So what's your story?

Originally posted by MF DELPH
Strange things like that seem to kinda just happen. In the Bible the Israelites seemingly forgot about Moses and Yahweh/Jehovah bringing them out of Egypt and the miracles they'd witnessed firsthand and went right back into creating other idols (Golden Calf) at the foot of Mount Sinai when Moses went to get the Commandments.

It could just be that once Jesus left their presence Native Americans looked at each other and were like:

"Meh...

Nature Spirits ftw."

Originally posted by dadudemon
That's actually pretty much what Mormons believe. We believe, based on the Book of Mormon "historical" account that the Native Americans who saw Jesus kept religious beliefs up for about 200 years after Christ visited. Then they slowly devolved into what you described. By around 400 C.E., they started slaughtering the shit out of each other, again.

Originally posted by dadudemon
One of the reasons I stick with Mormonism (as opposed to just another random religion that I've pulled from a hat) is that it gives the chance for anyone to obtain salvation.

Even an atheist who has argued against Christ his entire life has a chance to "see the light" and get all that God has to offer.

If God is truly omnibenevolent, then this means God would have to have some way of people to start drinking God's koolaid.

But, here is the caveat: you still have to try to be a good person. You can argue against people and religion, as long as you're a good person. That's pretty much the only requirement to go to "heaven" as a Mormon. *

All are saved if they want it. I can deal with silly things like magic underwear as long as the belief system is mostly logically consistent.

*I told Digi that I think Hitchens, if the Mormons are right, has a chance to accept God in the next life and I think Hitchens, if he accepted, is probably arguing with God, right now. 🙂

Originally posted by dadudemon
That's actually pretty much what Mormons believe. We believe, based on the Book of Mormon "historical" account that the Native Americans who saw Jesus kept religious beliefs up for about 200 years after Christ visited. Then they slowly devolved into what you described. By around 400 C.E., they started slaughtering the shit out of each other, again.

Interesting.

So what are Mormons views on the Old/New Testament? Well, maybe I should say what's your view since you say you're atypical. Do you find it's accounts as viable as the North American Jesus visit? Ark of the Covenant and such?

Originally posted by dadudemon
...

What it boils down to me is this: "I don't know for sure" is different than "I don't know for sure, but I believe there is a God" is different than "I don't know for sure, but I believe there is no God/gods" or "I don't know for sure, but I lack belief in any God/gods."

You're throwing out the latter half of those statements to say they're all the same. They're not. And this is throwing out the baby with the bath water. There are massive, life-altering differences in those statements. And, again, theism isn't saying you know God exists, nor is atheism saying you know He/it doesn't. Even Richard Dawkins has said this. And if he's an agnostic, and JUST an agnostic, it makes my point for me, because the ridiculousness of that statement highlights the weakness in your approach.

Because, let me throw you a bone, I agree that any coherent religious opinion starts with "I don't know for sure..." But that isn't the same as saying everyone's agnostic.

So even if you claim a technical correctness, there's no explanatory or practical purpose of your interpretation. It's worthless in the real world. Even if you reimagine religion as an agnostic spectrum, there's still massive differences of opinion and belief that need some kind of recognition. So not only do I think it's oversimplifying the issue and ignoring how people actually use/define theism/atheism, I think that doing so is intellectually negligent.

^I think that's a very valid point. There's nuance between "I don't believe" and "I lack belief". For example, if you grew up in an environment without Religion/Theism and you simply lacked a God concept culturally. It's not that you don't believe, it's just a concept which you don't take into consideration.

Originally posted by Digi
What it boils down to me is this: "I don't know for sure" is different than "I don't know for sure, but I believe there is a God" is different than "I don't know for sure, but I believe there is no God/gods" or "I don't know for sure, but I lack belief in any God/gods."

I think your confusion on my perspective stems from "faith" which is belief that is not based on proof. When you start appending things to the first statement, which is a statement about knowledge, and then talk about another statement, which is a position not based on knowledge, it becomes unnecessary if the point is to make a statement about knowledge (which is what I'm doing).

The same holds true for agnostic atheists.

Your statement can read, to better reflect where I am coming from, as follows:

"I don't know for sure, but I believe, despite the lack of knowledge, that there is a God."

