An Invitation

[soyleche]

Ok, so it isn't my invitation. It was made to you all by a Prophet. I just thought I'd pass it along.

Here is the article:

http://www.lds.org/library/display/...-3156-1,00.html

Here is an the specific invitation:


I offer a challenge to members of the Church throughout the world and to our friends everywhere to read or reread the Book of Mormon. If you will read a bit more than one and one-half chapters a day, you will be able to finish the book before the end of this year. Very near the end of its 239 chapters, you will find a challenge issued by the prophet Moroni as he completed his record nearly 16 centuries ago. Said he: "And I exhort you to remember these things; for the time speedily cometh that ye shall know that I lie not, for ye shall see me at the bar of God; and the Lord God will say unto you: Did I not declare my words unto you, which were written by this man, like as one crying from the dead, yea, even as one speaking out of the dust? . . .

"And God shall show unto you, that that which I have written is true" (Moroni 10:27, 29).

Without reservation I promise you that if each of you will observe this simple program, regardless of how many times you previously may have read the Book of Mormon, there will come into your lives and into your homes an added measure of the Spirit of the Lord, a strengthened resolution to walk in obedience to His commandments, and a stronger testimony of the living reality of the Son of God.
Give it a try. What do you have to lose?

[erosewater]

Give it a try. What do you have to lose?

Caffeine

[yankeetripper]

Give it a try. What do you have to lose?
:beer:

[Griffin 3]

It is interesting that people think they will lose something if they free themselves of addiction.

[E. Blackadder]

I lost Pascal's wager, so this would be a stretch for me.

[erosewater]

It is interesting that people think they will lose something if they free themselves of addiction.

So you think everyone who drinks coffee, soda, or tea is an addict?

[silverfox]

If I practice polygamy, I think I would be Mormon enough to go to heaven. As to what we have to lose, time is money, friend.

[Griffin 3]

So you think everyone who drinks coffee, soda, or tea is an addict?Just those who fear losing it.

[SamTheEagle]

Why are Mormons not allowed to drink caffeine, but they are allowed to eat it? I had an LDS friend in high school who was unable to satisfactorily answer this question for me. Also, she made it sound like the prohibition extended to all sodas, even non-caffeinated ones. Any thoughts?

[Apollywog]

any religion that is going to restrict me from any types of sweet is definitely not a religion for me.

[Atheist Man]

Give it a try. What do you have to lose?Is there somewhere I can obtain a copy of the Book of Mormon for free? Then there's the value of my time. I've got an exam to pass in November.

[SamTheEagle]

Is there somewhere I can obtain a copy of the Book of Mormon for free? Then there's the value of my time. I've got an exam to pass in November.


Every now and then they have a commercial on TV where you can call a number and get one sent to you for free. Or you can wait until they come knocking on your door.

[soyleche]

Is there somewhere I can obtain a copy of the Book of Mormon for free?
http://www.mormon.org/freeoffers/1,17785,2071-1-1,00.html?src=tv

[Brad Gile]

Ok, so it isn't my invitation. It was made to you all by a Prophet. I just thought I'd pass it along.

Here is the article:

http://www.lds.org/library/display/...-3156-1,00.html

Here is an the specific invitation:

Give it a try. What do you have to lose?


The requested object does not exist on this server. The link you followed is either outdated, inaccurate, or the server has been instructed not to let you have it.


In addition, that link also prevents use of the back key. Very bad form. That site is now plonked. :)

Brad

[soyleche]

Sorry about that. I didn't check to make sure the link worked. Here is the article in full.

First Presidency Message
A Testimony Vibrant and True

By President Gordon B. Hinckley

Ensign, Aug. 2005, 3

We often sing in our congregations a favorite hymn, “An Angel from on High,” whose words were written more than a century and a half ago by Parley P. Pratt. 1 They represent his declaration of the miraculous coming forth of a remarkable book. Exactly 176 years ago this fall that book was first being set in type and run on a press in Palmyra, New York.

It is inspiring to learn how Parley Pratt came to know of the book about which he wrote the words of this hymn. In August of 1830, as a lay preacher, he was traveling from Ohio to eastern New York. At Newark, along the Erie Canal, he left the boat and walked 10 miles (16 km) into the country where he met a Baptist deacon by the name of Hamlin, who told him “of a book, a strange book, a VERY STRANGE BOOK! … This book, he said, purported to have been originally written on plates either of gold or brass, by a branch of the tribes of Israel; and to have been discovered and translated by a young man near Palmyra, in the State of New York, by the aid of visions, or the ministry of angels. I inquired of him how or where the book was to be obtained. He promised me the perusal of it, at his house the next day. … Next morning I called at his house, where, for the first time, my eyes beheld the ‘BOOK OF MORMON’—that book of books … which was the principal means, in the hands of God, of directing the entire course of my future life.

“I opened it with eagerness, and read its title page. I then read the testimony of several witnesses in relation to the manner of its being found and translated. After this I commenced its contents by course. I read all day; eating was a burden, I had no desire for food; sleep was a burden when the night came, for I preferred reading to sleep.

“As I read, the spirit of the Lord was upon me, and I knew and comprehended that the book was true, as plainly and manifestly as a man comprehends and knows that he exists.” 2

Parley Pratt was then 23 years of age. The reading of the Book of Mormon affected him so profoundly that he was soon baptized into the Church and became one of its most effective and powerful advocates. In the course of his ministry he traveled from coast to coast across what is now the United States, into Canada, and to England; he worked in the isles of the Pacific and was the first Latter-day Saint missionary to set foot on the soil of South America. In 1857, while serving a mission in Arkansas, he was shot in the back and killed by an assailant. He was buried in a rural area near the community of Alma, and today in that quiet place a large block of polished granite marks the site of his grave. Incised in its surface are the words of another of his great and prophetic hymns, setting forth his vision of the work in which he was engaged:

The morning breaks, the shadows flee;
Lo, Zion’s standard is unfurled! …
The dawning of a brighter day
Majestic rises on the world.
The clouds of error disappear
Before the rays of truth divine; …
The glory bursting from afar
Wide o’er the nations soon will shine. 3

Parley Pratt’s experience with the Book of Mormon was not unique. As the volumes of the first edition were circulated and read, strong men and women by the hundreds were so deeply touched that they gave up everything they owned, and in the years that followed not a few even gave their lives for the witness they carried in their hearts of the truth of this remarkable volume.

Today, a century and three-quarters after its first publication, the Book of Mormon is more widely read than at any time in its history. Whereas there were 5,000 copies in that first edition, about 5,000,000 are currently distributed each year, and the book or selections from the book are available in 106 languages.

Its appeal is as timeless as truth, as universal as mankind. It is the only book that contains within its covers a promise that by divine power the reader may know with certainty of its truth.

Its origin is miraculous; when the story of that origin is first told to one unfamiliar with it, it is almost unbelievable. But the book is here to be felt and handled and read. No one can dispute its presence. All efforts to account for its origin, other than the account given by Joseph Smith, have been shown to lack substance. It is a record of ancient America. It is a scripture of the New World, as certainly as the Bible is the scripture of the Old. Each of these volumes of scripture speaks of the other. Each carries with it the spirit of inspiration, the power to convince and to convert. Together they become two witnesses, hand in hand, that Jesus is the Christ, the resurrected and living Son of the living God.

The Book of Mormon narrative is a chronicle of nations long since gone. But in its descriptions of the problems of today’s society, it is as current as the morning newspaper and much more definitive, inspired, and inspiring concerning the solutions of those problems.

I know of no other writing which sets forth with such clarity the tragic consequences to societies that follow courses contrary to the commandments of God. Its pages trace the stories of two distinct civilizations that flourished on the Western Hemisphere. Each began as a small nation, its people walking in the fear of the Lord. But with prosperity came growing evils. The people succumbed to the wiles of ambitious and scheming leaders who oppressed them with burdensome taxes, who lulled them with hollow promises, who countenanced and even encouraged loose and lascivious living. These evil schemers led the people into terrible wars that resulted in the death of millions and the final and total extinction of two great civilizations in two different eras.

No other written testament so clearly illustrates the fact that when men and nations walk in the fear of God and in obedience to His commandments, they prosper and grow, but when they disregard Him and His word, there comes a decay that, unless arrested by righteousness, leads to impotence and death. The Book of Mormon is an affirmation of the Old Testament proverb: “Righteousness exalteth a nation: but sin is a reproach to any people” (Prov. 14:34).

The God of heaven spoke to these people of the Americas through prophets, telling them where true security could be found: “Behold, this is a choice land, and whatsoever nation shall possess it shall be free from bondage, and from captivity, and from all other nations under heaven, if they will but serve the God of the land, who is Jesus Christ” (Ether 2:12).

While the Book of Mormon speaks with power to the issues that affect our modern society, the great and stirring burden of its message is a testimony, vibrant and true, that Jesus is the Christ, the promised Messiah, He who walked the dusty roads of Palestine healing the sick and teaching the doctrines of salvation; who died upon the cross of Calvary; who on the third day came forth from the tomb, appearing to many. Prior to His final Ascension, He visited the people of this Western Hemisphere, concerning whom He earlier had said, “And other sheep I have, which are not of this fold: them also I must bring, and they shall hear my voice; and there shall be one fold, and one shepherd” (John 10:16).

For centuries the Bible stood alone as a written testimony of the divinity of Jesus of Nazareth. Now, at its side, stands a second and powerful witness which has come forth “to the convincing of the Jew and Gentile that JESUS is the CHRIST, the ETERNAL GOD, manifesting himself unto all nations” (Book of Mormon title page).

As I indicated earlier, at this season exactly 176 years ago the first edition of the Book of Mormon, which had been translated “by the gift and power of God” (Book of Mormon title page) was being set in type and run on a small press in Palmyra, New York. Its publication preceded and was a forerunner to the organization of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, which took place on April 6, 1830.

We studied the Book of Mormon in Sunday School this past year. Nonetheless I offer a challenge to members of the Church throughout the world and to our friends everywhere to read or reread the Book of Mormon. If you will read a bit more than one and one-half chapters a day, you will be able to finish the book before the end of this year. Very near the end of its 239 chapters, you will find a challenge issued by the prophet Moroni as he completed his record nearly 16 centuries ago. Said he:

“And I exhort you to remember these things; for the time speedily cometh that ye shall know that I lie not, for ye shall see me at the bar of God; and the Lord God will say unto you: Did I not declare my words unto you, which were written by this man, like as one crying from the dead, yea, even as one speaking out of the dust? …

“And God shall show unto you, that that which I have written is true” (Moro. 10:27, 29).

Without reservation I promise you that if each of you will observe this simple program, regardless of how many times you previously may have read the Book of Mormon, there will come into your lives and into your homes an added measure of the Spirit of the Lord, a strengthened resolution to walk in obedience to His commandments, and a stronger testimony of the living reality of the Son of God.

[Griffin 3]

Why are Mormons not allowed to drink caffeine, but they are allowed to eat it?And why can't Mormons send flowers?

[Snageye]

a challenge issued by the prophet Moroni

shouldn't that be the prophet Morani?

[Griffin 3]

shouldn't that be the prophet Morani?Only if you're a bigot.

[Snageye]

Only if you're a bigot.
any other conditions required?

[erosewater]

Just those who fear losing it.

Who said anything about fear? I enjoy drinking a cup of tea on cold winter mornings, and I'm not going to stop because some guy in Utah said God told him it's bad.

:moon2:

[soyleche]

And why can't Mormons send flowers?
Never heard that one

[Griffin 3]

Never heard that oneI've got a million of them.

