Mormonism

Remove all ads!

And therein lies the problem. Many men believe that religion was created by God and, because of this, they will follow what they perceive to be the dictates of religion with unflagging loyalty. Even into war.

Religions don't cause war in much the same way that dynamite doesn't cause explosions. Sure, on their own, a religion won't cause a war and dynamite won't explode. However, if someone comes along and lights the fuse.....

 

While strictly true, that's as bad a comparison as gays to pedophiles. Dynamite exists specifically to cause explosions (we mix it almost solely for that purpose), but I have not once seen a religion whose main purpose was to cause wars. You might as well say we should do away with all government because they can be used to create wars too. You don't blame the tool, you blame the wielder.

 

@Fel: My goal wasn't to make a direct comparison on every level. Rather, I chose to compare religion to a tool because, when it comes to starting wars, religion is also a tool used by those in power. Just because religion is a mere tool used to cause war, however, doesn't marginalize its role.

When I wish to hang up a picture, I can hardly pound a nail into the wall with my fist. I need a tool....like a hammer. The fact that I am the one wielding the hammer doesn't change the fact that the hammer is what's driving the nail into the wall. I can't drive the nail into the wall without a hammer, a rock, a nail gun, or some other similarly blunt object useful for smacking things. It is true to say I am driving the nail into the wall. It is also true to say that the hammer is doing it.

The "religion doesn't cause wars....people cause wars" argument is just like the "guns don't kill people......people kill people" argument. While I agree with the statement that it is people who kill people (people who cause wars), the truth is that guns kill people, too (religion causes wars, too). An argument to the contrary is intellectually dishonest. The argument that religion doesn't cause war is an exercise in semantics.

[ April 28, 2007, 07:13: Message edited by: Drew ]

 

Sure, why not? Just realize that my main statement is that a tool used to accomplish a task shares part of the blame (or credit) for it. The degree of blame is obviously going to vary (in your example, I would apply most of the blame to mental illness and would question whether or not there was actually any love to begin with).....and will always be debatable.....but you don't need to be the "only" reason, the "main" reason, or even a "big" reason to share the blame.

In the case of religion, one of the most important steps to causing a war is garnering popular support for it. Religion is one of the tools used for such an activity. As such, any time religion plays a role in garnering support for a war, it shares some of the blame for its execution. I'm not arguing that it's the only thing that causes war......merely that it is one of many things which cause war. The fact that people in power may be twisting religion to their own ends doesn't diminish religion's role.

 

Just as I'm sure NOG never meant to compare gays and pedophiles on every level either. Yet you blasted him (rightfully so, I think) for the comparison because of the connotations involved. And now, here you do the same thing (except with violence instead of sex) and feel it's defensible?

Again, does that mean we should get rid of all government due to its role in so many more wars than religion?

Yet again, you create another flawed example. Dynamite is made to explode, guns are made to kill people, and hammers are made to smack things, but religion is NOT made to cause wars. Do you really not see what you're doing?

Better example: You've got a car. It's a mode of transportation first and foremost. It runs into a telephone pole because the guy behind the wheel was drunk/sleeping/distracted/just plain insane. Can you really blame a car for people losing their phone connections? Perhaps you blame the phone company for not making car-resistant poles? Or do you instead blame the driver?

[ April 28, 2007, 07:49: Message edited by: Felinoid ]

 

In my hammering metaphor, I also mentioned rocks and blunt objects suitable to smacking things. Replace the word hammer with "Iron Piggy bank" if you want. If you don't like my "dynamite" metaphor, use "gunpowder" instead. Gunpowder is used for many things that don't involve explosions....they even put it in cigarette paper.

First of all, when did I say I think we should abolish religion? I don't. I said that it is (ab)used to cause wars. It is. It may not be the only reason or the main reason every time (or even most of the time), but it is a reason. I'd be an idiot if I argued that all, or even most, wars were caused by religion, but it plays a substantial role in many of them. Any argument that religion absolutely does not cause wars is dishonest. Perhaps I didn't make it clearly enough, but that is the point I've been trying to make.

Not all the blame....or even most of it. But I'm pretty damn sure that he wouldn't have hit the telephone pole if he wasn't driving in the first place....and he probably wouldn't have broken it if he was driving a motorcycle instead.....so, yes, the car played a part and shares some of the blame.

[ April 28, 2007, 08:04: Message edited by: Drew ]

 

What I could replace it with isn't the point. What you used is. NOG could also have replaced pedophilia with anything ranging from BDSM to vanilla missionary, or even something entirely non-sexual. But he didn't. I'm just calling you on the same thing, and I want you to think about why those examples occurred to you first, because I doubt it was a coincidence.

