Is Mormonism a form of Christianity?

[Monkey]

Ooooh! Humpty! Ouch, you've broken my bones!

I forget, which debating tactic is name-calling?

Putting playground behaviour aside, I've raised several basic theological differences:

The basic fact is that Mormonism, from the belief that god had a corporeal body to the belief that humans become gods, differs fundamentally from Christianity.

And I'm still not sure why you are making such a big deal out of it. Own it!

Doin' the Humpty Hump,
Monkey (with much love to Shock G)

[Matthew]

I am neither required nor would I voluntarily accept ownership of your nonsensical redefinition of the term Christian.

We have been over this heavily trodden ground before. It is logically fallacious to apply a double standard and this is precisely what your arguments against applying the label "Christian" to "Mormons" does. You apply a special definition to the term "Christian" without specifically stating you are doing so. You then assess "Mormons" on the basis of this new definition, a definition which would exclude even those to whom the term was first applied.

Consider carefully: if any deviation from the beliefs which can be demonstrably assigned to those who were first branded Christians is to be the standard upon which ones Christianity is assessed then there are no Christians at all. None. Catholics aren't Christians, Baptists aren't Christians, and yes, "Mormons" wouldn't be Christians either. This is called a reductio ad absurdum, a reduction to adsurdity which is meant to demonstrate just how rediculous your argument is.

You have of course had Sherman set the way-back machine for present-day however. Your standard is some nebulous conglomeration which is apprently doctrinally and theologically cohesive and which you label "Christianity" But no such body exists. Although most "Christians" who consider themselves historically orthodox (i.e. accept more or less the historical development of Christian theology and doctrine including Nicene Trinitarianism) do have a core set of beliefs they share, they differ (sometimes in ways they consider quite fundamental) from each other as well. And they certainly differ significantly from ancient Christians. Does this mean that ancient Christians weren't really Christians?

Variation in belief simply isn't enough to warrant exclusion. Further, it is difficult to support exclusion on the basis of "god" having a "corporeal body." It was allegedly the apostle John (inarguably a Christian) who wrote "every spirit that confesseth not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is not of God: and this is that spirit of antichrist." (KJV, 1 John 4:3) Just in case it slipped past you, Jesus was God, and he had, according to his closest associates, a body both during his incarnation and thereafter.

The same is true of apotheosis, deification, or what you call "humans becom[ing:] gods." Again, referencing the document which provides the basis for "Christian" belief, we are to be "heirs of God, and joint-heirs with Christ" Jesus being "heir of all things." Indeed, "To him that overcometh will I grant to sit with me in my throne, even as I also overcame, and am set down with my Father in his throne."

Although obviously contigently divine, or "an heir of God through Christ," we are nevertheless granted divine prerogatives and share the throne of heaven with God and His Son. Indeed, if we will be like him (1 John 3:2), changed into the same image from glory to glory (2 Corinthians 3:18), receive of his glory (John 17:22-23) become joint-heirs with Christ to all that the Father has (Romans 8:15-17; Revelation 21:7; 1 Corinthians 3:22) and partake of the divine nature (2 Peter 1:4) precisely what would be be other than gods?

This isn't a matter of proof-texting either. Christian theologians since the apostles have believed in apotheosis and have written on the matter. Although they may indeed not have believed precisely as Latter-day Saints do on the matter the belief that humans can become gods is not an abberation, it isn't un-Christian or even anti-Christian.

What your arguments lack (aside from the utter paucity of logic) is an intimate familarity with the topic. You don't know what LDS Christians believe (or your understanding is at best incomplete) and you certainly don't know what Christians believe. Indeed, you seem to feel that there is some cohesive conglomerate out there which goes by the name Christian and there simply isn't. Eastern Orthodoxy for instance has a very strong belief in apotheosis and Anglican's have always been fond of C.S. Lewis' writings on the same. Indeed, most Christians who would impugn the LDS Christians for their beliefs readily accept Lewis who certainly believed that humans would in some sense become divine.

You can attempt to appeal to pity, to present yourself as the poor persecuted ovoid all alone atop his wall, but it isn't logically fallacious to provide an appropriate comparison (nor even, I might add, to directly insult you). You, like Humpty-Dumpty in his conversation with Alice, are attempting to redefine terms outside of their standard usage in order that you might use them to exclude Latter-day Saints from being "Christians." Although you are free to redefine terms as you please such redefinition without justification is both irrational and tends to preclude communication. If in my estimation a Christian is a poached egg I can indeed exclude pretty much anyone I please but of course I would be considered rather silly for holding to that position.