Originally posted by Digi
You're throwing out the latter half of those statements to say they're all the same. They're not.

That's not true at all. They both share the same base and I'm quite sure the wording in my previous post should make that obvious. The same base is "I don't know..."

That base is an agnostic base. From there, it can branch out to many different positions. Obviously, there are "third kind" options, but we are not talking about those.

Originally posted by Digi
So even if you claim a technical correctness, there's no explanatory or practical purpose of your interpretation.

Obviously, we fundamentally disagree, here. 🙂

If everyone could be more honest about their positions by admitting that at the base of atheistic and theistic beliefs is an agnostic foundation, we'd make more progress in these types of discussions. Imagine if hundreds of millions of Muslims who became sympathetic to "agnostic atheists" because the atheists just cannot justify the leap of faith required to become full-fledged members of Islam? "Oh, well...we pretty much have the same foundational position as I do. Perhaps I should be more sympathetic?" The same can be said of the US South where Christian Evangelicals persecute and socially ostracize or less-than-faithful brethren.

In fact, I find this fact so important that I don't see how much progress can be made on this debate until all sides (mostly the theistic side) admit this and explore this.

I see viewing religion or irreligion, like this (that none of us really knows, for sure), as helpful for people to stop judging each other and hating each other, so much.

Originally posted by Digi
So even if you claim a technical correctness, there's no explanatory or practical purpose of your interpretation. It's worthless in the real world. Even if you reimagine religion as an agnostic spectrum, there's still massive differences of opinion and belief that need some kind of recognition. So not only do I think it's oversimplifying the issue and ignoring how people actually use/define theism/atheism, I think that doing so is intellectually negligent.

I think the problem with your position regarding my position is you want it to be something it is not. You want it to be only about agnosticism and that's clearly not what it is about. It's clearly about the knowledge aspect being the same on that spectrum and people get too broad with the knowledge brushes they are painting with. Quite clearly, a person on the far right of the spectrum (yes, intentional to imply right-wingers), their lives can be strikingly different because of their faith if you compare these types to the far left on this same spectrum. But was my point ever about differences in how people lead their lives? No. This is the point I think you're missing. My point is a philosophical one that shows where the foundations of that spectrum lie.

You call it a technicality, of course. I view it as something much more important, from a philosophy perspective, than just a technicality. And as I have pointed out in the previous paragraphs, it can be a position that is helpful in tearing down the hateful walls (and sometimes fortresses) that people build to seperate themselves from eachother.

Originally posted by MF DELPH
Interesting.

So what are Mormons views on the Old/New Testament? Well, maybe I should say what's your view since you say you're atypical. Do you find it's accounts as viable as the North American Jesus visit? Ark of the Covenant and such?

Mormons view the Book of Mormon, OT, NT, and some other scriptures to be "good" but not perfect. They are tainted by the minds and hands of man and are, therefore, predictably imperfect. We think the bible has more errors/flaws in it than the Book of Mormon because the BoM supposedly went through fewer hands and minds to get the English language version we have, now.

Some Mormons do not know their religion very well and make the grossly inappropriate assumption that the Book of Mormon is perfect. I liken these people to the "Biblical Literalists" because they have to ignore or be ignorant of quite a huge body of evidence that points to the reality that the Book of Mormon is far from perfect.

Also, Mormons do not know how much of the OT is literally historical or allegorical. Similar allegories appear in the Book of Mormon. But, unlike the OT, the BoM is considered closer to an actual historical account than the OT (in the LDS community, at least). Basically, the BoM gives a near sequential account of the Native Americans (and the Jews that mixed with them) that lasted for about 1000 years.

There is something important to discuss about that: the Book of Mormon is actually an abridgment of a vast cave of records that were kept by the Native Americans. The person who abridged these records into the Book of Mormon was a man named Mormon. He did this around 350-400 C.E. His life's work, after he retired from his military services, was to compile the spiritual aspect of his peoples into a small, condensed book. Apparently, that cave still exists, somewhere. The cave is supposed to be full of much more historical and military stuff. Hmmm...comparable to a political museum. It also, supposedly, contains records from more than just the primary peoples the BoM focuses on. It would be an amazing archaeological find if it is uncovered. I am not saying that this cave actually exists: I don't know. If it does, that would be awesome. It would be like un-burning the great library in Constantinople that was burned down during the crusades. The records would focus on about 1000 years of American history instead of European and African history, though.