[Griffin 3]

Who said anything about fear?It was implied in your response.

[erosewater]

It was implied in your response.

In which alternate reality does:

Caffeine

imply fear?

[Travis]

Ok, so it isn't my invitation. It was made to you all by a Prophet. I just thought I'd pass it along.

Here is the article:

http://www.lds.org/library/display/...-3156-1,00.html

Here is an the specific invitation:

Give it a try. What do you have to lose?

Read this book on how to become instantly wealthy by converting used tissues into gold.

Here is the link:
http://www.boogeralchemy.biz/

Give it a try. What have you got to lose?

[Griffin 3]

What do you have to lose?CaffineYep. I was correct, again.

[erosewater]

Yep. I was wrong, again.

IFYQ

[Griffin 3]

IFYQCorrect quotes are usually only "fixed" by those with issues (such as addiction).

[silverfox]

I thought the F stood for the F word.

[Griffin 3]

I thought the F stood for the F word.That idea never seemed to get much traction.

[erosewater]

Correct quotes are usually only "fixed" by those with issues (such as addiction).

And ad hominem red herring's are usually introduced by those with nothing relevant to add to the discussion.

[Griffin 3]

And ad hominem red herring's are usually introduced by those with nothing relevant to add to the discussion.Boy, you get rather testy when you haven't had your fix. Go get some coffee or something.

[erosewater]

Boy, you get rather testy when you haven't had your fix. Go get some coffee or something.

But that would make God unhappy, I wouldn't want to be a sinner.

[Griffin 3]

But that would make God unhappy, I wouldn't want to be a sinner.
Lies make baby Jesus cry.

[soyleche]

I was thinking about the invitation that I put forward the other day, and about the responses that have been given. I realized, most of the responses really have nothing to do with the invitation. The invitation is to read a book. It is easy and free to obtain a copy, and you could finish it before the end of the year by reading 4 pages a day.

I never mentioned anything about giving up caffine or alcohol. I didn't even say anything about attending a Mormon worship service. I definately didn't say anything about being baptised.

I would like you to take a chance to read this book though. I know that it has had a deep impact on my life. If you take up the challenge, and read with a sincere heart, I have no doubt that you will come to know that it is true. (Then the caffine and alcohol thing may come up, but we'll leave that one where it is for now.)

Anyway, Just thought I'd bring the discussion back to the origional topic.

[silverfox]

I challenge you to read four pages a day of Oxford's edition of Shakespeare: The Complete Works. I guarantee you that you will end up a more well-rounded person by the end of the year. The problem with your challenge is that I'd much rather be reading the Wall Street Journal or the Economist instead of reading a book of religious stories.

[skookie]

I was thinking about the invitation that I put forward the other day, and about the responses that have been given. I realized, most of the responses really have nothing to do with the invitation. The invitation is to read a book. It is easy and free to obtain a copy, and you could finish it before the end of the year by reading 4 pages a day.

I never mentioned anything about giving up caffine or alcohol. I didn't even say anything about attending a Mormon worship service. I definately didn't say anything about being baptised.

I would like you to take a chance to read this book though. I know that it has had a deep impact on my life. If you take up the challenge, and read with a sincere heart, I have no doubt that you will come to know that it is true. (Then the caffine and alcohol thing may come up, but we'll leave that one where it is for now.)

Anyway, Just thought I'd bring the discussion back to the origional topic.


No thanks. No hard feelings, I don't check pay phones for dimes either.

[Griffin 3]

I challenge you to read four pages a day of Oxford's edition of Shakespeare: The Complete Works. I guarantee you that you will end up a more well-rounded person by the end of the year. The problem with your challenge is that I'd much rather be reading the Wall Street Journal or the Economist instead of reading a book of religious stories.Part of being "well-rounded" includes reading the stuff you have no interest in reading.

[Atheist Man]

I would like you to take a chance to read this book though. I know that it has had a deep impact on my life. If you take up the challenge, and read with a sincere heart, I have no doubt that you will come to know that it is true.Sincere? What does that mean? Does it mean that I have to put my natural scepticism aside? Does it mean that I must be predisposed to believe that it is true? From what I know of Mormonism, they do not reject the New Testament, they just believe that the book of Mormon supercedes it. I have read and studied the New Testament quite extensively, and find it unconvincing. Why ought I to believe I will be convinced by this book? And what are you willing to wager?

[Atheist Man]

Part of being "well-rounded" includes reading the stuff you have no interest in reading.Part of "being an actuarial student" includes reading stuff I have no interest in reading. I'm not looking for any more, thanks.

[SamTheEagle]

I still want to know why Mormons can eat chocolate (which contains caffeine) but can't drink coffee.

[soyleche]

Sincere? What does that mean? Does it mean that I have to put my natural scepticism aside? Does it mean that I must be predisposed to believe that it is true? From what I know of Mormonism, they do not reject the New Testament, they just believe that the book of Mormon supercedes it. I have read and studied the New Testament quite extensively, and find it unconvincing. Why ought I to believe I will be convinced by this book? And what are you willing to wager?
I'm not sure exactly what the word sincere might mean to you. I wouldn't say you have to put aside skeptecism, but maybe predjudice. My wife's definition involves being willing to accept the book as scripture and live according to it's teachings once you receive an answer to it's veracity. You don't have to be predisposed to believe that it's true, but it helps if you are not predisposed to believe that it is false. Leave the door open for a while.

As far as the Book of Mormon's relationship to the New Testament, I don't know if supercedes is the right word. Would you say that "Loss Models" supercedes "Actuarial Mathematics"? (I know, bad example). I see the books as companions, along with the Old Testament, and some other scriptures that God has seen fit to give us.

[soyleche]

I still want to know why Mormons can eat chocolate (which contains caffeine) but can't drink coffee.
This isn't the purpose of the thread, but I'll go ahead and give an abreviated answer.

Caffeine isn't prohibited, coffee and tea are (along with alcohol and tobacco). Most people believe that the main reason these beverages are restricted is the caffeine, and they may be right. My friend has a good saying:

Caffeine is against Wisdom, but not against the Word of Wisdom (the resrictions on consuming certain substances).

I don't think it is a good idea to consume a lot of caffeine, but that is my oppinion on the subject.

[Griffin 3]

Part of "being an actuarial student" includes reading stuff I have no interest in reading. I'm not looking for any more, thanks.The person I quoted refered to "well-rounded" as a goal, i.e., something he or she was interested in. But thanks for playing.

[Griffin 3]

Sincere? What does that mean? Does it mean that I have to put my natural scepticism aside? Does it mean that I must be predisposed to believe that it is true?How about "reading it with a goal other than trashing every claim"?

[things that go stab]

If I wanted to waste my time with religious fiction, I'd read something by Dan Brown - He's been on the NYT Best Seller's list for at least 19 years. Besides, he doesn't even have to go door to door to sell his sh**ty book. Seriously, don't preach here. Goto www.peoplehidewhenwecometoyourdoor.com and sell your goods there.

[Griffin 3]

If I wanted to waste my time with religious fiction, I'd read something by Dan Brown - He's been on the NYT Best Seller's list for at least 19 years. Besides, he doesn't even have to go door to door to sell his sh**ty book. Seriously, don't preach here. Goto www.peoplehidewhenwecometoyourdoor.com and sell your goods there.See, now this is the sort of open-minded everyone-is-welcome attitude that the RF is famous for.

[Atheist Man]

There are (probably) an infinite number of ideas which I could consider. As I only have finite processing power and a finite lifetime, I need to apply some sort of filter to ideas so I can quickly reject those I do not consider myself likely to believe. Ideas which are remarkably similar to ideas I have already rejected are caught by that filter. This is not closed-mindedness, but sanity.

[things that go stab]

This is not closed-mindedness, but sanity.
:notworth:

[Mel-o-rama]

Read this book on how to become instantly wealthy by converting used tissues into gold.

Here is the link:
http://www.boogeralchemy.biz/

Give it a try. What have you got to lose?

I can't believe I clicked on the link!!!

[Griffin 3]

This is not closed-mindedness, but sanity.Actually, it is closed-mindedness, NTTAWWT. However, There is something wrong with TTGS's closed-mindedness.

[Mel-o-rama]

There are (probably) an infinite number of ideas which I could consider. As I only have finite processing power and a finite lifetime, I need to apply some sort of filter to ideas so I can quickly reject those I do not consider myself likely to believe. Ideas which are remarkably similar to ideas I have already rejected are caught by that filter. This is not closed-mindedness, but sanity.

I understand where you're coming from (especially since I'm studying right now). I have a lot of books in my cue to read, and I'm frustrated that I can't even read the books I WANT to read. So, choosing not to read a book isn't necessarily closed-minded.

However, bad-mouthing a book while choosing not to read it at the same time IS closed-minded. I know you haven't bad-mouthed this book, but I've seen plenty of people speak against the BoM (Book of Mormon), while at the same time refusing to read it. It doesn't make sense to me - especially when these 'enemies' are using BoM quotes out of context.

[Griffin 3]

However, bad-mouthing a book while choosing not to read it at the same time IS closed-minded. I know you haven't bad-mouthed this book, but I've seen plenty of people speak against the BoM (Book of Mormon), while at the same time refusing to read it. It doesn't make sense to me - especially when these 'enemies' are using BoM quotes out of context.That was TTGS who bad-mouthed the book.

[Mel-o-rama]

I'll add to the coffee/tea/caffiene bit.

Believe it or not, this is actually something that is debated within the Mormon church, though not to any large degree. I've been in little arguments myself.

Officially, it is said that we Mormons should not drink 'hot drinks'.

Then, officially, we are told to interpret this to mean coffee and tea. When iced tea came into vogue, we were then told not to drink iced tea.

Unofficially, some have taken this to mean that caffeine is not allowed. Some Mormons will even stay away from chocolate because of this. I, myself, actually keep my chocolate intake down. (I get sick if I eat too much.)

Here's another idea, which isn't brought up very often among Mormon circles. It's true that tea and coffee have caffeine. But they also contain tannic acid. Chocolate doesn't contain tannic acid. (At least I believe it doesn't.) Maybe it's the combination of caffeine and tannic acid that's dangerous.

Also, on my mission in Korea, we were allowed to drink certain kinds of teas, but not 'black' tea. I'm pretty sure that none of those teas had caffeine or tannins.

[Mel-o-rama]

That was TTGS who bad-mouthed the book.

TTGS, you're a jerk! Oh, and Griffin3 ratted you out!

[erosewater]

See, now this is the sort of open-minded everyone-is-welcome attitude that the RF is famous for.

Please. Should we all be open-minded to every belief that we don't agree with? If someone "invited" you to read a Noam Chomsky book would you be "open-minded" and non-judgemental about reading it? Why is religion off-limits when it comes to disagreeing with someone's beliefs?

[Mel-o-rama]

Also, FTR, I am following the challenge. I'm almost up to page 30 out of 531.

If any of you are interested in learning about other religions, I would second soyleche's invitation. He provided a link where you can read it online (without having the missionaries coming over to deliver you a paperback copy). You can also buy the book (hardback) at the bookstore for $20 (or something like that). I think many of you would find it to be interesting.

[Griffin 3]

Please. Should we all be open-minded to every belief that we don't agree with? If someone "invited" you to read a Noam Chomsky book would you be "open-minded" and non-judgemental about reading it? Why is religion off-limits when it comes to disagreeing with someone's beliefs?By "non-judgemental", do you mean having no skepticism when I started reading, or do you mean not calling it a "sh**ty book" and refusing to even consider reading it?