I think you have been at some point offended by a "Mormon." Either you were precluded from marrying your love interest by proposition 8, you were impugned for your lifestyle by a "Mormon" on theological grounds, you dated a "Mormon" at one time who terminated the relationship on account of differences in belief, you are a woman who thinks the whole priesthood thing overt sexism or some other offense which you attributed to their religious bigotry. There simply is no other explanation for your obsessive interest in harassing LDS Christians. Really, what do you care? Do you really think your incessant insistence regarding the matter is convincing anyone that they should leave off calling themselves a "Christian?" Why is this of such interest to you?

[Soulcleaver]

Mormons should be saying, "Like you, we are Christians. Unlike you, we are correct."

[Monkey]

Cruzing through Wikipedia, and found some interesting info on the the Mormon belief in the "Plurality of Gods"

"Many men say there is one God; the Father, the Son and the Holy Ghost are only one God! I say that is a strange God anyhow—-three in one, and one in three! It is a curious organization. "Father, I pray not for the world, but I pray for them which thou hast given me." "Holy Father, keep through Thine own name those whom thou hast given me, that they may be one as we are." All are to be crammed into one God, according to sectarianism. It would make the biggest God in all the world. He would be a wonderfully big God—-he would be a giant or a monster. I want to read the text to you myself—"I am agreed with the Father and the Father is agreed with me, and we are agreed as one." The Greek shows that it should be agreed. "Father, I pray for them which Thou hast given me out of the world, and not for those alone, but for them also which shall believe on me through their word, that they all may be agreed, as Thou, Father, art with me, and I with Thee, that they also may be agreed with us," and all come to dwell in unity, and in all the glory and everlasting burnings of the Gods; and then we shall see as we are seen, and be as our God and He as His Father. I want to reason a little on this subject. I learned it by translating the papyrus which is now in my house. I learned a testimony concerning Abraham, and he reasoned concerning the God of heaven. "In order to do that," said he, "suppose we have two facts: that supposes another fact may exist—two men on the earth, one wiser than the other, would logically show that another who is wiser than the wisest may exist. Intelligences exist one above another, so that there is no end to them."

-Joseph Smith
Sermon by the Prophet—The Christian Godhead—Plurality of Gods", History of the Church, Vol. 6, p. 473-479

Interesting. Would any other Christian sect agree with this?

[Art]

Monkey, would you by any chance know Nathan, who's been pretty prominent in many other Christianity discussions? You sound remarkably like him.

And one other thing, just because I've been very curious about this as I've read- why do you spend so much time refuting Mormonism specifically?

[[deleted user]]

Monkey,

You have avoided peoples questions, answered questions with questions. Insisted on staying on topic, when you yourself have avoided the topic, even when you have been given two different answers to that original question. Why don't you say I don't think Mormonism is Christian and end it, instead of trying to force your views on others. I don't think you "seek the truth in all things." You just want to be right.

I know I have probably offended you, but I'm just stating my opinion, which I have a right to have.

Gwendalynn

[Monkey]

Gwendalynn,

This is a discussion. I raise ideas.

Why do they disturb you so?

[Benjamin]

Monkey wrote: "Some of the basic tenets of Mormonism differ greatly from that of Christianity, yet Mormons claim to be Christians. Are they?

Here are several examples:

1. God was once a man who lived on anothe..."

Before you wrote this you should have defined what Christianity is

[[deleted user]]

Monkey,

You're ideas don't disturb me, the fact that you say this is a discussion and refuse to discuss subjects with some of the participants disturbs me.

And I don't find Wikipedia a reputably source.

Gwendalynn

[Monkey]

Gwendalynn,

Do the research yourself. If you are not scared to.

Love,
Monkey

[[deleted user]]

Monkey,

I'm not scared to. I do research at least every Sunday, let alone everyday of my life. I don't need a reason to do research on this particular topic. I don't even need to do research because I already know the answer.

Gwendalynn

[Monkey]

Gwendalyn,

Ok, then please explain this quote. Is it NOT from Josepth Smith?

"Many men say there is one God; the Father, the Son and the Holy Ghost are only one God! I say that is a strange God anyhow—-three in one, and one in three! It is a curious organization. "Father, I pray not for the world, but I pray for them which thou hast given me." "Holy Father, keep through Thine own name those whom thou hast given me, that they may be one as we are." All are to be crammed into one God, according to sectarianism. It would make the biggest God in all the world. He would be a wonderfully big God—-he would be a giant or a monster. I want to read the text to you myself—"I am agreed with the Father and the Father is agreed with me, and we are agreed as one." The Greek shows that it should be agreed. "Father, I pray for them which Thou hast given me out of the world, and not for those alone, but for them also which shall believe on me through their word, that they all may be agreed, as Thou, Father, art with me, and I with Thee, that they also may be agreed with us," and all come to dwell in unity, and in all the glory and everlasting burnings of the Gods; and then we shall see as we are seen, and be as our God and He as His Father. I want to reason a little on this subject. I learned it by translating the papyrus which is now in my house. I learned a testimony concerning Abraham, and he reasoned concerning the God of heaven. "In order to do that," said he, "suppose we have two facts: that supposes another fact may exist—two men on the earth, one wiser than the other, would logically show that another who is wiser than the wisest may exist. Intelligences exist one above another, so that there is no end to them."

