I tried, but I might not have worded it right to them, but I said to some TBMs that to me, it doesn't seem rational or normal human behavior to go from door to door trying to recruit people into a cult with strange beliefs, with no proof, and with nothing but their word on it all, and one said, what is normal rational human behavior? Are you not taking the views of others to turn you to their way of doctrine? Their bus arrived, which ended my chance to say something back.


After they said this, I thought about all the all the information I see, which makes LDS teachings look pretty weak. But it's true, I am looking at it and believing more what they say than what the church says.

But with a whole list of things that seem to disprove church doctrines, such as what I've seen on mormonthink.com, and in the different sciences that give proof with their findings in all sorts of things, and more reasonable points against church teachings, these aren't doctrines, are they? Do any or all, and more than, those things listed above, expect people to believe their information without proof?

What is normal rational human behavior?

Well, for one, not trying to control the religious decisions of other people. Normal rational humans respect one another's rights and abilities to believe whatever the hell they want.

Christians often use this "Why do you call a banana yellow, because you've been taught that?" And I'd turn it right back around on them. Even if you're right and your church really is the one and only true church on earth, so what? Why does that obligate you to tell eveyone else they are wrong? Didn't Christ say something about hiding your light under a bushel and praying in secret? Normal rational people respect each other's boundaries.

Your TBM conversation confused you because the response did not deal with your question, the person responded to you with a statement designed to shut down all dialog. Asking you "what is normal rational human behavior" derailed your sensible and rational question. After you read the following quote (the whole essay is actually very good because the author cuts to the heart of the question), you will feel a little more confident in reiterating your question and insisting on an honest answer rather than a thought-stopping derailment.

http://exmormon.org/phorum/read.php?2,545726,545726#msg-545726

"...So, here is the tension. The ethos of the {mormon} religion is to cultivate deference and courtesy, to honor all people, but the practice of the religion has to be so that others will be converted. The fact of vigorous evangelism cannot be separated from a belief that the faith the LDS folk have is probably a bit truer than the faith of those with whom they talk. Even if this is denied, and I think most Mormon missionaries would deny it, I can't accept their denial as genuine. You go out in the field because you want converts; you want converts because you believe your religion is better or more true or superior to other people's religions."
Wm. R. Long.
http://www.drbilllong.com/CurrentEventsXX/AnneFrank.html

Good essay. It sure makes proxy baptisms - forcing membership on dead people - look outrageously offensive. And shows the mormon humility thing to be disguised arrogance.

Thinking again about proxy baptisms, my grandfather, who was very against religion, was baptized by proxy by his son. Something my grandfather would never have agreed to when he was alive. I would love to secretly get it undone. If there's a way.

I don't think there is any way to get it undone.

"Are you not taking the views of others to turn you to their way of doctrine?"

No. I am not. I do not "turn to other people's 'doctrine'".

A banana can be placed in front of a colorimeter and it's reflected spectrum proven to be in the waveband that is commonly called yellow by the majority of humans.

There are no god-o-meters, Holy ghostometers or jesus-o-matics. That which cannot be measured cannot be proven to exist. It may exist, but to take it to the level of "I Know" is not rational.

rationalguy Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> A banana can be placed in front of a colorimeter
> and it's reflected spectrum proven to be in the
> waveband that is commonly called yellow by the
> majority of humans.
>
> There are no god-o-meters, Holy ghostometers or
> jesus-o-matics. That which cannot be measured
> cannot be proven to exist. It may exist, but to
> take it to the level of "I Know" is not rational.
If there were "bullshit-o-meters" they would have to be calibrated on a logarithmic scale when used to examine Mormon doctrine.

The question is non sequitur and not really a valid argument, but it is a valid philosophical point. At some point, we as humans take most of our knowledge from an authority of some kind. Some things are true by definition (like that the color of bananas is referenced by the word "yellow").

You don't go out and test *everything* you're told before you believe it. Some stuff comes from sources you've learned were reliable in the past, some stuff seems reasonable given knowledge you already hold, etc. But nobody actually investigates everything. The mishies were trying to reference this with the trivial "language is just something people told you was true" to try to twist it into "fundamental knowledge can be given by authority." Using something true by definition is a nice trick, because it avoids the issue of whether there is inherent truth to an underlying reality. If you're thinking about something that's just true because someone says it is, you're hopefully more likely to believe something is true just because someone says it is.

Note I doubt the epistemology tomfoolery is understood by the mishies (or other zealots); it's just something someone put in their toolbox. Especially because if anyone astute noticed that parallel (in time to deliver a witty reply), they could say, "A banana is only called 'yellow' because our culture has made up that word to describe it. If you want to use words to describe feelings you have, you are welcome to use whatever you want. It changes nothing to me." ..or, preferably, something more pithy than I can come up with.

The scriptures also say by their fruits ye shall know them. Just look at the FLDS. These are the fruits of the teachings of BY and JS.

Would God really teach that it is a sin punishable by death for a white person to marry a black person? Including the death of any children they may have. This is what BY taught.

I don't know what else there is too discuss. You don't need science to show that this is wrong, it just is.