Religions > Atheism > Skeptical about the LDS Church (WAS: Duwayne Anderson Is Not God)
| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"Kevin Simonson" |
| Date: |
02 Dec 2003 04:06:31 PM |
| Object: |
Skeptical about the LDS Church (WAS: Duwayne Anderson Is Not God) |
(Kevin Simonson) wrote in message
news:<6dfb1603.0311151755.752640ce@posting.google.com>...
=> Furthermore, in my last post I expressed a reason why I was
=> _skeptical_ that your plan would work.
=
=Now, if you could only learn to be _skeptical_ about the Church of
=Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.
Duwayne, do you think that I'm _not_ skeptical about the LDS
Church?
Do you think that when I read the Book of Mormon (my wife, kids,
and I are going through 3 Nephi right now, the story of the coming of
Jesus to the Americas), that I _don't_ sometimes wonder if Joseph
Smith didn't make the whole thing up, instead of translating it from
ancient records with divine help? Do you think that when I've heard
about the Kinderhook incident that I'm _not_ skeptical about Joseph
Smith's ability to discern a hoax from a genuine spiritual document?
Of course it doesn't stop there. It's very interesting that the
New Testament's two Christmas stories, Matthew 1-2 and Luke 1-2 both
name Bethlehem as the birthplace of Jesus of Nazareth, and yet they
disagree on where Mary and Joseph came from before Jesus' birth, they
disagree on where the three of them went after Jesus' birth, and they
disagree on what historical events were happening at the same time as
Jesus' birth. I'm _very_ skeptical about the Christmas story as de-
picted by the Bible.
I'm skeptical about the story of David's fight with Goliath.
Look at 1 Samuel closely. Why are there _two_ stories about how David
met Saul? One story has the two meeting because David wanted to fight
Goliath; the other has the two meeting because David is a good harp
player. Is it really all that likely that both those stories are
true?
Yes, the Book of Mormon is sometimes hard to take seriously. But
the hardest part of the Book of Mormon to believe is the story of the
Jaredites, and the hardest part of the story of the Jaredites to be-
lieve is that there _was_ a Tower of Babbel that they could have come
out of. Evangelicals make such loud noises about the archaeological
evidence in favor of the Bible. Where, then, is the archaeological
(and linguistical) evidence for a building built to reach to heaven,
with all of humanity speaking one language before the building was
started, and all of them speaking different languages when the build-
ing was abandoned?
I'm skeptical about the story of Joseph (son of Jacob) who was
sold by his brothers into slavery in Egypt. I'm skeptical about the
story of a flood that covered the tops of the mountains (when there's
no geological evidence of such a flood). I'm skeptical about all of
humanity descending from one couple, Adam and Eve, and about their
fall from God's grace simply because they ate two pieces of fruit.
Sometimes when I really, really, want something very bad, and
plead to God for God to please, please, let me have it, I think to my-
self that if it turns out that there isn't a deity after all, then my
pleadings would basically be a waste of time.
I think about all these doubtings, and many, many more, and I see
a lot of skepticism, Duwayne.
I've got a brain that can doubt. _I've also got a conscience_
that gives me a sense of responsibility. I've got three small chil-
dren. I owe them something more than a university education and their
share of a universe one generation closer to its inevitable decay.
With all my doubts, with all my cynicism, I'm still at my core an
optimist. Each person in this world needs to decide for herself/him-
self whether or not s/he believes in a deity. In spite of my doubts,
and because of my optimism, I have chosen to believe in a deity, and
even one who loves me and wants to communicate with me. When my three
children get old enough to hear what critics have to say about God,
I'm going to explain to them that in spite of everything the critics
say, an optimist will still believe in that type of a God, and we are
a family of optimists. And a faith in that type of deity leads di-
rectly to the central challenge of the LDS Church--once you believe in
that type of God you need to _go to that deity in prayer_, and ask
that deity if that deity supports the LDS Church.
So in spite of all my skepticism about the truthfulness of the
message that Joseph Smith brought to the world, I'm forced back to a
decision I made a long time ago, a decision that plants me firmly in
the very faith that I sometimes doubt. After all, for a man of con-
science, a man who feels he owes his children a better world than what
he started with, what's the alternative?
---Kevin Simonson
"Maybe it started as a dream, but doesn't everything?"
from _James and the Giant Peach_
.
|
|
| User: "Kate " |
|
| Title: Re: Skeptical about the LDS Church (WAS: X Is Not God) |
20 Dec 2003 12:13:05 AM |
|
|
On Fri, 19 Dec 2003 01:15:42 -0500, "Mike W"
<Circle_314_And_Square_nospam_@hotmail.com> wrote:
Kate wrote:
The only way to protect the world from real problems is to work with
reality. Pretending that God will save you simply means you are
avoiding the problem.
Sigh... how would atheist X know any more than atheist Y that one course of
action might be better than another? Atheist X believes life begins at
conception, Atheist Y believe it's in the 2nd trimester (for instance).
Just because their excuse in the end, doesn't contain the name of God, gives
me no comfort. The Art of War is still a pertinent read.
That's an argument about the definition of a word. There's also a lot
of area to explore about what is and isn't a viable pregnancy, because
that's a lot more vague then you probably thought it was.
See - reality.
You can better understand what you are really disagreeing about and be
more likely to come to an agreement.
Or you could say - God told me anyone who disagrees with this rule
deserves to go to hell and shut off the communication.
Pretty useless and possibly dangerous.
Religion will only make the problem worse with fights over whose
God is better and focusing on 'God' rather than the problem.
Consider this: Catholics, LDS, realists, humanists etc. are merely tribes of
thinkers. Some more organized than others, the disagreements will continue,
some ugly, some interesting and productive.
If a disagreement didn't always undermine your entire value system the
way it does with religous, then it's a lot easier not to commit
violence against the person disagreeing with you.
.
|
|
|
| User: "KDavis" |
|
| Title: Re: Skeptical about the LDS Church (WAS: X Is Not God) |
24 Dec 2003 05:12:24 PM |
|
|
(Kate ) wrote in message news:<3fe3e497.13012328@news-west.newscene.com>...
On Fri, 19 Dec 2003 01:15:42 -0500, "Mike W"
<Circle_314_And_Square_nospam_@hotmail.com> wrote:
Kate wrote:
The only way to protect the world from real problems is to work with
reality. Pretending that God will save you simply means you are
avoiding the problem.
Sigh... how would atheist X know any more than atheist Y that one course of
action might be better than another? Atheist X believes life begins at
conception, Atheist Y believe it's in the 2nd trimester (for instance).
Just because their excuse in the end, doesn't contain the name of God, gives
me no comfort. The Art of War is still a pertinent read.
That's an argument about the definition of a word. There's also a lot
of area to explore about what is and isn't a viable pregnancy, because
that's a lot more vague then you probably thought it was.
What is, and is not a viable human? I would submit to Kate that she
is not a viable human under the same criteria that she would use to
declare an unborn child as not viable.
How long do you think you (or any other person) would survive if you
were stranded out in the middle of Montana with no food, no water, and
no one to assist you? You would have to gather your own food, find
your own water, build your own shelter, etc. I would submit you
wouldn't surived very long.
So, I would submit that "viability" is the measure of assistance a
society gives to its members, and that those societies that fail to
assist their most vulnerable members is a cold and harsh society on
the brink of failure.
-Red Davis
See - reality.
You can better understand what you are really disagreeing about and be
more likely to come to an agreement.
Or you could say - God told me anyone who disagrees with this rule
deserves to go to hell and shut off the communication.
Pretty useless and possibly dangerous.
Religion will only make the problem worse with fights over whose
God is better and focusing on 'God' rather than the problem.
Consider this: Catholics, LDS, realists, humanists etc. are merely tribes of
thinkers. Some more organized than others, the disagreements will continue,
some ugly, some interesting and productive.
If a disagreement didn't always undermine your entire value system the
way it does with religous, then it's a lot easier not to commit
violence against the person disagreeing with you.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Kate " |
|
| Title: Re: Skeptical about the LDS Church (WAS: X Is Not God) |
24 Dec 2003 05:32:10 PM |
|
|
On 24 Dec 2003 15:12:24 -0800, (KDavis) wrote:
cobalt@newscene.com (Kate ) wrote in message news:<3fe3e497.13012328@news-west.newscene.com>...
On Fri, 19 Dec 2003 01:15:42 -0500, "Mike W"
<Circle_314_And_Square_nospam_@hotmail.com> wrote:
Kate wrote:
The only way to protect the world from real problems is to work with
reality. Pretending that God will save you simply means you are
avoiding the problem.