-Joseph Smith
Sermon by the Prophet—The Christian Godhead—Plurality of Gods", History of the Church, Vol. 6, p. 473-479


And, since you are a scholar, what have you learned from your studies of the Book of Abraham?

Love,
Monkey

[[deleted user]]

Monkey,

The question I was referring to as knowing the answer, is the topic of this thread.

What are you trying to prove with this quote? Yes, Joseph Smith did teach this concept, which is the Godhead. Latter-day Saints (Mormons) believe that God the Father, Jesus Christ and the Holy Ghost are three separate beings that act as one.

I never said I was a scholar. Yes, I read the Bible, Pearl of Great Price, Doctrine and Covenants, The Book of Mormon, and various talks and books about my churches principles and prophets. But I don't understand everything I read or learn perfectly. It takes time to obtain wisdom and knowledge, and I sure hope I have a lot more time left to get it.

And, lastly, I would appreciate it if you didn't close your messages to me with "love." If you must use a closing, sincerely will do fine.


Gwendalynn

[Monkey]

Gwen,

Here is a quote from that passage: "and in all the glory and everlasting burnings of the Gods"

Joseph Smith used the word "Gods". Not "god."

Do you think that multiple gods (including the idea that Mormons become gods) is accepted by mainstream Christianity?

Love (and I DO have love for all),
Monkey

P.S. And I'd still LOVE to hear your thoughts on whether or not the Book of Abraham is a fraud.

[[deleted user]]

Monkey,

"While a precise definition of what constitutes mainstream Christianity is difficult at best, there are some groups that fall outside of what is popularly construed to be Christian groups, but share some manner of historical connection with the larger community of Christians."

(http://www.spiritus-temporis.com/chri...)

What is mainstream Christianity? I've read so many different views of it.

But, if I go with one definition I've read, stating that in the afterlife souls of wicked sent to Hell and that believers go to Heaven for eternity, "mainstream Christianity" does not agree with the idea of multiple Gods. If they think that you just go to Heaven, I assume that they think you cannot become Gods.

But "considering this diversity[of what constitutes mainstream Christianity:], it may be impossible to define what Christianity is without either rejecting all definitions, or adopting a particular definition as authoritative and thus excluding others. In terms of the modern aim of scientific and objective definition, both options are considered problematic."

(http://www.spiritus-temporis.com/chri...)

Gwendalynn

P.S. I don't think the Book of Abraham is a fraud (assuming you're referring to the book in the Pearl of Great Price.) If I thought that the Book of Abraham was a fraud, a book translated from papyrus scrolls, then I would also think the Bible was a fraud, seeing as it was translated from scrolls and letters.

[Monkey]

Gwendalynn,

Wow. Are you being deliberately obtuse? The problem wasn't that both the Christian bible and the Book of Abraham were translated from papyrus scrolls, but that Joseph Smith's translation of the papyri doesn't match anyone elses translation, including BYU scholars.

And, I've said this before, if you cast your net wide enough, you can call everyone from the Unification Church to Warren Jeffs Christian. It just seems that Mormonism is fundamentally different.

Love,
Monkey

[[deleted user]]

Monkey

What about the differences in Bible translations? How is it that you ignore the fact that there are so many different translations of the Bible?

Then couldn't you say any religion is fundamentally different from another?

Gwendalynn

[Monkey]

Gwen,

Everything that Joseph Smith claims to have translated is COMPLETELY different from what actual Egyptologists, including BUY scholars translate.

For example:
What Joe translates as "Abraham fastened upon an altar" Is actually "Osiris coming to life on his couch, which is in the shape of a lion".

What you are referring to with the Christian bible translations are differences in form. What I am referring to is differences in content.

Nothing recognizeable. One more example:
JS:
"Kolob, signifying the first creation, nearest to the celestial, or the residence of God. First in government, the last pertaining to the measurement of time. The measurement according to celestial time, which celestial time signifies one day to a cubit. One day in Kolob is equal to a thousand years according to the measurement of this earth, which is called by the Egyptians Jah-oh-eh."

Actual Translation:
"The spirit of the four elements (according to Champollion), or rather of the four winds, or the four cardinal points; the soul of the terrestrial world. This god is always represented with four rams' heads, and his image has certainly been altered here. — They have also evidently made a very clumsy attempt at copying the double human head of the god figured above, fig. 2, instead of the four rams' heads. The word Jah-oh-eh has nothing Egyptian in it; it resembles the Hebrew word [redacted:] badly transcribed."

You see, it's not just form, (the four rams heads are something fundamental, but the exact thing is disagreed upon), but CONTENT.