[Father of two]

Also, FTR, I am following the challenge. I'm almost up to page 30 out of 531.

If any of you are interested in learning about other religions, I would second soyleche's invitation. He provided a link where you can read it online (without having the missionaries coming over to deliver you a paperback copy). You can also buy the book (hardback) at the bookstore for $20 (or something like that). I think many of you would find it to be interesting.

$20????

Try $2.00 at ldscatalog.com (http://www.ldscatalog.com/webapp/wcs/stores/servlet/CategoryDisplay?catalogId=10001&storeId=10001&categoryId=100054&langId=-1&parent_category_rn=100003&level=2&bcname=Missionary%20Book%20of%20Mormon&top=Y&resetCat=N&replBC=subcatlist100003&retURL=)

[erosewater]

By "non-judgemental", do you mean having no skepticism when I started reading, or do you mean not calling it a "sh**ty book" and refusing to even consider reading it?

Do you think there are books that warrant the latter?

[Griffin 3]

Do you think there are books that warrant the latter?I have bought tens of thousands of books in my lifetime, and read at least part of the majority of them. Of that, there was only one that I would say warranted the latter. So the answer to your question is yes, of course, there may be a small handful of books that fit into this category.

[Actuary321]

In addition, that link also prevents use of the back key. Very bad form. That site is now plonked. :)

Bradyou do realize that the problem with the key was the software on this site not the linked site.

It is best to use the url thing to link a site.

Like this. (http://www.lds.org/library/display/0,4945,2043-1-3156-1,00.html)

[things that go stab]

TTGS, you're a jerk! Oh, and Griffin3 ratted you out!
haha! I am disrespecting your beliefs! And so is this dude:

"The Book Of Mormon seems to be merely a prosy detail of imaginary history, with the Old Testament for a model; followed by a tedious plagiarism of the New Testament. The author labored to give his words and phrases to the quaint, old-fashioned sound and structure of our King James's translation of the Scriptures; and the result is a mongrel -- half modern glibness and half ancient simplicity and gravity." -- Mark Twain in Roughing It

[Griffin 3]

haha! I am disrespecting your beliefs! And so is this dude:It sounds like that dude took the time to read the book before forming his opinion.

[Lucy]

I bought a copy of the Book of Mormon, once. I found it very hard to read. Like Mr. Twain, I didn't care for the "King James" style. If it was actually as poetic as the King James translation of the Bible, I might have been more willing to plow along, but it's not poetic, just stilted and difficult to read.

I only made it about 50 pages, though. Maybe it gets better later.

One advantage of reading scriptures in translation is that if you don't care for one, you can always try another. :) My latest attempt at the Koran is going much better, now that I have a better translation. Alas, I can't try that with the Book of Mormon.

[things that go stab]

It sounds like that dude took the time to read the book before forming his opinion.
I am not going to waste my time reading a book that a 15 year old, lead by an "angel", "found" on some hillside. It's absolute madness that anybody even reads it.



Me: Hey griffen
Griffen: Hey
Me: I pooped in this box, want to taste it?
Griffen: Um, no thanks, that's gross.
Me: You really should try it before forming your opinion.
Griffen: Well, I guess so...
[G eats poop]
Griffen: Hey that's not so bad!
Me: I know isn't it delicious!
[M and G continue eating poop, camera fades out...]

[Brad Gile]

I bought a copy of the Book of Mormon, once. I found it very hard to read. Like Mr. Twain, I didn't care for the "King James" style. If it was actually as poetic as the King James translation of the Bible, I might have been more willing to plow along, but it's not poetic, just stilted and difficult to read.

I only made it about 50 pages, though. Maybe it gets better later.

One advantage of reading scriptures in translation is that if you don't care for one, you can always try another. :) My latest attempt at the Koran is going much better, now that I have a better translation. Alas, I can't try that with the Book of Mormon.

About 15 years ago, a mormon actuary gave me a copy of the Book of Mormon after we had had a rather lengthy discussion of religion. I had the same difficulty and reaction that you did. I intended to read the whole book, but after 50 or 60 pages, I gave up.

Brad

[Brad Gile]

I am not going to waste my time reading a book that a 15 year old, lead by an "angel", "found" on some hillside. It's absolute madness that anybody even reads it.



Me: Hey griffen
Griffen: Hey
Me: I pooped in this box, want to taste it?
Griffen: Um, no thanks, that's gross.
Me: You really should try it before forming your opinion.
Griffen: Well, I guess so...
[G eats poop]
Griffen: Hey that's not so bad!
Me: I know isn't it delicious!
[M and G continue eating poop, camera fades out...]

Do you really aspire to be an actuary?

Brad

[things that go stab]

Do you really aspire to be an actuary?

Brad
yeah...i guess.

[Griffin 3]

I am not going to waste my time reading a book that a 15 year old, lead by an "angel", "found" on some hillside. It's absolute madness that anybody even reads it.



Me: Hey griffen
Griffen: Hey
Me: I pooped in this box, want to taste it?
Griffen: Um, no thanks, that's gross.
Me: You really should try it before forming your opinion.
Griffen: Well, I guess so...
[G eats poop]
Griffen: Hey that's not so bad!
Me: I know isn't it delicious!
[M and G continue eating poop, camera fades out...]Griffin wins again!

[erosewater]

I have bought tens of thousands of books in my lifetime, and read at least part of the majority of them. Of that, there was only one that I would say warranted the latter. So the answer to your question is yes, of course, there may be a small handful of books that fit into this category.

What would be your reaction if someone suggested you read a political book by Chomsky, Al Franken, Ted Rall, or some other liberal douchebag?

[Griffin 3]

What would be your reaction if someone suggested you read a political book by Chomsky, Al Franken, Ted Rall, or some other liberal douchebag?Give me a title. I can't guarantee I'll read the whole thing, but I'll work it in.

[erosewater]

Give me a title. I can't guarantee I'll read the whole thing, but I'll work it in.

Link (http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?book=Dictionary&va=disingenuous&x=0&y=0)

[Mel-o-rama]

haha! I am disrespecting your beliefs! And so is this dude:"The Book Of Mormon seems to be merely a prosy detail of imaginary history, with the Old Testament for a model; followed by a tedious plagiarism of the New Testament. The author labored to give his words and phrases to the quaint, old-fashioned sound and structure of our King James's translation of the Scriptures; and the result is a mongrel -- half modern glibness and half ancient simplicity and gravity." -- Mark Twain in Roughing It

Yeah, I know Mark Twain claims that he tried to read through it, and that he fell asleep during the Book of Ether. He did, however seem to take an interest in Mormons as a phenomenon. I notice that in his books, he'll make odd references to Mormons. For example, in the Connecticut Yankee book, someone utters a magic word, and the word "Mormon" is contained within it. That's funny!

But more seriously, I actually agree with some of the assessments that the Book of Mormon is oddly worded. As Joseph Smith did the translation, he had to make decisions as how to speak some words. He could have translated it into the English of the day, but I can understand his decision to choose an Old English approach. The King James Bible was in Old English, and it was the thing to do to speak of God and religion in Old English.

Also, Joseph Smith wasn't the team of poets who helped put together the King James Bible. He didn't have the knowledge to vary things in the prose to make the book more interesting to read. For example, take the phrase "It came to pass". I've heard it said many times that the frequency in the BoM is at least 4 or 5 times more than in the Bible. But that doesn't concern me. While Joseph Smith translated (assuming his account is true), he probably came across a written character that was repeated throughout, and he choose to translate it as "it came to pass" every time he saw it. Now, a team of poets would say, "No, no. This won't do. We can't be saying 'it came to pass' every other verse. Let's change things around. Right here, let's just say 'and then'." If you look at a passage from the KJV Bible, you may see what I'm talking about. There are different variations of "it came to pass" being used. While in the BoM, there is only the one variation.

But if that's what you are concerned about, you may be missing the real meat of the book. Did Mark Twain speak of any of the evident truths that are in the BoM that are not in the Bible? No, rather he got hung up on the style of the book (as if that has anything to do with the future state of our souls - "Sorry God, I tried to read it, but you made it so boring!")

And FTR, the BoM does get particularly boring around page 50, but it picks up again somewhere around the book of Mosiah and Alma.

[Mel-o-rama]

I am not going to waste my time reading a book that a 15 year old, lead by an "angel", "found" on some hillside. It's absolute madness that anybody even reads it.

Would you be inclined to believe Joseph Smith if a burning bush spoke to him instead?

Also, if it's madness, why are millions of people reading it?

[Griffin 3]

Link (http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?book=Dictionary&va=disingenuous&x=0&y=0)So you were being disingenuous when you suggested those authors. Okay.

[erosewater]

So you were being disingenuous when you suggested those authors. Okay.

No, you are being disingenuous when you claim that would not make a judgment on the merits of a book without reading it.

[Mel-o-rama]

$20????

Try $2.00 at ldscatalog.com (http://www.ldscatalog.com/webapp/wcs/stores/servlet/CategoryDisplay?catalogId=10001&storeId=10001&categoryId=100054&langId=-1&parent_category_rn=100003&level=2&bcname=Missionary%20Book%20of%20Mormon&top=Y&resetCat=N&replBC=subcatlist100003&retURL=)

Actually, I was talking about this:
Book of Mormon (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/038551316X/qid=1124126878/sr=8-1/ref=pd_bbs_1/002-7597168-7486411?v=glance&s=books&n=507846)
It's an edition that came out about a year ago. It's nicer looking than the $2.00 paperback, but it doesn't have all the references and index at the end. It's just the text.

[L. Mo]

I was thinking about the invitation that I put forward the other day, and about the responses that have been given. I realized, most of the responses really have nothing to do with the invitation. The invitation is to read a book. It is easy and free to obtain a copy, and you could finish it before the end of the year by reading 4 pages a day.

I never mentioned anything about giving up caffine or alcohol. I didn't even say anything about attending a Mormon worship service. I definately didn't say anything about being baptised.

I would like you to take a chance to read this book though. I know that it has had a deep impact on my life. If you take up the challenge, and read with a sincere heart, I have no doubt that you will come to know that it is true. (Then the caffine and alcohol thing may come up, but we'll leave that one where it is for now.)

Anyway, Just thought I'd bring the discussion back to the origional topic.

I hate to reiterate what has may have been said before, but, you're not going to get anyone who isn't already a Mormon, or interested in being one to read the book. A discussion forum is not a place for you (or anyone, for that matter) to proselytize.

[Griffin 3]

No, you are being disingenuous when you claim that would not make a judgment on the merits of a book without reading it.

First, let's review:By "non-judgemental", do you mean having no skepticism when I started reading, or do you mean not calling it a "sh**ty book" and refusing to even consider reading it? Do you think there are books that warrant the latter?No, I am not being disingenuous when I say that I would not call it a "sh**ty book" and refuse to even consider reading it.

Or perhaps you are confusing the word "latter" with "former". I may have some skepticism when reading the book, but that's not what we were talking about, is it?

[Father of two]

I hate to reiterate what has may have been said before, but, you're not going to get anyone who isn't already a Mormon, or interested in being one to read the book. A discussion forum is not a place for you (or anyone, for that matter) to proselytize.


Do you want to rephrase what you just posted? I just want to be sure if I read it right before I respond to what you posted.

[Griffin 3]

A discussion forum is not a place for you (or anyone, for that matter) to proselytize.Yes, this is true. You may only discuss those topics which L. Mo approves of. Particularly when you start your own thread for the subject that L. Mo does not have to open if she doesn't want to.