Digi is probably referring to the fact that generally the default of how people live their life is to not believe something exists unless there is some sort of convincing evidence.

Nah, I actually agree with dudemon on most of what he's saying. It all factually checks out. I just think that, by making it about the knowledge instead of the belief, he's ignoring how people actually relate to religion.

Because, yes, if people acknowledged this like DDM is with his agnostic base, the world would be a better place. But they don't, and because of how they approach their beliefs/faith, they never will. Not everyone, of course, but the only people that it would be useful to convince are those who aren't already quite reasonable about differences of religion. So it's useful in an academic sense only, not in any practical or sociologically applicable way. And that, to me, makes it a pointless exercise. I can nod my head in technical agreement, but then must ignore it for all irl usage of religious ideas.

Originally posted by dadudemon
Mormons view the Book of Mormon, OT, NT, and some other scriptures to be "good" but not perfect. They are tainted by the minds and hands of man and are, therefore, predictably imperfect. We think the bible has more errors/flaws in it than the Book of Mormon because the BoM supposedly went through fewer hands and minds to get the English language version we have, now.

Some Mormons do not know their religion very well and make the grossly inappropriate assumption that the Book of Mormon is perfect. I liken these people to the "Biblical Literalists" because they have to ignore or be ignorant of quite a huge body of evidence that points to the reality that the Book of Mormon is far from perfect.

Also, Mormons do not know how much of the OT is literally historical or allegorical. Similar allegories appear in the Book of Mormon. But, unlike the OT, the BoM is considered closer to an actual historical account than the OT (in the LDS community, at least). Basically, the BoM gives a near sequential account of the Native Americans (and the Jews that mixed with them) that lasted for about 1000 years.

There is something important to discuss about that: the Book of Mormon is actually an abridgment of a vast cave of records that were kept by the Native Americans. The person who abridged these records into the Book of Mormon was a man named Mormon. He did this around 350-400 C.E. His life's work, after he retired from his military services, was to compile the spiritual aspect of his peoples into a small, condensed book. Apparently, that cave still exists, somewhere. The cave is supposed to be full of much more historical and military stuff. Hmmm...comparable to a political museum. It also, supposedly, contains records from more than just the primary peoples the BoM focuses on. It would be an amazing archaeological find if it is uncovered. I am not saying that this cave actually exists: I don't know. If it does, that would be awesome. It would be like un-burning the great library in Constantinople that was burned down during the crusades. The records would focus on about 1000 years of American history instead of European and African history, though.

Interesting.

So the events of the Book of Mormon actually predate the New Testament? It was always my understanding (as a former Jehovah's Witness/Baptist/Pentecostal) that Jesus's life in North Africa/Middle East began in 1 AD (hence the changing of the Roman calendar). If I'm understanding what you're saying correctly, per the BoM, the Jews spent a portion of a millenium (or an entire millenium) in the Americas before the account being recorded in 350 C.E./AD by Mormon, so a period extending to prior, or wholly prior, to approximately 650 BC, and before Jesus's birth? Or is that a typo and you meant 1350-1400 C.E./AD?

Originally posted by MF DELPH
Interesting.

So the events of the Book of Mormon actually predate the New Testament? It was always my understanding (as a former Jehovah's Witness/Baptist/Pentecostal) that Jesus's life in North Africa/Middle East began in 1 AD (hence the changing of the Roman calendar). If I'm understanding what you're saying correctly, per the BoM, the Jews spent a portion of a millenium (or an entire millenium) in the Americas [b]before the account being recorded in 350 C.E./AD by Mormon, so a period extending to prior, or wholly prior, to approximately 650 BC, and before Jesus's birth? Or is that a typo and you meant 1350-1400 C.E./AD?[/B]

The events in the BoM are purportedly supposed to occur from 600 B.C.E. to 400 C.E. so they overlap the events of the OT and NT.

