" (History of the Church Vol 15 p 394). - Is this why Mitt is making a bid?

The government at the time was the Whig Party. It got pretty wasted. Unless you're privy to a Whig Party headquarters and membership I'm not privy to. Revolutions that overthrow and waste are not inherently bloody.

10. And, my favorite "problem" for the LDS Church... how can you call yourself a monotheist when you clearly believe in polytheism?

We worship one God.

I always thought the paradoxical Nicaean Trinity was a bit more of a doozy when it came to the poly vs mono thing.

Unless you can explain what happened to their ONE god in the time in which Christ says "why hast thou forsaken me" then you run into the problem of a temporary instance of two separate Gods. I've never heard a good explanation on that one. Don't think I'll get one from an Atheist.

How can you claim to be Christian when part of your doctrine and your ritual/ceremony/doctrine distinctly states that YOU may become a God over your own planet someday?

First off it's not a mere planet. It's an entire cosmos. Secondly it was Christ that both claimed to have all that the Father had AND that he wished to make his disciples ONE with Him EVEN AS He is ONE with the Father. Then there's that scripture about being "JOINT HEIRS WITH CHRIST" and reaching "the fullness of the stature of Christ"

I have a hard time seeing us as being Christians if we forsook those very things Christ and his followers, his Saints, proclaimed.

If you believe that, you believe in the possibility of multiple Gods...that's a direct contradiction of the commands of the God of the Bible.

He said that we were to have no Gods before him. And we don't. You see, and it's rather funny that you do this as you're an atheist, you're making the same argument that the Scribes made against Christ. Was Christ a monotheist?

That's just ten examples, off the top of my head, that are problematic for Joseph Smith and his teachings. Want more?

Since none of those panned out to be anything feel free to try your hand at more.

HiveRadical said...

8hrL,

RE: Waffle Tree

Your analogy is not terribly strong. The object in question is not the plates. The plates being shown would demonstrate nothing visa vis the real issue, that being God.

You see testing for God's got a few vitals different than the waffle tree. Namely that it's not something that's will be demonstrated in force in an quantifiable way. and only on a one on one empirical level. So the question of finding God is to seek him out and find out for yourself. Sorry no facts and figures can be quantified and shared. But that doesn't make the potential reality less than something that is quantifiable.

HiveRadical said...

If there were one true church, wouldn't it be the only one in the world?

Yes.

Wouldn't it be able to convince everyone, everywhere, with ease because it was true?

No.

If seekers of truth all found it, would they really need to spread it, since it would be so easy to find by people seeking truth?

Not really.


Of course they're not forced on anyone. You can't force a dead person to do anything. I had a Jewish friend once who found out that her grandparents had been posthumously baptized, and force or no, she and her family were pretty angry about it. Nobody's denying the efficacy of it, either, whatever that is supposed to mean. What, are they angry that their dead relative was whisked off to heaven because he/she was finally baptized into the "one true church"? They're ticked off because they can't deny that their ancestors who were suffering eternal torment have been transported to eternal bliss? I'm having a little problem with understanding what kind of efficacy you're claiming, and how you can prove it. For myself, I don't give a rat's patootie whom you posthumously baptize or how, because it's an imaginary thing that has no effect whatever on reality. But people who care about that stuff have plenty of justification to protest, whether it's because they take their religion seriously, or because they're aghast at the hubris of it all.

They protest plenty. I argue about the justification. But we'll remove anyone's relative from the rolls if they request it.

The mormons are at quite a disadvantage. All that accurately recorded history that contradicts the dogma

It doesn't contradict our dogma. It contradicts only false images, straw man constructs, of our dogma.


(just like Scientology!)

No. Not at all.

Other religions have had far more time to embellish their interpretations and hone their apologetics.

There are some evangelical professors that are scared to death at the levels of LDS apologetic honing. Look up the article "Mormon scholarship, apologetics, and evangelical neglect: Losing the battle and not knowing it?
Trinity Journal, Fall 1998 by Mosser, Carl, Owen, Paul"



And yet, they're nearly as easy to disbelieve as more recent entries in the field.

Because they are not the True Church. That would make them, by definition, easy to disbelieve--especially for an atheisticly inclined mind

Joseph Smith, along with Sun Myung Moon, L. Ron Hubbard, and most of the Moral Majority, are at a disadvantage because their lives are not mysteries that theologists have to research and write theses on.

Non of those others did anything close to what Joseph Smith Jr did. You don't have a very potent grasp on the relative histories of those people.


And when it comes to competing with all the other religions on earth for the title of "one true church", having a reputable leader and a plausible dogma (is that an oxymoron??) would get a sect much further than simply stating that it's "the one true church" louder and more vigorously.

We do have a reputable leader, always have had such. It's just living in a world that lacks consistently reputable discernment capacities that make it what it is.

Atheist in a mini van. said...

Is an objective study of any all encompassing theory of the universe something humans can execute?

I didn't ask you to study the universe...I asked if you had ever objectively studied your religion.
Your religion is not the universe.


That is not so. That is merely your distorted comprehension of history. (in re: Joe Smith being a con artist)
Oh, but it is so. And, widely recorded by the authorities in Ohio, Missouri, and Illinois. One example: Smith was a land flipper/house flipper before house/land flipping was cool. He would buy up cheap real estate, under the shadiest of terms (usually by co-opting people into his faith and then taking their land as tithe upon death) and then deed it out to people who were supposed to be coming from Europe. Unfortunately, "the Prophet" didn't bother to make sure the transactions were legal OR that the land was his to lease.

In re: changes to the first vision..."Because he was telling them to different audiences in different settings."
So, it's okay for the prophet to change the details to make it more appealing or dramatic? Something as important and life altering as the first vision...and he's fuzzy on the details?

Do you have much a knowledge at all of languages other than English?
Gee...you must be new around here. The answer to this question is, "YES!! Many of them old and virtually unused."

Furthermore, this is a diversion from the point. Almost all, if not all, respected, academically peer reviewed and accepted studies of the Smith Papyri have deemed Joseph's translation (as put forth in the PoGP) as fraudulent and completely inaccurate.

Bethlemem is a virtual suburb of Jerusalem.
Now! Back in Jesus' time... not so much. The distance between the town's ancient centers was more like 12 miles. How long would it take you to walk twelve miles? An average human, carrying nothing, will walk 3mph. So, in ancient times, the distance would be a four hour walk. That would be like me flying from LA to Kansas City today. Not to mention that if you are trying to lead a people to the birthplace of their savior, you may not want to send them to the Wingporte Golf Course when the manger is in Temple Square.

and that the darkness after Jesus crucifixion lasted 3 days (Helaman 14:20) and not 3 hours (Matthew 27:45, Mark 15:33).

Just because it's raining in Rome means I'm getting wet?

Since when does darkness in one hemisphere mean it's inherently occurring in the other? There are actual variances in the nature of darkness. But it is rather silly for you to think that this would be applicable to the whole globe.

Uh. Hello.
Did you go to some special geography class wherein the Holy Lands were relocated to the Southern Hemisphere? Google that one. I'll wait.


There hasn't been any to disprove it. Nor has there been any to remove it's plausibility.

You haven't disproven that I have a billion dollars in my backyard...but, I don't see you digging!! The burden of proof is on the claimant. And, yeah...generally, when there's no evidence to suggest a connection, we realists consider that, for the time, to be an unproven.

On the same note there's not been a single piece of Horse remains that can be dated to the time and location of the Hun empire. Are we to discount the records then because the archeology has failed to yet back it up?
Do you read anything other than Time and Seasons?
Horse teeth are generally considered to be part of a horse and have been found all over digs in the ancient Hun empire. The tarpan subspecies of horse is dug up along with other artifacts from the time. Unfortunately, until very, very recently the Cold War and China's information secrecy have kept a lot of archeological finds to themselves.

So, where are the iron works of these great civilizations of Mormons? Where's the forensic evidence for the huge war? And, you clearly don't understand how DNA works, my friend. Not really surprising given the whole hemispheric misorientation stuff...

I'll leave the rest for others. I'm going to go play a game with the possums.

Eight Hour Lunch said...

Ok, I think we've got this one taken care of. How many more Mormons do we need to engage in endless incoherent blabbering before we've neutralized the threat?

Atheist in a mini van. said...

How many more Mormons do we need to engage in endless incoherent blabbering before we've neutralized the threat?


I don't know, EHL...how many wives did Joseph have? 34??

Captain Brad said...

I always wondered if I could weasel my way into the temple using my lineage credentials alone (3rd great-grandson of Parley P. Pratt). I'm gonna have to try it one of these days.

Oh, and "Jazz Fan" (which is bad enough...the Jazz suck!), like EHL said, you can't be a "Satanist" if you don't believe in "Satan".

Eight Hour Lunch said...

Captain Brad, that makes us related! I'm a great-great-great-great grandson of Parley Pratt. And John D Lee. Good thing it's not genetic!

Jack Jackal said...

Jiveradical,

1. No, I have never posted on You Tube.
2. So exactly what are those CERTAIN things (other than godlessness)you disagree with atheists on?
3. Let's see how your "discernment capacities" stack up. With respect to your belief in a god, can you discern (and admit) that you may be wrong (regardless of how small you perceive the possibility to be)?

HiveRadical said...

Is an objective study of any all encompassing theory of the universe something humans can execute?

I didn't ask you to study the universe...

I didn't say or imply you had I was referencing the idea that any thing like a religion, something that encompasses the nature of the whole universe in what it proposes and claims, is not something ANYONE can address, in reality, objectively.

I asked if you had ever objectively studied your religion.

True and full objective study of any religion is impossible.

Your religion is not the universe.

If it is true it encompasses all of existence.


(in re: Joe Smith being a con artist)
Oh, but it is so. And, widely recorded by the authorities in Ohio, Missouri, and Illinois. One example: Smith was a land flipper/house flipper before house/land flipping was cool. He would buy up cheap real estate, under the shadiest of terms (usually by co-opting people into his faith and then taking their land as tithe upon death) and then deed it out to people who were supposed to be coming from Europe. Unfortunately, "the Prophet" didn't bother to make sure the transactions were legal OR that the land was his to lease.


You've completely misrepresented what occurred and by whom it was done, in the case of the Kirtland anti-Bank failure. Joseph was unaware of the specific actions of the likes of Warren Parrish (who was, and knew he was, flipping land). And the 'illegality' was read into the law ex post facto. Not that law was created, but that it was reinterpreted for those who wanted blood after a collapse. anti-banking institutions were widely use and accepted as legitimate all over the region by the society in general previous to the collapse that caused the failure.

In re: changes to the first vision..."Because he was telling them to different audiences in different settings."
So, it's okay for the prophet to change the details to make it more appealing or dramatic?


It wasn't being changed. Just different aspects were brought out for different audiences. Any change was merely in what was presented. Merely including certain details for one audience and purpose and others for other audiences and purposes. The claims, again, were not mutually exclusive with the one exception on a chronological error--something that occurs in legitimate relations of legitimate history all the time.

Something as important and life altering as the first vision...and he's fuzzy on the details?

Not fuzzy. Just giving different angles for different intended audiences. When something happens to you do you use the very same relation of that for your husband as you do for your youngest child? If you do do you do that all the time, regardless the context or subject matter?

Do you have much a knowledge at all of languages other than English?
Gee...you must be new around here. The answer to this question is, "YES!! Many of them old and virtually unused."

Furthermore, this is a diversion from the point. Almost all, if not all, respected, academically peer reviewed and accepted studies of the Smith Papyri have deemed Joseph's translation (as put forth in the PoGP) as fraudulent and completely inaccurate.


That's both working off erroneous assumptions as to what the Book of Abraham is AND it begs the point that there's not a great deal of variety in the peers that can do the reviewing. Clearly those who've not joined the church would have motivation, just as those who've joined, to advocate what would make their decision (in either joining or not) to look rational and justified.