Sigh... how would atheist X know any more than atheist Y that one course of
action might be better than another? Atheist X believes life begins at
conception, Atheist Y believe it's in the 2nd trimester (for instance).
Just because their excuse in the end, doesn't contain the name of God, gives
me no comfort. The Art of War is still a pertinent read.
That's an argument about the definition of a word. There's also a lot
of area to explore about what is and isn't a viable pregnancy, because
that's a lot more vague then you probably thought it was.
What is, and is not a viable human? I would submit to Kate that she
is not a viable human under the same criteria that she would use to
declare an unborn child as not viable.
How long do you think you (or any other person) would survive if you
were stranded out in the middle of Montana with no food, no water, and
no one to assist you? You would have to gather your own food, find
your own water, build your own shelter, etc. I would submit you
wouldn't surived very long.
So, I would submit that "viability" is the measure of assistance a
society gives to its members, and that those societies that fail to
assist their most vulnerable members is a cold and harsh society on
the brink of failure.
No - viability is the capability of a fetus to develope to live on
it's own apart from it's mother.
Since I did not declare any criteria, but instead said that criteria
was not black and white, the rest of what you said makes no sense.
.
|
|
|
| User: "KDavis" |
|
| Title: Re: Skeptical about the LDS Church (WAS: X Is Not God) |
26 Dec 2003 11:21:41 AM |
|
|
(Kate ) wrote in message news:<3ff31fbe.78000078@news-west.newscene.com>...
On 24 Dec 2003 15:12:24 -0800, (KDavis) wrote:
(Kate ) wrote in message news:<3fe3e497.13012328@news-west.newscene.com>...
On Fri, 19 Dec 2003 01:15:42 -0500, "Mike W"
<Circle_314_And_Square_nospam_@hotmail.com> wrote:
Kate wrote:
The only way to protect the world from real problems is to work with
reality. Pretending that God will save you simply means you are
avoiding the problem.
Sigh... how would atheist X know any more than atheist Y that one course of
action might be better than another? Atheist X believes life begins at
conception, Atheist Y believe it's in the 2nd trimester (for instance).
Just because their excuse in the end, doesn't contain the name of God, gives
me no comfort. The Art of War is still a pertinent read.
That's an argument about the definition of a word. There's also a lot
of area to explore about what is and isn't a viable pregnancy, because
that's a lot more vague then you probably thought it was.
What is, and is not a viable human? I would submit to Kate that she
is not a viable human under the same criteria that she would use to
declare an unborn child as not viable.
How long do you think you (or any other person) would survive if you
were stranded out in the middle of Montana with no food, no water, and
no one to assist you? You would have to gather your own food, find
your own water, build your own shelter, etc. I would submit you
wouldn't surived very long.
So, I would submit that "viability" is the measure of assistance a
society gives to its members, and that those societies that fail to
assist their most vulnerable members is a cold and harsh society on
the brink of failure.
No - viability is the capability of a fetus to develope to live on
it's own apart from it's mother.
Since I did not declare any criteria, but instead said that criteria
was not black and white, the rest of what you said makes no sense.
You missed the forest because of the trees.
How long would you live if we took water and food away from you?
So, somehow when we deny an unborn child its proper and required
nourishment and care -- such is a measure of *its* humanity?
"Viability" is a specious argument offered by those who would wantonly
kill unborn children.
May I add the following specious arguments to that of an unborn child:
"How long would a plant live if we removed it from its soil?"
"How long would a fish live if we took it out of the water?"
Question: why would we take a mother away from an unborn child, soil
away from a plant, and water away from a fish - and thus conclude,
"Yep, they didn't deseve to live."
Can we say, "Wake-up, McFly!"
I can.
-Red Davis
.
|
|
|
| User: "Jerry Sturdivant" |
|
| Title: Re: Skeptical about the LDS Church (WAS: X Is Not God) |
27 Dec 2003 10:00:21 AM |
|
|
"KDavis" <kdavis2001@hotmail.com> wrote
May I add the following specious
arguments to that of an unborn child:
An "unborn child" is the same as an 'unborn adult.' Once you learn the terms
(zygote, embryo, fetus), your statements become less emotional and more
realistic.
"How long would a plant live if we removed it from its soil?"
"How long would a fish live if we took it out of the water?"
Question: why would we take a mother away from an unborn
child, soil away from a plant, and water away from a fish - and
thus conclude, "Yep, they didn't deseve to live."
You can move the plant to other soil. You can move the fish to other water.
When you can move the zygote or embryo to another womb, come see me.
And, of course, you dodge the question of slavery. When you force a woman to
carry an embryo to fetus and term, you're forcing the physical and mental
dangers of pregnancy on another person. When the rights of the endangered
and forced woman v. the rights of an embro, it's the woman being forced,
that should win.
Jerry Sturdivant
.
|
|
|
| User: "KDavis" |
|
| Title: Re: Skeptical about the LDS Church (WAS: X Is Not God) |
27 Dec 2003 12:38:21 PM |
|
|
"Jerry Sturdivant" <sturdy@lvcm.com> wrote in message news:<F0iHb.31500$gN.25957@fed1read05>...
"KDavis" <kdavis2001@hotmail.com> wrote
May I add the following specious
arguments to that of an unborn child:
An "unborn child" is the same as an 'unborn adult.' Once you learn the terms
(zygote, embryo, fetus), your statements become less emotional and more
realistic.
"How long would a plant live if we removed it from its soil?"
"How long would a fish live if we took it out of the water?"
Question: why would we take a mother away from an unborn
child, soil away from a plant, and water away from a fish - and
thus conclude, "Yep, they didn't deseve to live."
You can move the plant to other soil. You can move the fish to other water.
When you can move the zygote or embryo to another womb, come see me.
Nice straw man. My point was that you remove the plant and the fish
completely and permanently from their natural environments.
BTW, embryo transplantation is a common practice. Where do you
pro-abortionists come from? The lower bound of high school classes?
And, of course, you dodge the question of slavery. When you force a woman to
carry an embryo to fetus and term, you're forcing the physical and mental
dangers of pregnancy on another person. When the rights of the endangered
and forced woman v. the rights of an embro, it's the woman being forced,
that should win.
Funny thing you should bring up the subject of slavery: Slavery is
where one person claims ownership of another person. And as owner --
can dictate the life and death of that person.
Hmmm. You are asserting that a woman "owns" her unborn child and can
flippantly decide whether it lives or dies. Let's rename the embryo,
and give it the simple name of "Toby" (The Color Purple).
You know -- you aren't the brightest bulb in the pack.
But, then again, if you have ever been to Sturdivant, MO, that would
be assumed by your surname.
-Red Davis
Jerry Sturdivant
.
|
|
|
| User: "Jerry Sturdivant" |
|
| Title: Re: Skeptical about the LDS Church (WAS: X Is Not God) |
27 Dec 2003 05:05:18 PM |
|
|
"KDavis" <kdavis2001@hotmail.com> wrote
You can move the plant to other soil. You can move
the fish to other water. When you can move the zygote
or embryo to another womb, come see me.
Nice straw man. My point was that you remove the plant and
the fish completely and permanently from their natural environments.
Actually, you had no point.
Where do you pro-abortionists come from?
The lower bound of high school classes?
Ah, and adolescences of name calling. I'm not pro-abortion; I'm pro-choice.
Need I explain the difference?
And, of course, you dodge the question of slavery. When
you force a woman to carry an embryo to fetus and term,
you're forcing the physical and mental dangers of
pregnancy on another person. When the rights of the
endangered and forced woman v. the rights of an embro,
it's the woman being forced, that should win.
Funny thing you should bring up the subject of slavery:
Slavery is where one person claims ownership of another person.
And as owner -- can dictate the life and death of that person.
Thank you. That is exactly what you propose in making the fetus dictate that
the host be forced into becoming the leached. Slavery.
You are asserting that a woman "owns" her unborn child
It is not a child. Are you from the "lower bound of high school classes?"
Learn the terms: Zygote, fetus, embryo." Look'em up.
And as to ownership of the embryo; yes, it is hers.
and can flippantly decide whether it lives or dies.
Yes, the embryo is hers and she has that choice.
Let's rename the embryo, and give it the simple
name of "Toby" (The Color Purple).
Anything to dodge those tough question, right?
You know -- you aren't the brightest bulb in the pack.
But, then again, if you have ever been to Sturdivant,
MO, that would be assumed by your surname.
This diversionary name calling from the person that has yet to learn the
terminology of the topic being discussed.