[Griffin 3]

Do you want to rephrase what you just posted? I just want to be sure if I read it right before I respond to what you posted.Why wait?

[Father of two]

Why wait?

I can understand someone typing and not thinking at the same time. It happens all the time here.

[11pecans]

Would you be inclined to believe Joseph Smith if a burning bush spoke to him instead?

Also, if it's madness, why are millions of people reading it?

Can millions of people not be mad?

Why cant you drink decaff coffee or tea?

[Griffin 3]

I can understand someone typing and not thinking at the same time. It happens all the time here.
But if you wait, she may change her mind. Better to strike now.

[11pecans]

I hate to reiterate what has may have been said before, but, you're not going to get anyone who isn't already a Mormon, or interested in being one to read the book. A discussion forum is not a place for you (or anyone, for that matter) to proselytize.

prosletyzing is fine as long as they dont mind rejection

[Griffin 3]

prosletyzing is fine as long as they dont mind rejectionWhy? Because you shouldn't post something on the RF that someone else might disagree with?

[11pecans]

Why? Because you shouldn't post something on the RF that someone else might disagree with?

Have you read many of my posts?

[Griffin 3]

Have you read many of my posts?I don't recognize the name. Are you new here?

[11pecans]

I don't recognize the name. Are you new here?

it feels like it sometimes, can someone provide me with my geneaology?

[Uncle Freddy]

I don't drink coffee or tea, so I don't care about that. I do, however, drink beer, wine, rye/whiskey and a few other alcoholic beverages. I drink them quite frequently. Anyone care to explain to me what's wrong with that?

[Uncle Freddy]

I hate to reiterate what has may have been said before, but, you're not going to get anyone who isn't already a Mormon, or interested in being one to read the book. A discussion forum is not a place for you (or anyone, for that matter) to proselytize.I know Griffin and Fo2 already jumped on this, but I wanted to throw in a :lol: and a :crazy:

[things that go stab]

Would you be inclined to believe Joseph Smith if a burning bush spoke to him instead?

Also, if it's madness, why are millions of people reading it?
1. No, I don't read the Bible either
2. IDK, why does anyone read the Old Testament, NT, the Koran, BoM, Halo 2 Player's Guide, The Torah, etc? Readership #'s alone don't make it true(except for Halo 2)

[things that go stab]

But if you wait, she may change her mind. Better to strike now.
I love message boards for this reason :smile:

[Griffin 3]

Readership #'s alone don't make it trueI doubt that was the purpose of mentioning the readership numbers.

[Griffin 3]

I love message boards for this reasonThere's another reason to love message boards?

[erosewater]

First, let's review:No, I am not being disingenuous when I say that I would not call it a "sh**ty book" and refuse to even consider reading it.

Or perhaps you are confusing the word "latter" with "former". I may have some skepticism when reading the book, but that's not what we were talking about, is it?

If you are saying that there are not any books that can automatically be deemed worthless and not worth the time spent reading them then you are either being disingenuous or you are lying. I would give you the benefit of the doubt and assume it's not the latter.

[Griffin 3]

If you are saying that there are not any books that can automatically be deemed worthless and not worth the time spent reading them then you are either being disingenuous or you are lying. I would give you the benefit of the doubt and assume it's not the latter.Perhaps the issue is that you are reading what you want me to say rather than what I have actually written. I have already allowed that such books exist.

So have you made up your mind yet on if you were refering to the former or the latter?

[erosewater]

I doubt that was the purpose of mentioning the readership numbers.

Also, if it's madness, why are millions of people reading it?

So if millions of people read it it cannot be madness? What exactly is the point here?

[erosewater]

Perhaps the issue is that you are reading what you want me to say rather than what I have actually written. I have already allowed that such books exist.

So have you made up your mind yet on if you were refering to the former or the latter?

I was referring to exactly what I said, instead of what you imagined I might have said. Can you make a judgement on the merits of a book without having read it? It's a yes or no question.

If you have allowed that such books exist then why take issue with ttgs's characterization of the BoM, or his supposed lack of "open-mindedness"?

[The Drunken Actuary]

Give it a try. What do you have to lose?The time it takes to read it. I've already wasted time reading this thread.

[Griffin 3]

I was referring to exactly what I said, instead of what you imagined I might have said. Can you make a judgement on the merits of a book without having read it? It's a yes or no question.

If you have allowed that such books exist then why take issue with ttgs's characterization of the BoM, or his supposed lack of "open-mindedness"?See the subject of your prior post.

[Griffin 3]

The time it takes to read it. I've already wasted time reading this thread.So where have you been?

[Griffin 3]

So if millions of people read it it cannot be madness?"Madness" would not be the first choice.

[The Drunken Actuary]

So where have you been?
When?

[erosewater]

See the subject of your prior post.

Your repeated refusal to answer the question is very telling.

[bm1729]

So where have you been?When?When 2pac overtook you like a streamroller overtakes an old lady on her walker.

[Triangle Man]

Your repeated refusal to answer the question is very telling.Are you new here?

[Griffin 3]

Your repeated refusal to answer the question is very telling.Ah, I see. Like when you call a person "disingenuous" because he or she truthfully answers a question you didn't care about in the first place? Why should I put much effort into answering you at this point?

And your question was answered, even if it was not answered to your satisfaction.

[Griffin 3]

Are you new here?I think so. Otherwise, he or she would realize that an answer is always given, even if it takes a little work to understand it.

[The Drunken Actuary]

Are you new here?
:lol:

[The Drunken Actuary]

I think so. Otherwise, he or she would realize that an answer is always given, even if it takes a little work to understand it.
Right. That's just what he was thinking.

[soyleche]

And FTR, the BoM does get particularly boring around page 50, but it picks up again somewhere around the book of Mosiah and Alma.
It's no worse than reading Isaiah through those pages though. :smile:

[11pecans]

When 2pac overtook you like a streamroller overtakes an old lady on her walker.

:lol:

I have the distinction of being one of the few posters who has no one ahead of me that passed me.

[erosewater]

Are you new here?

No, and I am not new to Griffin's games, but somehow I still get sucked in.

[erosewater]

Ah, I see. Like when you call a person "disingenuous" because he or she truthfully answers a question you didn't care about in the first place? Why should I put much effort into answering you at this point?

And your question was answered, even if it was not answered to your satisfaction.

Truthfully answered, huh?

Griffin = Bill Clinton?

And you did not answer this question:


Can you make a judgement on the merits of a book without having read it? It's a yes or no question.

[Griffin 3]

No, and I am not new to Griffin's games, but somehow I still get sucked in.Yeah, right. You ask if I would ever be judgemental about a book with out reading it first, I ask if you mean would I be skeptical or would I call it a "sh**ty book". You say it's the latter, so I say "no". Then you all but call me a liar while reverting to the former. You play the game well, I'll have to say that. And if, someday, you ever decide that you want to be serious about one of the authors you mentioned, name a title. There's a good chance I might already have the book.

[Griffin 3]

And you did not answer this question:Can you make a judgement on the merits of a book without having read it? It's a yes or no question.So is this where I (again) ask for clarification on the word "judgement", and then you lie to me?

[erosewater]

Yeah, right. You ask if I would ever be judgemental about a book with out reading it first, I ask if you mean would I be skeptical or would I call it a "sh**ty book". You say it's the latter, so I say "no". Then you all but call me a liar while reverting to the former. You play the game well, I'll have to say that. And if, someday, you ever decide that you want to be serious about one of the authors you mentioned, name a title. There's a good chance I might already have the book.

No

You never answered the original question. You took two extremes and asked me to pick one. I didn't ask about one of your two examples, I asked you if you would make a judgement about whether a book is worthless without having read it. You jumped all over ttgs because he was doing that, and I suggested that it's perfectly reasonable to do so in some cases. Forget the former and the latter, they are of your creation and do not address my original question, which you still have not answered.

[erosewater]

So is this where I (again) ask for clarification on the word "judgement", and then you lie to me?

Please quote these so-called "lies".

There shouldn't be any clarification needed. The clarification you asked for before was simply taking the two extremes and asking me to choose one. I won't play tha game. Since you insist on being so Griffin-esquely thick, I'll spell it out for you:

:2pac:

Can you judge that the content of a book is worthless and not worth the time spent reading it without having read it?

[Father of two]

Can you judge that the content of a book is worthless and not worth the time spent reading it without having read it?

How can you judge the content as wortless without reading it?

I would judge a book as not interesting to me or of a subject that I do not agree with, but how would you KNOW about the contents without reading it?

[erosewater]

How can you judge the content as wortless without reading it?

I would judge a book as not interesting to me or of a subject that I do not agree with, but how would you KNOW about the contents without reading it?

That's a silly question. What judgement would you personally make about a book on devil worship? There are plenty of books that you can judge without having read them.

[Father of two]

That's a silly question. What judgement would you personally make about a book on devil worship?

A book that is of no interest to me. If I never read the book, what more could I say about THE BOOK?

[Father of two]

That's a silly question.

Are you going to avoid my question?

[Griffin 3]

No

You never answered the original question. You took two extremes and asked me to pick one. I didn't ask about one of your two examples, I asked you if you would make a judgement about whether a book is worthless without having read it. You jumped all over ttgs because he was doing that, and I suggested that it's perfectly reasonable to do so in some cases. Forget the former and the latter, they are of your creation and do not address my original question, which you still have not answered.No, I didn't just take "two extremes". I took the approach ttgs was using (which is the approach I was specifically complaining about), and I took a reasonable approach (reading the book with skepticism).

So my answer to your question, Can you make a judgement on the merits of a book without having read it? It's a yes or no question. which is ambiguous, is "yes, you should be skeptical", and "no, you should not simply call it a 'sh**ty book' and refuse to read it".

[erosewater]

A book that is of no interest to me. If I never read the book, what more could I say about THE BOOK?

You would not say that a book admonishing devil worship is worthless, misguided, and not worth reading?

[Mel-o-rama]

How can you judge the content as wortless without reading it?

I would judge a book as not interesting to me or of a subject that I do not agree with, but how would you KNOW about the contents without reading it?
He may answer that he can rely on the testimony of those who have read it (or tried to read it), but how can he know which testimony to rely on. Pick any book, and I can find testimonies that say: "This book is great! You must read it!", and other testimonies that say: "Don't waste your time! This book smells like POOP!" How do you know which testimony to rely on? It's almost as if you can choose whether or not to read the book based on the people who you choose to listen to.

Oh, and despite what L. Mo says, she's not entirely right. From my former proselytizations, I've received some interesting PMs (none of which will be repeated). I think there will be at least one person who will choose to read the BoM due to reading this invitation thread, and it won't be L. Mo. :)

[Griffin 3]

Please quote these so-called "lies". You told me that you were refering to the latter, and then later, using my response, pretended it was the former.

[Bicycle Repair Man]

That's why I prefer books with lots of pictures. OK, not books so much as magazines. OK, not so much magazines as TV shows. I wonder what will happen on Monday Night Raw tonight.

[Griffin 3]

You would not say that a book admonishing devil worship is worthless, misguided, and not worth reading?Do you have a specific title in mind?

[erosewater]

Are you going to avoid my question?

Are you going to play silly games?

The answer to your question is that you can know what a book is about and know it's message and use that knowledge to make a judgment about the book without having read it. I have never read Mein Kampf but I know that it is worthless.

[Father of two]

You would not say that a book admonishing devil worship is worthless, misguided, and not worth reading?


I would say a "book admonishing devil worship" is not worth my time or interest in reading.