I'd again suggest you look at Hugh Nibley's "The Joseph Smith Papyri: An Egyptian Endowment." You, of all people, should look at what Nibley points out in that book. He even has translation of the Papyrus into English. I talk about this in several of my videos on YouTube.

And no. The language thing is not a diversion. The fact is that what Joseph translated from wasn't, according to Joseph's own descriptions, to be from the text surrounding the facsimiles. Again the book I've referenced talks about this.

Bethlemem is a virtual suburb of Jerusalem.
Now! Back in Jesus' time... not so much. The distance between the town's ancient centers was more like 12 miles. How long would it take you to walk twelve miles? An average human, carrying nothing, will walk 3mph. So, in ancient times, the distance would be a four hour walk. That would be like me flying from LA to Kansas City today. Not to mention that if you are trying to lead a people to the birthplace of their savior, you may not want to send them to the Wingporte Golf Course when the manger is in Temple Square.


Again, Jerusalem was the place of defense. If someone was going to attack the people of Bethlehem they would have to get INTO Jerusalem.

Uh. Hello.
Did you go to some special geography class wherein the Holy Lands were relocated to the Southern Hemisphere? Google that one. I'll wait.


What? You've never heard the term "Western Hemisphere"? Not sure what yer gettn at. I was just saying that just because it was dark for three hours in the EASTERN HEMISPHERE that it could have been a different condition that was causing the darkness in the WESTERN HEMISPHERE.


I said previously--
"There hasn't been any to disprove it. Nor has there been any to remove it's plausibility."

You haven't disproven that I have a billion dollars in my backyard...but, I don't see you digging!!

I have reasons to believe in what I believe. I have no reason, both it being against my ethics, the rule of law etc. to even entertain any such item. There's a distinct difference between the absurd random items pulled out by atheists trying to create some imitation to think they can show something about divine claims. I have personal witness to God. Yes I can not enumerate and quantify it with instruments but I personally know of it's reality as much as you know you love your kids (barring--of course--the possibility that you merely see the connection between you and your kids as merely biological mechanizations creating such illusions in the confines of your body, if such were reality then I'd pity you)


The burden of proof is on the claimant.

Do you claim to love your kids? Do you claim love is something beyond mere biological and environmentally honed survival enhancing gadgets that has no real existence beyond the way the molecules and electrical impulses happen to react in your body?

And I claim that you can know God. I've never claimed to be able to prove his existence. I claim that I've had a personal experience that is the foundation of my beliefs. If you want to believe that it's some ailment that has me believing such then what will you do when a child asks if your love for them is more than mere biological remnants of an evolutionary process that presently favors beings who have such profound psycho/biological connections?

And, yeah...generally, when there's no evidence to suggest a connection, we realists consider that, for the time, to be an unproven.

You ever look at Super-string theory. I often wonder how long the leading candidate for a Unified theory in physics will remain beyond the realms of scientific investigation. Because presently the most promising model for a theory of everything in physics has the same potential lack of resolution as the question of God seems, at present, to have.

On the same note there's not been a single piece of Horse remains that can be dated to the time and location of the Hun empire. Are we to discount the records then because the archeology has failed to yet back it up?
Do you read anything other than Time and Seasons?


Come again? I didn't get it from Time and Seasons.

Horse teeth are generally considered to be part of a horse and have been found all over digs in the ancient Hun empire.

Let's see it then. I want you to point out something pulled from, and dated to, the lands and times of the Hun Empire. Show us yer teeth.

The tarpan subspecies o0f horse is dug up along with other artifacts from the time.

I'm only finding Scythian dig references and that's a bit early, by a couple centuries, for the Hun Empire (KINDA SMALL TOO--I always envisioned their horses being a bit larger.)

Unfortunately, until very, very recently the Cold War and China's information secrecy have kept a lot of archeological finds to themselves.

And they want to hide those darn horse teeth from the western world. Can't have those tourists coming in.


So, where are the iron works of these great civilizations of Mormons?

There are a lot of ruins that haven't been touched, all over the Americas. We know one of the civilizations figured out how to mix PGM (Platinum Group Metals) metals with the highest of melting points. And they mixed them without having furnaces that even approached their melting points. Metallurgically they were far more advanced than many realize. Many also don't realize the nuances of Metallurgy. It's very possible for significant amounts of Iron to have been completely lost to corrosion. I've a bit of history in metallurgy, more than most.

Where's the forensic evidence for the huge war?

Again there are still many things to be found. Though wars of that size would not likely have been covered terribly fast. Loss to the elements would likely have been massive.

And, you clearly don't understand how DNA works, my friend.

I'll keep the smirk on my face and let you read the next portion on your ignorance. I'd like to see you show me where I'm wrong in my understanding of DNA. I mean if you have such an advanced knowledge perchance you could demonstrate where my arguments are wrong in my vids on YouTube.


Not really surprising given the whole hemispheric misorientation stuff...

There are around two million hits for both the terms "western hemisphere" and about the same amount for the term "southern hemisphere" on google. I think you would be the one feeling silly for not realizing such a term was both valid and in wide use.

There you go 'Mz Orientation'


I'll leave the rest for others. I'm going to go play a game with the possums.

Hope you have fun.

HiveRadical said...

Oh, and "Jazz Fan" (which is bad enough...the Jazz suck!), like EHL said, you can't be a "Satanist" if you don't believe in "Satan".

Unless you lie about your lack of a belief in Satan

--ala Korihor.

Book of Alma chapter 30

HiveRadical said...

2. So exactly what are those CERTAIN things (other than godlessness)you disagree with atheists on?

Since they do vary (atheists) it depends. There are ones more common among them. Spit one out and I'll tell ya where I stand on it.


3. Let's see how your "discernment capacities" stack up. With respect to your belief in a god, can you discern (and admit) that you may be wrong (regardless of how small you perceive the possibility to be)?

Any human may be wrong. I've just reached a degree of certainty that IF I am wrong then it wont matter to me anyway. And me being 'proved' wrong is about as far from being possible as God appearing to you in glory when you first read this post.

Jack Jackal said...

hiveradical,

2. Hmmmm, I'm drawing a blank. Sin is your area of expertise. I can't imagine it being too difficult for you to provide at least a couple of examples. Please indulge us all.

3a. So, you do agree that you may be wrong. Thank goodness. I was really beginning to get concerned about your mental health.

3b. In terms of it not mattering if you're wrong, I think you aren't being totally honest? If Allah turns out to be the one true god, you and those you have converted together with your adherent family and friends are going to burn in the nastiest of all hells. Similarly, if you're wrong about Odin, Hel awaits you and yours again. And if...(on and on).

3c. Again, I think you aren't being totally honest about the possibility of being proved wrong. I think (and hope) that's ultimately why you're here.

P.S. As a courtesy, I held off an extra 15 minutes prior to posting and yet...still no appearance by any god.

Atheist in a mini van. said...

HiveRadical said...
True and full objective study of any religion is impossible.


Of course it is. So, why not aim for, say, fifty percent objectivity when it comes to your beliefs?


If it is true it encompasses all of existence.

Yeah,..."if" being the key word. Thus far, I've not seen enough evidence to suggest that ANY religion is "true", let alone the LDS faith.


You've completely misrepresented what occurred and by whom it was done, in the case of the Kirtland anti-Bank failure.

Have I?
Joseph was unaware of the specific actions of the likes of Warren Parrish (who was, and knew he was, flipping land). And the 'illegality' was read into the law ex post facto. Not that law was created, but that it was reinterpreted for those who wanted blood after a collapse. anti-banking institutions were widely use and accepted as legitimate all over the region by the society in general previous to the collapse that caused the failure.
So, the guy who was masterminding the entire operation had absolutely no clue what was being done by his faithful? Rrrrriiiiight. And, he didn't sign any of the paperwork or instruct any of them to do what they did? He didn't take ANY money from European converts to fund his land grabs? All of that was done without the knowledge of the prophet? Yeah...and the Mountain Meadows Massacre was just a bunch of Native Americans who were pissy. NOT!



It wasn't being changed.

The hell it wasn't!!
Joseph Smith had about ten different versions of this "miraculous" event. And, we're not talking about little details.
Just different aspects were brought out for different audiences.
Quite the showman.
Any change was merely in what was presented.
So...which holy persons/angels appeared during the first vision are just insignificant details? Just "mere" changes that really don't matter. So, then... who was it who instructed Joseph to not join any of the established Churches? And, where did these miraculous events occur? Those don't really strike me as "mere" details (if you're witnessing to your God's true commandments).

Merely including certain details for one audience and purpose and others for other audiences and purposes. The claims, again, were not mutually exclusive with the one exception on a chronological error--something that occurs in legitimate relations of legitimate history all the time.
Yeah...because when you have Jesus and his Dad stopping by, it's easy to get them confused with the time you saw some angel named Moroni?


Not fuzzy. Just giving different angles for different intended audiences.
Sweetie, where I'm from, we call that showmanship, not divine guidance.
When something happens to you do you use the very same relation of that for your husband as you do for your youngest child?
No. But, I generally keep the people involved and the sequence of events similar.
If you do do you do that all the time, regardless the context or subject matter?
If I were describing some miraculous event in which God supposedly sent messengers to tell me to start a new religion, I'm pretty sure I'd stick to the events as they happened. Who would I be to embellish?


That's both working off erroneous assumptions as to what the Book of Abraham is AND it begs the point that there's not a great deal of variety in the peers that can do the reviewing.
Baloney!! Maybe not many LDS Apologetics to review it, but there are plenty of Egyptologists who could (and have!).
Clearly those who've not joined the church would have motivation, just as those who've joined, to advocate what would make their decision (in either joining or not) to look rational and justified.
Yeah...because, those pesky archeologists just have it in for the LDS Church. *rolls eyes*

I'd again suggest you look at Hugh Nibley's "The Joseph Smith Papyri: An Egyptian Endowment."
Read it. Wasn't impressed.
You, of all people, should look at what Nibley points out in that book. He even has translation of the Papyrus into English. I talk about this in several of my videos on YouTube.
What's with pimping your youtube videos? If you've got something to say, say it here.


And no. The language thing is not a diversion. The fact is that what Joseph translated from wasn't, according to Joseph's own descriptions, to be from the text surrounding the facsimiles.
Oh ho ho ho, but it was!!! And, in fact, those facsimiles were so important that he put them in the dang book! It wasn't until Egyptologists said, "that's crap!" that the copies were considered to be unimportant.


Again, Jerusalem was the place of defense. If someone was going to attack the people of Bethlehem they would have to get INTO Jerusalem.

What does that have to do with your original statement that they could really be considered the same place, as to avoid a contradiction between the Bible and the BoM?

What? You've never heard the term "Western Hemisphere"?
Yeah. I've heard of it. Unfortunately, for you, it has no bearing on your argument for why the sun could've been blocked out for three days as opposed to three hours. In cases where the sun is involved, the split between the Northern and Southern Hemisphere is the split that counts. Not the split between the east and west. Are you trying to say that, upon reaching the prime meridian, the sun just popped back up for one hemisphere, but disappeared for the other?
Not sure what yer gettn at. I was just saying that just because it was dark for three hours in the EASTERN HEMISPHERE that it could have been a different condition that was causing the darkness in the WESTERN HEMISPHERE.
Give me one scenario in which that could be possible. Excluding volcanic eruptions and gigantic meteor hits, because those aren't mentioned, how would the death of a man create such widely diverse results - regardless of the hemisphere. IF it was a difference between the Southern and Northern, you might have a case (due to the white night phenomena, tilt of the earth w/seasonal differences, and whatnot). But, you're arguing the impossible given the parameters in the Bible and BoM.

