Is this what Mormons really believe?

[Slartibartfast]

Now, that would be refreshing, don't you think, a president who believes that god inspired the Constitution?

No because it would elevate the constitution above the place it should be in our minds and put it on an unapproachable pedestal. Its a human document, subject to change, control, and interpretation by humans. It is given value by our belief and ascent to it alone and we should have the power to change it as we please as people are sovereign, not a document.

 

[Dittohead not!]

No because it would elevate the constitution above the place it should be in our minds and put it on an unapproachable pedestal. Its a human document, subject to change, control, and interpretation by humans. It is given value by our belief and ascent to it alone and we should have the power to change it as we please as people are sovereign, not a document.

Part of the Constitution is a provision to change it to keep up with the times. Wouldn't it be better to openly advocate amendments, as opposed to simply ignoring parts our elected officials don't like?

 

[Slartibartfast]

Part of the Constitution is a provision to change it to keep up with the times. Wouldn't it be better to openly advocate amendments, as opposed to simply ignoring parts our elected officials don't like?

I believe that there are multiple valid styles of constitutional interpretation and its not simply a matter of ignoring what you do not like (sometimes people do that of course, but I am attempting to address more honest views on the constitution), but more of a matter how you think it applies to legal matters, based on your viewpoint. In a way, its like writing an english paper. As long as you can back up your opinion with logical statements, there is no wrong answer.

 

[Catz Part Deux]

Another belief that is not mentioned, that I thought of when Romney was running for pres, and his religion became an issue: Mormons believe that the Constitution of the US was divinely inspired.

Now, that would be refreshing, don't you think, a president who believes that god inspired the Constitution?

They also believe that the constitution will be "hanging by a thread" and will be saved by a member of the church or the church itself.

And, no, I don't find that to be a particularly refreshing belief, given that it is historically inaccurate. The constitution is a reflection of enlightenment values, not Christian ones.

 

[UtahBill]

back on topic, boys and girls....
I have never heard that Jesus was a "prophet"....only that he was/is the son of god who took human form for the purpose of the atonement....

The typical protestant belief, that all 3 of the godhead is the same person, versus 3 distinct beings, was hotly disputed for 300 years in the early church. Constantine ordered the church to pick one or the other, and I think they chose the wrong one. A good percentage of the early church, probably a majority, were brought up in the Judaic belief of one god, and only one god, so it looks like a vote was taken and the Trinity was invented. Long story short, Jesus is the god of this earth, he has a father, and a mother.
That is how it was explained to me, and personally, it makes much more sense than the trinity.

 

[Catz Part Deux]

back on topic, boys and girls....
I have never heard that Jesus was a "prophet"....only that he was/is the son of god who took human form for the purpose of the atonement....

The typical protestant belief, that all 3 of the godhead is the same person, versus 3 distinct beings, was hotly disputed for 300 years in the early church. Constantine ordered the church to pick one or the other, and I think they chose the wrong one. A good percentage of the early church, probably a majority, were brought up in the Judaic belief of one god, and only one god, so it looks like a vote was taken and the Trinity was invented. Long story short, Jesus is the god of this earth, he has a father, and a mother.
That is how it was explained to me, and personally, it makes much more sense than the trinity.

Jesus isn't the god of this earth. Elohim is.

 

[hallam]

Thanks for the Bible study lesson teach. I have in fact read the Bible all the way through (unlike the majority of professed "Christians" I know) and I think you have disingenuously taken my comment out of context. People praying are not money changers making a mockery of the temple. They are people trying to engage in cordial conversation with their Savior. Show me a single verse in which Jesus cut someone off while they were in the middle of asking him a question, or thanking him, or praising him.

Aside from which if Jesus DID interrupt someone in the middle of their prayer, people would stop and listen. You would have to be an idiot of immeasurable proportion to hear the voice of God and just keep talking over it.

If Jesus were interrupting, and people were listening, one would expect prayer to sound more like this:

"Dear Jesus, please give me a pony, and Red Ryder carbine-action, two hundred shot Range Model air rifle with a compass in the stock and a thing which tells time, and- ... ... ... Sorry, could you say that again? I missed the first part because I was talking... ... ... Ok. I will. ... ... ... I know, I'm sorry. It won't happen again. ... ... Thank you. Amen."

