Why are you doing this?

Sapient
High Level DonorRRS CO-FOUNDERRRS Core MemberWebsite Admin
Sapient's picture
Posts: 7522
Joined: 2006-04-18
User is offlineOffline
Why are you doing this?

YOU RESPOND:

----------------- Original Message -----------------
From: Our Freedom Comes At Their Expense
Date: Sep 24, 2006 2:54 AM

I'd love to hear more of what you're saying... But why are you even doing this? If there is no God, I don't understand why you would want to help other people.. unless this is all an elaborate scheme to benefit yourself by manipulating young people (or just to make a buck?).

I've listened to your radio show, and you obviously believe in right and wrong. To me that equals God.

I'm open to questoins too.

Take it easy,
-andy, the rational mormon

- Brian Sapient


Buy popular atheist books and support the Rational Response Squad at the same time on Amazon.


rationalmormon
rationalmormon's picture
Posts: 28
Joined: 2006-09-24
User is offlineOffline
Just throw a quote on and call it good..but then...

First off, I must say I am impressed with the promptness of this post.

Traditional religion does discourage independent thought. I know first hand.

I am a Mormon, born and raised, but, unlike most Mormons, I know why I do what I do.
The reason why God gave the ancient Israelites the ten commandments is because as long as they didn’t screw up too bad, once they could think clearly (when they died) they’d be well off. Unfortunately, many of them didn’t make it. Modern Christians are very similar to their ancient predecessors.

I was atheist for some time and I couldn’t figure out why I was so unhappy. So I thought I’d give God a go. It really worked. I’m truly happy. It’s hard to argue with happiness regardless standing or finances, but you can try. I promise I’ll give a full answer to any question.

Our society and government often is irrational, but God is only irrational when people try to get gain out of Him. If you have questions on how this makes sense or want to know how things work in the Gospel, ask me.

I like this place. It’s neat.

-andy, the rational mormon

God will always love all of us, even George W..


Voided
Posts: 1195
Joined: 2006-02-20
User is offlineOffline
Quote:But why are you even

Quote:
But why are you even doing this?

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.

Quote:
If there is no God, I don't understand why you would want to help other people

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.


Voided
Posts: 1195
Joined: 2006-02-20
User is offlineOffline
rationalmormon wrote:I was

rationalmormon wrote:
I was atheist for some time and I couldn’t figure out why I was so unhappy. So I thought I’d give God a go. It really worked. I’m truly happy. It’s hard to argue with happiness regardless standing or finances, but you can try. I promise I’ll give a full answer to any question.

A lot of people can be happier with a lie, but that doesn't make the lie any more true...

Quote:
Our society and government often is irrational, but God is only irrational when people try to get gain out of Him.

Wouldn't a god always have to be rational?


rationalmormon
rationalmormon's picture
Posts: 28
Joined: 2006-09-24
User is offlineOffline
I'm glad you pointed out my poor wording

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.


Voided
Posts: 1195
Joined: 2006-02-20
User is offlineOffline
ok first I want to say nice

ok first I want to say nice pants Eye-wink

Yes, I read your blog that sort of thing is funny to me also, props for that.

What do you mean by "nothing beyond what we see"? Are you saying then there would be no reason or way for us or our world to be? Is this more of a physical, world existing or eye, question or is this a reality question? Or are you saying something else?


Sapient
High Level DonorRRS CO-FOUNDERRRS Core MemberWebsite Admin
Sapient's picture
Posts: 7522
Joined: 2006-04-18
User is offlineOffline
Sapient wrote: Why are you

Sapient wrote:

Why are you even doing this?

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

- Brian Sapient


Buy popular atheist books and support the Rational Response Squad at the same time on Amazon.


darth_josh
High Level DonorHigh Level ModeratorGold Member
darth_josh's picture
Posts: 2650
Joined: 2006-02-27
User is offlineOffline
I can't speak for your

I can't speak for your personal happiness. I'm glad that you are comfortable in this existence and I hope you stay so no matter what.