I would say the subject of a "book admonishing devil worship" is something I would dissagree with and could be harmful.

[Griffin 3]

I have never read Mein Kampf but I know that it is worthless.There is value in reading "Mein Kampf".

[Father of two]

Are you going to play silly games?

The answer to your question is that you can know what a book is about and know it's message and use that knowledge to make a judgment about the book without having read it. I have never read Mein Kampf but I know that it is worthless.

Once again you avoided the question.

[Mel-o-rama]

That's a silly question. What judgement would you personally make about a book on devil worship? There are plenty of books that you can judge without having read them.

Funny you should bring that up. Why should we discount a book on devil worshipping? Do you know what they really believe? It's really quite interesting. If I'm correct, the largest branch of Satanists believe that Satan was wrongfully cast out of heaven. He was a tool that God used to bring "evil" into the world. But in so doing, hasn't God himself become an "evil" entity? It sounds like a compelling argument.

Aren't there two sides to every conflict? I would read the book on devil worshipping if only just to try to gain an understanding of what they believe. Maybe I could convince them as to why they're wrong.

It's my guess that you don't fully understand what Mormons believe. Reading the BoM would help you by explaining many Mormon concepts (if you care to have them straightened out for you). Of course, it's your decision to read the BoM or to discount it. But if you choose not to read, you can never know for certain what's inside, except for what you gain by hearsay.

[erosewater]

You told me that you were refering to the latter, and then later, using my response, pretended it was the former.

No I didn't.

Please. Should we all be open-minded to every belief that we don't agree with? If someone "invited" you to read a Noam Chomsky book would you be "open-minded" and non-judgemental about reading it? Why is religion off-limits when it comes to disagreeing with someone's beliefs?

By "non-judgemental", do you mean having no skepticism when I started reading, or do you mean not calling it a "sh**ty book" and refusing to even consider reading it?

Do you think there are books that warrant the latter?

You never answered the question, you took the two extremes and asked me to choose one. I responded to you choices, but I did not "pretend" anything, I just continued to press you to answer the original question.

[Griffin 3]

You never answered the question, you took the two extremes and asked me to choose one. I responded to you choices, but I did not "pretend" anything, I just continued to press you to answer the original question.1) Yes, I did answer the question.
2) No, they weren't just "two extremes", as I have already explained.

[erosewater]

Once again you avoided the question.

Once again you want to play games.

You asked:


How can you judge the content as wortless without reading it?

I would judge a book as not interesting to me or of a subject that I do not agree with, but how would you KNOW about the contents without reading it?

I responded:

The answer to your question is that you can know what a book is about and know it's message and use that knowledge to make a judgment about the book without having read it. I have never read Mein Kampf but I know that it is worthless.

How does that not answer the question, unless you want to play semantics games?

[Father of two]

You never answered the question.


He had already answered your question. Reread the thread.



I will agree with you that I would make a prejudgment about the content of a book based on a book I read by the same author.

After reading a michael moore book, I believe I will never read another mm book because I feel it will be the same trash.

[erosewater]

I would say a "book admonishing devil worship" is not worth my time or interest in reading.

I would say the subject of a "book admonishing devil worship" is something I would dissagree with and could be harmful.

So you would do exactly what ttgs did, which Griffin jumped all over. Thanks for proving my point.

[Griffin 3]

So you would do exactly what ttgs did, which Griffin jumped all over.TTGS did a little more than that.

[Griffin 3]

So you would do exactly what ttgs did, And I doubt that FoT would do exactly what TTGS did.

[Griffin 3]

After reading a michael moore book, I believe I will never read another mm book because I feel it will be the same trash.I probably would, time permitting.

[Father of two]

Once again you want to play games.

You asked:



I responded:



How does that not answer the question, unless you want to play semantics games?


It does not answer the question if you believe that the contents of a book are not the same as the subject of a book.

You might know the subject of the Book Of Mormon (LDS religion) but you do not know the contents if you have never read it.

[erosewater]

Funny you should bring that up. Why should we discount a book on devil worshipping? Do you know what they really believe? It's really quite interesting. If I'm correct, the largest branch of Satanists believe that Satan was wrongfully cast out of heaven. He was a tool that God used to bring "evil" into the world. But in so doing, hasn't God himself become an "evil" entity? It sounds like a compelling argument.

Aren't there two sides to every conflict? I would read the book on devil worshipping if only just to try to gain an understanding of what they believe. Maybe I could convince them as to why they're wrong.

So you admit that you would have made a judgement about the message of the book before reading it.


It's my guess that you don't fully understand what Mormons believe. Reading the BoM would help you by explaining many Mormon concepts (if you care to have them straightened out for you). Of course, it's your decision to read the BoM or to discount it. But if you choose not to read, you can never know for certain what's inside, except for what you gain by hearsay.

I know that there is not a single argument you could make to convince me that drinking a pint of beer or a cup of coffee is something God would frown upon. It's not as if either one are important enough to me to be a deal-breaker for me on it's own, but the fact that something so trivial would be deemed sinful is enough for me to make my own judgement.

[erosewater]

It does not answer the question if you believe that the contents of a book are not the same as the subject of a book.

You might know the subject of the Book Of Mormon (LDS religion) but you do not know the contents if you have never read it.

So you do want to play semantics games. That's what I thought.

[Father of two]

So you would do exactly what ttgs did, which Griffin jumped all over. Thanks for proving my point.

Once again you miss the point.

:2pac:


Would you like my opinion about a subject I might know something about or about the contents of a book I have never read? I will give my opinion about one and not the other.

[Father of two]

So you do want to play semantics games. That's what I thought.

That's the problem, you're not thinking.

[Griffin 3]

So you admit that you would have made a judgement about the message of the book before reading it.You keep using that ambiguous word, "judgement". Hmmm ...

http://www.actuarialoutpost.com/actuarial_discussion_forum/showthread.php?t=60800

[Father of two]

I'm out for the day. I hope you get some rest erose.

[erosewater]

Once again you miss the point.

:2pac:


Would you like my opinion about a subject I might know something about or about the contents of a book I have never read? I will give my opinion about one and not the other.

Giving an opinion on the contents of a book does not have to mean "on page 37 the author says x". There are many books that you have not read that you could give an opinion on the contents.

[erosewater]

I'm out for the day. I hope you get some rest erose.

???

[Big Lebowski]
I'm perfectly calm dude
[/Big Lebowski]

[Griffin 3]

There are many books that you have not read that you could give an opinion on the contents.You can give an opinion on just about anything without knowing the contents. Just look at this (http://www.actuarialoutpost.com/actuarial_discussion_forum/index.php?) site. But in order to give an informed opinion, you're going to have to risk a paper cut and actually open the book.

[Griffin 3]

I hope you get some rest erose.I agree. e should take up fishing.

[Mel-o-rama]

So you admit that you would have made a judgement about the message of the book before reading it.
Yes, I always make a judgement about a book before reading. I think we all would. It's natural and expected. But at least I would read the book and give it a chance. I may be skeptical while I read it. Then after I'm done - then I'll throw it in the trash can followed by a match.

And about Mein Kampf - I haven't read that book myself, but I wouldn't call it worthless. I would bet that the book has some good principles in it, when taken separately. It's only in the combination of the principles that the conclusion is eroneous. If the book didn't have good principles, I doubt that it could have convinced anyone at all. Unfortunately, it was too convincing. I would read the book myself to try to understand how it was able to convince people to do terrible things.

I know that there is not a single argument you could make to convince me that drinking a pint of beer or a cup of coffee is something God would frown upon. It's not as if either one are important enough to me to be a deal-breaker for me on it's own, but the fact that something so trivial would be deemed sinful is enough for me to make my own judgement.
Your comments prove (at least to me) my point about your misconceptions of Mormonism. If you would read the Mormon scriptures, you would not find one sentence that says that drinking beer or coffee is a sin. Rather, it is a "Word of Wisdom", in other words, it says: "You probably shouldn't be drinking those things because they're bad for you. If you don't drink them, you'll be blessed with health, etc. etc." So, according to Mormon scriptures, drinking coffee/beer doesn't keep you out of heaven. (Bet you didn't know that.) But it will make you unhealthy, and we don't need religion to tell us that, do we? :)

[erosewater]

You can give an opinion on just about anything without knowing the contents. Just look at this (http://www.actuarialoutpost.com/actuarial_discussion_forum/index.php?) site. But in order to give an informed opinion, you're going to have to risk a paper cut and actually open the book.

BS

If you are well-informed on a topic you can give an opinion on a book with a conflicting point of view without having read it. And if a given book is part of a philosophy that has teachings you know to be false, you can make a judgement about the relative merits of the book.

[Mel-o-rama]

BS

If you are well-informed on a topic you can give an opinion on a book with a conflicting point of view without having read it. And if a given book is part of a philosophy that has teachings you know to be false, you can make a judgement about the relative merits of the book.

Tsk tsk... If only you could convince us that you were well-informed on us Mormons...

[Griffin 3]

If you are well-informed on a topic you can give an opinion on a book with a conflicting point of view without having read it. And if a given book is part of a philosophy that has teachings you know to be false, you can make a judgement about the relative merits of the book.Especially when you use ambiguous words that you refuse to define or be defined.

[erosewater]

Yes, I always make a judgement about a book before reading. I think we all would. It's natural and expected. But at least I would read the book and give it a chance. I may be skeptical while I read it. Then after I'm done - then I'll throw it in the trash can followed by a match.

And about Mein Kampf - I haven't read that book myself, but I wouldn't call it worthless. I would bet that the book has some good principles in it, when taken separately. It's only in the combination of the principles that the conclusion is eroneous. If the book didn't have good principles, I doubt that it could have convinced anyone at all. Unfortunately, it was too convincing. I would read the book myself to try to understand how it was able to convince people to do terrible things.

My point was not that one shouldn't read books they don't agree with (in many respects it is good to read the opposing point of view to fully understand your own), my point (which you have all validated) was that it is perfectly normal to make a judgement about a book without reading it, and that it is perfectly normal to be close-minded about a book before reading it. Given the context (soyleche preaching to us about how wonderful the BoM is and it how it can change our lives) it is also perfectly normal for ttgs to have reacted the way he did (though he did get a little extreme). You yourself have just made a judgement about Mein Kampf without having read it, something that Fo2 and Griff said you cannot do.


Your comments prove (at least to me) my point about your misconceptions of Mormonism. If you would read the Mormon scriptures, you would not find one sentence that says that drinking beer or coffee is a sin. Rather, it is a "Word of Wisdom", in other words, it says: "You probably shouldn't be drinking those things because they're bad for you. If you don't drink them, you'll be blessed with health, etc. etc." So, according to Mormon scriptures, drinking coffee/beer doesn't keep you out of heaven. (Bet you didn't know that.) But it will make you unhealthy, and we don't need religion to tell us that, do we? :)

I know that it is not in the Mormon scripture. But the belief that you should not use these things is false IMO, and calls into question the entire belief system. It is something so unbelievably trivial, yet so wrong, and the word of God should be infallible.

BTW, why do say they'll make you unhealthy? In moderation they're harmless, and a glass of wine a day is good for you.

[erosewater]

Tsk tsk... If only you could convince us that you were well-informed on us Mormons...

I am well-informed enough to know that someone who tells me that drinking a glass of wine will make God unhappy is selling snake oil.

I wonder why Jesus drank wine when it was so bad for him?

[Griffin 3]

it is also perfectly normal for ttgs to have reacted the way he did (though he did get a little extreme)Finally.

