I can't speak for RRS, but I would do what they do because of what faith, blind belief, does to the world. Religion has shaped our world in one way or another and religion is not rational in any sense so I need to do something if I want to have the rational as a driving force.

Well is the only reason you help other people because god tells you to? As someone said on here "To say there is no morals without god is to say there are no presents without santa", although you are not saying atheist lack morals just that we don't have a reason to care for other people.

I'm glad you pointed out my poor wording.

How I see it, if there is no God then there is nothing beyond what we see, right? Tell me how I'm wrong, and then I'll elaborate.

Andy, watch this film for the jist of my answer:

http://www.rationalresponders.com/the_root_of_all_evil_by_richard_dawkins_a_must_see

to reply sapient, that was a good vid. But you see they found some extremists, who were incorrect. There is so much corruption in not only religion, but in government, society, and anything run by man.

I never accept anything without thinking about it, debating it, and praying about it...and then testing it.

Wow, I am truly unsure where to start with this.

I guess first off...

Ok the problem with this statement is that it is absolutely untrue. God does not love everyone the same, if he did there would be on reason to make the distinction between these and other groups of people and there would be no reason for god to make a distinction between heaven and hell. Furthermore it’s questionable that he loves anyone, as emotions are part of a mind. There are areas of the bible that specifically say that for some reason homosexuality is wrong. I'm assuming that you meant to say "each of them will be happy when they die". That is quite the speculation on your part, as homosexuals in this country and many others are persecuted on religious bias. This bias is clear in when you state

Says who? If you can't keep from judging people, why would you think your god, whose job that is, would?

Furthermore, you seem to be pretty certain of what will happen to you when you die. As a matter of fact you do not decide where you go when you die, unless of course you have bought a cemetery plot in advance. In which case you do, but I know that’s not what you meant. It’s just the only way you can truly have any control of that situation.

I could pick the rest of this apart but I’ll leave something for everyone else.

Main reasons I do this are

1. To counter all that religious types try to impose on everyone else

2. I just don't want to see people waste time doing things because of absurd beliefs.

Rationalmormom,
Please comment on this video for us:
http://www.piczo.com/allaboutsouthpark?g=6864430&cr=3

The video does not automaticaly start. You have to press the play button (triangle).

Something about the gospel I guess you've never heard is that God the father is the litteral father of our spirits and since he is now perfect, he has perfect fatherly love for us. A perfect father would love their child no matter what they have done. A perfect father would also be perfectly fair and just. Any questions?

It is, but only because any sexual activity outside of marriage is wrong.

You should restate that question in a form that makes sense.

And I don’t judge people, I judge actions. Since the majority of people are straight and I go to a mormon school, it is reasonable to assume that most of my friends are straight, right? But I am also friends with a few people who swing both ways and my second closest friend is sexually attracted to people only of her own gender (sorry for the all the ambiguity, this person wants doesn’t want her family to know and I don’t know who reads my stuff). All of my friends know my stance on sin, my friends of whatever sexual persuasion, sexually active or not, drunk or not, (insert your sin here) or not And my stance in a nut shell is: “I’m not going to do it, and I think it’d be neat if you didn’t either.”

Well, don’t stop from picking for my sake.

Ok ok, how long were you a mormon? A week?! The only way you could possibly go to outer darkness is if you saw Christ face to face and then denied that you did. Oh boy, I can tell this one is going to be easy already.

There is no way you were active! The Word of Wisdom not only is good advice for anyone who wants to be healthier, wealthier, and wiser; it outlines minor sins. It hasn't been said either way (to my knowlage), but it seems that drinking beer is only a sin if you have made a convent not to do it, and that is why it is a sin. It is a very minor thing, but real mormons certainly believe in keeping promises. Converts who liked alcohol are just dandy and worthy if they simply stop drinking.

PS, obviously if you take medicine to regain control of your body from ailments, it is not a sin. *.*

That many hunting accidents? Sounds unlikely. Of course I am no authority, but that sounds like home-made impotent fallacy. You can quote me on my guess, but it's not doctrine. You can look it all up on lds.org though.