However, there are those less fortunate. Many people live, breed, and die under extreme duress due to the irrational beliefs of those in control.

Some women of islam must face female circumcision at a young age in preparation for marriage.
People have been put to death or imprisoned for life for simply rejecting islam.

I would make the assumption that neither you nor I find this to be acceptable behavior. Unfortunately, this is what their faith tells them that they must do in order to follow allah's path to 'heaven'. That is their motive for following these practices. Their gain is this idea of eternal salvation. The reward of paradise.

Your faith also guarantees a place in paradise. Your land is supposed to be that which the brother of Jared cried out to the lord for compassion in the face of the scattering. Your nation is to be raised up on all the face of the Earth.

Your faith judges good works as understanding the good people. For a man that does good is good.
Moroni
7:5 For I remember the word of God, which saith by their works ye shall know them; for if their works be good, then they are good also.
7:6 For behold, God hath said a man being evil cannot do that which is good; for if he offereth a gift, or prayeth unto God, except he shall do it with real intent it profiteth him nothing.

Unfortunately, time and time again these good works go unnoticed because they come from people outside of the faith. Earlier, I mentioned the atrocities commited against young females and apostates of islam. I and some of my colleagues speak against such horrible acts because they are wrong not because they are part of islam. I do so of my own volition. I do so because it is a good thing to do. However, my good works fall upon the deaf ear of your god due to my lack of belief/faith in him/it. Your god would cast me and mine aside despite our unselfish good works. We have nothing to gain by exposing the atrocious behavior of the islamic faithful.

Now, if I point out something that I find atrocious in your religion would it be done for a selfish act? I would say NO. I have nothing to gain by exposing your religion to scrutiny except ending it and its prophecies never to see fruition.

I see the endless drivel concerning the end times as a people's hope that death, torture, and destruction comes to everyone that doesn't believe your certain way. This is the very epitome of an evil motive in that depraved indifference is akin to a mortal sin in my culture. Your faith teaches people that it is going to be okay to watch children be killed for being unbelievers and wives raped by the lord of hosts. Some of the followers long for that day to come. It's sickening to me personally because hoping to see the world fall into fire is just like praying for a plane to hit a building.

Reading the end of your post:

Quote:
God will always love all of us, even George W..

puts the 'spiritual' icing on the cake of hypocrisy with regard to your book(s). I'm assuming that the 'us' in your sentence refers only to the baptized believers since it is obvious by the rest of the book that anyone else is damned.

Let alone the fact that polygamy is outlawed in several places concerning the book of mormon but it is then espoused as a good thing in the doctrines and teachings. Apparently, someone didn't get the memo about 'one wife and no concubines' or they changed it to 'many wives and only familial relations for concubines'. I KNOW. Not all mormons believe it that way. However, the ones that don't often don't speak against it enough. The LDS arose from the mormon doctrine and now is a plague the likes of which Egypt couldn't have dealt with.

For me, I've always wondered if any mormon woman has decided to apply the same teachings to men, such as having many husbands and no boyfriends.

There, I've vented. Tell me how wonderful your faith is and how misguided I must be since I don't have the revelation of dreams to dominate my consciousness.

Ooops. I almost forgot. Why was mainstream christianity unappealing to you, rationalmormon?

Atheist Books, purchases on Amazon support the Rational Response Squad server, which houses Celebrity Atheists.


rationalmormon
rationalmormon's picture
Posts: 28
Joined: 2006-09-24
User is offlineOffline
to reply sapient, that was a

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.


rationalmormon
rationalmormon's picture
Posts: 28
Joined: 2006-09-24
User is offlineOffline
Let me set this straight for

Let me set this straight for you, darth_josh. God loves the dictator, the terrorist, the gay, and the mormon just the same. And each of them will happy when they die. You’ll be where you’re comfortable; you decide where you go when you die. If you feel comfortable with God, you’ll be with him.