[Griffin 3]

Given the context (soyleche preaching to us about how wonderful the BoM is and it how it can change our lives)I thought soyleche was just offering an opinion and a suggestion.

[erosewater]

Especially when you use ambiguous words that you refuse to define or be defined.

I didn't refuse to define it, I refused to accept either of the extremely narrow definitions that you gave. To anyone but Griffin it should have been perfectly clear what I meant, but you like to ignore context and parse every post for the slightest trace of possible ambiguity or ask loaded questions so that you can play another one of your Griffin games.

[Griffin 3]

You yourself have just made a judgement about Mein Kampf without having read it, something that Fo2 and Griff said you cannot do.Please provide a link or a quote to where either of us said that.

[Griffin 3]

I didn't refuse to define it, I refused to accept either of the extremely narrow definitions that you gave.No, you refused to read any of my followups to this erroneous claim of yours.

[erosewater]

Please provide a link or a quote to where either of us said that.
.

But in order to give an informed opinion, you're going to have to risk a paper cut and actually open the book.

[erosewater]

I thought soyleche was just offering an opinion and a suggestion.

What is preaching, other than an opinion and a suggestion?

[Mel-o-rama]

I am well-informed enough to know that someone who tells me that drinking a glass of wine will make God unhappy is selling snake oil.

I wonder why Jesus drank wine when it was so bad for him?

It sounds to me like you're the one being trivial: "Your religion is wrong because you don't want me to drink alcohol." If that's the only reason that you think Mormonism is snake oil, then I say it doesn't take much for you to discount something.

If God were to have said: "If thou shalt drink wine then thou shalt be thrust to an eternal Hell!", then I would see some merit to what you're saying. But as it is given as a warning to our health, I don't see a problem with it.

I've heard that drinking a glass of wine a day is good for your heart, but not for other parts of your body. I've also heard that drinking certain kinds of grape juice will give the same benefit without killing your brain cells.

As for Christ drinking wine - it all comes down to the strength of it. Was it strong (like most wine today), or something just strong enough to kill germs (as being safe to drink without catching a bug)?

Finally, I've also heard that Mormons live longer. So, one would think that there was some truth to their Word of Wisdom. :)

[Griffin 3]

.My goodness, erosewater, you're going to have to do better than that.

[erosewater]

It sounds to me like you're the one being trivial: "Your religion is wrong because you don't want me to drink alcohol." If that's the only reason that you think Mormonism is snake oil, then I say it doesn't take much for you to discount something.

It's not the only reason, but it is a simple and obvious example that shows that the teachings are not all correct. When someone claims to have an infallible philosophy (as the word of God should be) it does not take more than something trivial like this to undermine it.

[erosewater]

My goodness, erosewater, you're going to have to do better than that.

I'm assuming you're being facetious, as I quoted you saying exactly what you asked.

[Mel-o-rama]

You yourself have just made a judgement about Mein Kampf without having read it, something that Fo2 and Griff said you cannot do.

Please provide a link or a quote to where either of us said that.

Actually, I kind of agree with him, with some reservations. First, it's not so much a judgement than it is a preconception that I have of the book Mein Kampf. I know the evils it has produced, so I suspect that the book has some bad things in it. But I don't know anything about what's actually in the book. I don't know if the book by itself can support a whole Nazi party. I don't even know if the book has specific anti-Semetic rhetoric in it (maybe that came later). For all I know, it could be a good book that was used to promote a bad idea. In fact, I don't think I can even enter a serious conversation about the book, so I think I'll shut up now.

[erosewater]

And I'm out for the day, I may even go drink a pint

:moon2:

[Mel-o-rama]

It's not the only reason, but it is a simple and obvious example that shows that the teachings are not all correct. When someone claims to have an infallible philosophy (as the word of God should be) it does not take more than something trivial like this to undermine it.
I guess I can't feel the foundations of my religion crumbling. You first have to convince me that drinking alcohol is good for you. I don't think it is. I don't know if anyone else has mentioned this, but the Word of Wisdom also includes smoking. Surely that can't be good for you.

[soyleche]

Actually, I kind of agree with him, with some reservations. First, it's not so much a judgement than it is a preconception that I have of the book Mein Kampf. I know the evils it has produced, so I suspect that the book has some bad things in it. But I don't know anything about what's actually in the book. I don't know if the book by itself can support a whole Nazi party. I don't even know if the book has specific anti-Semetic rhetoric in it (maybe that came later). For all I know, it could be a good book that was used to promote a bad idea. In fact, I don't think I can even enter a serious conversation about the book, so I think I'll shut up now.
I'm a little short on my WWII history. Did Mein Kampf have a big part in the rise of Hitler? I always thought it was Hitler's ability to speak well and get a crowd going that did it. The only thing that I know about the book is that Hitler wrote it. Was it widely published in Germany at the time?

[Levin]

1. For what it's worth, I will say this: If you want to begin or strengthen your belief in Jesus Christ, it is worth your while to read the Book of Mormon. The stated purpose of the book is to persuade us to come to Christ. It has done this for me.

2. In connection with President Gordon B. Hinckley's challenge, I have started to read the Book of Mormon again. I am also sitting for an exam. There is time for both.

[Brad Gile]

Actually, I kind of agree with him, with some reservations. First, it's not so much a judgement than it is a preconception that I have of the book Mein Kampf. I know the evils it has produced, so I suspect that the book has some bad things in it. But I don't know anything about what's actually in the book. I don't know if the book by itself can support a whole Nazi party. I don't even know if the book has specific anti-Semetic rhetoric in it (maybe that came later). For all I know, it could be a good book that was used to promote a bad idea. In fact, I don't think I can even enter a serious conversation about the book, so I think I'll shut up now.

I read Mein Kampf in the original German over forty years ago. You haven't missed anything by not reading it. As literature, the book sucks. I suspect that even most Germans would have difficulty deciphering Hitler's rambling prose. It does show, however, that Hitler had all of his nutty ideas early on. :)

Edited to add: Mein Kampf was first published in 1925 after Hitler dictated it to Rudolf Hess while in prison in 1923-24. See http://www.historyplace.com/worldwar2/riseofhitler/kampf.htm


Brad

[Lucy]

. . .I've heard that drinking a glass of wine a day is good for your heart, but not for other parts of your body. I've also heard that drinking certain kinds of grape juice will give the same benefit without killing your brain cells. . .
Finally, I've also heard that Mormons live longer. So, one would think that there was some truth to their Word of Wisdom. :)
I've said everything I want to say on the BoM. But I wanted to respond to the wine question. the studies on moderate drinking have been "whole body" studies, specifically, they have focused on the risk of death to people who drink different amounts. The best evidence right now suggests that regular moderate consumption of alcohol is good for you. Moderate means about one drink a day for a man or about half a typical drink every day for a woman. People who drink 2-3 times that amount have similar life expectancy to teetotallers, and people who drink yet more have decreased life expectancy. Both the "regular" and the "moderate" parts are important - drinking 4 beers on Saturday and Sunday and nothing during the week would count in the "a little bad for you" column. (Sad to say.)

Drinking moderately is not associated with any health problems except an increased risk of drinking more than moderately (which is bad for you.) There's even some evidence that it protects brain cells.

Okay, I spoke my piece. And now back to your regularly scheduled debate about the value of books you don't want to read.

[twig93]

I honestly don't know very much about the Mormon faith, but what I do know scares me - scares me enough to not want to read the book of Mormon.

I heard (although this is unsubstantiated) that Mormons used to disallow drinking soda. Then the church bought a huge stake in PepsiCo and all of a sudden drinking soda was no longer a sinful activity.

One of the reasons I believe that this could easily be true is their stance on poligamy. It was encouraged all the while until they wanted to join the United States. Then all of a sudden it became sinful. Did God just change his mind? Is the United States government really so powerful that they can bend the will of God? That's not really a God that I want to believe in.

Most (but decidedly not all) of the Mormons that I know are semi-freaks. A friend from high school dated and slept with a Mormon senior year. Big mistake. Apparently he decided that by sleeping together, that meant that they were married. And in the Mormon faith you can't get divorced. Even if your spouse dies you are still married to that person and cannot ever re-marry. So when their relationship inevitably ended (she was a devout Presbyterian with no intention of converting) he wouldn't let her go. She went away to college (mostly to get away from him) and he moved to the town she went to college in. She transferred schools, twice and he continued to follow her She had to get a restraining order, and he spent some time in jail for violating it - on more than one occassion.

I lost touch with my friend after college and sort of forgot about the whole situation. A few years ago when I was home visiting my family I happened to share a gas pump with the guy. He was wearing a wedding ring and I [stupidly] asked him if he was married, momentarily forgetting about the whole ordeal from years past. He STILL thought he was married to my friend (almost 10 years after they'd broken up - she was engaged to someone else) and was referring to her as his wife and commenting how screwed up SHE was: thinking she was going to marry another guy when obviously she was married to him. (Mind you they never even discussed marriage while they were dating.) Major flaw in his logic: she was not a virgin when she slept with him. So if you believe that the person you lose your virginity to is your spouse - wouldn't she have already been 'married' when she slept with him - making him an adulterer?

Anyway, that's the biggest Mormon freak I've come across, but there are plenty of others I can think of.

I think the whole underwear thing is absurd. I used to work at a restaurant where two of the waitresses were married Mormon women. It was a huge pain in the ass for the rest of us: especially if both of them were working the same shift. It took them a year & a half to go to the bathroom and the rest of us had to pick up their slack while they were in the bathroom. Do you think they ever shared their tips with us, despite the fact that in some cases we basically took care of their tables entire meal for them? Not a chance. They reported 100% of their tips to the IRS as it would be sinful to screw over the US Government. But they were perfectly fine with screwing over their co-workers that they spent hours with every single day. Any other waitress had the philosophy that if you share a table, you share the tip. But not these girls. Apparently their religion meant that they didn't have to work as hard as the rest of us.

Any religion that doesn't allow me freedom of choice in underwear selection is not for me. I don't need to read the Book of Mormon to know that.

[Actuary321]

I honestly don't know very much about the Mormon faith, but what I do know scares me - scares me enough to not want to read the book of Mormon.

I heard (although this is unsubstantiated) that Mormons used to disallow drinking soda. Then the church bought a huge stake in PepsiCo and all of a sudden drinking soda was no longer a sinful activity.
As stated above soda has never been forbidden and caffinated soda has never officially been banned, though they don't sell it on BYU's campus.

One of the reasons I believe that this could easily be true is their stance on poligamy. It was encouraged all the while until they wanted to join the United States. Then all of a sudden it became sinful. Did God just change his mind? Is the United States government really so powerful that they can bend the will of God? That's not really a God that I want to believe in.The Mormons began petitioning for statehood shortly after they settled what is now Utah in 1847. Utah was finally granted statehood in 1896. So to say that the change was "all of a sudden" would not be quite right. At the time of the change the US government was cracking down severly on polygamists, putting them in jail and such. The prophet claimed to have seen in a vision that this persecution would continue until the church was destroyed if polygamy continued. If you keep up with the news, not all mormons accepted the change, even now. (Though people today who practice it are not members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latterday Saints).

Most (but decidedly not all) of the Mormons that I know are semi-freaks. A friend from high school dated and slept with a Mormon senior year. Big mistake. Apparently he decided that by sleeping together, that meant that they were married. And in the Mormon faith you can't get divorced. Even if your spouse dies you are still married to that person and cannot ever re-marry. So when their relationship inevitably ended (she was a devout Presbyterian with no intention of converting) he wouldn't let her go. She went away to college (mostly to get away from him) and he moved to the town she went to college in. She transferred schools, twice and he continued to follow her She had to get a restraining order, and he spent some time in jail for violating it - on more than one occassion.