Jerry Sturdivant
.
|
|
|
| User: "KDavis" |
|
| Title: Re: Skeptical about the LDS Church (WAS: X Is Not God) |
28 Dec 2003 04:32:54 PM |
|
|
"Jerry Sturdivant" <sturdy@lvcm.com> wrote in message news:<NeoHb.31539$gN.30378@fed1read05>...
"KDavis" <kdavis2001@hotmail.com> wrote
You can move the plant to other soil. You can move
the fish to other water. When you can move the zygote
or embryo to another womb, come see me.
Nice straw man. My point was that you remove the plant and
the fish completely and permanently from their natural environments.
Actually, you had no point.
Where do you pro-abortionists come from?
The lower bound of high school classes?
Ah, and adolescences of name calling. I'm not pro-abortion; I'm pro-choice.
Need I explain the difference?
Its a distinguishment without a difference. You are for the killing
of the unborn.
And, of course, you dodge the question of slavery. When
you force a woman to carry an embryo to fetus and term,
you're forcing the physical and mental dangers of
pregnancy on another person. When the rights of the
endangered and forced woman v. the rights of an embro,
it's the woman being forced, that should win.
Funny thing you should bring up the subject of slavery:
Slavery is where one person claims ownership of another person.
And as owner -- can dictate the life and death of that person.
Thank you. That is exactly what you propose in making the fetus dictate that
the host be forced into becoming the leached. Slavery.
The host already made that choice when they decided to have sex. If
they want to treat their reproductive system as a playground they can
be sterilized.
You are asserting that a woman "owns" her unborn child
It is not a child. Are you from the "lower bound of high school classes?"
Learn the terms: Zygote, fetus, embryo." Look'em up.
Ah, yes, learn terms that mask human life from our consciences.
Should I learn these terms in German? Should I place a swastika on my
arm as I read? Ah, the final solution by another name is the mass
slaughter of 6,000,000 Jews. Ah, but Jews by another name were mere
zygotes.
Abortion is just another name for the killing of unborn children.
You are pro-abortion.
And as to ownership of the embryo; yes, it is hers.
Ah, as to the ownership of the black man; yes, it was the property of
the Plantation's owner.
and can flippantly decide whether it lives or dies.
Yes, the embryo is hers and she has that choice.
She had that choice when she had sex. Now, she has responsbility for
another life.
Let's rename the embryo, and give it the simple
name of "Toby" (The Color Purple).
Anything to dodge those tough question, right?
Tough questions? You are full of yourself.
You know -- you aren't the brightest bulb in the pack.
But, then again, if you have ever been to Sturdivant,
MO, that would be assumed by your surname.
This diversionary name calling from the person that has yet to learn the
terminology of the topic being discussed.
Nah, just pointing out that most pro-abortionists I have met are not
very bright people. Of those, you are a very low wattage bulb.
-Red Davis
Jerry Sturdivant
.
|
|
|
| User: "Jerry Sturdivant" |
|
| Title: Re: Skeptical about the LDS Church (WAS: X Is Not God) |
29 Dec 2003 08:53:09 PM |
|
|
"KDavis" <kdavis2001@hotmail.com> wrote
Ah, and adolescences of name calling. I'm not
pro-abortion; I'm pro-choice. Need I explain the difference?
Its a distinguishment without a difference.
Excuse me for giving you too much credit for intelligence; apparently you do
need and explanation. I don't want people to get an abortion. (Otherwise the
world population would drop to nothing and I never become a grandfather). I
am for a woman to have a choice as to whether see wishes to be pregnant.
(Further explanation upon request).
You are for the killing of the unborn.
And, of course, I've just shown that this statement is wrong.
Thank you. That is exactly what you propose in making
the fetus dictate that the host be forced into becoming
the leached. Slavery.
The host already made that choice when they decided to have sex.
You've been asked a number of times to address those that do not make that
choice. With incest and rape standing in the way of your illogical position,
I can see your reluctance to address it. Rather hypocritical of you.
If they want to treat their reproductive system
as a playground they can be sterilized.
Again you ignore rape and incest. Are you ignorant or actually afraid to
address it?
It is not a child. Are you from the "lower bound of high
school classes?" Learn the terms: Zygote, fetus,
embryo." Look'em up.
Ah, yes, learn terms that mask human life from our consciences.
Should I learn these terms in German? Should I place a
swastika on my arm as I read? Ah, the final solution by
another name is the mass slaughter of 6,000,000 Jews.
Ah, but Jews by another name were mere zygotes.
I just love to see a person that is losing an argument start to squirm. Can'
t you address the statement?
Abortion is just another name for the killing of unborn children.
And, of course, additional repetitious inaccurate statements. I call it
chanting. If you can't defend your position; if you don't have a reply; if
you can't make your argument; chant. It's the only thing left for the weak
mind.
You are pro-abortion.
Which I have proved as being inaccurate. I would think you'd be too
embarrassed to make these type of answers. Usually you people simply see you
're wrong and disappear; only to reappear with the same old arguments later.
You've simply left of the step of disappearing. You embarrass yourself.
And as to ownership of the embryo; yes, it is hers.
Ah, as to the ownership of the black man; yes, it was
the property of the Plantation's owner.
Yet you can show no other ownership, can you? (Makes me right; again).
Yes, the embryo is hers and she has that choice.
She had that choice when she had sex.
And yet again, you are so obvious in your refusal to address rape and
incest. I keep grabbing you by the nape of your neck, bending you over and
rubbing you nose in it. Doesn't that embarrass you? Rape and incest: Look it
up.
Now, she has responsbility for another life.
Whoa! You just aid it wasn't hers! You're really having a problem here, aren
't you?
Anything to dodge those tough question, right?
Tough questions? You are full of yourself.
And yet ANOTHER dodge. I can't help that I'm right any more that you can
your being wrong.
This diversionary name calling from the person that
has yet to learn the terminology of the topic being discussed.
Nah, just pointing out that most pro-abortionists I have
met are not very bright people. Of those, you are a
very low wattage bulb.
Yet I've prove you wrong, both in my position, your position and your name
calling.
Learn to lose, kid.
Jerry Sturdivant
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Mike W" |
|
| Title: Re: Skeptical about the LDS Church (WAS: X Is Not God) |
27 Dec 2003 10:16:40 AM |
|
|
Jerry Sturdivant wrote:
KDavis wrote:
May I add the following specious
arguments to that of an unborn child:
An "unborn child" is the same as an 'unborn adult.' Once you learn the
terms
(zygote, embryo, fetus), your statements become less emotional and more
realistic.
Yeah... count the cells and you've got your terms. Would that the continuum
of activities that lead to that zygote were so easily quantified (there are
a million stories in the city tonight). Things might be a little less
emotional and more realistic. But they aren't that simple and realism's
limits are once again brought to the fore.
Mike
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Al Klein" |
|
| Title: Re: Skeptical about the LDS Church (WAS: X Is Not God) |
27 Dec 2003 01:27:37 AM |
|
|
On 26 Dec 2003 09:21:41 -0800, (KDavis) posted
to alt.atheism:
How long would you live if we took water and food away from you?
[snip]
"How long would a plant live if we removed it from its soil?"
"How long would a fish live if we took it out of the water?"
None of these requires the use of the person of another. If you're
willing to volunteer as a substitute womb, that's your choice, but
forcing a woman to carry to term is, and always will be, criminal.
--
"Christianity has already had the chance to govern
the world according to its own ethical standards.
It was called the "Dark Ages".
- Bill, The Avender
(random sig, produced by SigChanger)
rukbat at optonline dot net
.
|
|
|
| User: "KDavis" |
|
| Title: Re: Skeptical about the LDS Church (WAS: X Is Not God) |
27 Dec 2003 12:32:12 PM |
|
|
Al Klein <rukbat@pern.invalid> wrote in message news:<70dquvcdb7m69gotvs2s7sp1ah4ftc3qrr@Pern.rk>...
On 26 Dec 2003 09:21:41 -0800, (KDavis) posted
to alt.atheism:
How long would you live if we took water and food away from you?
[snip]
"How long would a plant live if we removed it from its soil?"
"How long would a fish live if we took it out of the water?"
None of these requires the use of the person of another. If you're
willing to volunteer as a substitute womb, that's your choice, but
forcing a woman to carry to term is, and always will be, criminal.
That is one of the most rediculous statemetns ever posted to the
Internet. Tell me, didn't you feel like a silly goose just moments
after pressing the "Send" button, but alas, it was too late --
cyberspace had your stupidity for all to see?
When a woman makes the choice to have sexual intercourse -- she is
also assuming upon her the responsibilities and consequence of her
actions -- as is the man invovled in the act.
