We may use cookies to help customize your experience, including performing
analytics and serving ads.
Learn More
Forums → WEPR → Mormonism
| 428 | 52259 |
I'm starting this topic to "continue" a conversation started in the Christians vs. Catholics thread. I will include some of the details from there, but the rest are up to anyone new to read up on. I will specifically post the contents of one post, more or less.
We did not baptize Adolf Hitler. That is a lie. After people baptized for Obama's mother, an official release was sent out saying that unless you specifically know the person who's name you are bringing in to do temple work for (not the names that they already have) or they are in your family, you cannot do temple work for them.
We are not barred from being around ex Mormons. We do not necessarily believe they are with Satan. We excommunicate people for their good. In our views, it gives them a second chance. They can rejoin the church later, and their sins will be gone, just as they were when they were first baptized. I know many ex Mormons, and I do not get in trouble for being with them.
South Park is in no way an authority on anything. The fact that you're trying to cite that is pathetic.
Yes, there was polygamy. But it was revoked in the 1890's (even if only for legal reasons). Joseph Smith did not try to burn down a newspaper place. He was taken to jail for no real reason. If he shot back, it was only because they were shooting at him.
The reason non members are not allowed in the temple is because of the sacred things that go on in there. If just anyone was allowed in, the spirit would be disrupted. I will expound on this if needs be.
I am personally ashamed of the acts of other Latter-Day Saints who have done temple work for people without permission from relatives of that person. It is wrong, and we know it.
Tithing... It was actually in Christ's day when it started. The only reason it affects our worthiness to enter the temple (not our standing in general). The Lord gave us everything we have, and all he asks is 10% of what we earn. I'd say that's a pretty small price for life, liberty, and happiness.
Also, we believe in Agency and Accountability. You can choose to do what you want, but you will have to accept the consequences.
I have a testimony of Jesus Christ. He is my savior and my redeemer. I believe that Joseph Smith was a prophet of God, and that Thomas S. Monson is the living prophet today. I believe the Bible to be true as far as it is correctly translated. I know that through the Atonement of Jesus Christ, we can be forgiven for our sins and return to live with our Heavenly Father. I have seen the Atonement in action in my life. I know that God listens to all prayers to him. He answers them in his own way. I know that I can make it to the Celestial Kingdom if I but do my best to keep the commandments of God.
- 428 Replies
mentioned there are gaps in religions, even atheism
Atheism isn't a religion, unless bald is a haircut. Care to name one then?
just because a religion isn't 100% true doesn't mean it's wrong
By literal definition, IT DOES! Especially when the book says "Nothing in this book is wrong!"
otherwise if there was 100% truth that a religion was true there would be alot more followers(Not saying everyone)
Actually religion tends to be based on culture, upbraiding, emotional issues, etc.
Fifty percent you are basing a large part of your life on? That sounds like a horrible idea to me.
No, if you read correctly 50% of why I dislike backing up my religion, it's just a comparison, If we went technical with this it would be way different, and as I said before many religions require Faith. If you have none than that's not my problem, although bashing on other's faith will either strengthen it (kinda like now) or weaken it as you kinda said
It is referred to often as your "faith" this is because religons require trust in what you beleive.
Actually faith is called believing in what isn't proven. Also what's so good about trusting what you believe over what can be observed and tested?
I see why someone beleives in nothing, but that doesn't mean you shouldn't respect other's religion. It's called common courtesy, and although encouraged by many religions, it is simply a good trait to have.
If I decide to follow up and go to one of the Mormon church meeting to see how they are preformed I will sit quietly and be very respectful. Here where we are to discuss and debate the concepts and ideas of the religion if I see something that is bull it's going to be called out as such.
there are gaps in religions, even atheism, just because a religion isn't 100% true doesn't mean it's wrong
There must be one "religion" or system of belief which contains no contradictions, and this is the right one. Otherwise, the law of non-contradiction is violated...
otherwise if there was 100% truth that a religion was true there would be alot more followers(Not saying everyone)
I was thinking about this the other day. You severely underestimate the power of fallacies.
Actually faith is called believing in what isn't proven. Also what's so good about trusting what you believe over what can be observed and tested?
Build up your argument a little - define faith, and show that, by definition, it is innately irrational. No god would demand irrationality, so no god would demand faith. Thus disproving the idea that a religion would demand faith.
Actually faith is called believing in what isn't proven. Also what's so good about trusting what you believe over what can be observed and tested?
If I decide to follow up and go to one of the Mormon church meeting to see how they are preformed I will sit quietly and be very respectful. Here where we are to discuss and debate the concepts and ideas of the religion if I see something that is bull it's going to be called out as such.
If your mom told you she would make you cookies, how can it be proven she will in the future, you have to have faith. And I know the concept of this cite, I was talking about in experiences, not this, I know this is more for debate
Atheism isn't a religion, unless bald is a haircut. Care to name one then?