What's next? Accusing men of not being strong enough to give birth? Men and women are asked to do different things =). Also, (sorry but) wrong again SilkyShrew. A woman cannot ever perform any priesthood ordinance. The washing and anointing ceremony would be COMPLETELY improper for a man to perform with women, and COMPLETELY improper for a woman to perform with men (for those of you who don't know this is a symbolic ordinance showing what you should go through before baptizem. It's in the temple, and I have not been through the temple yet {I'm only just graduated from high school and you usually go through before marriage or a like event} and there is no touching of sexual organs or areas for you perverts. I hear it's the head, heart, stomach, and back that is pointed at. oOooOoo! Oh no!) {oh, the person conducting the ordinance needs to be given the calling and “set apart” by the right priesthood official. Maybe that’s what confused you?}

And anyone can ask God to heal. That's not priesthood. (I was right about the ease of this one, come on guys. Ask more about something that is not practiced anymore and I don't know anything about, really {like polygamy})

(The next paragraph was already answered)

(Ah! What I was looking for

give us a reference.

A calling is VERY MUCH DIFFERENT from a commandment. You can turn down a calling that you're not up to. No joke. I'm not up to supporting one than one woman, plus I'm kind of clingy.

And we get callings so we can help each other out. That’s what organized religion is all about.

Actually it's Official Declaratoin-1. It makes a lot more sense than I do. Here the web adress: http://scriptures.lds.org/en/od/1

I'm working early tomorrow so I'll just stop here. Maybe I'll pick it up were I left off later.

Na, I don’t mind telling you where I’m from. I'm from Idaho. {I'm sure glad I'm not from Utah because Utah mormons commonly drive me nuts! commonly, they just don't understand what they got (and what they don't have because of their ignorance)}

That's why I'm here.

sorry for my harshness, but I'd expect no less from you.

Take it easy y’all.

-rationalmormon

That’s funny because I always thought my father was my literal father. I mean that just makes sense, seeing that it can be proven.

Two things that jump out at me here is the part about how he is now perfect. Does this mean that at sometime he was not perfect? That would have to be my first question.
Also by this logic if "god" was our literal father then how could marriage be valid as we would all be directly related? Even if just spiritually? Unless of course you are saying that the Mormon church supports incest. I know that is a bold statment, but if you think about it.... We all come from the same father = everyone is your brother of sister. If you marry a woman, she is inturn your sister.

I guess we just have different standards as to what we will accept as true. If you can be happy living within the confines of your religion than I sincerely wish you the best of luck with that.

A lot less prayer and a heck of alot more thinking and testing is what you need.

I'm staying out of this discussion for the most part, if only because I have a fairly close Mormon friend, and while I find his ideas....... a little silly...... he's sweet as pie, and really, I've never personally met a Mormon who wasn't. Of all the religions that preach peace and goodwill I find Mormons and Buddhists generally impress me the most with their ability to actually follow through.
Although, I had an ex whose father was raised Mormon and ended up leaving the church(and his family, pretty much) because he disagreed with the LDS "attitudes about women", but it wasn't a topic that we ever really discussed over dinner..... as you can imagine.

Anyway, this made me giggle, because I hear this ALL the time from people of ALL religions. Granted, you were alot nicer about it than I've heard other people be. The old, "Well, OUR (insert sect here) Church is fine, but that other (insert sect here) church down the block sure is kooky!" attitude.
No harm meant, just puttin in my 2 cents.

P.S. And yes, all you fellow freethinkers I'm aware that RRS is all about telling other people what you really think about their mythology, but I'm in a nonargumentative mood tonight, cause everyone at work was being a mr grumpypants. I'm evening my mood out by being extra nice.
^_^

I was a true believing mormon for 19 years. I was acting mormong, but agnostic then atheist for another six years after that. Most of the latter time I was married (in the temple) and held a variety of church callings. I was considered fairly well versed in church teachings. As to the denial of Christ - that's not what is taught or what the scriptures say, they say simply the denial of Christ. Were it the case that looking Christ face to face were what qualified people for the outer darkness, then other references that discuss people going to the outer darkness would be even more absurd, wouldn't you think? Furthermore, no matter if denial of Christ is in his face or not when such a condemnation is given to a person, it does not detract from what I stated about it being the ultimate sin, does it?

Oh, I was quite active. I held callings, participated in most church activities appropriate to my age and social ring (wednesday primary activities as a child; young women's as a teen as well as seminary; institute after I turned 18; and relief society).