As for religions, the question is where do you draw that line. For you, it is with the name of the religion. If you call yourself a Christian, you are one. For me, it's with the fundamental theology. A plurality of gods, saying that god was once a man (and that Mormons will become gods) and saying that Joseph Smith judges you after you die is different enough from Christian monotheism for me to call them separate religions.

But call it what you will. I named my car "Horsie". It's the same thing.

Love,
Monkey

[[deleted user]]

We do NOT believe that Joseph Smith judges us after we die. Whoever told you that, or wherever you heard it from, is grossly wrong.

[Monkey]

I heard it from the Prophets of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints:

"No man or woman in this dispensation will ever enter into the celestial kingdom of God without the consent of Joseph Smith...every man and woman must have the certificate of Joseph Smith, junior, as a passport to their entrance into the mansion where God and Christ are"
- Prophet Birgham Young, Journal of Discourses, vol. 7, p.289

"If we get our salvation, we shall have to pass by him [Joseph Smith:]; if we enter our glory, it will be through the authority he has received. We cannot get around him [Joseph Smith:]"
- Prophet George Q. Cannon, as quoted in 1988 Melchizedek Priesthood Study Guide, p. 142

"I tell you, Joseph holds the keys, and none of us can get into the celestial kingdom without passing by him. We have not got rid of him, but he stands there as the sentinel, holding the keys of the kingdom of God.. But I tell you, the pinch will be with those that have mingled with us, stood next to us, weighed our spirits, tried us, and proven us: there will be a pinch, in my view, to get past them. The others, perhaps, will say, If brother Joseph is satisfied with you, you may pass. If it is all right with him, it is all right with me. Then if Joseph shall say to a man, or if brother Brigham say to a man, I forgive you your sins, "Whosoever sins ye remit they are remitted unto them;" if you who have suffered and felt the weight of transgression—if you have generosity enough to forgive the sinner, I will forgive him: you cannot have more generosity than I have. I have given you power to forgive sins, and when the Lord gives a gift, he does not take it back again."
- Apostle Orson Hyde, Journal of Discourses, Vol. 6, p.154

Their words, not mine. Go ahead and check the sources. Please let me know if these guys are "Grossly wrong."

"If brother Joseph is satisfied with you, you may pass."
Love,
Monkey

[Emma the Shadowhunter]

I read the first, like, three or four and NOT A SINGLE ONE IS THE LEAST BIT TRUE!! I should know. I'm Mormon, myself. Where did you find this?
Okay; There is some tiny bit of truth to four. We babtize proxys for people who died and never got the chance.

[Monkey]

Emma the Shadowhunter wrote: "I read the first, like, three or four and NOT A SINGLE ONE IS THE LEAST BIT TRUE!! ...Where did you find this?"

The Journal of Discourses and Mormon Priesthood literature. Good stuff. Have you read the Book of Abraham? Check your original sources.

[Monkey]

Well, I guess Gwen and Emma have given up. Maybe they checked their sources and realized the truth.

[Matthew]

And this is the crux of the matter I think:

"As for religions, the question is where do you draw that line. For you, it is with the name of the religion. If you call yourself a Christian, you are one. For me, it's with the fundamental theology. A plurality of gods, saying that god was once a man (and that Mormons will become gods) and saying that Joseph Smith judges you after you die is different enough from Christian monotheism for me to call them separate religions."

Deification, henotheism and intermediaries are not antithetical to Christian belief. The Bible--arguably the most important document in defining Christian belief--addresses all three of these matters favorably. That the LDS view of these matters tends to disagree at points with mainstream historically orthodox Christianity is irrelevant.

Again, if the issue is that LDS Christians are not historically orthodox Trinitarians, steeped in a theology defined by counsels and creeds then I readily concede, we are heterdox by such a standard. However, I do not accept historical orthodoxy (which can hardly be used as an equitable standard upon which ones Christianity can be assessed) as the standard.

[Monkey]

Just so I get this straight: You believe that god was a human, lives on a planet near a star named Kolob, had literal, physical sex with Mary, that humans can become gods (if, among other things, they give 10% of their money to the LDS), that you are judged by Joseph Smith, Jesus Christ and Elohim after you die and that special underwear protects you from harm AND that you are Christian.

That works for me! Hell, the Catholics believe that they eat flesh and drink actual blood and I've seen with my own eyes Baptists picking up rattlesnakes because god told them to, so you guys are not too far down on the "back away slowly" scale.

The real question is "where is the critical thinking?" Have you ever seriously looked at your belief system and analyzed it WITHOUT simply asking "if all my friends/family believe it, how could it be wrong?!" It can't just be about feelings. I once had the feeling that the Harry Potter movies would be good, and look where THAT got me...