Kinda funnny you said that, I actually talked to a bald guy about that and he said it was, but doesn't mean it is. There is no way to prove that every little spec in the universe was created by a diety, but there isn't a way to prove it wasn't, so no belief can be proven 100% making all beliefs false? I highly doubt it.
If your mom told you she would make you cookies, how can it be proven she will in the future, you have to have faith. And I know the concept of this cite, I was talking about in experiences, not this, I know this is more for debate
So what if she doesn't make you cookies? There is no reason to assume that she will, and I would not bet my life on the fact that your mom might make cookies later...
Kinda funnny you said that, I actually talked to a bald guy about that and he said it was, but doesn't mean it is. There is no way to prove that every little spec in the universe was created by a diety, but there isn't a way to prove it wasn't, so no belief can be proven 100% making all beliefs false? I highly doubt it.
Howz about your omnipresent deity pokes his heads threw the clouds and says "Hey guess what, I exist!"? That would be indistinguishable proof. You can't, however, proof anything does not exist. If you find a way to, could you disprove unicorns for me?
If your mom told you she would make you cookies, how can it be proven she will in the future, you have to have faith.
It can't. Put quite simply. Unless, if you have the knowledge of the locations of every single particle in the universe (universe defined as whatever interacts with mother and the cookies), and all the information necessary to predict the motions of every single particle and then deduce whether or not cookies were made... </tangent>
There is no way to prove that every little spec in the universe was created by a diety, but there isn't a way to prove it wasn't, so no belief can be proven 100% making all beliefs false?
This is an assumption that a lot of people make that is not necessarily true.
This is an assumption that a lot of people make that is not necessarily true.
I agree meaning those who beleive it not to be true will believe in something else, mabey like... a religion :P
I agree meaning those who beleive it not to be true will believe in something else, mabey like... a religion :P
Or that theism can be proven wrong.
Howz about your omnipresent deity pokes his heads threw the clouds and says "Hey guess what, I exist!"? That would be indistinguishable proof. You can't, however, proof anything does not exist. If you find a way to, could you disprove unicorns for me?
You can't prove that one of my teachers doesn't exist, meaning I don't think you should tell someone to prove something exist when you can't possibly prove he doesn't exist, you would presumably assume it either exists or doesn't, this means many things are based on the faith that something does or doesn't exist
You can't prove that one of my teachers doesn't exist, meaning I don't think you should tell someone to prove something exist when you can't possibly prove he doesn't exist, you would presumably assume it either exists or doesn't, this means many things are based on the faith that something does or doesn't exist
Or, you could do the fricken logical thing and PROVE SOMETHING EXISTS. That is how it works in the real world. Then once you provide this thing we call "Actual evidence", the evidence can than be dismissed by proving that they are not what you are claiming. For example, I can say unicorns exist and you can't prove me wrong. But if I say "unicorns exist and live in my back yard" than you could examine my backyard, and not finding evidence of any unicorns, would effectively dismiss my theory.
But religion keeps changing the fricken goals. We looked for the unicorns in the back yard, and finding none, they changed it to "Well they live further in my back yard!" and when we finally examined nearly every aspect of your back yard, you finally say "The unicorns are invisible and unobservable! You can't find any trace of them no matter how hard you look!"...
You can't prove that one of my teachers doesn't exist
meaning I don't think you should tell someone to prove something exist when you can't possibly prove he doesn't exist
This is a bad analogy. An atheist would simply argue that Occam's razor says that you should assume your teacher and not assume a deity.
PROVE SOMETHING EXISTS
You can't actually "rove" something without an axiom or assumption, or you could use a conditional proof. For example, you could say, "If I should live my life based upon my perceptions, then I should assume my teacher exists," or "If my perception is reality, then my teacher exists." These statements cannot be said about a god. (well, what do you guys think about people claiming to have "spiritual experiences"?)
Or, you could do the fricken logical thing and PROVE SOMETHING EXISTS. That is how it works in the real world.
I am using this to turn something he said on himself. I of course could try to get my teacher to get on and say "Yo Wazzup" but chances are he won't, that doesn't mean he doesn't exist.
"Well they live further in my back yard!" and when we finally examined nearly every aspect of your back yard, you finally say "The unicorns are invisible and unobservable!
There is more than a backyard to look, the universe is big or infinitely large to us, a person can only look so far before not being able to look anymore, perhaps I beg my teacher to get on and show you, he might be stubborn, I can only do so many things in this lifetime of mine to try and get him to come on and prove he exists, but that doesn't mean he doesn't exist
This is a bad analogy. An atheist would simply argue that Occam's razor says that you should assume your teacher and not assume a deity.
I relize that -_-' but I'm tired and need to either wrap this up and go to bed or let it either trail off or wait till I return
You must be logged in to post a reply!