For some reason, I never hear anything like this.

Again, prayers of petition are not even the most prayed prayer. So my suggestion would be to gather more evidence because your examples do not support your conclusion. They support a very biased skew of what pray is. Considering you are not in on these conversations, you really have no idea what God is doing. Why would the prayer sound anything like that? How you think people talk to God and how people actually talk to God are two very distinct things here. Your personal experience here is moot. If you don't accept others personal experience for the existence of God, then your personal experience of hearsay, something not even allowed in court, wont be accepted here either.

 

[scourge99]

So many people don't know what faith is, they want proof.

Can faith-based claims be rationally justified? No.

Faith is the assertion (or hope) that one's beliefs are true. It is epistemologically barren. Some attempt to argue that faith is "belief without evidence". Such people sometimes attempt to equivocate "faith" in their preferred God with "faith" that the sun will rise tomorrow or "faith" that their car brakes will work. When analyzed it becomes apparent that "faith" in one's car brakes and "faith" in one's preferred God are so fundamentally different and based on such different approaches that equivocating the two is as fallacious as it is disingenuous.

I'd be more than willing to discuss the merits of faith-based claims if you wish.

All I am concerned about is that it is worth believing, and does it make you a better person.

I find this is sentiment common among theists. That belief in something, even if it is false, provides the benefits of comfort, happiness, and moral superiority. Such a claim is indefensible and as such it is baseless as it is unjustified. But that does not stop preachers and pastors from using such a specious argument when "preaching to the choir" or when attempting to convert ignorant or credulous listeners.

I would propose that seeking truth is of the greatest importance as it gives one a greater ability to make decisions and actions that are most effective and that reflect reality to a greater degree. If happiness and comfort are what you seek then I strongly advise seeking knowledge to obtain that state of mind rather than being credulous to the unverifiable and indefensible specious claims of others.

There is no proof, looking for it is a waste of time...

Conceding that a particular worldview cannot be validated with evidence makes it indistinguishable from truth, falsehood, fraud, imagination, or mistake. Such beliefs have no necessary relevance to reality and as such are of no concern except perhaps as entertainment.

let your faith and the good teachings guide you, and disregard the minutae....

I couldn't disagree more. Such platitudes may go unquestioned when "preaching to the choir" but not to others who will evaluate the merits of such a claim.

Can you defend the claim that:
1) following "good teachings and faith" is superior to other methods? E.G., reasoned and rational conclusions developed from tried and tested experimentation?

2) In what scenarios is relying on faith superior to relying on conclusions developed by verifiable evidence and reason?

 

[Southern Belle]

I have seen a lot of Christians pray. This is how it goes: "Dear Jesus, please give me this that and this other thing, and help my friend so and so with whats going on in her life, blah blah blah blah blah Amen."

From start to finish, they talk the entire time. How can Jesus ever get a word in edgewise?

Even if Jesus is talking to them, it doesn't really count as a two way conversation if they aren't listening.

hallam is right, it is a 2-way conversation. I almost never pray aloud, because I don't need to. I talk to God about a lot of stuff, as a friend. I let him know I like having him around and I'm glad he is who he is, and I let him know how much fun I'm having or did have, and when I notice the sky I always tell him it's pretty, like the other day when the clouds were real thin and swirly, they looked like a whole bunch of angel wings. And I can feel him right here with me when I pray and I feel so peaceful and secure and I can hear the softest whisper, it sounds like a thought whispering that he's pleased with me and he loves me too.

Sorry, kinda off topic but when I saw #2 i thought that exact thing, it's a 2 way conversation.

 

[Catz Part Deux]

That is very sweet, Belle. i'm glad that your faith gives you so much comfort.

 

[UtahBill]

Can faith-based claims be rationally justified? No.

Faith is the assertion (or hope) that one's beliefs are true. It is epistemologically barren. Some attempt to argue that faith is "belief without evidence". Such people sometimes attempt to equivocate "faith" in their preferred God with "faith" that the sun will rise tomorrow or "faith" that their car brakes will work. When analyzed it becomes apparent that "faith" in one's car brakes and "faith" in one's preferred God are so fundamentally different and based on such different approaches that equivocating the two is as fallacious as it is disingenuous.