I have reasons to believe in what I believe.
Ok.
I have no reason, both it being against my ethics, the rule of law etc. to even entertain any such item.
What item? The money in my backyard? How would the money in my backyard be against your ethics or rules of law?
There's a distinct difference between the absurd random items pulled out by atheists trying to create some imitation to think they can show something about divine claims.
Really. Please share what that difference is using emperical evidence and logically sound reasoning.

I have personal witness to God.
There are people who've had witness and testimony for Vishnu and Allah, too, but I don't see you following Vishnu and/or Allah based on THEIR testimony. Why is yours better?
Yes I can not enumerate and quantify it with instruments but I personally know of it's reality as much as you know you love your kids (barring--of course--the possibility that you merely see the connection between you and your kids as merely biological mechanizations creating such illusions in the confines of your body, if such were reality then I'd pity you)
Except for the fact that my kids exist and I can prove my connection and love for them through my actions. I can even prove they exist.

Do you claim to love your kids?
Sure.
Do you claim love is something beyond mere biological and environmentally honed survival enhancing gadgets that has no real existence beyond the way the molecules and electrical impulses happen to react in your body?
See above. What do you have against biology?

And I claim that you can know God.
Claiming something to be true doesn't make it true.
I've never claimed to be able to prove his existence.
So...you really don't care if your deity is true. It's irrelevant. As long as he/she/it exists in your head, it's good enough for you.
I claim that I've had a personal experience that is the foundation of my beliefs.
I've seen five year olds bear a testimony in your church and then go out and talk about the Easter Bunny. I've seen them screw up and have mommy scowl at them and correct them...like stage parents. So, what exactly is your personal, unverifiable, unemperically testable "experience" worth?

If you want to believe that it's some ailment that has me believing such then what will you do when a child asks if your love for them is more than mere biological remnants of an evolutionary process that presently favors beings who have such profound psycho/biological connections?
My children won't have to ask why I love them or how I love them, if I do my job right.
And, I think you're skating a dangerous circle here. Why? Because, we know that small changes in hormones DO result in situations where mothers kill their children - Andrea Yates, Susan Smith, Mary Tinning, etc.,. - all of them suffered from emperically measurable deficiencies in certain chemicals that led to severe depression and psychosis. Speaking of which, isn't Utah the gold mine for antidepressant sales?

You ever look at Super-string theory. I often wonder how long the leading candidate for a Unified theory in physics will remain beyond the realms of scientific investigation. Because presently the most promising model for a theory of everything in physics has the same potential lack of resolution as the question of God seems, at present, to have.
Not so. But, it doesn't matter because your logic is sketchy. Physicists will admit that their conclusions and theories may be false and encourage others to test their conclusions and hypothesis. I've not met one physicist who says, "Agree with me or perish in hell."


Let's see it then. I want you to point out something pulled from, and dated to, the lands and times of the Hun Empire. Show us yer teeth.
*cheeeeeese* Did you see my teeth? Oh, sorry...you meant the horses teeth. Well, I suppose if I were a horse, I could, but I'm not a horse. I can however encourage you to google it. I found the answer fairly quickly (albeit I had to buy a subscription to an archeological journal). And, there are more than a few articles on the topic.

I'm only finding Scythian dig references and that's a bit early, by a couple centuries, for the Hun Empire (KINDA SMALL TOO--I always envisioned their horses being a bit larger.)
Then you're not very good at research.

And they want to hide those darn horse teeth from the western world. Can't have those tourists coming in.
Horse teeth don't normally bring in many tourists.
Are you seriously saying that you have no idea as to the scientific secrecy and suppression of distribution that has taken place in Cold War Russia and present day China? Russia didn't alert it's neighbors when Chernobyl exploded and you expect them to contact the LDS Church about horse teeth post-glastnost? Furthermore, you're basically saying that people should ignore the THOUSANDS of years of oral history, art, and literature, that shows - pretty definitively- that the Huns used horses?


There are a lot of ruins that haven't been touched, all over the Americas.
How many in Palmyra?
And, are you seriously hinging your faith on the off-chance that someone's going to, at this point, discover some yet undiscovered evidence of a massive war and civilization that roamed the Americas?
We know one of the civilizations figured out how to mix PGM (Platinum Group Metals) metals with the highest of melting points. And they mixed them without having furnaces that even approached their melting points. Metallurgically they were far more advanced than many realize. Many also don't realize the nuances of Metallurgy. It's very possible for significant amounts of Iron to have been completely lost to corrosion. I've a bit of history in metallurgy, more than most.
Can you prove that these people were the people of the Book of Mormon?

Again there are still many things to be found. Though wars of that size would not likely have been covered terribly fast. Loss to the elements would likely have been massive.
So, it's possible that hundreds of thousands of bodies may have perished and left not a trace of their existence, but you want horse teeth?

I'll keep the smirk on my face and let you read the next portion on your ignorance. I'd like to see you show me where I'm wrong in my understanding of DNA.
I'll see your book and raise you one: "Losing a Lost Tribe".

I mean if you have such an advanced knowledge perchance you could demonstrate where my arguments are wrong in my vids on YouTube.
Again with the youtube?

There are around two million hits for both the terms "western hemisphere" and about the same amount for the term "southern hemisphere" on google.
And, remarkably, not one serious, scientific hit will give you a rationale for how it could be dark for three days in one hemisphere (east or west) without a catastrophy.

I think you would be the one feeling silly for not realizing such a term was both valid and in wide use.
I don't have a problem with the term....I have a problem with YOUR use of it.

Hope you have fun.
I did.

Joshua said...

re: Joesph Smith, con artist:

Up here in upstate New York, not far from the Burned Over district, Joesph Smith is remembered as a con man not unlike the television psychics. Court records from the time record him as being a "glass looker," someone who claimed that he could find buried treasure by peering into a crystal. Pity there was no James Randi at the time.

Omnipotent Poobah said...

Don't be so quick with that whole not being baptized as LDS thing. They have been known to secretly baptize people without their knowledge.

I think it's their way of closing all the loopholes when they send someone to dinner with Brigham Young.

I'm thinking you don't have much to worry about:-)

HiveRadical said...

Jack Jackal,

2. Hmmmm, I'm drawing a blank. Sin is your area of expertise. I can't imagine it being too difficult for you to provide at least a couple of examples. Please indulge us all.

Sin would be kind of a silly thing to argue about with an atheist in terms of disagreement since it's rather tied to the whole belief in the divine.

Many atheists seem to (Europe as an example--realizing this is a generalization and not applicable to all) proscribe to a wide variety of popular social dogmas. Among these the over-population view is one that I see as a rather wrong-headed problem/solution view held by many atheists/agnostics/secular humanists.

3a. So, you do agree that you may be wrong. Thank goodness. I was really beginning to get concerned about your mental health.

Not that your diagnosis would mean much to myself either way. But I appreciate the concern.

3b. In terms of it not mattering if you're wrong, I think you aren't being totally honest? If Allah turns out to be the one true god, you and those you have converted together with your adherent family and friends are going to burn in the nastiest of all hells. Similarly, if you're wrong about Odin, Hel awaits you and yours again. And if...(on and on).

No. It's not really a concern. If the divine reality is radically varied from what I imagine then it is not really divine. If God does not align with my view of him then he is not really a God. And in such a case my not knowing his character would not much matter as he/she/it would lack the inherent tie to justice and would, by definition, be an unjust and inaccessible superior being RATHER than being a God. And of course if you are correct then I have nothing at all to worry about, for I will have enjoyed my existence while it went on and will cease to exist--at which point nothing will really matter.


3c. Again, I think you aren't being totally honest about the possibility of being proved wrong. I think (and hope) that's ultimately why you're here.

P.S. As a courtesy, I held off an extra 15 minutes prior to posting and yet...still no appearance by any god.

HiveRadical said...

Of course it is. So, why not aim for, say, fifty percent objectivity when it comes to your beliefs?

Because any hope for anything approaching accuracy is not tied to what 'percentage' of objectivity is obtained, rather it's tied to your realization, and attempts to compensate for, the fact that it can never be truly objective. Anything short of 100% objectivity can have you fooled. Sometimes being closer to the goal can be an ultimate impediment to achieving the goal beyond that of other positions at a greater distance from the goal.



Yeah,..."if" being the key word. Thus far, I've not seen enough evidence to suggest that ANY religion is "true", let alone the LDS faith.

That's a rather silly stance to take. Again, with truth being mutually exclusive, proving any number of religions to NOT be true would do nothing to lessen or eliminate a reality of one religion being true.



So, the guy who was masterminding the entire operation had absolutely no clue what was being done by his faithful? Rrrrriiiiight. And, he didn't sign any of the paperwork or instruct any of them to do what they did? He didn't take ANY money from European converts to fund his land grabs? All of that was done without the knowledge of the prophet?

Again you're misrepresenting what I said AND you are missing the fundamentals of what would be needed for the problems to get past one in charge. Do you know of any head of any bank that at any random time you could go to and ask for any major business executive to give you a 100%, without reservations, assurance that at that very moment NO ONE, and NO THING being done by or within their enterprise is, or could be, considered illegal. The fact is that corporations and institutions have things divided into parts both in terms of duty and liability precisely because it's impossible for a single human to hold the whole of the minutia of all the operations in their mind at once.

Yeah...and the Mountain Meadows Massacre was just a bunch of Native Americans who were pissy. NOT!

That's a rather silly thing to place as your determinant as to what is and isn't the truth. The thing the MMM proves is simply that everyone is capable of committing evil, it says nothing against the veracity claims of our faith. I mean that kind of logic is like taking some brilliant scientist who did something horrible and saying that science was wrong because that scientist did something horrible. It just doesn't make any sense.

RE: first vision accounts
The hell it wasn't!!(being changed)
Joseph Smith had about ten different versions of this "miraculous" event. And, we're not talking about little details.

Then let's look at those items you find irreconcilable.


So...which holy persons/angels appeared during the first vision are just insignificant details? Just "mere" changes that really don't matter.


They were all present, simply because they weren't mentioned in every account doesn't constitute their absence.

So, then... who was it who instructed Joseph to not join any of the established Churches? And, where did these miraculous events occur? Those don't really strike me as "mere" details (if you're witnessing to your God's true commandments).

Let's get these specific items out and address them.


Yeah...because when you have Jesus and his Dad stopping by, it's easy to get them confused with the time you saw some angel named Moroni?

I have a feeling that you're drawing on items that you are not understanding and/or not properly placing. Let's make references here to specific documents in your accusations so that we can be sure that we're addressing an actual issue rather than something born out of your misunderstanding.


Sweetie, where I'm from, we call that showmanship, not divine guidance.

Is showmanship inherently dishonest or deceptive in any and all it's forms?

RE: aiamv's relation of events to differing audiences.
No. But, I generally keep the people involved and the sequence of events similar.

But not inherently the same. For example you may not mention an individual that one person has no, or little, familiarity with OR you may omit relating an event in the chronological relation if that specific event seems to have little or no meaning for your audience? Same with other elements? You include what your intended audience would find relevant--and that wouldn't inherently be the same for each audience. Thus omission of entire elements may be something practiced on occasion?


If I were describing some miraculous event in which God supposedly sent messengers to tell me to start a new religion, I'm pretty sure I'd stick to the events as they happened. Who would I be to embellish?

I'm not claiming embellishment, just variation to adapt for an intended audience or purpose.

If you went through said hypothetical do you think that realities of the world would make it wise to ALWAYS relate the story in EXACTLY the same way?


RE:my Book of Abraham comments
Baloney!! Maybe not many LDS Apologetics to review it, but there are plenty of Egyptologists who could (and have!).

No. Not Egyptologists that specialize in the area in which the snsn text falls. And again, there's significant evidence that the snsn text is not the source Joseph Claimed to use. His description of the state of the Papyrus, and several of it's attributes, do not match that of the role that contained the facsimiles.