And it sure was news to me that:

darth_josh wrote:
Your faith teaches people that it is going to be okay to watch children be killed for being unbelievers and wives raped by the lord of hosts.

Where the hell did you hear that? Well, any sexual conduct (gay or straight, just the same) outside of marriage (be it civil or cultural or eternal, whatever your commitment may be) is a sin, but forgivable. And murder is the most serious sin. Why are they sins? Same reason why drinking beer or doing drugs are sins: they take away agency, your eternal right to choose. Murder takes away all agency in life.

Marriage is between one man and one woman. Women generally are more spiritual than men, thus more of them joined the Mormons in the beginning of this dispensation. Most of them were single, and since there were more women then men, temporary polygamy was instated again…but nobody wanted to do it, so, through inspiration, certain men were called on to take care of certain women, with the agreement of all the parties involved.

Frankly, I think women are complicated enough that I’d tell the prophet no if he asked me to take another wife. But that was exercised until the numbers leveled off a bit. I’m a bit tiered so I might have left a hole in that, so if I did just ask me about it. I have church in the morning so I’m going to bet.

Night all. I really like people with a cause.


Thinks4Self
Thinks4Self's picture
Posts: 6
Joined: 2006-09-22
User is offlineOffline
Wow, I am truly unsure where

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

I guess first off...

Quote:
Let me set this straight for you, darth_josh. God loves the dictator, the terrorist, the gay, and the mormon just the same. And each of them will happy when they die. You’ll be where you’re comfortable; you decide where you go when you die. If you feel comfortable with God, you’ll be with him.

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

Quote:
"Marriage is between one man and one woman."
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.


darth_josh
High Level DonorHigh Level ModeratorGold Member
darth_josh's picture
Posts: 2650
Joined: 2006-02-27
User is offlineOffline
Whoa. We are talking about

Whoa. We are talking about The Book of Mormon right?

The golden plates of the Nephites kind of book right?

You'll have to forgive me as I don't have ready access to a prophet. All I have is the book and the examples set by others of your faith.

Of course, if you're going to base your faith upon the words of either then I would most certainly call into question the 'rationalmormon' standpoint.

Atheist Books, purchases on Amazon support the Rational Response Squad server, which houses Celebrity Atheists.


MattShizzle
Posts: 7966
Joined: 2006-03-31
User is offlineOffline
Main reasons I do this

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.

Matt Shizzle has been banned from the Rational Response Squad website. This event shall provide an atmosphere more conducive to social growth. - Majority of the mod team


Randalllord
Rational VIP!
Randalllord's picture
Posts: 690
Joined: 2006-04-12
User is offlineOffline
The reason we do this is

The reason we do this is because we love you and want you to live a myth-free life. You shlould try it, it's very liberating. You'll tend to treat yourself and others better knowing this is the only life you have. There are no rewards for fighing a war for God.

Religion is regarded by the common people as true, by the wise as false, and by the rulers as useful. - Seneca


Randalllord
Rational VIP!
Randalllord's picture
Posts: 690
Joined: 2006-04-12
User is offlineOffline
Rationalmormom, Please

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

Religion is regarded by the common people as true, by the wise as false, and by the rulers as useful. - Seneca


Voided
Posts: 1195
Joined: 2006-02-20
User is offlineOffline
that vid didn't work for me

that vid didn't work for me Randalllord...

Also rationalmormom could you respond to my post, I really can't argue what you are saying if I don't know what you are saying.


Randalllord
Rational VIP!
Randalllord's picture
Posts: 690
Joined: 2006-04-12
User is offlineOffline
The vdieo does not

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

Religion is regarded by the common people as true, by the wise as false, and by the rulers as useful. - Seneca


SilkyShrew
Rational VIP!
SilkyShrew's picture
Posts: 147
Joined: 2006-02-11
User is offlineOffline
rationalmormon wrote:Where

rationalmormon wrote:
Where the hell did you hear that? Well, any sexual conduct (gay or straight, just the same) outside of marriage (be it civil or cultural or eternal, whatever your commitment may be) is a sin, but forgivable. And murder is the most serious sin.