Responsibilities and consequences include pregnancy. Certainly. They
also include sexually transmitted diseases such as HIV/AIDS and
various sexually transmitted viruses that cause a number of cancers
and may also cause MS.
Is it "criminal" to force a man to provide child support for the next
22 years as a consequence of engaging in a single act of sexual
intercourse that may have lasted a few minutes? Certainly.
Requiring a woman to carry her baby to term, and the man to fulfill
his financial obligations until the child is 22 years of age (most
states require college support) is called responsibility. Its called
morality. Its called doing what is right.
Instead of responsibility for one's actions -- you offer obfuscation
by death. You submit to us that it is a much higher idea, a much
better thing -- that another innocent life be forfeit in lieu of
personal responsibility for one's own actions.
To a rational and normal person, the idea that killing an unborn child
is a lesser evil then 9 months of pregnancy, is simply put:
rediculous.
That is why your post wins the award for the most rediculous post ever
submitted to the Internet. You should be ashamed. Didn't your mother
teach you better? You know, that slave that was forced to carry you
to term -- only to see that you have aborted your mind.
-Red Davis
.
|
|
|
| User: "Jerry Sturdivant" |
|
| Title: Re: Skeptical about the LDS Church (WAS: X Is Not God) |
27 Dec 2003 04:50:57 PM |
|
|
"KDavis" <kdavis2001@hotmail.com> wrote
None of these requires the use of the person of another.
If you're willing to volunteer as a substitute womb, that's
your choice, but forcing a woman to carry to term is, and
always will be, criminal.
That is one of the most rediculous statemetns ever posted
to the Internet. Tell me, didn't you feel like a silly goose
just moments after pressing the "Send" button, but alas,
it was too late -- cyberspace had your stupidity for all to see?
Yet you didn't address the statement. The stupidity is yours.
When a woman makes the choice to have sexual intercourse .
And you don't address the woman that doesn't have the choice. Come back and
address rape.
Requiring a woman to carry her baby to term, and the man
to fulfill his financial obligations until the child is 22
years of age (most states require college support) is called
responsibility. Its called morality. Its called doing what is right.
And you refuse to address the slavery and forced motherhood. Where is the
morality in forcing a raped woman to go through the dangers of pregnancy? If
she doesn't want the pregnancy and elects abortion, she is being
"responsible;" she is being "moral" and she is doing "what is right" for
her.
If you enslave her and force her to become a breeder, that it is you being
"irresponsible," "amoral" and not doing "what is right."
Now don't you feel like a "silly goose?" "Shame on you."
Jerry Sturdivant
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Al Klein" |
|
| Title: Re: Skeptical about the LDS Church (WAS: X Is Not God) |
27 Dec 2003 05:01:27 PM |
|
|
On 27 Dec 2003 10:32:12 -0800, (KDavis) posted
to alt.atheism:
Al Klein <rukbat@pern.invalid> wrote in message news:<70dquvcdb7m69gotvs2s7sp1ah4ftc3qrr@Pern.rk>...
On 26 Dec 2003 09:21:41 -0800, (KDavis) posted
to alt.atheism:
How long would you live if we took water and food away from you?
[snip]
"How long would a plant live if we removed it from its soil?"
"How long would a fish live if we took it out of the water?"
None of these requires the use of the person of another. If you're
willing to volunteer as a substitute womb, that's your choice, but
forcing a woman to carry to term is, and always will be, criminal.
That is one of the most rediculous statemetns ever posted to the
Internet. Tell me, didn't you feel like a silly goose just moments
after pressing the "Send" button, but alas, it was too late --
cyberspace had your stupidity for all to see?
Public projection? Or non sequitur?
No, just the usual brainless regurgitation, I see. Nothing new,
except maybe the particular brand of insanity. Mormonism? Joseph and
the Amazing Technicolor Angel?. Alt.atheism is an adult news group -
children, especially stupid ones like you, shouldn't post here.
When a woman makes the choice to have sexual intercourse -- she is
also assuming upon her the responsibilities and consequence of her
actions
Including the possibility that she may have to seek an abortion due to
an unwanted pregnancy. Who died and gave you the right to determine
what's right for someone else to do with her own body?
Responsibilities and consequences include pregnancy. Certainly. They
also include sexually transmitted diseases such as HIV/AIDS and
various sexually transmitted viruses that cause a number of cancers
and may also cause MS.
And you'd, therefore, not seek medical attention to eliminate any STD
you acquired. NOW I understand. (You aren't hypocrite enough that
you'd seek medical attention for an unwanted condition but deny the
same thing to women, I'm sure.)
Is it "criminal" to force a man to provide child support for the next
22 years as a consequence of engaging in a single act of sexual
intercourse that may have lasted a few minutes?
Of course not. It's his child. There *IS* a difference between men
and women, in case you hadn't noticed yet. Women are the ones who
dance backwards.
Requiring a woman to carry her baby to term, and the man to fulfill
his financial obligations until the child is 22 years of age (most
states require college support) is called responsibility.
So is obtaining an abortion for an unwanted pregnancy. Sorry, but you
don't get to dictate what the limits of "responsibility" are for
anyone but yourself.
Its called morality.
Your morality. Attempting to force it on others is criminal, and can
get you in trouble with your medical insurance carrier.
Its called doing what is right.
"Right" is an opinion. You're entitled to yours - a pregnant woman is
entitled to hers. What you're NOT entitled to is forcing her to
follow your opinion.
Instead of responsibility for one's actions -- you offer obfuscation
by death.
Remember that next time you kill a virus. (Notice that you said
"death", without qualification, so don't start qualifying it after the
fact.)
You submit to us that it is a much higher idea, a much
better thing -- that another innocent life be forfeit in lieu of
personal responsibility for one's own actions.
Bacteria are also alive and innocent. So were the animal that grew
the meat you eat and the plant that grew the vegetable you eat.
(Don't blame me for your stupidity. I didn't ask you to make such a
brainless post.)
To a rational and normal person, the idea that killing an unborn child
is a lesser evil then 9 months of pregnancy, is simply put:
rediculous.
To a rational normal person, there's a difference between a fetus and
a person. Only those whose brains have been rotted by religion can't
tell the difference. But, then, rational normal people seldom listen
to those with severe mental illnesses, such as theism.
That is why your post wins the award for the most rediculous post ever
submitted to the Internet.
So the SCOTUS is ridiculous? You should have told them that when they
appointed the Deserter-in-Chief president.
Didn't your mother teach you better?
To keep my nose out of things that don't concern me? Yes. Evidently
you missed that lesson. Go force a woman who's seeking an abortion to
not obtain it. I'm sure her husband or boyfriend will teach it to
you. You may lose parts of your body but, then, a good education
isn't free.
You know, that slave that was forced to carry you
to term -- only to see that you have aborted your mind.
So another distinction you can't make is between "wanted" and
"unwanted".
It's a waste of effort that could be put to good use watching grass
grow in northern Alaska in the winter to read what dribbles out of the
corners of your lips. Get psychiatric help. Seriously. Your mind,
what there is left of it, is severely warped.
<plonk>
--
"To assume the existence of an unperceivable being ... does not facilitate understanding
the orderliness we find in the perceivable world."
- Letter to an Iowa student who asked, What is God? July, 1953; Einstein Archive 59-085
(random sig, produced by SigChanger)
rukbat at optonline dot net
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Jos Flachs" |
|
| Title: Re: Skeptical about the LDS Church (WAS: X Is Not God) |
27 Dec 2003 10:51:51 PM |
|
|
On 27 Dec 2003 10:32:12 -0800, (KDavis) wrote:
Al Klein <rukbat@pern.invalid> wrote in message news:<70dquvcdb7m69gotvs2s7sp1ah4ftc3qrr@Pern.rk>...
On 26 Dec 2003 09:21:41 -0800, (KDavis) posted
to alt.atheism:
How long would you live if we took water and food away from you?
[snip]
"How long would a plant live if we removed it from its soil?"
"How long would a fish live if we took it out of the water?"
None of these requires the use of the person of another. If you're
willing to volunteer as a substitute womb, that's your choice, but
forcing a woman to carry to term is, and always will be, criminal.
That is one of the most rediculous statemetns ever posted to the
Internet. Tell me, didn't you feel like a silly goose just moments
after pressing the "Send" button, but alas, it was too late --
cyberspace had your stupidity for all to see?
What a brilliant argument!
When a woman makes the choice to have sexual intercourse -- she is
also assuming upon her the responsibilities and consequence of her
actions -- as is the man invovled in the act.