I'd be more than willing to discuss the merits of faith-based claims if you wish.


I find this is sentiment common among theists. That belief in something, even if it is false, provides the benefits of comfort, happiness, and moral superiority. Such a claim is indefensible and as such it is baseless as it is unjustified. But that does not stop preachers and pastors from using such a specious argument when "preaching to the choir" or when attempting to convert ignorant or credulous listeners.

I would propose that seeking truth is of the greatest importance as it gives one a greater ability to make decisions and actions that are most effective and that reflect reality to a greater degree. If happiness and comfort are what you seek then I strongly advise seeking knowledge to obtain that state of mind rather than being credulous to the unverifiable and indefensible specious claims of others.


Conceding that a particular worldview cannot be validated with evidence makes it indistinguishable from truth, falsehood, fraud, imagination, or mistake. Such beliefs have no necessary relevance to reality and as such are of no concern except perhaps as entertainment.


I couldn't disagree more. Such platitudes may go unquestioned when "preaching to the choir" but not to others who will evaluate the merits of such a claim.

Can you defend the claim that:
1) following "good teachings and faith" is superior to other methods? E.G., reasoned and rational conclusions developed from tried and tested experimentation?

2) In what scenarios is relying on faith superior to relying on conclusions developed by verifiable evidence and reason?

You always over ANALyze things? I am talking about faith, not religion. I am aware that religions can have a dark side, just look at the history of almost any religion. Personal faith is comforting, and it is cruel, stupid, and selfish to deny people their beliefs just because you assume a superior intellectual stance.
If you respond to this, can you keep it short and to the point instead of trying to impress us with your ability to use ten dollar words to make a two penny statement?:2razz:

 

[liblady]

They don't believe in the virgin birth, they don't believe that Jesus was God the father incarnate, they believe he was a brother (and equal) to satan. They believe that Joseph Smith was greater than Jesus, they believe that Jesus had wives and children and that Joseph Smith was his descendant. They downplay the Holiness of God by stating that he was just a random love child of another god somewhere out there. They believe that we are eternally married even though Jesus specifically states in the Bible that in heaven there is no marriage (and no sex, stating that our bodies will be spirit and "genderless" like the angels). It doesn't represent Christianity at all and is contrary to the Bible assuming the things in the video are true.

wait, what?????? no sex in heaven? what's the freaking point, then?

 

[Coronado]

wait, what?????? no sex in heaven? what's the freaking point, then?

That's why you gotta get all you can right now.

 

[UtahBill]

wait, what?????? no sex in heaven? what's the freaking point, then?

No coffee breaks either....apparently the idea is to sit around for eternity praising a God with some kind of mental defect that makes him want to be worshiped eternally.
Me, I get bored too easily.

 

[Dittohead not!]

No coffee breaks either....apparently the idea is to sit around for eternity praising a God with some kind of mental defect that makes him want to be worshiped eternally.
Me, I get bored too easily.

Which is why raising spirit children and creating worlds is a lot more attractive than sitting on a cloud playing a harp and singing praises. That could get pretty old after 20 minutes or so.

 

[UtahBill]

Which is why raising spirit children and creating worlds is a lot more attractive than sitting on a cloud playing a harp and singing praises. That could get pretty old after 20 minutes or so.

My musical and singing talents are nil, so I would be kicked off of "Heaven's got talent" immediately....

 

[Catz Part Deux]

Which is why raising spirit children and creating worlds is a lot more attractive than sitting on a cloud playing a harp and singing praises. That could get pretty old after 20 minutes or so.

It's a nice fantasy, but I wouldn't hold my breath.

 

[Dittohead not!]

It's a nice fantasy, but I wouldn't hold my breath.

Creating worlds, or singing praises forever?

 

[Catz Part Deux]

Creating worlds, or singing praises forever?

Both.

(10 characters)

 

[Dittohead not!]

Both.

(10 characters)

Well, let's hope that there is something out there after our bodies die, maybe.

Imagine being bored to death for eternity, but you have already died!

 

[Catz Part Deux]

Well, let's hope that there is something out there after our bodies die, maybe.