Actually, according to your own religion, the most serious sin is the denial of Jesus Christ, either in the current life or the next. This sin is why you believe in what is called the "outer darkness," which would be Satan's ultimate destination. I know this because I was once mormon.

rationalmormon wrote:
Why are they sins? Same reason why drinking beer or doing drugs are sins: they take away agency, your eternal right to choose. Murder takes away all agency in life.

The Word of Wisdom still has controversy in the Mormon Church in regards to if it is doctrine or, "good advice." Furthermore, doing drugs and drinking beer doesn't necesarily take away your agency anymore than simply being human does. Keep in mind, many people take drugs for the sake of having better control over themselves (consider people with mental illness like schizophrenics or people with other neurological problems such as seizures). The reason explained for murder being sin as I recall is that it is an individual making decisions for God. The exception is in the case of war or other legal action, as cited by the Book of Mormon and the many wars described within it.

Quote:
Marriage is between one man and one woman. Women generally are more spiritual than men, thus more of them joined the Mormons in the beginning of this dispensation.

Funny, when I was a kid, we were taught that polygamy was used because more men died than women due to hunting accidents and trying to defend their families. Also, it seems a bit fishy that women being more spiritual would be a reason for the marital arrangements and yet, women are not spiritual enough to have the priesthood, or to carryout most priesthood duties with the exception of the washing and annointing ceremony in the temple and the instance that a male priesthood holder is unavailable to give a blessing of healing. As I recall, those are the only two cases in which a woman can carry out a priesthood act. By some, prayer is even considered an act done through the authority of the preisthood of Christ - hence, why at the end of every mormon prayer there is the words, "in the name of Jesus Christ," not using those words is considered improper. So, I don't really buy the "women are more spiritual" reasoning behind the marriage arrangements - it makes functional sense in terms of a culture, but not in terms of religious government. We seem to have some conflicting information here - you may want to check up on it. The farther you dig, though, the more contradiction you may find.

Quote:
Most of them were single, and since there were more women then men, temporary polygamy was instated again…but nobody wanted to do it, so, through inspiration, certain men were called on to take care of certain women, with the agreement of all the parties involved.

This is blatantly false. Historical records and even the diary of Emma Smith herself varified that polygamy was not uncommon in the early days of the church. Joseph Smith himself had several wives, and he would reassign wives of other people.

Quote:
Frankly, I think women are complicated enough that I’d tell the prophet no if he asked me to take another wife.

I somehow doubt that. As a mormon, callings and spiritual assignments are considered callings of God. Supposedly you get these kinds of commandments and assignments because God wants you to have them. So if the prophet asked you to marry more than one woman, and you believe he is inspired of God, you would be defying God by saying 'no.'

Quote:
But that was exercised until the numbers leveled off a bit. I’m a bit tiered so I might have left a hole in that, so if I did just ask me about it. I have church in the morning so I’m going to bet.

Actually, polygamy ended after it became illegal. The action of ending polygamy within the church was justified by the doctrine of "obeying the law of the land," which is mentioned somewhere in the book The Doctrine and Covenants.

darth_josh wrote:
Whoa. We are talking about The Book of Mormon right?

The golden plates of the Nephites kind of book right?

You'll have to forgive me as I don't have ready access to a prophet. All I have is the book and the examples set by others of your faith.

Of course, if you're going to base your faith upon the words of either then I would most certainly call into question the 'rationalmormon' standpoint.

That is exactly what he's talking about. Let's give him some time and see how rational he can be about it, ok? If his experience is like mine and many other mormons I know, he probably hasn't been exposed to what he needs to think really rationally. When I was still attending church, we were taught not to question particular things, that certain topics were sacred and as such should not be addressed with the exception of at specific times, and that particular world views were "abominable." So, I think that it is a good thing that rationalmormon is here, and perhaps he may end up understanding our view point eventually.