Besides learning the meaning of zygote, foetus and embryo, also look
up the meaning of "rape".
While your busy, find out any requirement in the law to have a
thorough premedical check up before engaging in sex. Sometimes doctors
discover it really is better for all involved to abort.
Responsibilities and consequences include pregnancy. Certainly. They
also include sexually transmitted diseases such as HIV/AIDS and
various sexually transmitted viruses that cause a number of cancers
and may also cause MS.
Yes, and .... ?
Is it "criminal" to force a man to provide child support for the next
22 years as a consequence of engaging in a single act of sexual
intercourse that may have lasted a few minutes? Certainly.
The young couple could have opted for an abortion...
Requiring a woman to carry her baby to term, and the man to fulfill
his financial obligations until the child is 22 years of age (most
states require college support) is called responsibility. Its called
morality. Its called doing what is right.
In which way is this related to the topic, being abortion?
Instead of responsibility for one's actions -- you offer obfuscation
by death. You submit to us that it is a much higher idea, a much
better thing -- that another innocent life be forfeit in lieu of
personal responsibility for one's own actions.
I had a 'roid removed. We shared our mutual lives together for about20
years. Was that irresponsible? After all, the 'roid was just as much
alive as a zygote. It has a right to live too.
To a rational and normal person, the idea that killing an unborn child
is a lesser evil then 9 months of pregnancy, is simply put:
rediculous.
Exactly. Rediculous. We are not discussing unborn children, adults, or
unicorns at all.
That is why your post wins the award for the most rediculous post ever
submitted to the Internet. You should be ashamed. Didn't your mother
teach you better? You know, that slave that was forced to carry you
to term -- only to see that you have aborted your mind.
What a brilliant argument!
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Mike W" |
|
| Title: Re: Skeptical about the LDS Church (WAS: X Is Not God) |
20 Dec 2003 06:33:04 AM |
|
|
Kate wrote:
Mike W wrote:
Kate wrote:
The only way to protect the world from real problems is to work
with reality. Pretending that God will save you simply means
you are avoiding the problem.
Sigh... how would atheist X know any more than atheist Y that one
course of action might be better than another? Atheist X believes
life begins at conception, Atheist Y believe it's in the 2nd
trimester (for instance). Just because their excuse in the end,
doesn't contain the name of God, gives me no comfort. The Art of
War is still a pertinent read.
That's an argument about the definition of a word. There's also a
lot of area to explore about what is and isn't a viable pregnancy,
because that's a lot more vague then you probably thought it was.
See - reality.
Reality also? We'll never come to consensus about what is or isn't (in the
case of life-start/pregnancy for instance). You and I might but generally
speaking, I believe this is probably a debate that could go on forever but
we really don't have forever, eh? So, we have to stop some time or other
and everyone has their reason. Is it because somebody said, "I'm tired, God
said it's X way" or is it because somebody said, "I'm tired, anybody with an
ounce of wisdom knows it's Y way?"
You can better understand what you are really disagreeing about
and be more likely to come to an agreement.
Or you could say - God told me anyone who disagrees with this
rule deserves to go to hell and shut off the communication.
Pretty useless and possibly dangerous.
My only point was that those who stop in the name of God don't have a
stranglehold on the bad faith debate.
Religion will only make the problem worse with fights over whose
God is better and focusing on 'God' rather than the problem.
Consider this: Catholics, LDS, realists, humanists etc. are
merely tribes of thinkers. Some more organized than others,
the disagreements will continue, some ugly, some interesting
and productive.
If a disagreement didn't always undermine your entire value system
the way it does with religious, then it's a lot easier not to commit
violence against the person disagreeing with you.
I can't believe you know that all religious have their value systems
undermined by debate. It seems that way though, doesn't it? I would
suggest a value system can be undermined period.
I would suggest that a religious person not tied to any one particular
organization probably has more leeway than a member who might sacrifice
their social standing by stepping out of line. So... the atheist has it
easy, I'm finding it difficult to name a single organization in humanity's
history that has embraced atheism. The only examples I can think of are
fairly horrific ie get on Stalin's good side and life is a dream, get on his
bad side and well... we saw the results.
No organization to speak of? I wonder if there's not something seriously
flawed about the philosophy. My intellectual betters throughout history
could probably describe the problems and why humanity has found it useful,
indeed life affirming, to carry the religious flame.
Mike
.
|
|
|
| User: "Kate " |
|
| Title: Re: Skeptical about the LDS Church (WAS: X Is Not God) |
24 Dec 2003 11:28:12 AM |
|
|
On Sat, 20 Dec 2003 07:33:04 -0500, "Mike W"
<Circle_314_And_Square_nospam_@hotmail.com> wrote:
Kate wrote:
Mike W wrote:
Kate wrote:
The only way to protect the world from real problems is to work
with reality. Pretending that God will save you simply means
you are avoiding the problem.
Sigh... how would atheist X know any more than atheist Y that one
course of action might be better than another? Atheist X believes
life begins at conception, Atheist Y believe it's in the 2nd
trimester (for instance). Just because their excuse in the end,
doesn't contain the name of God, gives me no comfort. The Art of
War is still a pertinent read.
That's an argument about the definition of a word. There's also a
lot of area to explore about what is and isn't a viable pregnancy,
because that's a lot more vague then you probably thought it was.
See - reality.
Reality also? We'll never come to consensus about what is or isn't (in the
case of life-start/pregnancy for instance). You and I might but generally
speaking, I believe this is probably a debate that could go on forever but
we really don't have forever, eh? So, we have to stop some time or other
and everyone has their reason. Is it because somebody said, "I'm tired, God
said it's X way" or is it because somebody said, "I'm tired, anybody with an
ounce of wisdom knows it's Y way?"
You can better understand what you are really disagreeing about
and be more likely to come to an agreement.
Or you could say - God told me anyone who disagrees with this
rule deserves to go to hell and shut off the communication.
Pretty useless and possibly dangerous.
My only point was that those who stop in the name of God don't have a
stranglehold on the bad faith debate.
Religion will only make the problem worse with fights over whose
God is better and focusing on 'God' rather than the problem.
Consider this: Catholics, LDS, realists, humanists etc. are
merely tribes of thinkers. Some more organized than others,
the disagreements will continue, some ugly, some interesting
and productive.
If a disagreement didn't always undermine your entire value system
the way it does with religious, then it's a lot easier not to commit
violence against the person disagreeing with you.
I can't believe you know that all religious have their value systems
undermined by debate. It seems that way though, doesn't it? I would
suggest a value system can be undermined period.
I would suggest that a religious person not tied to any one particular
organization probably has more leeway than a member who might sacrifice
their social standing by stepping out of line. So... the atheist has it
easy, I'm finding it difficult to name a single organization in humanity's
history that has embraced atheism. The only examples I can think of are
fairly horrific ie get on Stalin's good side and life is a dream, get on his
bad side and well... we saw the results.
That's because aetheism promotes the process and not the end product.
This is not a usable tool for controlling masses as it promotes the
constant questioning of every act and every conclusion. Stalin did
not promote atheism but rather disempowered the religions who were
competing powers.
No organization to speak of? I wonder if there's not something seriously
flawed about the philosophy. My intellectual betters throughout history
could probably describe the problems and why humanity has found it useful,
indeed life affirming, to carry the religious flame.
Religion is pulls people together to act for a common specified
agenda. IMO it's the natural reaction of a social species. We must
group up, but to do that we want to group up around 'something'. This
is alsways a plum too delicious to ignore for long. Corrupt the
specifications and you have huge power.
Religion assumes that an entity large enough and pure enough to wield
that power is controlling it. Alas, it has never been shown to be.
Inevitably you find nothing but fallible humans pulling the switches
behind the scenes like the wizard of Oz.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Mike W" |
|
| Title: Re: Skeptical about the LDS Church (WAS: X Is Not God) |
24 Dec 2003 11:59:15 PM |
|
|
Kate wrote:
Mike W wrote:
I can't believe you know that all religious have their value
systems undermined by debate. It seems that way though, doesn't
it? I would suggest a value system can be undermined period.
I would suggest that a religious person not tied to any one
particular organization probably has more leeway than a member
who might sacrifice their social standing by stepping out of
line. So... the atheist has it easy, I'm finding it difficult
to name a single organization in humanity's history that has
embraced atheism. The only examples I can think of are fairly
horrific ie get on Stalin's good side and life is a dream, get
on his bad side and well... we saw the results.
That's because aetheism promotes the process and not the end product.
This is not a usable tool for controlling masses as it promotes the
constant questioning of every act and every conclusion. Stalin did
not promote atheism but rather disempowered the religions who were
competing powers.