Anyway, call yourself whatever you want. Even if real Christians accept you as their own, your belief system is measured in decades unlike the millennia of Christianity, and I'm sure over the years it will continue to change it's core beliefs until it is as bland and mainstream as other flavors of religion...

[Matthew]

Your understanding of LDS theology is incomplete at best. True enough, we believe that God the Father was once human, but no more human than Jesus Christ. To profess God to be human is no sin as the whole of Christianity (orthodox or heterodox) declares God the Son to have been human!

It is also true that we believe God to be an actual being, occupying a specific space. Although the majority of Christianity tends to think of God in much less concrete terms the Bible I think forces them to accept that God is, in the person of the Son, a corporeal being and thus resides somewhere.

It is not true however that I, nor might I add the majority of LDS Christians, believe that “god… had literal, physical sex with Mary.” True enough we believe that Jesus was indeed God’s Son, that He was human and thus had 46 chromosomes, 23 being contributed by each parent. God contributed 50% of Jesus' genetic material but the manner in which He contributed that material is not elaborated upon in scripture other than that the vehicle of delivery was the Holy Spirit. Both the Bible and the Book of Mormon profess Mary to be a virgin, pure and simple.

True also that we believe in deification or apotheosis. We believe that we are “heirs of Christ” and “joint-heirs with God” or my favorite way of expressing the matter, “an heir of God through Christ” thus reflecting the contingent nature of our divinity. We shall become “partakers of the divine nature” and just as Jesus “overcame, and am set down with my Father in his throne” we shall be granted by Christ to share that same throne. These are not passages from the Book of Abraham which you seem so obsessed with but they are straight out of the Bible. Jesus was “appointed heir of all things,” so, if we are to be “heirs of Christ” precisely what does that mean?

It is also true that just like New Testament Christians we believe in intermediaries. Jesus told his apostles “when the Son of man shall sit in the throne of his glory, ye also shall sit upon twelve thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel.” If indeed the apostles of a given generation are to share in judging those over whom they ministered there is nothing anti-Christian about the concept of intermediaries.

Although we are indeed given certain promises in relation to wearing the garment, a symbolic undergarment reminding us of covenants and commitments made within the Temple, these are largely protection from spiritual harm not physical harm (although having a little extra cloth between my skin and the pavement has at times spared me some road rash). And the promises tied thereto are contingent upon keeping our covenants. Sure, there are some who swear to a miraculous level of physical protection which they attribute to their LDS undergarments but these are such a minority that statistically they hardly represent even a reasonable sampling of the overall community of believers. The larger majority do not believe that the garment is anything more than a piece of cloth which serves a symbolic purpose. They treat the garment as they treat their covenants which means they often strive to respect the sacred nature of what it represents but this is no different than respect for, say, the American flag. We do not defile it because we respect what it represents.

And yes, I do believe I am a Christian.

Your reduction ad absurdum is granted. There is indeed an element of irrationality to all belief. Indeed, if rationality is to be reduced solely to what can be perceived through the senses (including that which is perceived through mechanical aid) then a belief in God is indeed irrational. It cannot be proven.

You ask for “critical thinking” assuming that I have not critically analyzed most if not all of the issues you raise. Indeed, you have the audacity to tell me what I believe rather than to attempt to demonstrate what I should believe through your refernces and quotations. I have critically examined every facet of my belief and have come to the conclusion that although I cannot establish its value for someone else I have indeed determined that it has value for me. And I reject any and all attempts to dictate to me what I believe.

It goes well beyond “feelings.” However, there is a certain kind of knowledge, a knowledge embedded in experience, that cannot be properly relayed through words nor can it be employed to bring another to that same knowledge as it is based in personal experience. I have experienced God. You have not. This experience has been more than a feeling but less than an epiphany. You can choose to reject any and all possibility of this reality on account of my inability to recreate the experience for your perusal but it does not change the reality of the event in my mind.

In the end, you missed the point. I was not asking for your permission to call myself what I like, I was asserting that contrary to your objections I am a Christian and see little warrant to conclude otherwise on purely theological grounds.

[Monkey]

Matthew wrote: "I have experienced God. You have not."

Your ignorance rears its ugly head. When I was a child, I experienced all sorts of things. When I grew up and examined them critically, I understood neurological biases, hallucinations and the effects of mass hysteria.

The difference between you and I is that I have grown up.

[Matthew]

Oh, my apologies. So you have "experienced God" then? But having "grown up" you have rejected that experience as what? A hallucination? Fair enough. I trust my experience as veridical while you apparently do not. Like Scrooge it's a bit of bad cheese or a scrap of moldy bread. That's fine. Just don't expect me to buy into your perspective.

I might also add that I was not “obfuscating.” Precision is important. If indeed there are “some circumstances” to which an argument to ignorance would not apply then one must define precisely what “circumstances” these are or provide criterion upon which one might assess whether a present circumstance meets them.