I lost touch with my friend after college and sort of forgot about the whole situation. A few years ago when I was home visiting my family I happened to share a gas pump with the guy. He was wearing a wedding ring and I [stupidly] asked him if he was married, momentarily forgetting about the whole ordeal from years past. He STILL thought he was married to my friend (almost 10 years after they'd broken up - she was engaged to someone else) and was referring to her as his wife and commenting how screwed up SHE was: thinking she was going to marry another guy when obviously she was married to him. (Mind you they never even discussed marriage while they were dating.) Major flaw in his logic: she was not a virgin when she slept with him. So if you believe that the person you lose your virginity to is your spouse - wouldn't she have already been 'married' when she slept with him - making him an adulterer?

Anyway, that's the biggest Mormon freak I've come across, but there are plenty of others I can think of.I totally agree with you, this guy sounds like a total loon. None of the things this guy seems to believe are part of the doctrine of the church. And I think you meant by his logic, he would be a fornicator and she would be an adulterer. They were both sinners in my book but that is neither here nor there.

I think the whole underwear thing is absurd. I used to work at a restaurant where two of the waitresses were married Mormon women. It was a huge pain in the ass for the rest of us: especially if both of them were working the same shift. It took them a year & a half to go to the bathroom and the rest of us had to pick up their slack while they were in the bathroom. Do you think they ever shared their tips with us, despite the fact that in some cases we basically took care of their tables entire meal for them? Not a chance. They reported 100% of their tips to the IRS as it would be sinful to screw over the US Government. But they were perfectly fine with screwing over their co-workers that they spent hours with every single day. Any other waitress had the philosophy that if you share a table, you share the tip. But not these girls. Apparently their religion meant that they didn't have to work as hard as the rest of us.

Any religion that doesn't allow me freedom of choice in underwear selection is not for me. I don't need to read the Book of Mormon to know that.As for the underwear thing, I would have a hard time blaming the exorbenant time in the bathroom on the "mormon underwear". I wear them and it takes me no longer than most people to use the facilities. As to their concept of fairness with tips, I would have to say that is an individual thing.

I really feel bad for your poor experiences with Mormons. If you are ever in Utah drop me a line and maybe I can take you out with a group of mormons so you can see that infact most mormons are more regular than you think.

[twig93]

As stated above soda has never been forbidden and caffinated soda has never officially been banned, though they don't sell it on BYU's campus.
Fair enough - I was told that by a non-Mormon who is even more prejudiced than I am, so I was a little skeptical about that one.

The Mormons began petitioning for statehood shortly after they settled what is now Utah in 1847. Utah was finally granted statehood in 1896. So to say that the change was "all of a sudden" would not be quite right. At the time of the change the US government was cracking down severly on polygamists, putting them in jail and such. The prophet claimed to have seen in a vision that this persecution would continue until the church was destroyed if polygamy continued. If you keep up with the news, not all mormons accepted the change, even now. (Though people today who practice it are not members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latterday Saints).
I am aware of this. So are you saying that you believe that in this particular 49 year span God changed his mind on the morality of polygamy?

I totally agree with you, this guy sounds like a total loon. None of the things this guy seems to believe are part of the doctrine of the church. And I think you meant by his logic, he would be a fornicator and she would be an adulterer. They were both sinners in my book but that is neither here nor there.
I agree that in almost any sect of Christianity they would be considered sinners for having sex prior to going through a marriage ceremony. I'm not an expert on the technical difference between fornification and adultery, so you're probably correct about that. At the gas pump he told me that it was part of the Mormon faith that once he was married, he was married to that person for all eternity. That Mormons believed that even if your spouse dies or legally divorces you that you are still married to that person forever and will be joined with them in heaven. Are you saying that Mormons don't believe this? I actually had another (less freakish) person give an example where a girl got married and her husband literally died at the wedding reception before they even consumated their marriage and this girl could never ever marry again so that she could re-join her husband in heaven. I don't know that this really happened: I think it was a hypothetical example illustrating her belief in the idea that marriage is eternal. Note: While this belief is somewhat restrictive, I don't think it's particularly freakish. What was freakish was the rest of the guy's behavior.

As for other examples of outlandish behavior attributed to the Mormon faith, when I was in college I knew two Mormon girls who were very serious about remaining virgins until marriage. However, they would do "everything but" including but not limited to hand-jobs, oral sex, and anal sex. I just can't imagine that God has a problem with pre-marital vaginal sex, but pre-marital anal sex is just fine. Again, the logic just isn't there. These girls hung out at a frat house of a guy that I dated for a semester or so. The guys in the fraternity called them "House Whores" because they would basically let any guy in the fraternity have anal sex with them. Just not regular sex. And this is considered piety???

As for the underwear thing, I would have a hard time blaming the exorbenant time in the bathroom on the "mormon underwear". I wear them and it takes me no longer than most people to use the facilities. As to their concept of fairness with tips, I would have to say that is an individual thing.
You must be very quick! Or non-Mormons in Utah are very slow - one of the two. Also, you might wear clothing that makes it easier to get in & out of the underwear. Our uniforms consisted of form-fitting button-down shirts, suspenders, full aprons, and pants. They'd take off their aprons before going to the bathroom and then they'd have to undo the suspenders, unbutton all the buttons on the shirt, unzip the pants, do whatever they had to do to remove the underwear, THEN go, then do it all back up again. It took both of them quite a bit longer than any of the rest of us who just had to unzip the pants.

Regardless, I take issue with the idea of the church telling me what kind of underwear to wear. And I have a HUGE problem with the fact that women are expected to wear them, but not men. Why the discrimination? Are women supposed to be more prone to cheat than men? Or is it just not as important if a husband cheats? (It's my understanding that the underwear is supposed to serve as a reminder of your marriage vows and to generally discourage adultery) I still think the whole thing is ridiculous.

I really feel bad for your poor experiences with Mormons. If you are ever in Utah drop me a line and maybe I can take you out with a group of mormons so you can see that infact most mormons are more regular than you think.
If I am ever in Utah for some reason other than changing planes in Salt Lake City, I just might take you up on that!

[Griffin 3]

I'm assuming you're being facetious, as I quoted you saying exactly what you asked.Yes, you've made a great many assumptions today, almost all of them faulty.

"informed opinion" <> "judgment"

"Mel's comments" <> "judgement", at least to the extent that you have been willing to clarify the term.

[Griffin 3]

I heard (although this is unsubstantiated) that Mormons used to disallow drinking soda. Then the church bought a huge stake in PepsiCo and all of a sudden drinking soda was no longer a sinful activity."Unsubstantiated" is the key word here, especially since what you heard is false.

[Griffin 3]

Was [Mein Kampf] widely published in Germany at the time?Royalties from the book were large enough that Hitler didn't have to work while building the Nazi party.

[erosewater]

Yes, you've made a great many assumptions today, almost all of them faulty.

"informed opinion" <> "judgment"



Main Entry: judg·ment http://www.m-w.com/images/audio.gif (http://javascript<b></b>:popWin('/cgi-bin/audio.pl?judgme01.wav=judgment'))
Variant(s): or judge·ment http://www.m-w.com/images/audio.gif (http://javascript<b></b>:popWin('/cgi-bin/audio.pl?judgme01.wav=judgement')) /'j&j-m&nt/
Function: noun
1 a : a formal utterance of an authoritative opinion
...
4 a : the process of forming an opinion or evaluation by discerning and comparing b : an opinion or estimate so formed


Your wrong (again)

I also like how you conveniently ignored the fact that I quoted you saying exactly what you claimed to have not said

(and this is the point where Griffin comes along and says "I never claimed I didn't say it, I merely asked you to give me a link to where I said it. I know that this implies a denial, but I am Griffin and playing games with words is just what I do.")

[Griffin 3]

I also like how you conveniently ignored the fact that I quoted you saying exactly what you claimed to have not saidNow that you have finally graced us with a definition for this word that makes what you previously said true, what you previously said is true.

So, concerning this "formal utterance of an authoritative opinion" that you and TTGS have offered wrt the Book of Mormon, it has been shown many times in this thread that many of your preconceived ideas about what the book says are false. Where does the "authoritative" part of your opinion come into play?

[Father of two]

I agree that in almost any sect of Christianity they would be considered sinners for having sex prior to going through a marriage ceremony. I'm not an expert on the technical difference between fornification and adultery, so you're probably correct about that. At the gas pump he told me that it was part of the Mormon faith that once he was married, he was married to that person for all eternity. That Mormons believed that even if your spouse dies or legally divorces you that you are still married to that person forever and will be joined with them in heaven. Are you saying that Mormons don't believe this? I actually had another (less freakish) person give an example where a girl got married and her husband literally died at the wedding reception before they even consumated their marriage and this girl could never ever marry again so that she could re-join her husband in heaven. I don't know that this really happened: I think it was a hypothetical example illustrating her belief in the idea that marriage is eternal. Note: While this belief is somewhat restrictive, I don't think it's particularly freakish. What was freakish was the rest of the guy's behavior.

First off, only a temple sealing(marriage) is for time and all enternity. There is no such thing in LDS teachings that if you sleep with someone you are married. In fact if you sleep with someone who is not your spouse, you risk your standing in the church. Unfourtanley, people do get divorced in the LDS church, even those who get married in the temple. They are free to remarry, without canceling the temple sealing. If someone who was married in the temple wishes to remarry in the temple again, they need to get a canceling of the sealing. This covers a lot of doctren that would take awhile to cover.

Also, the college girls you knew were not following any church teaching. Any of the acts that you described, would result in church disenplanary action and a repentance process just as if they had "done the full act" with someone they were not married to.




You must be very quick! Or non-Mormons in Utah are very slow - one of the two. Also, you might wear clothing that makes it easier to get in & out of the underwear. Our uniforms consisted of form-fitting button-down shirts, suspenders, full aprons, and pants. They'd take off their aprons before going to the bathroom and then they'd have to undo the suspenders, unbutton all the buttons on the shirt, unzip the pants, do whatever they had to do to remove the underwear, THEN go, then do it all back up again. It took both of them quite a bit longer than any of the rest of us who just had to unzip the pants.

Regardless, I take issue with the idea of the church telling me what kind of underwear to wear. And I have a HUGE problem with the fact that women are expected to wear them, but not men. Why the discrimination? Are women supposed to be more prone to cheat than men? Or is it just not as important if a husband cheats? (It's my understanding that the underwear is supposed to serve as a reminder of your marriage vows and to generally discourage adultery) I still think the whole thing is ridiculous.


I will say two things that you have wrong.

1) Both male and female wear temple garments after they have made covenants in the temple.

2) You just worked with some slow women. Also you do understand that for women to use the restroom requires more than unzipping their fly. There is no differance in time it takes to go to the bathroom than any women, garment wearing or not.. The garments are no difference in appearence or function.

[Mel-o-rama]

twig93:

First I'd like to ask a question. You're not from California, are you? If so, that would explain a lot of the Mormon experiences you've been having. ( :lol: )

About the underwear: There's not really anything much to talk about there, but I'm Mel-o-rama, and here goes nothing. I will first say that they do come in one-piece and in two-pieces. It sounds like your waitress friends had one-pieces. I've always had two-pieces, and they don't get in the way at all.

Further, the underwear is something you wear after you go through the temple for the first time, and there are religious reasons to wear them. I don't miss the old free agency to wear whatever underwear I want. That's another trivial thing to worry about in my book. "Sorry God, I wanted to believe, but you shouldn't have required me to wear that underwear."