Yeah...because, those pesky archeologists just have it in for the LDS Church. *rolls eyes*


No. Because they have a personal vested interest in maintaining a the paradigm around which they've built their work and conclusions.


I'd again suggest you look at Hugh Nibley's "The Joseph Smith Papyri: An Egyptian Endowment."
Read it. Wasn't impressed.


I doubt you read it. Or if you did I don't know if you understood it. Because if you did your attacks against the Book of Abraham would have been adapted to counter Nibley's points. Up to now your claims have been posited as if you didn't know they'd already been countered. Thusly I can only conclude that your failure to present updated and potent argumentation against the Book of Abraham is tied to your effectively not having obtained what was said on the pages of the book. That means that if you read it you didn't understand it. OR that you're lying about having read it. (It's also a substantial book, the present edition in print being over 500 pages long)


What's with pimping your youtube videos? If you've got something to say, say it here.

Are you denying the potency of the medium of video? Here I have a bit of a hard time taking out actual photos of papyrus and pointing to items. I fail to see why you'd be so silly as to want to limit a search for truth to a mere text based forum. I mean most scholars will extend their interchanges beyond mere text exchanges and will employ graphical elements and will even make media presentations to make their points. Why do you pretend we should artificially bind ourselves to only this forum's capacities? I mean if understanding is what is sought, and going to a website a few keystrokes away enables better communication, why would you take issue with it?


Oh ho ho ho, but it was!!! And, in fact, those facsimiles were so important that he put them in the dang book! It wasn't until Egyptologists said, "that's crap!" that the copies were considered to be unimportant.

You completely misunderstand the whole of the situation. Yes the facsimiles were in the original text when Abraham made it. But that doesn't mean the forms of both the text and the facsimiles reached Joseph in the form that Abraham put them down as. Again this is prime evidence that your claim to have read Nibley's book is effectively wrong, at least at the level of you having understood or retained much from the book.

God took the vestiges of Abraham's work in at least two different mediums and gave access to the two mediums that had most accurately transmitted those elements for them to be brought back together. It's as if you wanted to copy an article from a book you couldn't take with you. So you copy the text by hand but are unable to reproduce the image. You find the same image latter incorporated into a different work, a copy of which you can obtain, and then by carrying around the two pieces you effectively have the same thing as was present in the original item you wished to preserve a copy of for yourself.


RE: Jerusalem & Bethlhem


What does that have to do with your original statement that they could really be considered the same place, as to avoid a contradiction between the Bible and the BoM?


Because people when they'd refer to the location, say for purposes of attacking, wouldn't say "first we'll assault Bethlehem then Jerusalem. RATHER it would be just "We'll assault Jerusalem--because to take Jerusalem would be to take the regions around her.


RE:"Western Hemisphere"?
Yeah. I've heard of it. Unfortunately, for you, it has no bearing on your argument for why the sun could've been blocked out for three days as opposed to three hours. In cases where the sun is involved, the split between the Northern and Southern Hemisphere is the split that counts. Not the split between the east and west. Are you trying to say that, upon reaching the prime meridian, the sun just popped back up for one hemisphere, but disappeared for the other?

You have an odd view of blocking the Sun and what it takes. All you have to do to block the sun selectively is to have thick enough plumes of whatever between the land and the sun. Plumes could easily selectively cover the Western Hemisphere and not do any blocking in the Eastern. Likewise with whatever caused the three hours of darkness in the old world, it wouldn't inherently have to effect the Western Hemisphere.


Give me one scenario in which that could be possible. Excluding volcanic eruptions and gigantic meteor hits, because those aren't mentioned,

Just because they are not specifically mentioned doesn't preclude them. Plenty of times people have suffered from darkening of such events when they didn't have a line of sight, or direct knowledge of, the cause of such.


how would the death of a man create such widely diverse results - regardless of the hemisphere.

He's God.

IF it was a difference between the Southern and Northern, you might have a case (due to the white night phenomena, tilt of the earth w/seasonal differences, and whatnot). But, you're arguing the impossible given the parameters in the Bible and BoM.

No I'm not. Just your untenable assumptions as to what they could or could not be describing. The BoM account really does bespeak massive tectonic upheaval. Many cities sinking. Cities being covered by earth.


What item? The money in my backyard? How would the money in my backyard be against your ethics or rules of law?

Not the money, my digging it up would be both against my ethics AND against the Law AND I don't have a reason even approaching the degree of certainty for the reality of such as I have for my certainty of the reality of God.


Really. Please share what that difference is using emperical evidence and logically sound reasoning.

The orbiting tea pot is a classic analogy of your side of the 'God' debate.

Let's say that some group of people, with a leader, claimed that there was this orbiting tea-pot.

That alone, as per the analogy's thrust, would mean very little. But the claims of my faith go far beyond the implications of such a teapot.

So we modify the analogy to try and demonstrate why it's so out of line. Say that certain things about obtaining this teapot were claimed by this leader and corresponding group. Still you may think they are a bunch of wackos, and you'd be, with just that info, rather justified in my view. Now say you have communication capacities equivalent to those of the 5th Century BC. And you have one group claiming this orbiting tea-pot story and then, from a population unknown to the first and completely disconnected and unable to ever interact with--in any way--the other group, you have a second leader and group that also claims this tea-pot. Then, in this state of disconnect, they start describing this teapot in the very same terms, they come up with other claims besides the orbiting tea-pot and despite their inability to in any way communicate with each other they come up with the very same surrounding elements. You see this goes from some irrelevant item of absurdity to some thing that is rather amazing. Now tie into both some eternally saving world view that also occurred at both ends and you're talking about a good deal more than just an orbiting teapot. Put in the corollary that anyone can take their personal equivalent of a telescope and coordinates and witness for themselves this 'teapot' and you've got something radically different from what is ridiculed in the original teapot setup.


There are people who've had witness and testimony for Vishnu and Allah, too, but I don't see you following Vishnu and/or Allah based on THEIR testimony. Why is yours better?

Because it's based on me trusting my own experience, rather than trusting the claims of other's experiences. I'm secure in my own experience. I'm not secure in anyone else's that has no tie to the convictions I've personally obtained.


Except for the fact that my kids exist and I can prove my connection and love for them through my actions. I can even prove they exist.

proving they exist is not proving your love. Proving a connection is not proving love. Proving actions is not proving love. Proving that love is more than mere biological mechanizations. THAT is proving that love is different from hunger, or other such survival mechanisms.


Do you claim love is something beyond mere biological and environmentally honed survival enhancing gadgets that has no real existence beyond the way the molecules and electrical impulses happen to react in your body?
See above. What do you have against biology?


Is there anything that significant in simply doing what's built into you? What evolution set you up to do? Just to survive as a genetic lineage? I have nothing against biology. Do you have some particular love to exist simply for the sake of existing?



Claiming something to be true doesn't make it true.

Just as claiming to love someone doesn't make it mean anything more than the fact that you have a connection to them that's anything more than an evolved pattern that aids survival. And if that's all that existence is for then why not adhere to dogma if it enhances your capacity to survive as a genetic line? If you're going to exist for the sake of existing and insuring the continuance of your genetic material then why not adhere to whatever ideology is most likely to have you doing that?


So...you really don't care if your deity is true.

I never said that. I said I don't care if I can't prove to you that my Deity is true.

It's irrelevant. As long as he/she/it exists in your head, it's good enough for you.

If I feel happy, or sad, or in pain, or in pleasure, does it much matter what others say I feel? Or what others say I can or cannot prove with regard to my feelings? If a doctor tells me a pain I'm feeling is just in my head does it change the fact that it is in my head--the only place where it matters for myself?



I've seen five year olds bear a testimony in your church and then go out and talk about the Easter Bunny.

Having convictions in one area doesn't constitute every claim they make to be of the same potency. Do you think children are less capable of feeling love simply because they hold to beliefs in the Easter Bunny and Santa Clause? Do such views or illusions make their love less genuine? Of less effect or veracity?


I've seen them screw up and have mommy scowl at them and correct them...like stage parents. So, what exactly is your personal, unverifiable, unemperically testable "experience" worth?

Everything. Absolutely everything.


I said--

If you want to believe that it's some ailment that has me believing such then what will you do when a child asks if your love for them is more than mere biological remnants of an evolutionary process that presently favors beings who have such profound psycho/biological connections?
My children won't have to ask why I love them or how I love them, if I do my job right.

Is love just biology? Is 'doing your job right' just following the dictates of biological urges and processes?

And, I think you're skating a dangerous circle here. Why? Because, we know that small changes in hormones DO result in situations where mothers kill their children - Andrea Yates, Susan Smith, Mary Tinning, etc.,. - all of them suffered from emperically measurable deficiencies in certain chemicals that led to severe depression and psychosis.

So I ask, is love just biology? Is it just some concoction of things that if they go 'right' you survive to pass on your genetic material?

Speaking of which, isn't Utah the gold mine for antidepressant sales?

And pharmaceuticals in general, except for ADHD meds, we're not above the average there. Perchance it's the fact that we aren't haphazardly self-medicating with alcohol and it's cohorts. Maybe it's because we are more aware of the issue and seek to treat it more. It's not an inherent indicator that we are less happy than anyone else in the world, just that we deal with ailments differently.


Not so. But, it doesn't matter because your logic is sketchy. Physicists will admit that their conclusions and theories may be false and encourage others to test their conclusions and hypothesis. I've not met one physicist who says, "Agree with me or perish in hell."

But isn't science the calling card of ration and reason? If Theoretical Physicists who study Superstring Theory are forever limited to just the equations and never actually be able to call their work science, but then what are we to do if it remains our best theory but perpetually beyond the reach of being falsifiable or able to predict anything we can perceive with our instruments? That would effectively land our attempts to comprehend through science at the same roadblock we've found through theology or any other metaphysical or philosophical stab at the truth.


RE: Horse Teeth and Horse remains from the location and time period of the Huns.
*cheeeeeese* Did you see my teeth? Oh, sorry...you meant the horses teeth. Well, I suppose if I were a horse, I could, but I'm not a horse. I can however encourage you to google it. I found the answer fairly quickly (albeit I had to buy a subscription to an archeological journal). And, there are more than a few articles on the topic.

Then you could provide a reference to the Journals. Or is that too much to ask? If not that then the search terms.

RE: What I'd found
Then you're not very good at research.

Or I didn't spend the time you did looking. If you've found it, And want to demonstrate for all to see that I'm wrong, then I don't think a mere reference to the article(s) would be asking too much.



Horse teeth don't normally bring in many tourists.


They do if they're archaeological pieces placed in a museum that shows what's been found out about an amazing civilization that dominated a massive portion of Asia for hundreds of years.


Are you seriously saying that you have no idea as to the scientific secrecy and suppression of distribution that has taken place in Cold War Russia and present day China?

I know the terra cotta warriors are and have been manipulated and repositioned from their original state and that China and Russia are ready to alter those portions of finds to try and make them fit their state sanctioned 'history' but I don't see any reason to hide hun horse remains found at archaeological sites. Not that there couldn't be a reason found to do it. I just don't see it. Rather I see those two nations as trying to trump up whatever they can to get money. And that doesn't seem to be something that, in and of itself, would keep horse remains from the Hun Empire under wraps.


Russia didn't alert it's neighbors when Chernobyl exploded and you expect them to contact the LDS Church about horse teeth post-glastnost?

Not exactly the same things in their implications, though I don't see the Russian government as particularly happy about us. They had far more to motivate a cover-up of Chernobyl than I can see ever being a reason to not let the world see any Hun related archaeological digs with horses in them.

Furthermore, you're basically saying that people should ignore the THOUSANDS of years of oral history, art, and literature, that shows - pretty definitively- that the Huns used horses?