Also, there is another book/account that these BoM Native American peoples ran across. As modern times considers the Book of Mormon, the Ancient BoM Natives considered this other people. It was the Book of Ether. They ran across this situation/record because the last survivor of that culture stumbled upon one of their (the BoM Native Americans) cities. The "People of Jared" are rumored/purported to have existed from as far back as 10,000-15,000 years ago and lasted all the way up to, I think, 600 B.C.E. These people were migrants from, possibly, Asia. There are several theories as to where they came from and settled with some saying they are mongols and some saying that they settled in the Great Lakes (with several viable extinct tribes in that location as potential candidates for the People of Jared). This fits a bit too well with the land-bridge theory that was supposed to happen at...what...13,000 years ago. Also, since they became extinct, supposedly, around 600 B.C.E., there are other extinct Native Americans that can possibly fit their description.

For more information, see:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jaredites

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/first-americans-lived-on-bering-land-bridge-for-thousands-of-years/

Also, the tower of Babel is another one of those things that Mormons debate. Some call it allegory for when man started to defy God/gods an the allegorical lesson is man is confounded when they think they are as good as God. Some think the Tower of Babel story is literal (a stupid thought) and that the ancient human people had one language. More than likely, it is supposed to be an allegory. Additionally, if the Jaredite peoples are much more ancient that the Tower of Babel, then it becomes more of a legend that was propagated by the BoM Native Americans (or, perhaps, as another theory goes, the BoM natives associated the Jewish story of the Tower of Babel with whatever migration story the last survivor of that people communicated...something that has happened numerous times throughout human civilization (the absorption/integration of similar stories in to different cultures such as Gilgamesh's story)). Keep in mind, this last survivor may or may not have had records. If he had no physical records (written in a language), he told the origins and stories of his people, perhaps thousands of years old, to the Native Americans he stumbled across. It is possible that a vast amount of information was tainted or lost in translation because the Book of Ether is a second-hand account of the fate of the Jaredites that was passed to another Native American people, in their language, and then passed from those Native American people to the mind and hand of Mormon, and then from Mormon to Joseph Smith. Again, this is all "supposedly." This all falls apart if you consider none of these records exist and/or Joseph Smith made this all up and lied.

Based on the parallels LDS scholars are finding, what was once considered preposterous is now being considered plausible. And example of this is the fortifications described in the Book of Mormon that the Native Americans supposedly built when waging wars. It was cited as clear evidence that Joseph Smith made it up. When a parallel, in the Americas, was found that moderately fit the time and description of the fortifications, it was considered a big find and a step forward in finding out whether or not the BoM could be used as a potential historical guide to a 1000 year span of Native Americans. There is a group of LDS people dedicated to doing just that: finding real-world parallels.

Since I view this stuff from an agnostic perspective, I approach these topics more from a scientific view. Some of these parallels that they are finding are ridiculously close and fit the content of the BoM. Some of it is not found anywhere. Still, other findings only loosely fit what is in the BoM. At the bottom of it all, is it just the biases of the scholars finding parallels rather than genuinely finding material? That's the question of faith and it is not something I am comfortable with entertaining/or answering. I have no clue. My religion tells me to pray about it and see what God tells me. But my mind says I'm not capable of sifting out my own thoughts from God's thoughts. So I view all of this stuff as just "fun" stuff and treat Mormonism as an ethical, moral, and philosophical approach to life.

Originally posted by Digi
Because, yes, if people acknowledged this like DDM is with his agnostic base, the world would be a better place. But they don't, and because of how they approach their beliefs/faith, they never will. Not everyone, of course, but the only people that it would be useful to convince are those who aren't already quite reasonable about differences of religion. So it's useful in an academic sense only, not in any practical or sociologically applicable way. And that, to me, makes it a pointless exercise. I can nod my head in technical agreement, but then must ignore it for all irl usage of religious ideas.

👆 That makes sense. In my naivete, I think these things would work. But when put under the light of practical scrutiny, it is just a pipe dream. I would be a fool to think hundreds of millions of Muslims could all have an epiphany and realize every other human is trying to discover their own faith and that, at the end of it all, no one knows for sure (same applies to the 10s of millions of Christian Evangelicals).

Originally posted by dadudemon
The events in the BoM are purportedly supposed to occur from 600 B.C.E. to 400 C.E. so they overlap the events of the OT and NT.