You'll have to excuse me for the presumption, but "religion causes wars" is the typical rally cry for that particular cause.

...Now who's arguing semantics? Of course any argument that religion would never play a role in a war is dishonest. Hell, an argument that a fish tank would never play a substantial role in a war would be dishonest! (Sooner or later, it's bound to happen.)

 

But where do the testable, verified theories end and the educated extrapolations begin? Further, how simplified do you take religious beliefs to be? Thirdly, how big are the points you are trying to argue on?

I've actually seen evidence supporting the Book of Mormon in the Native American thing. I never bothered with that until this thread because it was an interesting bit that I never thought much about. I look at the teachings on how to live as more important. Those are areas you can't offer proof.

But there's a problem. By stating that preaching repentance unto the sinners is distasteful, you say i ought not do this, but God has commanded us to do this. Who am I going to listen to? Further, when I was living in my sins, i would have agreed that such calls to repentance were distasteful, but it was done, and I was saved from myself.

Look at it this way, assuming that you find vegetables distasteful. Just because you don't like eating your veggies, doesn't mean you don't have to. So you do. You dislike that you have to eat your veggies, so making your kids eat them. It is your duty to your children that they be required to eat their vegetables. It is the same way with religion. Just because the audience may not like what I have to say doesn't mean I don't have to say it. The Lord was explicit when he commanded us to share what we know with all nations, kindreds and toungues...

We don't deny the world, but we try to be "in the world, but not of the world". Meaning that we live among sinners, but we must do our best to refrain from sinning ourselves. This is what we are called on to encourage others to do as well.

But I know of many people who report the same observations based on what Religion teaches. It is not something you can set up a display in a Sunday school class to show however. That is the difference between science and religion...

Actually, the Big Bang could have occured before the book of Genesis. I've been taught that the earth, sun, stars planets and all the other stuff in space was formed from "matter unorganized". My aunt says that she never say anything come together in a big bang, but fly apart. Perhaps the Big Bang could have spread the parts over the workbench of the universe to be organized into planets...

Not trying to grate on you here, but the idea I put forth was that it is the following of divine principles that enable that efficiency (both to the individual members who donate and the leaders who deal with the donations according to the principles and policies that come from the Lord). The church, ultimately, derives it's strength here on earth from the members, but the members gain their strength from the divine guidance of the church.

But the principles are given of God, and that is the point I was trying to make. You may look at President Gordon B. Hinckley as the leader, but I look at Jesus Christ as the Leader, Gordon B. Hinckley as His prophet, seer, revelator and president of the Church.

Again, my error in wording. I suspect, however, that you don't feel the spiritual connection that supports the doctrine...

Drew: I see your point about Religion, and would like to take the Religion and Dynamite example a step further. Dynamite exists to blow stuff up. Whether this is good or not depends on what you are blowing up. If you are removing a derelect building that is in danger of collapsing and hurting people, then it's a good thing. If you use it to blow up a building full of people, then that's not good. Just like with Religion, if ou are using it to bind a community together on an accepted morality, then it's good, but use it to actively provoke and preach hatred then that's not good.

Agreed. I heard a story that the accused in the Salem Witch Hunts were social deviants that had pissed someone in the community off. One was an adulteress IIRC. The Crusades may have started with the pride of a pope, who couldn't stand that the Holy Land was in the hands of those that weren't Christians...

 

I'll tell you why. I don't see religion as a tool to cause war.....but I do see it as a tool....and a dangerous one. That's why I chose to compare it to a dangerous tool. Dynamite is very useful for many constructive (mining for resources necessary to our survival and comfort), as well as destructive (blowing up buses full of innocent people in suicide attacks), activities......just like religion. In another thread, I compared religion to a gun. I stand by that comparison. In the right hands, it can be a tool that protects the innocent....that stops violence before it has the chance to start, or at least lessens its damage. It can be a thing of beauty that provides both protection and security. In the wrong hands, it can be used to further terrorism, civil war, hatred, and bigotry. Religion, when tempered with free thought, can be a beautiful thing. Sadly, though, it is often merely a tool used by the wealthy and influential to prey upon the uneducated, ignorant, or dim-witted (tune in to the televangelists on Sunday morning if you don't get what I mean by that).

It was never mine.

 

I think I've noticed a pattern.

Essentially, whenever Gnarfflinger ends a sentence with an ellipse (...), chances are it'll either be worthless rhetoric (I'm not muddying the waters, they're muddy enough as it is DOT DOT DOT) or a counter-argument vague enough to deflect an argument for a while.

Gnarf, if you don't want people to contest your beliefs, don't post. It's as simple as that. or at least don't post your vague rhetoric when you do, then become incredibly defensive when people contest you with logical debate, since it kind of makes you look like a troll.