Further, one must establish a reasonable and mutually acceptable standard whereby one can determine that a given individual meets the definition of “qualified investigators” and precisely what might constitute “proof” of “a certain event.” One can gather quite a lot of evidence and still fall far short of proof even in a court of law so how much is enough?

We are at an empasse I am affraid. I am merely a child, a foolish imp unable to sever ties to a hallucination (at least in your mind). Unfortunately, this bit of ad hominem fails to account for the fact that I experienced God in adulthood and therefore I lack the convenient ability to dismiss it as a childhood fancy. Like Paul, and indeed like Joseph Smith himself (although certainly not as pronounced an experience as either of them had) I have been made privy to God's existence and no amount of derision from you will alter that.

[Monkey]

Really, Scrooge is your best come-back? Evidence from a fictional novel?

Not surprised. You seem to like fictional books.

If you have read any of the psychological literature, you would know that strong beliefs can cause delusion.

How is your assertion that "I have been made privy to God's existence" any different from the claims of hundreds of TV evangelists, cult leaders and serial killers over the years?

Kisses,
Monkey

[Matthew]

Four paragraphs and you concentrate on my passing reference to Dickens' A Christmas Carol? It may indeed be true that "stong beliefs can cause delusion" but consider carefully your statement "stong belief CAN cause delusion." Can, a term used to indicate possibility but not certainty; "delusion" is not always a byproduct of "strong belief" and therefore such a facile explanation cannot be used to summarily dismiss all mystical experience as "delusion."

You asked "How is your assertion that 'I have been made privy to God's existence' any different from the claims of hundreds of TV evangelists, cult leaders and serial killers over the years?" To you? Perhaps no different. To me, remarkably so. As I said it is a personal experience and therefore would have little purchase empirically.

[Monkey]

None of your arguments have empirical purchase.

If you admit that human perception can be fooled by confirmation bias, optical illusions, chemical imbalances or straight-out lies, then empirical evidence is all we can trust.

Science, in other words.

[Matthew]

Science is not always empirical and if indeed we accept your statement without qualification "that human perception can be fooled by confirmation bias, optical illusions, chemical imbalances or straight-out lies" than we can "trust" nothing whatsoever. You see, even "empirical evidence" is subject to the very foibles you decry.

[Monkey]

Yes, but it is the best tool we have. It is distributed, so many people, with all sorts of biases examine it and correct each other, it is replicable, so we know what is constant and trustworthy, and IT CAN CHANGE to accept new evidence.

Science is the best tool we have for understanding the Universe.

[Matthew]

So, here we have the criteria you would suggest for assessing a given system for its ability to avoid the pitfalls of human perception? They are:

1. “distributed, so many people, with all sorts of biases examine it and correct each other”
2. “replicable, so we know what is constant and trustworthy”
3. “IT CAN CHANGE to accept new evidence”

So, it must be distributed, replicable, and capable of adaptation to be acceptable. Oddly, religion is distributed. Indeed, even if we myopically consider merely LDS Christianity it is indeed distributed amongst all sorts of people all over the world who indeed possess “all sorts of biases.” Religion is also replicable. Again with specific reference to LDS Christianity there are at present over 12 million individuals from all over the world who have experimented to various degrees upon the promise of Moroni and received some sort of divine communication in response. And surprise, surprise, 3 for 3; religion has the ability to adapt to “new evidence.” This is indeed one of the earmarks of LDS belief, continuing revelation allowing for adaptation to the circumstances in which God’s children find themselves.

The assessment that “it is the best tool we have” is subjective. It is obviously not the only tool we have and therefore it’s superiority over any other system which can conform to your 3 points would have to be established. Of course, we would also have to establish that the 3 points you listed can indeed, with a fair degree of certainty, eliminate those pesky problems with human perception.

I think it better to state that you feel science is the best tool you have to understand the universe. Your consistent attempts at inclusion aside, I consider science one of the tools we have to understand the universe, neither superior nor inferior to others. Further, I am not nearly as pessimistic about human perception. I do not believe that the greater majority of those of faith are under some sort of “mass hysteria” or collective “hallucination.” Oddly, you seem to juxtapose religion and science as mutually exclusive implying that if I accept one I must necessarily reject the other. Indeed, you have implied more than once that I must be ignorant of science (which is patently absurd considering that anyone with a High School diploma has at least a cursory knowledge of the topic) or have rejected it altogether to be religious. Neither is true. I accept most if not all that science has to offer.

[Monkey]

Yes, if you accept science you must necessarily reject religion (as a belief system).

One characteristic of science I forgot:

EVIDENCE.

Got any?

-Monkey

[Matthew]

Fascinating. That's a contention I would jolly well like to see proven. I accept both science and religion so obviously we have here a false dichotomy.

Define evidence.

[Monkey]

There is a reason it is called "supernatural" and "metaphysical" (look up the etymology of these words if you are confused).