Also, there is another book/account that these BoM Native American peoples ran across. As modern times considers the Book of Mormon, the Ancient BoM Natives considered this other people. It was the Book of Ether. They ran across this situation/record because the last survivor of that culture stumbled upon one of their (the BoM Native Americans) cities. The "People of Jared" are rumored/purported to have existed from as far back as 10,000-15,000 years ago and lasted all the way up to, I think, 600 B.C.E. These people were migrants from, possibly, Asia. There are several theories as to where they came from and settled with some saying they are mongols and some saying that they settled in the Great Lakes (with several viable extinct tribes in that location as potential candidates for the People of Jared). This fits a bit too well with the land-bridge theory that was supposed to happen at...what...13,000 years ago. Also, since they became extinct, supposedly, around 600 B.C.E., there are other extinct Native Americans that can possibly fit their description.

For more information, see:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jaredites

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/first-americans-lived-on-bering-land-bridge-for-thousands-of-years/

Also, the tower of Babel is another one of those things that Mormons debate. Some call it allegory for when man started to defy God/gods an the allegorical lesson is man is confounded when they think they are as good as God. Some think the Tower of Babel story is literal (a stupid thought) and that the ancient human people had one language. More than likely, it is supposed to be an allegory. Additionally, if the Jaredite peoples are much more ancient that the Tower of Babel, then it becomes more of a legend that was propagated by the BoM Native Americans (or, perhaps, as another theory goes, the BoM natives associated the Jewish story of the Tower of Babel with whatever migration story the last survivor of that people communicated...something that has happened numerous times throughout human civilization (the absorption/integration of similar stories in to different cultures such as Gilgamesh's story)). Keep in mind, this last survivor may or may not have had records. If he had no physical records (written in a language), he told the origins and stories of his people, perhaps thousands of years old, to the Native Americans he stumbled across. It is possible that a vast amount of information was tainted or lost in translation because the Book of Ether is a second-hand account of the fate of the Jaredites that was passed to another Native American people, in their language, and then passed from those Native American people to the mind and hand of Mormon, and then from Mormon to Joseph Smith. Again, this is all "supposedly." This all falls apart if you consider none of these records exist and/or Joseph Smith made this all up and lied.

Based on the parallels LDS scholars are finding, what was once considered preposterous is now being considered plausible. And example of this is the fortifications described in the Book of Mormon that the Native Americans supposedly built when waging wars. It was cited as clear evidence that Joseph Smith made it up. When a parallel, in the Americas, was found that moderately fit the time and description of the fortifications, it was considered a big find and a step forward in finding out whether or not the BoM could be used as a potential historical guide to a 1000 year span of Native Americans. There is a group of LDS people dedicated to doing just that: finding real-world parallels.

Since I view this stuff from an agnostic perspective, I approach these topics more from a scientific view. Some of these parallels that they are finding are ridiculously close and fit the content of the BoM. Some of it is not found anywhere. Still, other findings only loosely fit what is in the BoM. At the bottom of it all, is it just the biases of the scholars finding parallels rather than genuinely finding material? That's the question of faith and it is not something I am comfortable with entertaining/or answering. I have no clue. My religion tells me to pray about it and see what God tells me. But my mind says I'm not capable of sifting out my own thoughts from God's thoughts. So I view all of this stuff as just "fun" stuff and treat Mormonism as an ethical, moral, and philosophical approach to life.

Very interesting.

So do you (and Mormons in general), taking the above chronology into account, find the Noah/Flood story allegorical rather than historical as well?

Also want to thank you because I genuinely find this fascinating and enlightening. I've never been exposed to any tenets of Mormonism before, and Jehovah's Witnesses have a significantly different interpretation than most denominations I've encountered in the last couple decades.

Originally posted by dadudemon
Mormons view the Book of Mormon, OT, NT, and some other scriptures to be "good" but not perfect. They are tainted by the minds and hands of man and are, therefore, predictably imperfect. We think the bible has more errors/flaws in it than the Book of Mormon because the BoM supposedly went through fewer hands and minds to get the English language version we have, now.

Some Mormons do not know their religion very well and make the grossly inappropriate assumption that the Book of Mormon is perfect. I liken these people to the "Biblical Literalists" because they have to ignore or be ignorant of quite a huge body of evidence that points to the reality that the Book of Mormon is far from perfect.