Well done! I hadn't really thought much about aetheism. The process, eh?
:-) The Humanist Manifesto I & II were the working documents of choice. As
for Stalin? It's difficult drawing a line between the promotion of one
philosophy and the dismissal of another. I do believe Soviet folk were
ill-advised to mention God and the People in the same breath.
No organization to speak of? I wonder if there's not something
seriously flawed about the philosophy. My intellectual betters
throughout history could probably describe the problems and why
humanity has found it useful, indeed life affirming, to carry the
religious flame.
Religion is pulls people together to act for a common specified
agenda. IMO it's the natural reaction of a social species. We must
group up, but to do that we want to group up around 'something'. This
is alsways a plum too delicious to ignore for long. Corrupt the
specifications and you have huge power.
Religion assumes that an entity large enough and pure enough to wield
that power is controlling it. Alas, it has never been shown to be.
Inevitably you find nothing but fallible humans pulling the switches
behind the scenes like the wizard of Oz.
Could you see religion as being the discussion of forces always just beyond
our control? The tornado and her survival for instance.
Or unpredictable weather in general, inter & intra solar debris knocked off
course, sun storms and power fluctuations (not while I'm typing please?),
the ever receding origin of the universe, the ever receding elementary
particle, time eternal to the wide open spaces and dispersed photons, order
in the chaos of evolution, the best social order to ensure our survival as a
species. I'm always slightly stunned when folks declare themselves
independent of reality, ready to give up everything to focus on the narrow
and knowable.
I guess what I'm addressing is your comment about the wizard, I've always
imagined religion and philosophy holding the carrot as it were, as we go
through the process of discovery (a nod to your first description). It
doesn't seem just to dismiss so much with terms like fate, chance, luck etc.
(I can't think of any other similar safe-terms for a Humanist and/or
aetheist)
Mike
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "exmo" |
|
| Title: Re: Skeptical about the LDS Church (WAS: Duwayne Anderson Is Not God) |
02 Dec 2003 07:36:46 PM |
|
|
This is a well thought-out post, which is rather rare for a.r.m. More
comments below.
Kevin Simonson wrote:
Do you think that when I read the Book of Mormon (my wife, kids,
and I are going through 3 Nephi right now, the story of the coming of
Jesus to the Americas), that I _don't_ sometimes wonder if Joseph
Smith didn't make the whole thing up, instead of translating it from
ancient records with divine help? Do you think that when I've heard
about the Kinderhook incident that I'm _not_ skeptical about Joseph
Smith's ability to discern a hoax from a genuine spiritual document?
Skepticism is a good thing, but I wonder if you're showing enough
respect for your own skepticism by "going through" the BoM with your
wife and kids rather than really making a family effort to understand
and examine its underpinnings. Do you share you skepticism with your
wife and kids while you all study the book, or do you keep your feelings
to yourself while allowing them to be subjected to the usual
church-approved study materials (which are, by design, wholly
unskeptical)? Do you share your skepticism in Gospel Doctrine class (or
whatever classes you participate in), in discussion at church, with
other members of your quorum, home teachers, and so forth? If not, are
you really respecting yourself? Is it even possible to survive
intellectually in a church that takes an official stand against all
skepticism and does all it can to squelch criticism and rational
examination?
Sorry to bombard you with all these questions in a row. This is all off
the top of my head and reflects something of the process I went through
during my time in the LDS church. I just put them forward for
consideration, you may answer any or none of them as you please.
<snip>
Your additional comments about the intellectual questions you have about
the Bible (noting in particular the nativity stories of the NT, the
story of David and Goliath in the OT, the Flood account, etc., although
many more questions could be raised all the way from Genesis 1:1 to the
end of Revelation) are well taken and have probably been hashed to death
in alt.atheism and elsewhere.
Of course, any Christian church (other than the most liberal or New Age
type) has to deal with skepticism and scholarly consideration of the
bases of its myths and history, just as the LDS church has to deal with
questions about its own origins.
Some churches probably deal with this problem better than others. Since
we're talking specifically about the LDS church however, and speaking as
a former member, I have to admit that the official structure of that
church is one of the most hostile to intellectual inquiry. I continue to
wonder how an obviously thoughtful person such as yourself can survive
in such an environment, or feel a deep fellowship with other members who
may not share your skepticism.
Sometimes when I really, really, want something very bad, and
plead to God for God to please, please, let me have it, I think to my-
self that if it turns out that there isn't a deity after all, then my
pleadings would basically be a waste of time.
This is another issue altogether having to do with whether (or how) a
deity may or may not answer prayer.
I think about all these doubtings, and many, many more, and I see
a lot of skepticism, Duwayne.
I've got a brain that can doubt. _I've also got a conscience_
that gives me a sense of responsibility. I've got three small chil-
dren. I owe them something more than a university education and their
share of a universe one generation closer to its inevitable decay.
Absolutely. You _especially_ owe your youngsters the best possible
training of their critical thinking faculties, and the chance to
experience a spiritual environment that rewards thinking and study,
rather than stifling it. How can you tell your child that s/he must not
raise certain questions in Sunday School? How do you deal with a
seminary/primary teacher who, let's say, tells you that your child asks
difficult questions in class and wonders if the child is getting that
attitude from you? Isn't there a responsibility to find a more
intellectually stimulating spiritual environment? Is it a false
dichotomy to imagine that the only two alternatives available to us in
21st century America are: a) dogmatic, hierarchical religion or b)
secular materialism?
Again, apologies for bombarding you with questions. It's just food for
thought if you like.
With all my doubts, with all my cynicism, I'm still at my core an
optimist. Each person in this world needs to decide for herself/him-
self whether or not s/he believes in a deity. In spite of my doubts,
and because of my optimism, I have chosen to believe in a deity, and
even one who loves me and wants to communicate with me. When my three
children get old enough to hear what critics have to say about God,
I'm going to explain to them that in spite of everything the critics
say, an optimist will still believe in that type of a God, and we are
a family of optimists. And a faith in that type of deity leads di-
rectly to the central challenge of the LDS Church--once you believe in
that type of God you need to _go to that deity in prayer_, and ask
that deity if that deity supports the LDS Church.
It seems like you've skipped a few steps here. Up until the final
sentence in this paragraph it seems as if you would be enriched by a
more liberal religion such as Unitarianism or perhaps one of the New
Thought sects or a sangha or some variety. Given your obvious skepticism
detailed above that would be a logical route. So how do we come to
accept the "challenge" of the LDS Church, a "challenge" which is skewed
to provide results favorable to itself?
So in spite of all my skepticism about the truthfulness of the
message that Joseph Smith brought to the world, I'm forced back to a
decision I made a long time ago, a decision that plants me firmly in
the very faith that I sometimes doubt. After all, for a man of con-
science, a man who feels he owes his children a better world than what
he started with, what's the alternative?
There's LOTS of alternatives besides a dogmatic, anti-intellectual,
hierarchical sect.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Kevin Simonson" |
|
| Title: Re: Skeptical about the LDS Church (WAS: Duwayne Anderson Is Not God) |
18 Dec 2003 04:55:40 PM |
|
|
exmo <exmo@freeatlast.com> wrote in message
news:<3FCD3F20.68CD@freeatlast.com>...
=> Do you think that when I read the Book of Mormon (my wife, kids,
=> and I are going through 3 Nephi right now, the story of the coming of
=> Jesus to the Americas), that I _don't_ sometimes wonder if Joseph
=> Smith didn't make the whole thing up, instead of translating it from
=> ancient records with divine help? Do you think that when I've heard
=> about the Kinderhook incident that I'm _not_ skeptical about Joseph
=> Smith's ability to discern a hoax from a genuine spiritual document?
=
=Skepticism is a good thing, but I wonder if you're showing enough
=respect for your own skepticism by "going through" the BoM with your
=wife and kids rather than really making a family effort to understand
=and examine its underpinnings. Do you share you skepticism with your
=wife and kids while you all study the book, or do you keep your feelings
=to yourself while allowing them to be subjected to the usual
=church-approved study materials (which are, by design, wholly
=unskeptical)?
I _don't_ share my skepticism of the Book of Mormon with my wife
and kids. While we're reading passages from 3 Nephi the thought may
cross my mind that maybe this passage was only slightly modified be-
fore it was lifted from the New Testament (just like it crosses my
mind that many, many passages from John's Gospel might have come
straight from the Johanine author's fertile imagination), but deep
down I still _deeply believe_ that the way to _really_ examine the un-
derpinnings of the Book of Mormon is to go to God in sincere prayer,
ask God if God inspired the book, and wait patiently for God to answer
that question.
