have you ever wondered why the book of mormon is pushed so much? if you read the new testament it says repeatedly that eternal life is for everyone who believes in and has faith in Christ. once in a while there is thrown in keeping the commandments to prove that you love the Savior. the only ordinance which is mentioned is baptism and funny enough most mormons dont think baptism does anything for you as far as sins being forgiven.
Why must there be only one "best" football team? Why must Ford owners believe their cars/trucks are the one and only "best," and dismiss Chevy owners? Why must there be mac v. pc controversy?
Humans are tribal. We just love to take something we like or cherish (rationally or not), and insist that everyone else must feel the same way about it, or that it's the one and only "true" whatever it is.
Because we have the one and only "truth." It lets us self-validate. It lets us feel superior to less enlightened humans.
Overcoming that human instinct isn't easy. But it is doable.
It seems like there always has to be an "us" and a "them."
And it is interesting how we define who plays for which team. I think that there is an innate need for most people to "belong" - whether to a family, a fraternity/sorority, university, church, whatever - a larger unit of identification wherein we feel that we are part of something bigger than ourselves.
Interestingly in BOM Jesus teaches nothing more or new than the New Testament teachings to the nephites.....why mormons think the BOM brought anything new is a mystery
Not logged in Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > ...why mormons think the BOM brought > anything new is a mystery
Aw, come on gatorman, give 'em credit! The BoM has new stuff about bad people getting cursed with dark skin, and if they "repent," turning white and delightsome again!
Oh, wait, they changed white and delightsome to pure and delightsome in 1981...oops.
ificouldhietokolob Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > The same reason some people believe in 'spirits' > and afterlives even though there's no clear > indication they exist? > > Just a thought. _____________________________________________________
The libraries and net are full of stories of these incidents.
It is only the people who cannot or will not read and research that are 'oblivious' to what is really going on in the world!
spiritist Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > The libraries and net are full of stories of these > incidents.
Yes, they are. The existence of those stories, of course, aren't any indication that the content of the stories is "true."
> It is only the people who cannot or will not read > and research that are 'oblivious' to what is > really going on in the world!
On the contrary, many millions of people (probably more) have read the stories, and find them full of assumptions and fallacies. Your assertion that non-believers in your beliefs can't or haven't read the stories is patently false. Although it is typical of people who believe things without evidence.
> Just a thought with a challenge!
Too late, already read 'em all. Like the "BOM challenge," yours doesn't work.
> It is only the people who cannot or will not read and research that are 'oblivious' to what is really going on in the world! <
What someone says is really going on in the world and what is really going on in the world are two very different things.
Kind of like "I believe what you told me" vs. "My experience and the experience of others matches what you told me" are two very different things.
I've read lots of books like you said, found them very interesting, but in no way found them to be describing any kind of reality that we all share or that I can experience. They are nothing more than one person's story, a testimonial.
Jonny the Smoke Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > > It is only the people who cannot or will not > read and research that are 'oblivious' to what is > really going on in the world! < > > What someone says is really going on in the world > and what is really going on in the world are two > very different things. > > Kind of like "I believe what you told me" vs. "My > experience and the experience of others matches > what you told me" are two very different things. > > I've read lots of books like you said, found them > very interesting, but in no way found them to be > describing any kind of reality that we all share > or that I can experience. They are nothing more > than one person's story, a testimonial. > > Must you continue to flog this deceased equine?
Oh, how you 'show your lack of ability to read' just like my post infers! It was Kolob that started this. Nothing new under the sun there! Do you know what a 'library or a book' is? Can you comprehend what I am saying????
Kolob could not argue with my comment so he started an argument by stating ------ "The same reason some people believe in 'spirits' and afterlives even though there's no clear indication they exist"?
There is plenty of 'written testimonial evidence' for people who can read to at least understand that not just a handful of people have these 'experiences' but people from all over the world!
spiritist Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Oh, how you 'show your lack of ability to read' > just like my post infers!
Oh, please, just stop. As I and many others have pointed out to you over and over and over again, it's insulting and rather silly to claim people who don't agree with you lack the ability to read or understand. Millions upon millions of people HAVE read (and understood, probably better than you) the anecdotes you keep referring to -- and they don't agree with your conclusions about them. So, seriously, just stop insisting that people who don't agree with you can't read or don't understand.
> It was Kolob that > started this. Nothing new under the sun there! > Do you know what a 'library or a book' is? Can you > comprehend what I am saying????
Again, please stop insulting people who don't agree with you.
> Kolob could not argue with my comment so he > started an argument...
I couldn't argue so I started an argument? What?
By the way, I simply pointed out that you were dismissing religion for not offering any "clear indication" about god things, but not using that same reasoning with your own beliefs. That's not an argument -- it's simply pointing out your inconsistent double standard.
> There is plenty of 'written testimonial evidence' > for people who can read to at least understand > that not just a handful of people have these > 'experiences' but people from all over the world!