On the contrary, there have been prophets as recent as Kimball (don't know if you remember him) identify the Word of Wisdom as being an outline of sins. Later on, though (probably when it was realized that people would not all adhere to it) it was said by Hinkley to be advice. During Hinkley's memorable stay as a prophet, he and his apostles seemed rather unclear about the stance, as it would be described as a suggestion at times and at others as a commandment. When it was covered in seminary - it was described within my manual as a suggestion from god in regards to health. In order to be considered a temple-worthy mormon, though, there are parts of the Word of Wisdom that must be obeyed, such as not smoking or drinking, whereas the part about hot drinks and such is not something that has an affect on your temple reccommend.

How do you define a "real mormon?"

If it is not a commandment, why would one be considered unworthy for disobeying? That's like saying that it isn't a rule that you should not walk on the grass, but the farmer will shoot you if he sees you there.

Then your statement about drugs is obviously in error. Furthermore, you use the reasoning of how drugs affect one's actions as justification for your argument - and yet, drugs used to help people who have mental disorders do alter their actions. This creates something of a problem in determining which actions are truely "your actions" because you seem to think agency is taken away with the use of alcohol that alters actions, but is not when the use of another drug that might be taken by, say, a schizophrenic. You can't have it both ways, man.

Exactly, however that was argumentation that has been used. It seems to me that you need to familiarize yourself with the works of Hugh Nibley of BYU. Official historian and considered the top appologist of the church.

Oh, it certainly has changed over time, no doubt, however that is what was officially taught when I was a kid.

Oh, I'm quite familiar with the doctrine. I have read all the scriptures, been through seminary, jumped through all the loops and when I had extra time, I used to read material directly from the religious studies program at BYU - or at least, whatever I could get at the time.

Of course, because men are a bunch of pussies, I presume =) (that's a joke, don't take it seriously). No, although you've been taught an entire lifetime of the priesthood assignments being there just so men can feel as special as a woman giving birth (because giving birth in the mormon doctrine is a blessed calling), doesn't mean that birth has much to do with the social structure of the church. In fact, Nibley has some interesting appologetics in this regard as well.

On the contrary, there are relief society lessons on this very thing. In fact, it usually describes an account where Emma Smith blesses a sick ox when her husband was not available to do so (with oil), and describes how she uses the priesthood power of her husband to carry out the act of giving a blessing of health to the ox. Now, there is some differences in how some people take this story. As a result, several years ago, there was a conference talk about women in the priesthood (this should be online somewhere). Part of what prompted the discussion is another mormon sect (that is much smaller - I think they are the ones that altered their name to Church of Christ or something like that) used this story to allow women to be given the keys to the priesthood. This was a small sect split off from the mainstream mormon sect, so it was really of little importance overall, but it seemed to play a role in clarifying the whole Emma-with-the-preisthood story.

Historically, the washing and annointing was carried out only by men. Later on, when it became a problem, it was deemed improper for the men to perform it on the women - so they changed the policy. I have been through the temple, and I went through that particular process as well. The earlier version of the ceremony involved the individual being naked, but later versions added a kind of smock or poncho-type thing that you wear.

No, you are touched, not pointed at. And that's not exactly the references, either. Part of the ceremony is in regards to fertility, however they do not touch the genitals directly. Though the calling (like any other calling) does require that the individual be set apart to perform it, the calling also requires the individual to perform priesthood acts. In fact, the ceremony (much like others that go on in the church) has a statement like, "with the power invested in me by the holy spirit," or something along those lines, I can't remember the exact wording, but it is pretty clear that she's performing a priesthood act.

By the way, I know this is information that is probably difficult for you to get because people who have gone through the temple are discouraged from talking about it. I do hope that wherever you get your information, the person is understanding and open about your questions.

Actually, I prefer to mention things you are likely to be unfamiliar with - like, the church's official stance towards the existence of Adam and Eve as compared to popular appologtics regarding primitive peoples and the doctrine of the peoples of the americas coming from the middle east as compared to the appologetics that there were actually people on the continent when Nephi et al came here.

Issues such as the claim that the Nephites had swords and armor when such things do not seem to have existed amongst native americans on this continent until after colonization. Another great point to bring up is the Book of Abraham (fromthe Pearl of Great Price) and how it has been discovered to be an egyptian burial document that has nothing to do with anybody named Abraham or anything that is mentioned in the Book of Abraham.