Others have said it better than I:


"The nature of this god is always vague and undefined and most annoyingly, plastic — suggest a test and it is always redefined safely away from the risk. Furthermore, any evidence of a deity will be natural, repeatable, measurable, and even observable…properties which god is exempted from by the believers' own definitions, so there can be no evidence for it. And any being who did suddenly manifest in some way — a 900 foot tall Jesus, for instance — would not fit any existing theology, so such a creature would not fit the claims of any religion, but the existence of any phenomenon that science cannot explain would not discomfit science at all, since we know there is much we don't understand already, and adding one more mystery to the multitude will not faze us in the slightest."
Source


"Knowing the meaninglessness of the words, knowing the inconsistencies, there is a trick that some believers play: it is to put God beyond logic. Why should theists concern themselves with inconsistencies when God can bend the rules? But how can we non-believers accept something as evidence when that “evidence” is supposed to point to something which is beyond logic, beyond rules? What does “evidence” even mean in such a situation?

To claim that such evidence could exist is to deny Clarke, to deny Hume, to deny the relativity of Einstein and the quantum mechanics of Heisenberg. To concede that there could be acceptable evidence for the supernatural all-powerful all-knowing, all-loving eternal deity is the opposite of reasonable."

Source

[Matthew]

I am not sure I am claiming that God is "beyond logic." One quotation you provide seems to respond to my request with "any evidence of a deity will be natural, repeatable, measurable, and even observable." I would assume that these are references to laboratory standards, i.e. that one must be able to recreate whatever phenomenon is being posited as evidence and demonstrate that such is observable by all present, is natural, can be repeated and can be measured using the tools of science. Have they not shown that there is a definitive reaction in the brains of believers in relation to spiritual events? Perhaps all that demonstrates is that it’s in our heads and nothing more as no external stimuli can be measured.

Take it as you will. I have no way of convincing you.

[Monkey]

The fact is that the very idea of a supernatural being precludes rational examination.

#1. No two religions can agree on a definition of god. The term is plastic and undefinable.

#2. Even if one religion produced what they believed was evidence for their god, all the others would disagree.

#3. Most arguments for god are arguments from ignorance ("I don't understand how magnets work, therefore god must do it." See also "The Insane Clown Posse" argument).

#4. You propose an omnipresent god, yet no evidence has ever been found. If god was everywhere, it should be easy to discover. Also, you imagine an omnipotent god, so there should be no problems with he/she/it providing evidence. There is none.

#5. Nothing we have found in the universe requires a god to make it work. God is not necessary.

Sleepy time,
Monkey

[Natalie]

I don't see why you would read my short response about your question but as a member of the Church of Latter-Day Saints i feel the need to tell you we are Christians. We believe God to be the Eternal Father and Jesus Christ is his son and He lives. He died for us on the cross of Calvary that we might have the Atonement in our lives so we can repent and live with our families and our Heavenly Father FOREVER.

[Rebecca]

I agree with Natalie, and to Monkey:
About your whole "no evidince" thing: I don't think that is a valid argument. The whole point is that you are supposed to have FAITH!!! If we had evidence of everything, then our life would not be a test. All the answers would practically be given to us on a silver platter. If we had evidence of everything, our life here on earth would be worthless. We would learn nothing. The whole point is belief in things that you can't see but are still true. Do you KNOW that the sun is going to rise tomorrow? No. You can, however, have faith that the sun will rise. I'm just a little kid, but I obviously know a lot more about our church then you.

[Natalie]

Monkey wrote: "The fact is that the very idea of a supernatural being precludes rational examination.

#1. No two religions can agree on a definition of god. The term is plastic and undefinable.

#2. Even if o..."
so... do you not believe in God?

[Monkey]

Natalie,

You have not responded to my points. I agree that you SAY you are a Christian; but can you refute my theological arguments? I can SAY I am a ninja, but unless my invisible assassin skills are up to scratch, I'm just a dork in a black suit.

Rebecca,

Faith is a funny thing. When you were a kid, did you have faith in Santa Claus? I did. At one point, I had faith that Superman was real. Guess what? Faith is not a good tool for learning about the world around us. Why should our life be a test? Why does evidence make our life worthless? It makes MY life interesting and intellectually stimulating. If you believe that god created humans, with our brains capable of critical thinking, why would he/she/it be mad at us for USING our brains to discover things about our universe?

Rebecca wrote: "Do you KNOW that the sun is going to rise tomorrow? "

The Earth revolves around the sun. The sun does NOT rise, it only appears to do so because gravity gives us one perspective. Considering what we know about the nuclear furnace of stars (our Sun is a star), gravity and astronomy, yes, I can say with certainty that the sun will rise tomorrow. No faith needed.

"I obviously know a lot more about our church then you."