That we've taught since day one, and it's precisely what the LDS
Church teaches too. I know. I've been through the LDS seminary sys-
tem, and that's precisely the message we got. It was completely skep-
ticism-neutral. If we're skeptical that Joseph Smith spoke for God,
then we need to go and ask _God_ if God spoke to Joseph Smith, and see
what God answers.
= Do you share your skepticism in Gospel Doctrine class (or
=whatever classes you participate in), in discussion at church, with
=other members of your quorum, home teachers, and so forth? If not, are
=you really respecting yourself? Is it even possible to survive
=intellectually in a church that takes an official stand against all
=skepticism and does all it can to squelch criticism and rational
=examination?
I _don't_ share my skepticism in Gospel Doctrine class. I've
thought sometimes about maybe putting it into a sacrament meeting
talk. Say if the bishopric member asks me to give a full length talk
detailing my testimony, or if instead he asks me to talk about what-
ever I want to talk about (which my bishop in Seattle actually did).
There are a lot of people who are "silent attenders" at LDS con-
gregations; they come with their spouses and/or children and sit
through LDS meetings without participating. Sometimes I've wondered
if these people really believe in LDS theology or whether they're just
there to promote peace with their family. If the latter, then a sac-
rament meeting talk on my doubts might really benefit them. I would
in effect be coming out of the closet, and they might take hope from
the fact that each of them is not the only person who comes to the LDS
Church with doubts about its divine inspiration.
I haven't thought this hypothetical talk all the way through, but
it would start with a birthday present my wife gave to me a couple of
years ago, the audiotape version of _Go Forward in Faith_, the biogra-
phy of Gordon Hinckley (by Sheri Dew?). When Hinckley was in his late
teens he was bothered by the idea that their were bad things in a
world that a theoretically good God had created, and he was also bo-
thered by the fact that prophets of the LDS Church had done some
things that certainly didn't look divinely inspired. He went to his
father with these concerns, and his father helped him overcome them,
to the extent that he later went on to become a successful missionary
and ultimately to become prophet of the entire church.
My point is that if Gordon Hinckley had doubts about the veracity
of LDS theology, then it certainly isn't a _sin_ for _us_ to have
doubts about its veracity. Doubting things is a natural part of the
intellectual process and shouldn't be condemned.
But I haven't seen any instances in Gospel Doctrine classes where
my doubts would be all that relevant. If I did find such occasions
then I would bring them up, but so far no such occasions have arisen.
Some things I have let out. I was talking to my sister on the phone
about three months ago and shared a rather liberal (moderate?) moment
I had back in the Seattle North Stake during a YSA fireside. The to-
pic of the fireside was the theory of evolution, and I had gone to it
expecting to hear all the reasons we shouldn't believe in evolution.
To my surprise, the second counselor in the stake presidency, who was
the fireside's featured speaker, told us that apostle B.H. Roberts had
_supported_ the theory of evolution, and had argued for the LDS Church
to embrace it. The prophet at the time was Heber Grant, who had
Roberts present his case and at the same time had Joseph Fielding
Smith present the opposing viewpoint. After he had heard all the ar-
guments from both sides, Grant decided that the Church had better
things to do than decide whether it supported or opposed the theory of
evolution.
Also, about seven years ago one of my younger brothers was talk-
ing to me about the absolute omniscience of God, and I pointed out (to
his dismay?) that I didn't _believe_ in the absolute omniscience of
God. So some things I've let out.
=Sorry to bombard you with all these questions in a row. This is all off
=the top of my head and reflects something of the process I went through
=during my time in the LDS church. I just put them forward for
=consideration, you may answer any or none of them as you please.
=
=<snip>
=
=Your additional comments about the intellectual questions you have about
=the Bible (noting in particular the nativity stories of the NT, the
=story of David and Goliath in the OT, the Flood account, etc., although
=many more questions could be raised all the way from Genesis 1:1 to the
=end of Revelation) are well taken and have probably been hashed to death
=in alt.atheism and elsewhere.
=
=Of course, any Christian church (other than the most liberal or New Age
=type) has to deal with skepticism and scholarly consideration of the
=bases of its myths and history, just as the LDS church has to deal with
=questions about its own origins.
=
=Some churches probably deal with this problem better than others. Since
=we're talking specifically about the LDS church however, and speaking as
=a former member, I have to admit that the official structure of that
=church is one of the most hostile to intellectual inquiry. I continue to
=wonder how an obviously thoughtful person such as yourself can survive
=in such an environment, or feel a deep fellowship with other members who
=may not share your skepticism.
I'm not entirely convinced I'm that different from other people
in my ward. I believe that if someone wants to find out whether God
endorses the LDS Church that someone needs to go to God in sincere
prayer and _ask_ God if God endorses the LDS Church, just like hun-
dreds of thousands of other Mormons believe. Just because sometimes I
wonder if there really is a God, doesn't mean I can't talk to other
Latter-day Saints about the method Gordon Hinckley told Mike Wallace
to follow to find out the will of God. No matter how much I doubt
God's existence I keep coming back to faith that God does in fact
exist. God is, in fact, my best friend, more real to me than anyone
else I know (including my wife); I talk to God all the time; a person
doesn't stop talking to (let alone believing in) her/his best friend
just because there's no conclusive evidence that that best friend ac-
tually exists.
---Kevin Simonson
"Maybe it started as a dream, but doesn't everything?"
from _James and the Giant Peach_
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Kevin Simonson" |
|
| Title: Re: Skeptical about the LDS Church (WAS: Duwayne Anderson Is Not God) |
18 Dec 2003 04:58:58 PM |
|
|
exmo <exmo@freeatlast.com> wrote in message
news:<3FCD3F20.68CD@freeatlast.com>...
=> Sometimes when I really, really, want something very bad, and
=> plead to God for God to please, please, let me have it, I think to my-
=> self that if it turns out that there isn't a deity after all, then my
=> pleadings would basically be a waste of time.
=
=This is another issue altogether having to do with whether (or how) a
=deity may or may not answer prayer.
=
=> I think about all these doubtings, and many, many more, and I see
=> a lot of skepticism, Duwayne.
=>
=> I've got a brain that can doubt. _I've also got a conscience_
=> that gives me a sense of responsibility. I've got three small chil-
=> dren. I owe them something more than a university education and their
=> share of a universe one generation closer to its inevitable decay.
=
=Absolutely. You _especially_ owe your youngsters the best possible
=training of their critical thinking faculties, and the chance to
=experience a spiritual environment that rewards thinking and study,
=rather than stifling it. How can you tell your child that s/he must not
=raise certain questions in Sunday School?
I'm not planning on telling any of my chilren that s/he must not
raise those questions. On the contrary, my hope is that each of my
children's teachers have enough flexibility that they can give _some_
response to even the most controversial questions my children might
ask, even if it's to say that s/he doesn't have the answer right now,
but will try to find an answer and get back to my child.
Of course, <exmo>, your attitude has some basis in fact. I re-
member one elder's quorum meeting in the Seattle Third Ward where the
instructor didn't show up, so the EQ president opened up the meeting
to any questions we might have. I brought up a question that I'd been
wondering about recently: did the LDS Church believe in the virgin
birth? That resulted in a _very_ controversial elder's quorum meet-
ing, and the prez told me later that I really shouldn't have brought
that subject up.
But I'm unrepentant. I like open discussion of relevant ideas
(even if they are controversial), and don't really think the LDS
Church needs to be afraid of such discussions. In fact, that seems to
be one of the messages that Gordon Hinckley is giving the Church,
teaching by example. He did, after all, talk about some very contro-
versial issues when he talked with Mike Wallace. I don't know how
much controversy was generated by his interview with Larry King (be-
cause I never watched that event), but the man has been talking pub-
licly with practically every journalist he can. I think with Hinckley
the LDS Church is entering a new era, an era where we need to think
about what we believe so we can defend (even promote) our theology to
a public that's going to demand explanations.
= How do you deal with a
=seminary/primary teacher who, let's say, tells you that your child asks
=difficult questions in class and wonders if the child is getting that
=attitude from you?
To which I'd say, "Of _course_ my child's getting that attitude
from me! My wife and I raised my child to think critically, and I
hope my child always will. That puts the burden on you to come up
with good answers that will satisfy my child, the rest of the class,
and every nonmember that ever asks somebody in your class why you be-
lieve what you do."
= Isn't there a responsibility to find a more
=intellectually stimulating spiritual environment? Is it a false
=dichotomy to imagine that the only two alternatives available to us in
=21st century America are: a) dogmatic, hierarchical religion or b)
=secular materialism?