Imagine being bored to death for eternity, but you have already died!

Nah. I plan, after raging against the dying of the light, to go gently into that good night.

If you do it right, eternity is just extraneous.

 

[scourge99]

You always over ANALyze things?

If by over analyze you mean clearly explain what I disagree with and why, yes, usually. That is kind of the point of a debate forum. To debate.

Some people confuse the following for "debating":
1) preaching
2) asserting things that they cannot show as true
3) making personal attacks or remarks

I'm not saying this is true of you but its a common pattern among many in this forum. Most don't understand how to debate let alone how to construct and present an argument.

I am talking about faith, not religion.

me too.

Can faith-based claims be rationally justified? No.

Faith is the assertion (or hope) that one's beliefs are true. It is epistemologically barren. Some attempt to argue that faith is "belief without evidence". Such people sometimes attempt to equivocate "faith" in their preferred God with "faith" that the sun will rise tomorrow or "faith" that their car brakes will work. When analyzed it becomes apparent that "faith" in one's car brakes and "faith" in one's preferred God are so fundamentally different and based on such different approaches that equivocating the two is as fallacious as it is disingenuous.

I'd be more than willing to discuss the merits of faith-based claims if you wish.

I am aware that religions can have a dark side, just look at the history of almost any religion.

I don't remember mentioning anything about a religion's dark side or history???

Personal faith is comforting, and it is cruel, stupid, and selfish to deny people their beliefs just because you assume a superior intellectual stance.

I, for one, do NOT attack or challenge anyone’s personal and private beliefs.

However, I DO attack or challenge CLAIMS made in public debate that cannot be shown as true.

When a person makes claims or statements, others have equal right to challenge them – to ask for evidence that they are true and accurate – to ask upon what information they are based – to ask who is responsible for the truth and accuracy of the claim / statement – to ask for reason why they should be believed – to present contradicting evidence or evidence of error.

If the maker of claims / statements is unable to substantiate what they say and satisfactorily answer challenges, others have the right to refuse to accept or to outright reject those claims / statements. Not everyone chooses to challenge statements or to question information provided. Children, the naïve, the gullible and the meek are prone to accept / believe what they are told, particularly by “authority figures”.

In honorable debate, participants are required to substantiate their claims and statements or to withdraw / retract them. Doing so does not imply that the person no longer believes they are true, but simply acknowledges that they have said something that they cannot substantiate – realizing that it is not admissible in debate wherein unsupported claims / statements are nothing more than opinion and cannot ethically be presented as truth or evidence.

Many fail to distinguish between what they believe and what is factual or supportable information. Challenges “keep them honest” (even though “ducking the issue” is relatively common – perhaps thinking that the tactic is unnoticed by readers).

In my experience, many who attempt (in debate or in person) to promote or defend religion are very prone to make unsupportable claims and statements – and to refuse to withdraw them when challenged or asked for evidence (and often become indignant, irate or downright hostile). They may think that obstinate refusal to “back down” from unsupportable claims is a tribute to their “faith” or their dedication to “god”; however, those who observe such action can rightfully conclude that doing so is an indication of an indefensible position based upon emotion and indoctrination rather than reason.

If you respond to this, can you keep it short and to the point instead of trying to impress us with your ability to use ten dollar words to make a two penny statement?:2razz:

I tried. The big chunk is merely a copy and paste from a previous reply.

 

[Andalublue]

Jesus isn't the god of this earth. Elohim is.

Catz, was the stuff about the skin colour of different classes of humans accurate?

 

[CaptainCourtesy]

Moderator's Warning:

This thread is about Mormonism... NOT the logic or non-logic of faith. Get back to the topic.

 

[scourge99]

God is in the details? NAH....in the basics, more like it...
So many people don't know what faith is, they want proof. All I am concerned about is that it is worth believing, and does it make you a better person.
There is no proof, looking for it is a waste of time...let your faith and the good teachings guide you, and disregard the minutae....

UtahBill,

Moderators have informed me via PM that I am NOT allowed to challenge the claims you presented about faith. You are allowed to continue and make any such claims without challenge. Apparently I can only challenge those claims by starting a new thread. Would you or others be interested in continuing our discussion in a new thread?