Thinks4Self wrote:
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
Quote:

"Marriage is between one man and one woman."

Says who?

Mormons don't believe in the traditional "heaven" and "hell" they believe in three degrees of glory (three degrees of heaven), a spirit prison, and an outer darkness. The three degrees of glory is where most people will (supposedly) end up, and they are considered functionally different and are separated according to what kind of contact the individual is allowed with God and other eternal beings. The spirit prison is a temporary place where spirits reside until they can accept the word of God (aka, Jesus Christ and his teachings). After accepting the word of God and after they receive their ordinances (as in they are baptised - this is why baptisms for the dead are done), then they will go to whichever kingdom of heaven (or level of glory) that they qualify for. Should the individual in spirit prison not accept the word of God then they are sent to the outer darnkess.

Recent teachings in the church, released as of 2002, as I recall, have instructions to members of the church in regards to how they are to approach people who are homosexual. They still do not support same-sex marriage, but they consider homosexuality to be a spiritual challenge to the members of the church. It isn't really true that they believe that God loves everybody equally - in fact, there are a few times where the scriptures that they believe in states that Jesus Christ is the "most beloved" son of God (mormons believe Jesus Christ, God, and the Holy Ghost to all be separate entities, that they are all forms of deities, although the Holy Ghost, having not had a body, is not a full deity, but is rather a very special spirit - still, he is a member of the "Godhead" that the mormons believe in). So, the statement that the mormon god loves everybody equally is not true, although they do believe that God loves everybody, this is not an equal love.

Quote:
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.

One of the main things that mormons are taught is in regards to their ability to obtain the highest level of glory that they can. your whole life is formed around making a "celestial" (the top level of heaven) your goal. So it isn't surprising that when you talk to a mormon, they think they know exactly where they are going. Most of them will say they are going to the "telestial" kingdom (even though the goal is "celestial") - the reason is because most will see themselves as flawed, and so they are unworthy of the highest level. To be honest, though, when I was a kid, the telestial kingdom sounded cooler anyway.

rationalmormon, if you don't mind my asking, where are you from?


rationalmormon
rationalmormon's picture
Posts: 28
Joined: 2006-09-24
User is offlineOffline
Thinks4Self

Thinks4Self wrote:

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.

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?
Thinks4Self wrote:
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.

It is, but only because any sexual activity outside of marriage is wrong.
Thinks4Self wrote:

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.

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.”

Thinks4Self wrote:

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

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


Voided
Posts: 1195
Joined: 2006-02-20
User is offlineOffline
You said that god is fair

You said that god is fair and just, but look at exodus. He/she/it "hardens" the Pharaoh's heart so that he will not let the people go. Then god punishs the Pharaoh and his people for it. That makes no sense! Thats like if daddy told you to watch tv then got pissed about it.

You said you don't judge people, but you judge actions. Well what do you think judging people means? What do you think god will judge what they knew was right in there heart or something?


rationalmormon
rationalmormon's picture
Posts: 28
Joined: 2006-09-24
User is offlineOffline
Sorry, i guess I'm feeling a little grumpy

SilkyShrew wrote:
Actually, according to your own religion, the most serious sin is the denial of Jesus Christ, either in the current life or the next. This sin is why you believe in what is called the "outer darkness," which would be Satan's ultimate destination. I know this because I was once mormon.

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.

Quote:
The Word of Wisdom still has controversy in the Mormon Church in regards to if it is doctrine or, "good advice."

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. *.*

Quote:
Funny, when I was a kid, we were taught that polygamy was used because more men died than women due to hunting accidents and trying to defend their families.

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.

Quote:
...women are not spiritual enough to have the priesthood, or to carryout most priesthood duties with the exception of the washing and annointing ceremony in the temple and the instance that a male priesthood holder is unavailable to give a blessing of healing. As I recall, those are the only two cases in which a woman can carry out a priesthood act.