What do you know about the Book of Abraham? The different stories JS told about the first vision, or the Kinderhook Plates? You know what you have been told, but what do you know about what you haven't been explicitly taught?

Looking forward to your response.

In Thor's name,
Monkey

[Rebecca]

I think it's okay to use our brains to discover things about the universe, I just think that there are some things we can't use our brains to figure out. To figure out those things, you need faith.

And yes, I'm not an idiot, I know that the sun does not actually go up and down. And I know our sun is a star. Like I said, I'm not an idiot. Since you seem to be fond of aliens, I will give you an alienish example of why you need faith. Say an alien blew up the sun. There. You don't know for sure that an alien won't blow up the sun. Not likely, but not entirely impossible.

I know what the book of Abraham is, I've read most of it, and I know it's true. That's all I really need to know about it. Of course I've heard of the first vision! Also, I don't know what the Kinderhook Plates are; I think you have that part confused with another religion.

And I still think I know loads more about the church then you.

This is kind of random, but what is with the "In Thor's name"? Are you obsessed with viking mythology or something?

[Rebecca]

Also, just a side note:

I'm not going to post anything anymore, because I think it's kind of a waste of time. Think of all the time I could have been reading Harry Potter!

I know that this church is the true church, and you can show me all the "proof" that our church isn't true in the world, and that will never, ever change. You could throw a metaphorical bomb at my testimony and it would stand firm. I KNOW this church is true. Usually, I am very intellectually minded in that I like to have proof of things, but with this church, proof isn't necessary. I have faith.

Did you catch that, Monkey?

PROOF ISN'T NECESSARY.

Goodbye,
Rebecca

[Monkey]

Hello Rebecca,

Well, aliens might blow up the sun, but then we have a REASON the sun is gone, and we don't need faith. So we don't need faith if the sun is there, and we don't need it if the sun is gone, so we just don't need faith.

You might have read the Book of Abraham, but what do you know about how it came about? Did you know that EVERY other translation of the papyrus John Smith used shows that it is a common funeral prayer from the Egyptian Book of the Dead? Even BYU scholars confirm that it doesn't say what JS claimed it says.

The Kinderhook plates were a forgery: two guys made them up in their shop, then gave them to JS, who promptly "translated" the forgery. They were meaningless scribbles made by two guys for a joke, and it proved that JS was making stuff up.

So, with everything else you need proof, but with the LDS you just take the word of old men who claim to talk to god and tell you what you can and can't do? Why?

Thor is a god. Just like your god, and you can NOT prove that Thor does not exist (no one can prove a negative). If you can come up with a valid argument for YOUR god that I can't use to prove Thor's existence, you win the internet!

By the power of Grayskull,
Monkey

[Natalie]

Monkey wrote: "Natalie,

You have not responded to my points. I agree that you SAY you are a Christian; but can you refute my theological arguments? I can SAY I am a ninja, but unless my invisible assassin skil..."
Monkey,
You made good points but you fail to see mine. I say i BELIEVE i am a Christian. I say i BELIEVE in God. The point is i have FAITH. I also feel very offended that you would insult my testimony in my religion. I didn't ask for your opinion on my testimony i was just answering the question. It hurts me that someone would straight up try and make me question my own testimony that i've worked so hard to build. Making me question my testimony and my church is like making me question my being here.

[Monkey]

Natalie,

You use the word "insult" very freely. If you are insulted by people with different viewpoints, you are going to lead a very angry life.

Here is my only point: If your belief in the Mormon religion is the basis of your ENTIRE life, then shouldn't it be examined closely? If every decision you make is based on a book, shouldn't you know if that book is actually what it claims to be? How is striving for the truth offensive?

If you believe your god gave you a brain and reason, why would he/she/it be mad at you for USING that reason?

I question my "being here" every day. The difference is, I start with the evidence (peer-reviewed, empirical evidence), and work up, through hypothesis and theories to conclusions. You start at the conclusion ("God did it") and work down.

Learn to love,
Monkey

[Jesse]

Monkey is full of fail! Haha, it's proof he's looking for? Let God "prove" it to him. Maybe he doesn't know what happens to people who demand "signs." Words of advice for Monkey... keep your head down. You asked for a sign, God doesn't mind giving them. Also... Monkey? Way to hide your identity. Trollllllllolol!

[Monkey]

Jesse wrote: "Let God "prove" it to him. Maybe he doesn't know what happens to people who demand "signs." Words of advice for Monkey... keep your head down..."

Jesse,

Threats? I forget, which debating technique is that? And YOU get to decree what god does? Nice.

I've never asked for a "sign" on this discussion forum, I have a great life and am happy and content... But I'll do so now as an experiment: "If there is any god out there, please provide empirical, peer-reviewed evidence as a sign of your existence."



Problem?

(Just to be clear, if nothing happens to me, you will stop believing in god, right?)