You are missing the point. I'm not trying to disprove that the Huns had horses. Rather I'm demonstrating the absurdity of rejecting claims of historicity around a lack of direct archaeological support. There were many, and many sizable, civilizations throughout the Americas. Relative to European and Mideast excavations we've hardly scratched the surface of what is hidden in the Americas. So to argue that simply because we haven't found a sign saying "Zarahemla: Pop lots o' nephites N mulekites." doesn't mean they didn't, or couldn't have, existed.


How many in Palmyra?

There wouldn't need to be much in Palmyra. And asking what hasn't been found is rather odd. Again a lack of items in an area doesn't mean they weren't ever there.

And, are you seriously hinging your faith on the off-chance that someone's going to, at this point, discover some yet undiscovered evidence of a massive war and civilization that roamed the Americas?

There's already plenty of evidence of massive wars and massive civilizations. But I've never hinged my faith on the finding of any of it. In fact I don't think much if anything will be found 'till after the Millennium is ushered in. Though I could be wrong.


Can you prove that these people were the people of the Book of Mormon?

I don't need to. Their existence and capacities demonstrate that a civilization of great complexity, capacity, and size existed in the Americas. Remember I'm not seeking to prove to anyone anything beyond the maintenance of the plausibility of the concrete and vital historical claims within my faith.


So, it's possible that hundreds of thousands of bodies may have perished and left not a trace of their existence, but you want horse teeth?

I wanted to point out that you could have hundreds of thousands of bodies and have none, or next to none, of discoverable remnants.

Though I would be very interested in horse remains directly from the Hun Empire's realm in time and space.


I'll see your book and raise you one: "Losing a Lost Tribe".

"By analogy, the nuclear archive holds the approximate information content of about fifty sets of encyclopedias, while mtDNA holds as little as ten pages of instructions"

And at least half of "Losing a Lost Tribe"s argument is using those 'ten pages' from mtDNA. And you want to extrapolate how many generations back using that relatively small portion of the whole of the genetic picture.

Ten pages

or

The equivilant to 50 sets of encyclopedias.

Hmmmmm...

From a recent story in "The Observer" (UK paper) on genetic tests presently used en mass

"Yet experts say the science is far from perfect. They point out that beyond a few generations any human is descended from a huge pool of ancestors. The fact that a great-great-great-great-grandparent was from Ghana does not make one Ghanaian. The science is also largely reliant upon statistical analysis and not always exact DNA markers. Professor Troy Duster, of New York University, calls some DNA advocates 'pied pipers' for making claims that their science cannot back up and playing up to a popular feeling that anything involving genetics is 100 per cent accurate. 'There is a cultural feeling that DNA evidence is sacrosanct. But a kind of false precision is rampant right now,' says Duster.


rather than wait 'till a larger mass of evidence was in this man is basing the claims of a whole book on the 'ten pages' of of mtDNA and whatever small portion would be in the Y-chrom.

HiveRadical said...

What a joy to see 8hrL say I'm an 'incoherent' babbling apologetic.

I suppose that's why I've had several lengthy multi-post interchanges with a number of individuals here. discussing things with the incoherent must be the 'thing to do'

Jack Jackal said...

hiveradical,

I wasn’t seeking to argue with you about sin. You brought up that agreeing with atheists on certain things is a sin. I only asked that you provide some examples in order to better understand your comment. I had to ask twice just to get one, strange example. Are you saying that if a Mormon agrees overpopulation is a real problem, he/she has committed a sin? My interest is really piqued…please provide a few more examples.

I agree that if I happen to be wrong about there not being a god and it turns out that it’s the god you worship, then divine reality is radically varied from what I imagine and therefore it is not really divine. If God does not align with my view of him then he is not really a God. And in such a case my not knowing his character would not much matter as he/she/it would lack the inherent tie to justice and would, by definition, be an unjust and inaccessible superior being RATHER than being a God. Wow, mental gymnastics like these are exhilarating.

HiveRadical said...

I wasn’t seeking to argue with you about sin. You brought up that agreeing with atheists on certain things is a sin. I only asked that you provide some examples in order to better understand your comment. I had to ask twice just to get one, strange example. Are you saying that if a Mormon agrees overpopulation is a real problem, he/she has committed a sin? My interest is really piqued…please provide a few more examples.

Ahhh... Now I get it. I'm sorry I didn't quite understand what you meant by 'sin.'

Clearly agreeing with atheists on their conclusions about God would be a sin. Beyond that only agreeing with them on points where they argue against either the modern day prophets or the set doctrines of the Church would you be obviously committing sin. There's a phrase in the Book of Mormon that essentially says that there are so many ways to sin that they can't all be enumerated. This is where it becomes important to be 'in tune' with the spirit of God for yourself and what is and isn't proper for yourself beyond the realm of the clearly defined dos and do nots of the faith.

For example there's a wide array of views in the Church regarding evolution. The Church has not taken any official stance either way on evolution. So, for the most part, there's a pretty good spread as to what kind of views Mormons will have on evolution. The only thing that is asserted is that Adam and Eve were the first Humans. There are a few other doctrinal items that I'd be interested in seeing them correlated, but LDS views are nowhere near conclusive on all the details of Creation. We hold that the Biblical accounts are correct, but we don't inherently know what a creation 'day' consisted of NOR whether or not they were equal in length.

On the population thing the only firm statement by the Church is that the very first commandment that God gave to Man and Woman, to fill and replenish the earth, still stands. We don't believe this dictates any set number of children for couples to have. We believe that is between husband, wife and God as to what number is right for them. With that said there's also a bit more a liberal view with regard to birth control pills and birth control practices. Though my understanding is that the more permanent a procedure tends to be the more inadvisable it would be generally. But there is the pragmatism that at times such procedures are, in exceptional cases, needed for the health of the mother. So beyond the assertion that we are to fill and replenish the earth there's no strict edict on the degree to which individuals should do such. So even on the population, that is overpopulation views, I've met some members, faithful ones (as far as I can tell) that do believe that growth rates can reasonably drop to make growth more sustainable, and infact US Mormons have only a single child per woman per life time more than the average Caucasian American Woman and Mexican Mormons do not even match their national peers on child per woman rates. I personally think this is a bit too low. I personally think we as a church need to try and have more. But that's just my opinion and not hard church doctrine. I've met many, again as far as I can tell faithful, LDS members who think the relatively smaller families is how it should be done. But I personally am really partial to larger families.

Now the reason I brought up overpopulation initially in the last post was not only because I view it as contrary to the command of God but also because I don't think that the logic is sound behind either it's assertions and claims as to what is happening NOR with any of the proposed solutions or practices I've seen presented as corollaries to it.

So I hope that helps there. I'm sorry for the confusion. In short I disagree with atheists (again generally) on the issue of overpopulation for both faith based reasons and intellectual objections I have with a great many aspects surrounding it.


I agree that if I happen to be wrong about there not being a god and it turns out that it’s the god you worship, then divine reality is radically varied from what I imagine and therefore it is not really divine. If God does not align with my view of him then he is not really a God. And in such a case my not knowing his character would not much matter as he/she/it would lack the inherent tie to justice and would, by definition, be an unjust and inaccessible superior being RATHER than being a God. Wow, mental gymnastics like these are exhilarating.

I'm curious as to what items you perceive in my view of God that render him outside your concept of what should be divine?

HiveRadical said...

I wasn’t seeking to argue with you about sin. You brought up that agreeing with atheists on certain things is a sin. I only asked that you provide some examples in order to better understand your comment. I had to ask twice just to get one, strange example. Are you saying that if a Mormon agrees overpopulation is a real problem, he/she has committed a sin? My interest is really piqued…please provide a few more examples.

Ahhh... Now I get it. I'm sorry I didn't quite understand what you meant by 'sin.'

Clearly agreeing with atheists on their conclusions about God would be a sin. Beyond that only agreeing with them on points where they argue against either the modern day prophets or the set doctrines of the Church would you be obviously committing sin. There's a phrase in the Book of Mormon that essentially says that there are so many ways to sin that they can't all be enumerated. This is where it becomes important to be 'in tune' with the spirit of God for yourself and what is and isn't proper for yourself beyond the realm of the clearly defined dos and do nots of the faith.

For example there's a wide array of views in the Church regarding evolution. The Church has not taken any official stance either way on evolution. So, for the most part, there's a pretty good spread as to what kind of views Mormons will have on evolution. The only thing that is asserted is that Adam and Eve were the first Humans. There are a few other doctrinal items that I'd be interested in seeing them correlated, but LDS views are nowhere near conclusive on all the details of Creation. We hold that the Biblical accounts are correct, but we don't inherently know what a creation 'day' consisted of NOR whether or not they were equal in length.

On the population thing the only firm statement by the Church is that the very first commandment that God gave to Man and Woman, to fill and replenish the earth, still stands. We don't believe this dictates any set number of children for couples to have. We believe that is between husband, wife and God as to what number is right for them. With that said there's also a bit more a liberal view with regard to birth control pills and birth control practices. Though my understanding is that the more permanent a procedure tends to be the more inadvisable it would be generally. But there is the pragmatism that at times such procedures are, in exceptional cases, needed for the health of the mother. So beyond the assertion that we are to fill and replenish the earth there's no strict edict on the degree to which individuals should do such. So even on the population, that is overpopulation views, I've met some members, faithful ones (as far as I can tell) that do believe that growth rates can reasonably drop to make growth more sustainable, and infact US Mormons have only a single child per woman per life time more than the average Caucasian American Woman and Mexican Mormons do not even match their national peers on child per woman rates. I personally think this is a bit too low. I personally think we as a church need to try and have more. But that's just my opinion and not hard church doctrine. I've met many, again as far as I can tell faithful, LDS members who think the relatively smaller families is how it should be done. But I personally am really partial to larger families.

Now the reason I brought up overpopulation initially in the last post was not only because I view it as contrary to the command of God but also because I don't think that the logic is sound behind either it's assertions and claims as to what is happening NOR with any of the proposed solutions or practices I've seen presented as corollaries to it.

So I hope that helps there. I'm sorry for the confusion. In short I disagree with atheists (again generally) on the issue of overpopulation for both faith based reasons and intellectual objections I have with a great many aspects surrounding it.


I agree that if I happen to be wrong about there not being a god and it turns out that it’s the god you worship, then divine reality is radically varied from what I imagine and therefore it is not really divine. If God does not align with my view of him then he is not really a God. And in such a case my not knowing his character would not much matter as he/she/it would lack the inherent tie to justice and would, by definition, be an unjust and inaccessible superior being RATHER than being a God. Wow, mental gymnastics like these are exhilarating.

I'm curious as to what items you perceive in my view of God that render him outside your concept of what should be divine?

Jack Jackal said...

hiveradical said,

I'm curious as to what items you perceive in my view of God that render him outside your concept of what should be divine?

Oh, that's a no-brainer. It would be the same thing(s) you perceive outside the concept of divine for any and all faiths you so assuredly dismiss. You are so silly.

AlisonM said...

I see I was in error about LDS having had less time to make up their own apologetics. Although much of what hiveradical is saying clearly comes from the AiG school of debate (i.e., don't answer the question, address something related to the question to divert attention; answer questions with citations to the very religious text that's under scrutiny; accuse those who disagree with you with misunderstanding the text, not having truly read the text, or interpreting it in the wrong sense, etc., etc. . . .) it's the same ol' same ol' just applied to a different magic sky daddy book.

There is no winning this - the mental contortions required to argue in this way and believe that one is making logical points or even "winning the debate" precludes him or her from being swayed by rationality or logic. No matter what anyone says, hiveradical will be able to check the "arguing with nonbelievers" playbook for a way to make you tear your hair out because you wasted a perfectly good post on someone who's not going to pay attention, ever.