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 forSmiling

Quote:
This is blatantly false. Historical records and even the diary of Emma Smith herself verified that polygamy was not uncommon in the early days of the church. Joseph Smith himself had several wives, and he would reassign wives of other people.
give us a reference.

Quote:
As a mormon, callings and spiritual assignments are considered callings of God. Supposedly you get these kinds of commandments and assignments because God wants you to have them. So if the prophet asked you to marry more than one woman, and you believe he is inspired of God, you would be defying God by saying 'no.'
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.

Quote:
Actually, polygamy ended after it became illegal. The action of ending polygamy within the church was justified by the doctrine of "obeying the law of the land," which is mentioned somewhere in the book The Doctrine and Covenants.

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)}

Quote:
"and perhaps he (meaning me, rationalmormon) may end up understanding our view point eventually."
That's why I'm here.

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

Take it easy y’all.

-rationalmormon


Voided
Posts: 1195
Joined: 2006-02-20
User is offlineOffline
First you shouldn't be

First you shouldn't be telling her what did and didn't happen to her or what she did and didn't see.

Now I was never mormon but can have some links too...

http://www.exmormon.org/mormon/mormon_polygamy.htm

http://lds-mormon.com/mormon_polygamy.shtml


Thinks4Self
Thinks4Self's picture
Posts: 6
Joined: 2006-09-22
User is offlineOffline
That’s funny because I

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.

Quote:
Rationalmormon-
Something about the gospel I guess you've never heard is that God the father is the literal 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?

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.


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 13396
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
Jeeze Sapient, Why didn't

Jeeze Sapient,

Why didn't you tell him. It's all a secret plot to barbaque cute little kittens and spread cooties around the world. Tell him if he joins our side he'll get a free year's supply of navel lint.

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 13396
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
rationalmormon wrote:to

rationalmormon wrote:
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.

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

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


MattShizzle
Posts: 7966
Joined: 2006-03-31
User is offlineOffline
Good point. Prayer is

Good point. Prayer is useless beyond a placebo effect.


GlamourKat
GlamourKat's picture
Posts: 461
Joined: 2006-08-17
User is offlineOffline
I'm staying out of this

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.

rationalmormon wrote:
{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)}

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. Laughing out loud

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.
^_^


rationalmormon
rationalmormon's picture
Posts: 28
Joined: 2006-09-24
User is offlineOffline
Your father is the father of

Your father is the father of your body and our Father is the father of you.

I'll use a story to illistrate what I mean by "...God is now perfect..."

A very rich man has a son. He wishes his son to become rich as well, but knows it would mean nothing if his son doesn't get there himself. So he sends him to the nicest of schools and his son uses those experiences to become a great and knowlagable man, and eventually becomes very rich himself. If you believe in honor, the father recives more honor because his son is successful. The son has a son of his own and sends him to the nicest of schools. Get my drift?

Well there are no physical decendents of God besides Jesus...so you can't marry people you're phyiscally realated to because it really is more than just physical...because you're going to be their sibling forever...I don't think I'm making sense. If you don't get this tell me and I'll try again but I've got to go now.

-take it easy.


SilkyShrew
Rational VIP!
SilkyShrew's picture
Posts: 147
Joined: 2006-02-11
User is offlineOffline
rationalmormon wrote:Ok ok,

rationalmormon wrote:
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.

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?

Quote:
There is no way you were active!

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).

Quote:
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.

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.

Quote:
It is a very minor thing, but real mormons certainly believe in keeping promises.

How do you define a "real mormon?"

Quote:
Converts who liked alcohol are just dandy and worthy if they simply stop drinking.

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.

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

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.

Quote:
That many hunting accidents? Sounds unlikely.

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.

Quote:
Of course I am no authority, but that sounds like home-made impotent fallacy.

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

Quote:
You can quote me on my guess, but it's not doctrine. You can look it all up on lds.org though.