How many people claim something has no bearing on whether or not it's "true" (appeal to popularity fallacy).
Whether it's a handful or 200 million is irrelevant. What matters is whether or not the claims can be verified. And these can't.
ificouldhietokolob Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- Oh, please, just stop. As I and many others have > pointed out to you over and over and over again, > it's insulting and rather silly to claim people > who don't agree with you lack the ability to read > or understand.
pot, kettle & black come to mind. why can you not respectfully disagree? debate is one thing, argument is another thing altogether.
being able to read and being willing to read something outwith your comfort zone are two completely different things.
anonuk Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > pot, kettle & black come to mind. why can you not > respectfully disagree? debate is one thing, > argument is another thing altogether.
I have never once said or insinuated that "spiritist" couldn't read or lacked the ability to understand or used any other personal insults. Not once.
I suppose the argument is this: that if it's true, there's only one truth. That all religions differs from each other, then not all of them can be wholly true. I don't think this means that there is any one of them that is true but I suppose that's where the logic goes.
One of the biggest indications of faux Mormonism is the poor use of language: for example, with the Book of Mormon we have to suspend common sense and accept that God likes to indulge in cliches, oddisms, anachronisms, plagiarisms, tautologies and a host of other linguistic sins.
The obsession with analogies is a huge giveaway: for example, what on Earth is meant by 'keys of the priesthood'?
The mantra that Mormonism is 'God's true religion' doesn't make sense. If God has a true religion, she wouldn't need to keep obsessively trumpeting the claim. God cannot have a 'true' religion: any word of God would instantly be warped to suit the terrestrial receivers of the revelation. 'True' in this sense presumably means 'God-approved'. But why would God bother with any religion? Why would God care whether we believe or not? And why would God play favourites with religions? And doesn't playing favourites run counter to any reasonable definition of a God?
The poor use of language instantly raises suspicions in the ears and minds of the hearer, and is perhaps one of the biggest indicators of pulling a stone rabbit from a hat.
It's a line of reasoning I constantly get from practicing muslims (as opposed to most of my friends lol).
They consider themselves tolerant for not looking down on people practicing other faiths too much, just the usual amount. They commend those people for sacrificing so much in their life for their faith, and while they believe those people have been tragically misled, they do feel that those infidels are good people deep down inside. They feel that those people have something of The One True Faith in them, just not enough to be up to their standards, and they also believe that those people have the potential to progress towards The One True Religion sooner or later. All they enlightened followers of The One True Path need to do is to plant a seed in the hearts of those cute little silly things.
To people who have been indoctrinated in one faith, especially one established by the state (as in most islamic countries, something difficult to "feel" as a westerner) it is easier to believe that your own faith could be "the wrong one" than that there couldn't be any "right one" at all. So they will follow the reasoning of the atheist up to a point and then say "but there has to be a God. If not mine, then another one". After which they will think of how silly all other creeds are, and conclude that Allah is true.
esian asked, "what on Earth is meant by 'keys of the priesthood'?"
My understanding of this is, if the 'priesthood' exists, one should at least know what is supposed to be done with this 'power', (i.e., sit in the lotus position all day and pray, or....?)
So, the 'keys' are knowing what one should do with this 'power'.
pollythinks Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > esian asked, "what on Earth is meant by 'keys of > the priesthood'?" > > My understanding of this is, if the 'priesthood' > exists, one should at least know what is supposed > to be done with this 'power', (i.e., sit in the > lotus position all day and pray, or....?) >
> So, the 'keys' are knowing what one should do with > this 'power'.
If they're the ONE TRUE religion then you have to be part of it even if it's really toxic for you. If there were no "one true religion" then you could judge them on how well they worked for you and choose one you liked. But with the "one true religion" concept you end up in a mind set that you HAVE to be part of this even when they're treating you like something that fell out of a tall cow's behind. They can abuse the hell out of you and you just take it. What a deal!
You can see this effect working on just about any missionary.
I see religion as being a human expression of a search for the divine. So I don't think there is any such thing as a "true religion" -- just a search for meaning.
The answer is very simple. Whether you own the legal rights to a Disney character, have a patent on a well-received product in the market, own a trademark, or a copyright, the motive to get these protections couldn't be more clear. You don't want anyone to have a competing product against you. The church can't stop other religions from competing with them for your dollars and your loyalties. So they claim to have the only authentic product. They tell you that none of the others are true (valid). So if you want the real thing, you have to go with them.
Plus, when something is the highest and the best, it becomes something that is so very worthy of your time and money. A person is not just giving to any ole religion....hell no, he is giving to the ONE true religion, the cream of the crop, the special of the special....and this makes the giver, the member VERY special too.
Hell, some members give double the tithing and deed everything to the church when they croak.
Mormonism is the epitome of a cunning crooked salesman.