<exmo>, you're looking at the wrong parameters. I, and hopefully
my children with me, am interested in finding a faith that might be
endorsed by deity. I don't care whether that faith is dogmatic and
hierarchical, secularly materialistic, or anything in between. I just
want a faith that gives some convincing reason for me to believe that
it is endorsed by God. I know of no faith that does that except the
LDS Church. Do you know of any such faith that does that?
=Again, apologies for bombarding you with questions. It's just food for
=thought if you like.
No problem. I love food for thought. :)
=> With all my doubts, with all my cynicism, I'm still at my core an
=> optimist. Each person in this world needs to decide for herself/him-
=> self whether or not s/he believes in a deity. In spite of my doubts,
=> and because of my optimism, I have chosen to believe in a deity, and
=> even one who loves me and wants to communicate with me. When my three
=> children get old enough to hear what critics have to say about God,
=> I'm going to explain to them that in spite of everything the critics
=> say, an optimist will still believe in that type of a God, and we are
=> a family of optimists. And a faith in that type of deity leads di-
=> rectly to the central challenge of the LDS Church--once you believe in
=> that type of God you need to _go to that deity in prayer_, and ask
=> that deity if that deity supports the LDS Church.
=
=It seems like you've skipped a few steps here. Up until the final
=sentence in this paragraph it seems as if you would be enriched by a
=more liberal religion such as Unitarianism or perhaps one of the New
=Thought sects or a sangha or some variety. Given your obvious skepticism
=detailed above that would be a logical route.
During the dark days of about five or six months ago (I wasn't
really contemplating leaving the LDS Church; rather I was just contem-
plating changing my emphases), I took a look at Unitarianism to see if
it might embody what I actually believed. I read a bit about the term
"God" not being generally used by Unitarians. When I read that I con-
cluded I could never be a Unitarian. Whether a deity exists or not,
the term "God" is essential to the survival of the human race; a faith
that doesn't use it is going to fall short of the work necessary to
ensure the race's survival.
At Boeing a decade and a half ago I ran into a man who was into
New Thought. His idea of God was something that was internal to hu-
mans, not external. That's not going to suffice either, unless a hu-
man currently exists that knows how to find some way to guarantee that
the human race is going to survive. Maybe I've misunderstood New
Thought; does it provide any way to ensure the ultimate survival of
the human race?
What is a sangha? I've never heard of that term before.
= So how do we come to
=accept the "challenge" of the LDS Church, a "challenge" which is skewed
=to provide results favorable to itself?
The challenge is only skewed if there is no God. If there is a
God, then surely that God is totally capable of giving people "no" an-
swers when they ask God questions about the LDS Church.
=> So in spite of all my skepticism about the truthfulness of the
=> message that Joseph Smith brought to the world, I'm forced back to a
=> decision I made a long time ago, a decision that plants me firmly in
=> the very faith that I sometimes doubt. After all, for a man of con-
=> science, a man who feels he owes his children a better world than what
=> he started with, what's the alternative?
=
=There's LOTS of alternatives besides a dogmatic, anti-intellectual,
=hierarchical sect.
The LDS Church is certainly a hierarchical sect, but I see no
reason to conclude that it's either dogmatic or anti-intellectual.
Many people have many intellectually-supported, well thought out rea-
sons for being members of the LDS Church. And the LDS Church says
that if we want to know whether its theology is endorsed by God, we
simply need to sincerely ask God if God endorses it. That hardly
makes that theology dogma. If someone takes the LDS challenge seri-
ously, asks, and God tells her/him that God does endorse it, then God
has spoken. If on the other hand God tells that someone God _doesn't_
endorse it, then that someone is free to leave the LDS Church and seek
God's theology elsewhere.
---Kevin Simonson
"Maybe it started as a dream, but doesn't everything?"
from _James and the Giant Peach_
.
|
|
|
| User: "Michael" |
|
| Title: Re: Skeptical about the LDS Church (WAS: Duwayne Anderson Is Not God) |
19 Dec 2003 07:47:21 PM |
|
|
(On Thu, 18 Dec 2003 14:58:58 -0800, Kevin Simonson wrote many things in at
least one newsgroup but I don't know which one so I'll respond to all the
newsgroups in which I found the message to which I am responding)
I write:
Today I escorted my child to school. On the way she was explaining that
Santa Claus visited her school yesterday. After a moment, she said,
"Daddy, I don't think he was the REAL Santa Claus."
I said, "You are correct, he was not the real Santa Claus; every school
has a Santa Claus and they certainly cannot be the same Santa Claus."
Thus starts critical thinking, Grade One. Not very often will critical
thinking lead to the TRUTH; but you CAN avoid FALSEHOOD quite often by
using the tools of critical thinking. It's an important consideration;
critical thinking, by itself, cannot reveal truth. It can only sift
assertions and help eliminate some of them. It may be that what is left
is still an assertion and it may be true, but critical thinking
alone cannot reveal the truth of it -- only, help you not waste time on
obvious falsehood (ie, a Santa Claus in every school). Whether the thing
that remains is really true might require "revelation" if data
is simply not available to make a rational decision.
I wrestle with this one; I have
a very strong desire for truth and honesty, but I also recognize that what
is true for an "INTP" is meaningless to an "ESFJ" and vice versa; or to
borrow from Dr. Grey (I think) "Men are from Mars, Women are from Venus"
and the latter (Venus/ESFJ) use whatever words or concepts explain their
FEELINGS, and the words may be as false as a Bill Clinton 3 dollar bill,
but if that is the only way to convey a concept (as I have just done),
then "a" truth has been conveyed that otherwise would not have been
conveyed.
The struggle, therefore, is not so much over whether there is a Santa
Claus, but is there a better (less dishonest) way of conveying the same
true (or at least useful) message of charity?
The relevance of this to what you have been asking pertains to the
intellectual desire of some (NT's usually) to have words mean exactly what
they say.
An interesting characteristic of the parables given by Jesus, is that they
were true on BOTH fronts: The story was true on the face of it, and the
meaning of the story was true.
Anyway, as to critical thinking of the gospel:
By now you have realized that not very many people can engage you on this.
But you might be surprised at how many DO have the same questions and
dare not raise them publicly; perhaps for fear of being branded a misfit.
I teach High Priests and I make no bones about it; there's things I know
for sure, and things I don't know for sure. That's one reason the High
Priests are kept sequestered from everyone else :-)
CHURCH attendance, as compared to your personal search for truth, exists
almost entirely for the purpose of sharing "testimony" but it is no good
unless those testimonies have "meat" on their bones.
The Holy Ghost WILL tell you that I am telling the truth, were we in the
same room, and you could feel my spirit and see my passion when I tell you
what I know for sure; which makes all other intellectual pursuits
interesting but unchallenging to what I know for sure.
I *went* to Kinderhook hoping to find something; found absolutely nothing,
it was a cold and bleak place in January I can assure you.
Over the years, the enemies of the church have tried hundreds of
challenges, some more compelling than others. One by one the challenges
fail, but in being challenged, I consider myself greatly expanded and
strengthened. In the case of Kinderhook, it appears a trap was laid for
Joseph and he nearly fell for it. The word is that a brass plate was
found with some hieroglyphs on it. Joseph glanced at it and declared it
to be a story of one of the descendents of Noah or Ham. That night Joseph
was told in a dream or by an angel to have nothing more to do with it, and
that is the end of the story. Not long after it was revealed that the
plates had been planted not too long before.
A counter-challenge of mine has NEVER been answered: What indeed do the
heiroglyphs say? Nobody asked Joseph to "date the brass", rather, they
asked him to read the heiroglyphs. I think we all know that Joseph was
rather prideful, stemmed from confidence to be sure but prideful just the
same and more than once our own history shows the Lord correcting him.
There's hundreds of challenges, feel free to pursue them (not to the
exclusion of faith building activities of course or you WILL apostasize
simply from the combined weight of a diet of hate and discontent).
Keep in mind that a LOT of what is believed to be "Mormon Doctrine," isn't.
On the other hand, a lot of what isn't considered Mormon Doctrine might
well still be good advice for certain people at certain times.
Is there a God? Indeed there is; I am sure of it. More than that I *can*
say but I'm a bit unwilling to let out all the pearls right here. Suffice
for the moment that I have experienced astonishing things in the Temple;
which tells me either (1) the Temple is the Right Place to Be; or (2) God
and his purposes are accomplished any place He chooses, including a
Temple. High mountains work quite well for pers | | | |
