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 But it was revoked in the 1890's (even if only for legal reasons).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.
I don't have a problem with Mormons' diet. It is their choice to live that way and believe the things they do. As long as they don't force it upon others, which they don't (actually discriminate it), I'm fine.
From a philosophical perspective we don't, however we can have degrees of certainty.
Philosophical perspective - are there any other perspectives that can be simultaneously correct?
How can you have any degrees of certainty, wouldn't these all be subjective - is there an objective anything if we can't trust our personal experiences?
I don't have a problem with Mormons' diet. It is their choice to live that way and believe the things they do. As long as they don't force it upon others, which they don't (actually discriminate it), I'm fine.
I'm pretty sure this is a thread about what Should be done (or at least that's what we're making it) - not if Mormonism should be "legal" or not.
I don't have a problem with Mormons' diet. It is their choice to live that way and believe the things they do. As long as they don't force it upon others, which they don't (actually discriminate it), I'm fine.
What here implies anything about whether someone should be mormon or not?
The first right all Americans have is to have the freedom and religion.
This does not justify anything
Geez, I have to justif every post I make in WEPR.
If you're sleepy, go to the tavern. Nothing is above questioning if one truly seeks the truth.
What here implies anything about whether someone should be mormon or not?
Hmm. Since I take imitation as the most sincere form of flattery, I will answer this in the nicest way I know how. I wasn't explaining whether people should be Mormons or not, but rather that I am fine with Mormons and the Mormon belief system.
This does not justify anything
I adding on to what I said that about how it is not a question if the Mormon beliefs are legal or illegal.
If you're sleepy, go to the tavern. Nothing is above questioning if one truly seeks the truth.
What does "Geez, I have to justify every post I make in WEPR" have ANYTHING to do whether I'm sleepy or not?
Wait, don't answer that. I don't want to derail this thread because of you and your pesky questions about every sentence I make.
Philosophical perspective - are there any other perspectives that can be simultaneously correct?
It depends on what form of philosophy we are using.
How can you have any degrees of certainty, wouldn't these all be subjective - is there an objective anything if we can't trust our personal experiences?
We can have objective perspectives based on what we all are capable of observing. So something that I only see and no one else sees and I or others can't reproduce it is going to have less certainty then something that everyone can see and reproduce.
We can have objective perspectives based on what we all are capable of observing. So something that I only see and no one else sees and I or others can't reproduce it is going to have less certainty then something that everyone can see and reproduce.
A tree falls in the middle of the forest. Did it make a sound? How do we know? Or do we?
A tree falls in the middle of the forest. Did it make a sound? How do we know? Or do we?
We know how the physical interactions between the tree falling and the air molecules react and that those reactions produce a frequency within an audible range. We can't be 100% sure that in that particular case those reactions took place however since we have no reason to think otherwise, thus we can have a degree of certainty.
If personal experience is fallible, than how do you know that it's fallible? If it's fallible, and you learned this from experience, because that's where all things come from aside from theorys, and even those are somewhat derived from experience, then you're just not arguing. You can't argue something like that, because it doesn't even make sense to argue for.
We know how the physical interactions between the tree falling and the air molecules react and that those reactions produce a frequency within an audible range. We can't be 100% sure that in that particular case those reactions took place however since we have no reason to think otherwise, thus we can have a degree of certainty.
But again - this is only based on people's perceptions and of patterns that we have seen.
Also - theists will argue that there were several accounts of the crucifixion of Jesus and his resurrection? This, according to your philosophy, would be a greater degree of certainty.
Also, say very few people have common sense and many cannot reason properly (common sense is not so common). Does this mean that common sense has a lower degree of certainty?
More people are religious than are atheist. Because they believe it, this is a greater degree of certainty.