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.

Quote:
What's next? Accusing men of not being strong enough to give birth? Men and women are asked to do different things =).

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.

Quote:
Also, (sorry but) wrong again SilkyShrew. A woman cannot ever perform any priesthood ordinance.

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.

Quote:
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.

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.

Quote:
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?}

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.

Quote:
And anyone can ask God to heal. That's not priesthood.

Quote:
(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})

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.

Quote:
give us a reference.

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.

Quote:
A calling is VERY MUCH DIFFERENT from a commandment.

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.

Quote:
You can turn down a calling that you're not up to. No joke.

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.

Quote:
I'm not up to supporting one than one woman, plus I'm kind of clingy.

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.

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

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.

Quote:
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

Dude, read the link you just sent:

link wrote:
Press dispatches having been sent for political purposes, from Salt Lake City, which have been widely published, to the effect that the Utah Commission, in their recent report to the Secretary of the Interior, allege that plural marriages are still being solemnized and that forty or more such marriages have been contracted in Utah since last June or during the past year, also that in public discourses the leaders of the Church have taught, encouraged and urged the continuance of the practice of polygamy—

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.

Quote:
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)}

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 ...

Quote:
That's why I'm here.

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

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?

Quote:
I'll use a story to illistrate what I mean by "...God is now perfect..."

A very rich man has a son. He wishes his son to become rich as well, but knows it would mean nothing if his son doesn't get there himself. So he sends him to the nicest of schools and his son uses those experiences to become a great and knowlagable man, and eventually becomes very rich himself. If you believe in honor, the father recives more honor because his son is successful. The son has a son of his own and sends him to the nicest of schools. Get my drift?

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.

Quote:
Well there are no physical decendents of God besides Jesus...so you can't marry people you're phyiscally realated to because it really is more than just physical...because you're going to be their sibling forever...I don't think I'm making sense. If you don't get this tell me and I'll try again but I've got to go now.

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


rationalmormon
rationalmormon's picture
Posts: 28
Joined: 2006-09-24
User is offlineOffline
well, SilkyShrew

Well, SilkyShrew, you're very apparently angery about something. I'm in the middle of some homework right now, but I'll read your whole thing later tonight.
I like this though, because it makes me concider more sides of things.
Take it easy,
-rationalmormon


Sapient
High Level DonorRRS CO-FOUNDERRRS Core MemberWebsite Admin
Sapient's picture
Posts: 7522
Joined: 2006-04-18
User is offlineOffline
rationalmormon wrote: I like

rationalmormon wrote:

I like this though, because it makes me concider more sides of things.

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.

- Brian Sapient


Buy popular atheist books and support the Rational Response Squad at the same time on Amazon.


SilkyShrew
Rational VIP!
SilkyShrew's picture
Posts: 147
Joined: 2006-02-11
User is offlineOffline
rationalmormon, I'm not

rationalmormon,

I'm not angry at all - I rarely get angry. Listening to other points of view is healthy and usually interesting, so I'm glad you're making such an attempt.I look forward to seeing what you have to say.

Sapient,

Thanks for the compliments blushing


todangst
atheistRational VIP!
todangst's picture
Posts: 2811
Joined: 2006-03-10
User is offlineOffline
rationalmormon wrote:Well,

rationalmormon wrote:
Well, SilkyShrew, you're very apparently angery about something.

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

Here, take a look:

rationalmormon wrote:
SilkyShrew wrote:
Actually, according to your own religion, the most serious sin is the denial of Jesus Christ, either in the current life or the next. This sin is why you believe in what is called the "outer darkness," which would be Satan's ultimate destination. I know this because I was once mormon.

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.

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

Quote:
I'm in the middle of some homework right now, but I'll read your whole thing later tonight.

I like this though, because it makes me concider more sides of things. Take it easy,
-rationalmormon

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.

Those who know the good, do the good. - Socrates

Books on atheism.