It's this kind of thing that makes me want to argue back with criticisms of spelling, vocabulary, and grammar, all of which are clearly problematical for hiveradical. However, we all know full well that this is usually the refuge of those who don't know enough to debate the issue, so I avoid it, meself. I happen to know that I'm tempted to do it when the frustration of watching someone fill up space with this kind of "debate" gets to be too much for me, so clearly it's time to step aside and let him tire himself out and leave. Eventually he'll go to his friends and regale them with stories about how nobody could deny the truth of what he said, and when they ran out of arguments, he had left in triumph. In this way, we all win, because the script will never change, and nobody has to go looking for any new refutations - just stop feeding these people as soon as we recognize argument 1.a.25 or defense technique 32.b.3.

HiveRadical said...

Oh, that's a no-brainer. It would be the same thing(s) you perceive outside the concept of divine for any and all faiths you so assuredly dismiss. You are so silly.

It can't be that. Because the things I see in those are mutually exclusive and the opposite of my view.

I'll rephrase and see if this will do it. What specific items would you see as requisite to a hypothetical true deity?

HiveRadical said...

I see I was in error about LDS having had less time to make up their own apologetics.

We have had less time. But we have an apologetics that's stronger than any other.


Although much of what hiveradical is saying clearly comes from the AiG school of debate (i.e., don't answer the question,

If I don't answer questions I generally point out why the answering of such is either not needed, not my job, or otherwise irrelevant.

If you see any question I haven't answered please point such out.


address something related to the question to divert attention;

When you feel I do this point it out. I can see how instances of pointing to the irrelevancy of the question includes something that I can see you labeling as this.


answer questions with citations to the very religious text that's under scrutiny;

Just as one answers questions about evolution with reference to the theory's components.


accuse those who disagree with you with misunderstanding the text,

I think it's funny that you bring this tactic up as I've had many instances online of people claiming that I misunderstand texts from the scientific community, each time I've had it checked with other sources I've been vindicated, once I even had the author of the very scientific paper in question validate in an e-mail that I, and not the theoretical physicist I was debating with, had correctly understood the Dr's conclusions.

not having truly read the text,

This is a relevant argument if it's true. And I would challenge anyone to look at the instances where I claimed such and read the texts for themselves. I'm comfortable enough with how conversant I am in the texts I make such claims about as to be willing to have anyone test them and try them through their own investigation.

or interpreting it in the wrong sense, etc., etc. . . .) it's the same ol' same ol' just applied to a different magic sky daddy book.

There are instances in which most of these points ARE relevant counter arguments to stances. I would cite as evidence my experience in debating scientists. They will use those exact same 'tactics' and, when and where they are justified in such, their claims have had merit.


There is no winning this - the mental contortions required to argue in this way and believe that one is making logical points or even "winning the debate" precludes him or her from being swayed by rationality or logic.

This is why science has rarely changed significantly more than once in a generation. The old guard becomes set in their paradigm.

In short it's the nature of debate. Rarely in a bona fide debate where each side believes their way is any of the actual participants going to be much swayed. It's often the audience, those reading, the unobserved regions of the debate, where things can happen.

I would love to come upon new truth. And I seek to get what I can from these interchanges. But I'm not here, and neither do I imagine any of you participating are here, to question the underlying superstructure of your world view. But having this present for someone who might be in such a situation THAT is also why I defend my faith. Apologetics is not so much to prove. Such defense of the faith rarely is active in making new believers but a faith that no one can show a capacity to defend will assuredly suffer loss.


No matter what anyone says, hiveradical will be able to check the "arguing with nonbelievers" playbook for a way to make you tear your hair out because you wasted a perfectly good post on someone who's not going to pay attention, ever.

What of those who read this besides myself? I trust my arguments sufficiently to let the audience decide who is and isn't justified in each of their points.

It's this kind of thing that makes me want to argue back with criticisms of spelling, vocabulary, and grammar, all of which are clearly problematical for hiveradical.

Never been a strength of mine.


However, we all know full well that this is usually the refuge of those who don't know enough to debate the issue, so I avoid it, meself. I happen to know that I'm tempted to do it when the frustration of watching someone fill up space with this kind of "debate" gets to be too much for me, so clearly it's time to step aside and let him tire himself out and leave. Eventually he'll go to his friends and regale them with stories about how nobody could deny the truth of what he said, and when they ran out of arguments, he had left in triumph. In this way, we all win, because the script will never change, and nobody has to go looking for any new refutations - just stop feeding these people as soon as we recognize argument 1.a.25 or defense technique 32.b.3.

Feel free to leave it. Certainly we must all take whatever actions we feel are in the best interest of our agenda.


"And after that they durst not ask him any question at all."

Marcy said...

I have no idea what goes on in a mormon temple, but the fact that they won't let unmarried women inside tells me everything I need to know about those misogynistic assholes.

Marcy said...

If the divine reality is radically varied from what I imagine then it is not really divine. If God does not align with my view of him then he is not really a God.

Wow, you've just proved the idea that god is a human construct.

HiveRadical said...

I have no idea what goes on in a mormon temple, but the fact that they won't let unmarried women inside tells me everything I need to know about those misogynistic assholes.

The fact that you've presumed that we don't allow them in makes you into something.

But I know a great many women that are not, and never have been, married that have been, and regularly do go, to the temple. At one point I worked at one and had more unmarried female co-workers my age that were working there than I had either married or unmarried guys.

Even the endowment rates bare out that more women in our church have gone to, and go to, the temple.

This claim that we're "misogynistic assholes" rather ignores a great many things about our history and our present.

We were one of the first states both in the US and on the planet with women's suffrage. At that time we had some of the highest rates, (I believe second highest in the nation behind MA) per capita, of educated women (women with Ph.D's etc). We had the federal government undo the women's suffrage because they didn't like the way the women here voted (the feds wouldn't even let women vote on Utah joining the Union as a State---we had to wait until after we became a state (by dictates of the feds) before we could again allow women to vote).

The fact that more women join our church than men and that women attend services more often than men and that we have (no one's been able to demonstrate against this to me yet) the oldest continuously run and largest single womans organization on the planet I think rather bespeaks the fact there is no institutional misogyny in our church.

HiveRadical said...

Wow, you've just proved the idea that god is a human construct.

The periodic table and the theory of evolution are human constructs. I dare say there's nothing in our perceptions of the world that couldn't be a human construct. Our brain has to organize the information we get somehow, and all that organizing is done in a human brain. Thus everything, to us as humans, is a 'human construct'

Atheist in a mini van. said...

But I know a great many women that are not, and never have been, married that have been, and regularly do go, to the temple.
You know a lot of sister mishies then. And/or older women who are doing temple work after being married into the temple with their husbands.

This claim that we're "misogynistic assholes" rather ignores a great many things about our history and our present.
...and you're re-framing it.

We were one of the first states both in the US and on the planet with women's suffrage.
New Jersey was actually the first state that advocate suffrage (in 1776), by allowing women to hold property. The Pitcairn Islands were the first to give women a vote(1838). South Australia followed in 1861. Tavolora came nextx (1886). New Zealand came next (1893). The Commonwealth of Australia (1902).
Furthermore, WYOMING (not Utah) was the first to grant women the right to vote (1869)!! Utah followed in 1870.

At that time we had some of the highest rates, (I believe second highest in the nation behind MA) per capita, of educated women (women with Ph.D's etc).

Wrong again. Rhode Island and MA had Utah beat.

Furthermore, you're completely ignoring one of the reasons why the LDS Church agreed to work in tandem with the suffrage movement. With polygamy, it gave every adult male more votes (since the wives would listen to his counsel). By giving women the right to vote, the polygamist leaders of Utah got more votes for themselves.

HiveRadical said...

meant to say "couldn't not be a human construct"

HiveRadical said...


...and you're re-framing it.


I didn't present anything wrong. I qualified my statements.

We were one of the first states both in the US and on the planet with women's suffrage.
New Jersey was actually the first state that advocate suffrage (in 1776), by allowing women to hold property. The Pitcairn Islands were the first to give women a vote(1838). South Australia followed in 1861. Tavolora came nextx (1886). New Zealand came next (1893). The Commonwealth of Australia (1902).


I said one of the first. And according you your own presented stats we beat out Tavolora. My point that was relative to the rest of the world we were well withing the first quartile.


Furthermore, WYOMING (not Utah) was the first to grant women the right to vote (1869)!! Utah followed in 1870.

So women were able to vote in Utah and Wyoming before they were allowed such in how many other states? Again look at what I said. I didn't say they were the first, rather among the first. You've only affirmed my statements, your reframing being what is attempting to imply they are wrong.

At that time we had some of the highest rates, (I believe second highest in the nation behind MA) per capita, of educated women (women with Ph.D's etc).

Wrong again. Rhode Island and MA had Utah beat.


I said "I believe" so I missed a state in between the two. None of this technicality spree disproves the core essence of my points. In my view these are only slightly above the pointing out of grammatical and spelling errors. Because neither actually damages my main points--rather demonstrates my imperfect recollection of specifics.


Furthermore, you're completely ignoring one of the reasons why the LDS Church agreed to work in tandem with the suffrage movement. With polygamy, it gave every adult male more votes (since the wives would listen to his counsel). By giving women the right to vote, the polygamist leaders of Utah got more votes for themselves.

Are you advocating that we take the vote away from people that are significantly influenced in their decision by other's opinions? It's that kind of assuming, that women will just inherently cow tow to their husband's requests is a rather belittling stance to take. You forget that a great many of these were women who were converts and had voted with their feet when they crossed the plains.

It's rather dangerous ground. I mean are you implying that because they'd chosen a polygamous life that they should be kept from voting? These women weren't brought into the faith or polygamy at gun point.

Atheist in a mini van. said...

Are you advocating that we take the vote away from people that are significantly influenced in their decision by other's opinions?

Of course not! Are you trying to tell me that the priesthood holder of a polygamist family has absolutely no say over his wives? You know as well as I do that that's bullshit. Even in modern-day LDS families, women are subserviant. I happen to know a few ex-FLDS women and they've shared the patriarchal rule that occurs now, and used to occur, in Utah.
It's that kind of assuming, that women will just inherently cow tow to their husband's requests is a rather belittling stance to take.
I'm not assuming anything. I'm relating facts. Today, FLDS women can walk into private voting booths and vote based on their own freewill. In 19th century Utah...eh', not so much. As you know, the early voting system in Utah was not exactly anonymous. Most men were allowed to accompany their wife (or wives, as the case may be) into the church or school or business where votes were collected.
You forget that a great many of these were women who were converts and had voted with their feet when they crossed the plains.
I don't disagree that they chose to undertake the journey. I would argue, however, that there are NUMEROUS reports that Brigham Young targeted widows and impoverished women as converts to bring to Salt Lake. He wasn't stupid. He knew that you could walk into impoverished sections of Europe and promise these women security and husbands. I know that women with children were particularly desired because the powers-that-be in Utah could seal the children to a new father (upon arrival in SLC) and thereby boost the numbers of the church rolls. And, if you're trying to paint the church in a positive light, I'm not sure you want to bring up the atrocious conditions that the church subjected people to in the handcart crossings.

Jack Jackal said...

hiveradical,

It can't be that. Because the things I see in those are mutually exclusive and the opposite of my view.

Oh, but it is just that. The opposite in this case happens to be the same and is easily seen as being collectively exhaustive.

I'll rephrase and see if this will do it. What specific items would you see as requisite to a hypothetical true deity?

You first need to spell out what you mean by “true” and “deity.” You can use whatever definition you want, but once you define these terms, I’ll hold you to them.

HiveRadical said...

Are you trying to tell me that the priesthood holder of a polygamist family has absolutely no say over his wives? You know as well as I do that that's bullshit. Even in modern-day LDS families, women are subserviant.
The man is the head of the house. But that doesn’t mean the woman is subservient. The term helpmeet indicates a vital equality. They have different roles. But one is not the dictator over the other. That’s never suppose to be the case.