Here's a more recent study on it done by Nibley:

http://farms.byu.edu/display.php?table=insights&id=313

The study I read on it was from a few years before. FARMS has a lot of information you may be interested in. You will find that their accounts of things going on are a bit different than what you're familiar with.

Poligamy is simply a change in church doctrine - although your reasons for it no longer existing are different than what I was taught as a kid - it is really a trivial aspect of the religion itself. The main issue that can be taken from that is that it seems God is fickle; can't make up his mind as to what should or should not be done at a particular time - but there are far bigger issues with the religion than that.

Nibley has written on this as well. I encourage you to search through the FARMS website. I think there is a book about Emma that was written by a church historian that talks about her co-wives, but I don't recall the name of it as it has been about ten years since I read parts of it.

I didn't refer just to a calling - I talked about spiritual assignments as well, which is what some of the polygamous relationships were considered. This is in church history, you should invest some time in reading about it.

I know that - I think you missed the point. Even in turning down a calling, it is made clear that your assignment is supposed to be from God. Turning down a calling, though it happens, is discouraged. The church enourages members to carry out as much as they can when they are called.

That isn't the point - the point is, if you were appointed another wife because God wanted you to, saying "no" would be defying him.

No, organized religion is about social control, some of which has to do with helping people out, but most of it is not. However, that is something that would be better addressed in another thread, as going into it in very great depths would sufficiently hijack this thread.

Dude, read the link you just sent:

1) The secretary he's referring to is a government official, the statement was made in order to comply with what was pointed out in the correspondence with said official.

2) This is correspondence that took place after the laws were altered making polygamy illegal and after the church used the "obeying the law of the land" justification for their change in stance.

Now, I want to make it clear that I don't see polygamy as a bad thing. In fact, studies have been done on people to show that we are not naturaly monogamous creatures. Also, even though I don't think I could ever participate in a polyamorous/polygamous relationship, I think people should have the right to have them if they so choose as long as all the adults involved are able to give informed consent.

One of my dearest childhood friends was from Blackfoot, ID.

Utah mormons drive most people nuts - sometimes even each other. Ever hear two Utah mormons talk about missions? They seem to want to humbly one-up each other ...

Dude, the worst part is the condescention, which if that continues I will simply have to start ignoring you. If you want to learn, I can help - but don't act like a jerk to me. I try to make a point not to act like a jerk to others, so please don't expect that from me.

Also, certainly you had the post open when you appologised for your harshness - wouldn't it have just been easier to take that part out or change it rather than appologising for the negative action at the exact time that you did it?

Actually, there are two schools of thought on God in the realm of mormonism and where God is. One is the idea of progression, in that God is a progressing being that created us, but that God had a creator that is also ahead of him. This school of thought stems from the doctrine of "We are as God once was, God is as we shall someday become." This is one of the very roots of mormon doctrine - the idea of eternal life with the potential for God-hood. A very appealing thought, indeed. The other school of thought is something that I think is more from people who don't consider this aspect of their religion as in-depth as others do. Their perspective seems to view godship as an end goal, and they don't consider that their god was created by anything. Their basis for this thought is in the standard doctrine of their once being nothing except God, a few angels et. al. and then God had the Earth created and *voila!* there was something! The disagreement does seem to point to a contradiction in the two doctrines, but rather than people recognizing the contradiction, mormon scholars will argue about it ... oh, well.

You're not making much sense, but I do hope that you will come back and consider what has been said.

Well consider this then:
Silky is likely the least "angry" person I've ever met in my entire life. She's extremely soft spoken, polite, gentle, kind, patient, and civil. I speak from experience, I know her well.

We now return you to your regularly scheduled broadcasts.

You're obviously projecting, because it was you that was attacking her, right from the start.

Here, take a look:

Right out of the gate, you start out with an attitude. In fact, you even recognized your 'harshness' and then apologized for it.

I hope your homework is 'spelling'... so that you can work out how to spell words like "angry" (not "angery') "knowledge" (not 'knowlage') and "consider" (not 'concider'). You might want to work on at least mastering grammar school spelling before you go around telling people that they're 'wrong' about more complex issues, particularly when you've demonstrated that you don't know what you're talking about in the first place.

In fact, it's pretty clear to me that you yourself might be a bit 'angery' after having Silky correct all your errors.