 

Clixby: The door swings both ways on your criticisms. This is about discussion, and not every opinion is going to be politically correct. Mine aren't, I know that and I really don't feel much sympathy for those that don't like it. People that don't want to hear what I have to say (and lack the authority to exclude me) should stop posting things that are offensive to what I believe. And if a thread starts or drifts into an area up that directly challenges my beliefs, I will respond.

I wasn't aware about the elipses being crap. Usually it represents something that seems more open ended. It is putting the ball in the court of the other side for a moment.

Also, recently I have had a chance to find some of the quoted that Drew pointed out. Some of the parts involving the translation of the Book of Mormon actually came from an address by Elder Russel M. Nelson, of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles, found here:

http://library.lds.org/nxt/gateway.dll/Magazines/Ensign/1993.htm/ensign%20july%201993.htm/a%20treasured%20testament.htm

Either he had another source on those quotes or he only took the part that suited his purposes and left out what defends mine. Among these is an account of the Book of Mormon being translated into Arabic. It suggests that the record is authentic.

Also, I found two more references to the 1826 trials, both question the conclusions reached, and state that this is not the damning evidence against the Church. For convenience, here are the links:

http://www.fairlds.org/FAIR_Conferences/2002_1826_Trial_of_Joseph_Smith.html

http://www.mormonfortress.com/seer1.html

The First of the two points out that only one piece of evidence is brought forth without evidence that the rest of the record existed. It also points out that the witness testimony from the varied accounts is not consistent, and that the charges were vague. Nowhere does it say that he was charging money for treasure seeking.

The Second points out that:

A, he was seeking treasure for himself and his company. Among them were other ministers of other faiths.

B, He left their company on moral grounds (orders from the Angel Moroni).

C, he had left the group BEFORE finding the Plates of Brass and translating the Book of Mormon.

 

So, you're entitled to post things that are offensive to other people, but they're not allowed to post things that are offensive to you or contest your arguments?

 

You must not have been reading very carefully, or were just trying to prove what you already think here. It states that the linguist who translated the Book of Mormon from English.....not from "Reformed Egyptian", into Arabic became convinced of its divine origin. In other words.....he converted. That doesn't actually prove anything. Linguists, since time immemorial, have been converting after translating "holy books" to their native tongues. It isn't anything special.

Further, the speaker in that article is either woefully ignorant about the workings of linguistics or flat out lying when trying to defend "Reformed Egyptian" by arguing that a Jewish Rabbi from around the 13th century wrote his philosophical works in Arabic using the Hebrew alphabet. Aside from the fact that the Hebrew alphabet has an insufficient sound library to accurately communicate the Arabic language, his writings weren't even in Arabic, but in an obscure Judeo-Arabic language, a collection of dialects spoken by Jews living in (or who once lived in) Arabic speaking countries in the Middle Ages. He wasn't writing Arabic using the Hebrew alphabet. He was writing a Hebrew/Arabic dialect using the Hebrew alphabet. If anything, this would be evidence against the book of Mormon's veracity, since it is a record of Jews who, while speaking a deviant language, did not abandon their alphabet.

 

This thread needs a shot of life...

Gnarf, everyone else....I would like to hear your thoughts on the Rev. Al Sharpton's apperent negative comments towards Mit Romney and Mormons in general. Need more info? read up!

/me stands back

This should be good.

 

Romney hit it perfectly when he said the issue is not about religion, but about prejudice (I'm paraphrasing, he was much more eloquent). I usually find that people who wave the 'you are prejudiced' flag are using that flag to hide their own biases.

Reverend Sharpton is every bit as one-sided and prejudice as the people he rails against. IMO he managed, in one breath, to show the world true hypocracy.

 

If there be any among you who hath not said anything stupid, let them cast the first shoe...

/me ducks, waits and returns to the soap box once i realize that there won't be many shoes coming

I believe he did make an incredibly bigotted statement, but to his Credit, I believe he did recognize his error and is seeking to reconcile with Mitt Romney, which is the beginning of the repentence process.

The downside is that the perception exists that we aren't Christians. That perception will dog the church for many generations to come.

 

@Gnarff: LDS theology is radically different from all other Catholics and Protestants. The reason Christians often don't consider Mormons Christian is because they don't believe in original sin, believe in Celestial Marriage, believe that God was once as man is now, and that man has the capacity to be like God. On a purely theological level, LDS theology and Christian theology have little in common.

 

...except the obvious -- Mormons believe Jesus was the son of God. That he was the Messiah, Savior of the world, whose coming was fortold by the prophets of old. That Jesus took upon himself the sins of the world, through his death (and resurrection) all of mankind are saved and able to enter the kingdom of heaven.

But, yeah, other than that there are some differences.