I happen to know a few ex-FLDS women and they've shared the patriarchal rule that occurs now, and used to occur, in Utah.
Holding my faith accountable for all that happens in Utah or that happens in apostate sects is akin to holding the Catholics responsible for protestant crimes or the mafia’s actions in Italy or the acts of Mussolini.

I'm not assuming anything. I'm relating facts. Today, FLDS women can walk into private voting booths and vote based on their own freewill. In 19th century Utah...eh', not so much. As you know, the early voting system in Utah was not exactly anonymous. Most men were allowed to accompany their wife (or wives, as the case may be) into the church or school or business where votes were collected.
Again do not take FLDS as LDS. That’s as stupid as laying everything at the feet of secularists what is done by a few horrible secularists. You and I both know that’s illogical, wrongheaded and an untenable stance.
I’d like to see your source that demonstrates that early LDS women were forced to vote a particular way. I’ve found a sizable record relating to Utah women protesting, in several instances, en masse, their disenfranchisement by the feds. It’s a bit more difficult finding LDS (NOT FLDS) accounts of men dictating to their wives how they must vote. I’m having difficulty finding accounts of your claim that the men accompanied women to the polls to insure that the women voted the way the men wanted.


I don't disagree that they chose to undertake the journey. I would argue, however, that there are NUMEROUS reports that Brigham Young targeted widows and impoverished women as converts to bring to Salt Lake. He wasn't stupid. He knew that you could walk into impoverished sections of Europe and promise these women security and husbands. I know that women with children were particularly desired because the powers-that-be in Utah could seal the children to a new father (upon arrival in SLC) and thereby boost the numbers of the church rolls.

Are you saying that because a woman was poor or widowed that she was too stupid to make a determination on her own as to what she believed was true and right? A good many of these women and children paid their own way to cross the Atlantic and get to Utah-some of them partitioned their families and sent people across as they could afford it. That’s hardly the actions of someone seeking amelioration from hard circumstances. If they wanted an easy way out of their poverty then committing to traveling half way around the globe, generally on their own dime, was an odd way of going about it. Rather than bespeaking a group seeking relief and protection I find it rather screams genuine conviction of having found the truth.

And, if you're trying to paint the church in a positive light, I'm not sure you want to bring up the atrocious conditions that the church subjected people to in the handcart crossings.
You tell me anyone, even back then that would hear the prospect of carrying, under their own power, all their belongings across over a thousand miles and tell me they didn’t have some idea of what they were getting themselves into. These people generally walked to get around---they had some idea of what distance and what kind of commitment they were starting into. This again enunciates commitment and certainty in personal convictions far more than it would ever hint at a bunch of poor and wretched people seeking protection.

HiveRadical said...

You first need to spell out what you mean by “true” and “deity.” You can use whatever definition you want, but once you define these terms, I’ll hold you to them.

We'll see how it goes keeping it simple.

"true" will designate something in complete harmony with the ultimate nature of existence (since we are not sure the actual nature and bounds of existence, whether it be a universe, a pluriverse or something else.)

"deity" will be a being that is omniscient and omnipotent within the realm of existence.

I feel okay with you holding me to those, even if it is a seemingly simplified definition.

Matt D. said...

"deity" will be a being that is omniscient and omnipotent within the realm of existence.

I'm not clear on that. Do you mean that the being is within the realm of existence or that the being's omniscience and omnipotence are limited by the realm of existence? (Perhaps to avoid logically contradictory definitions of omnipotence in the 'rock so big...' category)

And, does your definition of omniscience limit that knowledge to factual data of the present and past - or does this being have certain knowledge of future events?

HiveRadical said...

I'm not clear on that. Do you mean that the being is within the realm of existence or that the being's omniscience and omnipotence are limited by the realm of existence? (Perhaps to avoid logically contradictory definitions of omnipotence in the 'rock so big...' category)

LDS doctrine is not ex nihlo rather ex materia. God is etetrnal, but so to is all the matter/energy in existance

The 'rock so big' argument doesn't quite work as it would go contrary to the nature of God and existence to ever attempt throwing anything out of balance. God is in perfect harmony with eternal law, if either were to ever go contrary to that they'd cease to be what they are. Look at the constants found in physics. They don't generally change (high energy states being an exception, but then they change in a constant and correlating way) if they did the whole 'shebang' would fall apart.

Just as God cannot lie and must fulfill the commitments he makes because if he doesn't remain true to his word then he would cease to be God.

And, does your definition of omniscience limit that knowledge to factual data of the present and past - or does this being have certain knowledge of future events?

It covers everything past present and future.

Atheist in a mini van. said...

The man is the head of the house. But that doesn’t mean the woman is subservient.
Again,... NOW! In the 19th century, when the suffragist movement was gathering speed in this country, that was not the case.
The term helpmeet indicates a vital equality. They have different roles. But one is not the dictator over the other. That’s never suppose to be the case.
So, why not give women the priesthood then? If you're religious and believe that your deity chooses one sex to hold the power of the priesthood, then the balance of priesthood power is, by default, a position of power over the woman. Does that mean the man treats a woman badly? No. Does that mean the man would take advantage of that? No. Does it mean he COULD take advantage? Yes!


Holding my faith accountable for all that happens in Utah or that happens in apostate sects is akin to holding the Catholics responsible for protestant crimes or the mafia’s actions in Italy or the acts of Mussolini.
Not really. And, by the way, I'm not a big fan of Catholicism either. There are some heinous behaviors that take place within the bounds of Catholicism; I wouldn't deny that. I'm simply holding your religion accountable with the same standard I measure other faiths by. I left Catholicism because of the silent cover-up of historic atrocities. The difference between you and I is that I realized that I had to use the same standard for ALL religoins.


Again do not take FLDS as LDS.
Why? If the shoe fits, then wear it. The FLDS are actually more akin to the religion of your first prophet than the current LDS church is.

That’s as stupid as laying everything at the feet of secularists what is done by a few horrible secularists.
No. It's not.
There's no such thing as a secularist dogma or religion.
You and I both know that’s illogical, wrongheaded and an untenable stance.
I don't think it is.
If you claim a mormon heritage and are still paying tithe and time into the organization. You're a bee in a hive, so to speak. If you want to claim all of the positive attributes of mormonism, you then have to accept the negatives. Let's take the "families are forever" perception. I don't think you'd tell me that my generalization of mormon families was wrong if I said, "Those Mormons sure know how to have a great family!" Even though, you and I both know, that there may be child abuse or any number of problems in individual LDS families.

I’d like to see your source that demonstrates that early LDS women were forced to vote a particular way. I’ve found a sizable record relating to Utah women protesting, in several instances, en masse, their disenfranchisement by the feds. It’s a bit more difficult finding LDS (NOT FLDS) accounts of men dictating to their wives how they must vote. I’m having difficulty finding accounts of your claim that the men accompanied women to the polls to insure that the women voted the way the men wanted.
I never said that modern day LDS men told their wives how to vote. I said "19th Century Utah LDS" did.

Are you saying that because a woman was poor or widowed that she was too stupid to make a determination on her own as to what she believed was true and right?
No. I'm saying the LDS Church took advantage of their situation. The women were victims.

A good many of these women and children paid their own way to cross the Atlantic and get to Utah-some of them partitioned their families and sent people across as they could afford it.
And, you think you're making your argument look better?
Didn't many of these people get to SLC pennyless and sick? How well do you make decisions when you're broke and exhausted. Not to mention, once they arrives in SLC, it's not like they could just change their minds after investing such time, money, and LIVES to get there.

That’s hardly the actions of someone seeking amelioration from hard circumstances.
People have joined the military to escape poverty. They go because the promises of what lies AFTER the difficulty is dangled before them like a carrot.
If they wanted an easy way out of their poverty then committing to traveling half way around the globe, generally on their own dime, was an odd way of going about it. Rather than bespeaking a group seeking relief and protection I find it rather screams genuine conviction of having found the truth.
I'm sure that's how you would see it.

You tell me anyone, even back then that would hear the prospect of carrying, under their own power, all their belongings across over a thousand miles and tell me they didn’t have some idea of what they were getting themselves into.
There were such things as covered wagons. Why didn't the LDS Church pony up some cash to wagon train them across the plains.
These people generally walked to get around---they had some idea of what distance and what kind of commitment they were starting into.
And they knew this how?
People who'd lived in the lush green countrysides of England, Ireland, Scotland, and northern europe understood how desolate and grueling the American midwest (and west) were? How?

Jack Jackal said...

Hiveradical said

"true" will designate something in complete harmony with the ultimate nature of existence (since we are not sure the actual nature and bounds of existence, whether it be a universe, a pluriverse or something else.)


Whoa…”the ultimate nature of existence”!? You’re dangerously close to me having to question your mental health again. Are you claiming to know what the ultimate nature of existence is? This totally fascinates me that you decided to offer such a definition.

"deity" will be a being that is omniscient and omnipotent within the realm of existence.

So, by that definition, certain actions taken by such a deity would produce detectable/measurable outcomes. You sure you want that in play?

We'll see how it goes keeping it simple.

And there’s the rub. Like it or not, you are preceded by many a theist that love to use the “redefine” maneuver when backed into a corner. You have offered nothing to date to distinquish yourself from that crowd. As such, you just lost my interest with this qualifier.

Matt D. said...

Ok, so the deity you've defined is omnipotent to the extent that it cannot violate the laws of the universe without ceasing to exist?

Could this deity have created a different universe with different laws of physics (etc), provided he remained true to them?

Soitgoes said...

Hiveradical;
You stated that god is omniscient and omnipotent. By definition that would mean that god cannot make a mistake.
However, humans make mistakes.

Hmmm... so humans can do something that your god can't? So much for omnipotence.

Thanks for playing.

HiveRadical said...

I never said that modern day LDS men told their wives how to vote. I said "19th Century Utah LDS" did.

And I was merely asking you to show evidence of such.


No. I'm saying the LDS Church took advantage of their situation. The women were victims.

They were not victims.


And, you think you're making your argument look better?


Yes. People's convictions driving them through trials is far better than your implication that they were just some poor victims seeking an easy ticket to relief.

Didn't many of these people get to SLC pennyless and sick?

How long did they remain such once in Utah?

How well do you make decisions when you're broke and exhausted.

If you manage to get out of such a state then you must be making rather intelligent decisions. The saints didn't stay poor for long.


Not to mention, once they arrives in SLC, it's not like they could just change their minds after investing such time, money, and LIVES to get there.

Testament to the certainty they had in their convictions, not of their desire to find an easy route out of suffering.



People have joined the military to escape poverty. They go because the promises of what lies AFTER the difficulty is dangled before them like a carrot.

People have also given up riches to join the military. Don't judge convictions and people's reasons simply on their circumstances, as if a poor person was inherently less intelligent than a rich person. I've known too many stupid rich people and poor intelligent people to think that their decisions are as a general rule dictated by their socio-economic standing.


I'm sure that's how you would see it.

I'm not saying it's impossible that there weren't opportunistic people that would see the church and join it for an easy ticket to something, but I saw too many, in my studies of our history, who DID leave early on precisely because their convictions were laid bare by the way they confronted the challenges that faced them. Poor and rich joined thinking it was an economic or social opportunity, they ended up leaving and not enduring hardly any of the travail of the westward treks.



There were such things as covered wagons. Why didn't the LDS Church pony up some cash to wagon train them across the plains.

They initially were producing these things as fast as they could. Handcarts were meant to be a means of extending the accessibility of migration to as many as possible, it was not something thought up to grind the poor, but to enable the poor to make the journey despite their poverty rather than forsaking them because of it. Notice that most paradigms would take the poor in such circumstances and let them fend for themselves.