Also, Mormons do not know how much of the OT is literally historical or allegorical. Similar allegories appear in the Book of Mormon. But, unlike the OT, the BoM is considered closer to an actual historical account than the OT (in the LDS community, at least). Basically, the BoM gives a near sequential account of the Native Americans (and the Jews that mixed with them) that lasted for about 1000 years.

There is something important to discuss about that: the Book of Mormon is actually an abridgment of a vast cave of records that were kept by the Native Americans. The person who abridged these records into the Book of Mormon was a man named Mormon. He did this around 350-400 C.E. His life's work, after he retired from his military services, was to compile the spiritual aspect of his peoples into a small, condensed book. Apparently, that cave still exists, somewhere. The cave is supposed to be full of much more historical and military stuff. Hmmm...comparable to a political museum. It also, supposedly, contains records from more than just the primary peoples the BoM focuses on. It would be an amazing archaeological find if it is uncovered. I am not saying that this cave actually exists: I don't know. If it does, that would be awesome. It would be like un-burning the great library in Constantinople that was burned down during the crusades. The records would focus on about 1000 years of American history instead of European and African history, though.

Not to throw you cats off topic, but if you ever get a chance to see the play "The Book of Mormon", do go. IMO, even though it takes the piss out of Mormons, you'd really enjoy the comedy/satire aspects for what they are.

Originally posted by dadudemon
👆 That makes sense. In my naivete, I think these things would work. But when put under the light of practical scrutiny, it is just a pipe dream. I would be a fool to think hundreds of millions of Muslims could all have an epiphany and realize every other human is trying to discover their own faith and that, at the end of it all, no one knows for sure (same applies to the 10s of millions of Christian Evangelicals).

Right. It's unfortunate, but I see it as true.

I might still quibble with you over terms like atheist and theist. I don't think the agnostic modifier is needed. Or, at least, I don't think most people think of it in those terms, or even acknowledge the "agnostic base," as we put it. I simply don't see that agnostic base as making someone agnostic, whether acknowledged or not, because theism (and to a lesser extent, atheism) don't deal with knowledge.

But this is so minor a detail that I don't want to waste both our time. On a purely intellectual basis, I have no disagreement with you.

Originally posted by MF DELPH
Very interesting.

So do you (and Mormons in general), taking the above chronology into account, find the Noah/Flood story allegorical rather than historical as well?

Like all people, Mormons are very diverse in their education and intelligence and, unfortunately, some think the whole world was flooded. I have heard/read a good argument for the Epic of Gilgamesh occurring in a specific area/region (flooding) and that there could be a decent regional parallel somewhere, but I do not think the story is supposed to be taken so literal and, instead, be more of a lesson on faith, duty, and perseverance.

Originally posted by MF DELPH
Also want to thank you because I genuinely find this fascinating and enlightening. I've never been exposed to any tenets of Mormonism before, and Jehovah's Witnesses have a significantly different interpretation than most denominations I've encountered in the last couple decades.

Mormons view, as we call them, Jay Dubs as kind of like our younger brothers: similar radical approaches to Christianity, ostracized by the Christian community, and they have some strict beliefs on governing your every day actions. In my circle of Mormon friends, I don't think anyone holds a negative view of Jehovah's Witnesses. They probably do think, "Well, they got some things right compared to the other Christian faiths. Bless their little hearts." And, yes, that's condescending. Some Mormons are like that: they think they are better than every other religion. On a side note, our very own scriptures says that, in the Last Days, Mormons would become like that. Ahahahaha, they are fulfilling their own prophecies.

Originally posted by Robtard
Not to throw you cats off topic, but if you ever get a chance to see the play "The Book of Mormon", do go. IMO, even though it takes the piss out of Mormons, you'd really enjoy the comedy/satire aspects for what they are.

Selphie told me the same. I really should see it. Some of my Mormon friends are going to go see it.

Actually, a gay couple who are technically Mormons, invited Emily and I to go.

😐

Don't have time, though.

If you have time for a movie, you have time for a play. So go see the play with the two technical Mormon gays.

I liked this guy's talk. It is like a TedX talk.

YouTube video

He goes down a list of 11 things that Christians should know about atheists. He is an atheist.

Other than #6, I agreed with all of his points.