And they knew this how?
People who'd lived in the lush green countrysides of England, Ireland, Scotland, and northern europe understood how desolate and grueling the American midwest (and west) were? How?


They knew it wasn't easy. They didn't need to know the exacting images of the landscape to realize the magnitude of the trip they were starting on, the conditions on ship were a very potent indicator of the magnitude of commitment they were binding themselves too by saving up for passage and boarding on to the boats.

HiveRadical said...

Whoa…”the ultimate nature of existence”!? You’re dangerously close to me having to question your mental health again. Are you claiming to know what the ultimate nature of existence is? This totally fascinates me that you decided to offer such a definition.

No. I'm saying that whatever the ultimate nature of existence is that God is in perfect harmony with that. I say this precisely because humans DON'T know the ultimate nature of existence.

Isaid--"deity" will be a being that is omniscient and omnipotent within the realm of existence.

So, by that definition, certain actions taken by such a deity would produce detectable/measurable outcomes. You sure you want that in play?

Not inherently measurable by our capacities. Again we don't know the ultimate nature of the universe. But yes, there's the potential for that.

RE:We'll see how it goes keeping it simple.

And there’s the rub. Like it or not, you are preceded by many a theist that love to use the “redefine” maneuver when backed into a corner. You have offered nothing to date to distinquish yourself from that crowd. As such, you just lost my interest with this qualifier.

It's not redefining-rather clarifying and insuring that your assumptions are not placing limits on my definitions that are not inherently there.

HiveRadical said...

soitgoes said--

Hiveradical;
You stated that god is omniscient and omnipotent. By definition that would mean that god cannot make a mistake.
However, humans make mistakes.

Hmmm... so humans can do something that your god can't? So much for omnipotence.

Thanks for playing.


omnipotent is in reference to capacity to do things, mistakes are not inherently doing something, in fact it's rather failing to do something or doing something outside the set boundaries. This isn't an issue when it comes to omnipotence because omnipotence simply reflects the capacity, not the actual commission. God has the capacity to will something. Man has a limited capacity to will something. When a man makes a mistake they are not doing something outside the capacity of God, rather they are doing something contrary to his will. Yet man is NOT capable of choosing something against their own will. They can change their will, but they cannot ultimately choose something against their will at the moment they are making decisions that demonstrate that will. This is the problem with your setup. The concept of 'mistake' is a construct related to the wills involved on various levels.

HiveRadical said...

Ok, so the deity you've defined is omnipotent to the extent that it cannot violate the laws of the universe without ceasing to exist?

Could this deity have created a different universe with different laws of physics (etc), provided he remained true to them?


There would inherently be some higher nature that would compartmentalize these sub-sets. Ultimately there is some set up that would have to exist to reconcile are alternate universes that ever had any kind of connection to God.

Jack Jackal said...

Hiveradical said,

"true" will designate something in complete harmony with the ultimate nature of existence (since we are not sure the actual nature and bounds of existence, whether it be a universe, a pluriverse or something else.)

And Hiveradical also said,

I'm saying that whatever the ultimate nature of existence is that God is in perfect harmony with that. I say this precisely because humans DON'T know the ultimate nature of existence.


Since you DON’T know the ultimate nature of existence and you have defined “true” to be “something in complete harmony with the ultimate nature of existence” you have no logical basis upon which to claim you know your god to be true. Hiveradical meet Reality; Reality say hello to Hiveradical.

Eight Hour Lunch said...

Jack jackal,

Hiveradical and reality have already met. Last I heard they're no longer on speaking terms.

Matt D. said...

There would inherently be some higher nature that would compartmentalize these sub-sets. Ultimately there is some set up that would have to exist to reconcile are alternate universes that ever had any kind of connection to God.

That didn't really answer my question, though it seems that you believe that there's "some higher nature" that limits the omnipotence of God.

My question addressed whether or not this deity, when creating this universe, had options. I addressed physical laws, but that wasn't the intended limit. Could this deity have made a universe in which I never existed?

HiveRadical said...

Since you DON’T know the ultimate nature of existence and you have defined “true” to be “something in complete harmony with the ultimate nature of existence” you have no logical basis upon which to claim you know your god to be true.

Not quite. True no mortal can, by their self or with the aid of mere mortals, obtain a knowledge of such. But that does not mean that there is no evidence of either an ultimate nature NOR does it mean that one does not, or could not, exist. Just as we have the theory of gravity upon which we base calculations, I'm basing mine on a theory that there is an ultimate nature. I can't prove it any more than I can 'prove' gravity. But that does not make my positing of another theory based on the assumptions of this one illogical.
Look at Theoretical Physicists, as I've pointed out before, they may forever lack the capacity to prove or disprove Superstring Theory, does that make their equations and the corresponding math that backs it up illogical or irrational or less REAL???

I have logical basis on which to claim I know my God to be true. My inability to communicate it in a quantifiable way does not mean it is not there.

Hiveradical meet Reality; Reality say hello to Hiveradical.

We've been together time immemorial.

Soitgoes said...

hiveradical;
So nice of you to redefine the terms to suit yourself but what else would I expect.

I used the word "mistake" as "an error in judgement".

Since omniscient means knowing everything (past,present,future),by definition, god cannot make an error in judgement.

Jack Jackal said...

Hiveradical said,

Not quite.
Yes quite. Your definition of true is tied to something (ultimate nature of existence) which you correctly stated nobody, including yourself, can know. As such, ‘true’ is unattainable by definition. True no mortal can, by their self or with the aid of mere mortals, obtain a knowledge of such. End of story, not buts about it. But… DOOOHHHH!!! that does not mean that there is no evidence of either an ultimate nature NOR does it mean that one does not, or could not, exist. I have to ask, respectfully, are you doing illicit drugs? Just as we have the theory of gravity upon which we base calculations, I'm basing mine on a theory that there is an ultimate nature. Okay, you go right ahead and do that. I can't prove it any more than I can 'prove' gravity. Wrong analogy and you need to spend some time reading up on the definition of theory as used in a scientific context. A better analogy is you can’t prove it any more than you can ‘prove’ alien abductions. But that does not make my positing of another theory based on the assumptions of this one illogical. Your ignorance of ‘theory’ is revolting. Look at Theoretical Physicists, as I've pointed out before, they may forever lack the capacity to prove or disprove Superstring Theory, does that make their equations and the corresponding math that backs it up illogical or irrational or less REAL??? And the ignorance continues with another bad analogy. A better analogy…look at Scientologists—they may forever lack the capacity to prove or disprove the existence of Xenu...

I have logical basis on which to claim I know my God to be true. In your mind you do, that much is obvious. But, alas, ‘true’ is unattainable. My inability to communicate it in a quantifiable way does not mean it is not there. Which brings us back to the issue of mental health. If someone is suffering from delusions and they can’t communicate their delusions in a quantifiable way, it does not mean ‘it’ is not there as far as that person is concerned. And that brings us to a point where there is nothing more to be had here until you develop more robust cognitive capabilities. I could teach you, but I’d have to charge.

HiveRadical said...

hiveradical;
So nice of you to redefine the terms to suit yourself but what else would I expect.

I used the word "mistake" as "an error in judgement".

Since omniscient means knowing everything (past,present,future),by definition, god cannot make an error in judgement.


I've not redefined anything. I've simply pointed out that omnipotence means the capacity to do something, since an error in judgement is not doing something--is not a projection of power, rather it's a mere label for either failing to do something intended or doing something unintended RATHER than being the actual DOING of the thing, it does not fall into the needed things for one to be omnipotent.

HiveRadical said...

Your definition of true is tied to something (ultimate nature of existence) which you correctly stated nobody, including yourself, can know.

I state that I cannot, of myself, know it. I never preclude it being made accessible by a being with higher capacity than myself...


As such, ‘true’ is unattainable by definition.

No. It's unattainable in one state, it's not ultimately unattainable. Thus my postulates stand.

I have to ask, respectfully, are you doing illicit drugs?

Nope, never have, and I haven't used a legal prescription in over a decade and then nothing stronger than a pill of vallium previous to an operation to have four teeth removed.


Wrong analogy and you need to spend some time reading up on the definition of theory as used in a scientific context.

It's a sufficient analogy. Your problem is that you're trying to apply theory, as defined by science, to the realm of metaphysical and philosophical investigation. My view of theory is plenty sufficient.

A better analogy is you can’t prove it any more than you can ‘prove’ alien abductions.

That's not a better analogy. My analogy, while not testable in a quantifiable way, nor in a way I can quantifiable communicate with you, is still testable by myself or by anyone on a personal basis. The alien abductions have no corollary given of the aliens being omniscient and omnipotent. Thusly we'd be unable to insure, within the connected hypothesis, that the capacity to prove or disprove would be available to all. And if you want to say that the aliens are omnipotent and omniscient then I'd reply that they are then, by definition, God.


Your ignorance of ‘theory’ is revolting.

Again I understand theory just fine. It's your desire to box it in to confines it is NOT restricted to (you need but look at the workings of philosophy to see this).


And the ignorance continues with another bad analogy. A better analogy…look at Scientologists—they may forever lack the capacity to prove or disprove the existence of Xenu...

No. That's still not a better analogy and I will demonstrate why. Just as Theoretical Physicists are using a proven logical construct, mathematics, to come to their conclusions that render a theory that may never be able to enter the realm of science (that is it may never be falsifiable) so to is the LDS view of God logically sound within the context of metaphysical philosophy.

It is your poor and parochial view of what does and doesn't constitute theory beyond the steps of science that leads you to your erroneous determinations and statements of my capability. If my analogies are worse than yours then you should be able to systematically demonstrate how and why they are.

In your mind you do, that much is obvious.

But that's the only place any theories and human constructs ultimately reside in any reality or meaning.


But, alas, ‘true’ is unattainable.

I never said it was ultimately unattainable. You can obtain it, anyone can, just not on their own.


Which brings us back to the issue of mental health. If someone is suffering from delusions and they can’t communicate their delusions in a quantifiable way, it does not mean ‘it’ is not there as far as that person is concerned. And that brings us to a point where there is nothing more to be had here until you develop more robust cognitive capabilities. I could teach you, but I’d have to charge.

It's odd. I present to your wife the potential that your love for your children, or even for each other, is substantively no different than what you describe in me to be a delusion. In that context they've said essentially that even if 'love' is merely chemical, even if it's merely in the mind, it's still real. My question for you would be--why is your delusion of connection with your wife and kids of any more significance if it matches, or fails to rival, my delusion's capacity in passing on our respective genetic material? If my memes manage to insure that my genetics have a stronger potency through the next however many generations humanity remains here then what ultimately would make your delusion any better than mine?

Soitgoes said...

"doing something unintended RATHER than being the actual DOING of the thing"

WTF?

You really shouldn't post while you're under the influence.

Soitgoes said...

hive;
So by your statement, one can read that god IS capable of making mistakes. Then how do you know when it's actually a mistake or not?
Why would snyone worship that?

Perpetual Beginner said...

I'm still completely confused by your reasoning, HR. Love isn't - in fact can't be - a delusion. If I think I love my children (the emotion, not the action, admittedly it is possible to feel love, and behave abominably), than I do love my children. The connection is no delusion. If my children exist only in my head, the love and connection is still not a delusion, my conviction in the existence of things that aren't there is the delusion.

HiveRadical said...

soitgoes, you said--

"So by your statement, one can read that god IS capable of making mistakes. Then how do you know when it's actually a mistake or not?
Why would snyone worship that?"

God has the capacity to do all things, but this is because He only chooses to do things when and where they are proper and in line with Eternal Nature/ Eternal Law. As the Book of Mormon states, if God lied, if God did something contrary to his nature then He would cease to be God and the whole of existence would cease to exist.

HiveRadical said...

Perpetual Beginner.

Have you ever read the book "I am a Strange Loop" by Douglas Hofstadter?