Also, we don't have to wear the "garments" (as we call it) all the time. We wear other underwear when we do athletic things and other select activities. So, there are still opportunities for me to wear my favorite underwear.

And one quick note about polygamy. Don't forget that the Mormons lost the case against polygamy in the Supreme Court somewhere around 1890. That's about the time they gave it up.

[Lucy]

First off, only a temple sealing(marriage) is for time and all enternity. There is no such thing in LDS teachings that if you sleep with someone you are married. In fact if you sleep with someone who is not your spouse, you risk your standing in the church. Unfourtanley, people do get divorced in the LDS church, even those who get married in the temple. They are free to remarry, without canceling the temple sealing. If someone who was married in the temple wishes to remarry in the temple again, they need to get a canceling of the sealing. This covers a lot of doctren that would take awhile to cover.
Can a woman who is married in a Mormon temple sealing marriage get divorced and remarried in the Mormon faith? Can a similar woman who is widowed do so? (Like the hypothetical woman in Twig's example.) Just curious.

[Father of two]

Can a woman who is married in a Mormon temple sealing marriage get divorced and remarried in the Mormon faith? Can a similar woman who is widowed do so? (Like the hypothetical woman in Twig's example.) Just curious.

Yes they can.

[erosewater]

Now that you have finally graced us with a definition for this word that makes what you previously said true, what you previously said is true.

What I said was true before I pasted in a definition. I did not think it would be necessary to give the formal definition of a word that we all know, but since you insisted on being so obtuse....


So, concerning this "formal utterance of an authoritative opinion" that you and TTGS have offered wrt the Book of Mormon, it has been shown many times in this thread that many of your preconceived ideas about what the book says are false. Where does the "authoritative" part of your opinion come into play?

Please show me where I gave any preconceived idea about what the BoM says. Others in this thread have speculated about what is in the book, but I have not. Try to keep up.

The second definition is the more relevant one which is why I included it.

[erosewater]

twig93:

First I'd like to ask a question. You're not from California, are you? If so, that would explain a lot of the Mormon experiences you've been having. ( :lol: )

About the underwear: There's not really anything much to talk about there, but I'm Mel-o-rama, and here goes nothing. I will first say that they do come in one-piece and in two-pieces. It sounds like your waitress friends had one-pieces. I've always had two-pieces, and they don't get in the way at all.

Further, the underwear is something you wear after you go through the temple for the first time, and there are religious reasons to wear them. I don't miss the old free agency to wear whatever underwear I want. That's another trivial thing to worry about in my book. "Sorry God, I wanted to believe, but you shouldn't have required me to wear that underwear."

Also, we don't have to wear the "garments" (as we call it) all the time. We wear other underwear when we do athletic things and other select activities. So, there are still opportunities for me to wear my favorite underwear.

And one quick note about polygamy. Don't forget that the Mormons lost the case against polygamy in the Supreme Court somewhere around 1890. That's about the time they gave it up.

Do you really think the all-powerful God who has no beginning and no end and created the entire universe really cares what kind of underwear we wear?

[Father of two]

Do you really think the all-powerful God who has no beginning and no end and created the entire universe really cares what kind of underwear we wear?

Do you really think you have any idea what you are talking about?

To save you time, the answer is no.

But that won't stop you from posting will it?

The answer to that is also no.

[11pecans]

Do you really think the all-powerful God who has no beginning and no end and created the entire universe really cares what kind of underwear we wear?

Are you talking about sponge bob underwear, flying dutchmen underwear or red satan underwear with a pointy tail?

[Griffin 3]

Do you really think you have any idea what you are talking about?Now, now. e is offering an "informed opinion".

[Atheist Man]

Do you really think the all-powerful God who has no beginning and no end and created the entire universe really cares what kind of underwear we wear?Once you accept the idea that the all-powerful God who has no beginning and no end and created the entire universe cares about anything at all relating to humanity, I don't see how you draw the line anywhere. The dude has taken the time to count all the hairs on my head. Why would he not care about my underwear?

[Griffin 3]

Once you accept the idea that the all-powerful God who has no beginning and no end and created the entire universe cares about anything at all relating to humanity, I don't see how you draw the line anywhere. The dude has taken the time to count all the hairs on my head. Why would he not care about my underwear?Very good, X Man. Many of the so-called atheists on this board could learn a thing or two from you.

[erosewater]

Do you really think you have any idea what you are talking about?

To save you time, the answer is no.

But that won't stop you from posting will it?

The answer to that is also no.

If God does not care then why would one feel obligated to wear the special underwear? I was asking a question, and obviously it touched a nerve.

[erosewater]

Now, now. e is offering an "informed opinion".

Please explain to me how asking a question would entail "offering an informed opinion".

[Actuary321]

Do you really think the all-powerful God who has no beginning and no end and created the entire universe really cares what kind of underwear we wear?As FoT implied, you need to understand a whole lot more about what mormons believe and about what the garment stands for before you could possibly understand why it is important to mormons.

As to the 1 piece, 2 piece argument, I took a couple of 1 piece garments on my mission and found them quite comfortable and not at all inconvinent. For many years afterward I wore them regularly and again I believe that they are not more inconvienent than the gentile underwear most of the rest of you wear. Even with 1 piece I was not slower in the facilities than average. My wife didn't particularly fancy them and quit buying them for me, but given the choice I would go with 1 piece.

Having watched movies about life in the old west, like 7 brides for 7 brothers, I can understand how the 1 piece could be expected to be more cumbersome. But they no longer have the button flap in the back so it is not a problem.

There was a time when people could have misconstrued some teaching to imply that it was OK to do anything but vaginal sex and still claim purity but even then they were wrong. I have heard of couples going to Las Vegas, getting married, spending the weekend having sex and then getting it annulled and feeling that they had not done anything wrong because they had not had sex outside of marriage.

Some people will look for any loophole to do what they want while still claiming to follow the rules.

[Griffin 3]

Please explain to me how asking a question would entail "offering an informed opinion".Because the question contained information which implied an informed opinion.

[Father of two]

I was asking a question, and obviously it touched a nerve.

I'm sure you were just asking a question. :roll:

[erosewater]

Do you really think you have any idea what you are talking about?

To save you time, the answer is no.

But that won't stop you from posting will it?

The answer to that is also no.

I've never claimed to have an extensive knowledge of the Mormon faith. I do know a little something about their beliefs from the Mormons I have known and from things I've read. I know enough to be sure that I have no interest in pursuing the religion. It is not necessary for me to read the BoM because nothing in there will change my opinion on the faith. It's not necessary to read the entire Catechism to decide if one wants to be a Catholic. Your condescension about my lack of an intensive knowledge of all LDS beliefs is funny to me because it is completely irrelevant. I would posit that there are many religions you don't know everything about, but that does not disqualify you from being able to offer an informed opinion on them based on the knowledge you do have.

[Father of two]

Your condescension about my lack of an intensive knowledge of all LDS beliefs is funny to me because it is completely irrelevant. I would posit that there are many religions you don't know everything about, but that does not disqualify you from being able to offer an informed opinion on them based on the knowledge you do have.

And yet I would not poke fun at their practices I do not understand.

[erosewater]

I'm sure you were just asking a question. :roll:

You can assume whatever you'd like about my intentions, because it makes it easier to just dismiss me as a religious bigot. You believe in wearing the special undies, I don't. If you are firm in your beliefs, why do you care if I think it is silly?

[Mel-o-rama]

Do you really think the all-powerful God who has no beginning and no end and created the entire universe really cares what kind of underwear we wear?

You seem obsessed with these trivialities. Is there anything of substance you have against Mormons? Just curious.

[Griffin 3]

You can assume whatever you'd like about my intentions, because it makes it easier to just dismiss me as a religious bigot. Your bigotry is what makes it easier to dismiss you as a bigot.

[Father of two]

You can assume whatever you'd like about my intentions, because it makes it easier to just dismiss me as a religious bigot. You believe in wearing the special undies, I don't. If you are firm in your beliefs, why do you care if I think it is silly?

And there you go mocking again.

[erosewater]

And yet I would not poke fun at their practices I do not understand.

Well I hadn't poked fun at anything, but I guess me being misquoted and misrepresented is just par for the course in this thread, because it's been happening since page 1.

[things that go stab]

You seem obsessed with these trivialities. Is there anything of substance you have against Mormons? Just curious.
Although this wasn't directed at me - yesterday I was pretty harsh about the BoM, but personally I only know one Mormon. And he's pretty sweet. I work with him and was a bit worried at first b/c he's been on a mission in South America(and not as a secret agent :() so he's pretty devout. Turns out, he's a real cool, down to earth, nice guy. So, nothing personal is what I think I'm saying.

[Father of two]

Well I hadn't poked fun at anything, but I guess me being misquoted and misrepresented is just par for the course in this thread, because it's been happening since page 1.


And the sad thing is you really believe that.

[soyleche]

Although this wasn't directed at me - yesterday I was pretty harsh about the BoM, but personally I only know one Mormon. And he's pretty sweet. I work with him and was a bit worried at first b/c he's been on a mission in South America(and not as a secret agent :() so he's pretty devout. Turns out, he's a real cool, down to earth, nice guy. So, nothing personal is what I think I'm saying.
Hmmm... Sounds like me. Do I know you? :wave:

[erosewater]

You seem obsessed with these trivialities. Is there anything of substance you have against Mormons? Just curious.

I don't have anything "against" Mormons. I don't agree with the beliefs and do not wish to practice the religion, and thus have no desire to read the BoM. You seem to be attributing some sort of hostility to me that is just not there. Sorry if I made it seem that way.

If you must know why I focus on the little things, it's because I feel that religion is a personal relationship with God that should transcend the boundaries of any denominational dogma. Following some trivial (and in my opinion, silly) set of rules that do not have a biblical basis is totally unnecessary to me, and are reason enough to be a deal breaker.

[erosewater]

Your bigotry is what makes it easier to dismiss you as a bigot.

Disagreeing with someone's beliefs and not wanting to further study their religion = bigotry?

[Kenny]

I would posit that there are many religions you don't know everything about, but that does not disqualify you from being able to offer an informed opinion on them based on the knowledge you do have.I believe that is called an uninformed opinion, not an informed opinion. Big difference.

[erosewater]

And there you go mocking again.

That is such BS. If someone finds your beliefs silly and they say so, they are not mocking you. Why should they walk on eggshells and not speak their mind about something they do not agree with? And why is that standard only applied to religious beliefs?

[Father of two]

That is such BS. If someone finds your beliefs silly and they say so, they are not mocking you. Why should they walk on eggshells and not speak their mind about something they do not agree with? And why is that standard only applied to religious beliefs?


A question for you e.

Are the following 2 comments the same in your view?

"I think it is silly to drink wine for commumion in church."
"I think it is silly to drink jesus juice in church."

[erosewater]

I believe that is called an uninformed opinion, not an informed opinion. Big difference.

No, because you do not need to have a complete and extensive knowledge of something to offer an informed opinion. I have not researched and studied Soviet/Eastern European economics but I can offer an informed opinion on the relative merits of communism (not to compare LDS to communism lest Fo2 think I am insulting his religion again, it's just an analogy). If you know enough about a belief system to know that it is not for you you can offer an informed opinion.

[things that go stab]

Hmmm... Sounds like me. Do I know you? :wave:
DUB!

[Father of two]

If you know enough about a belief system to know that it is not for you you can offer an informed opinion.

No. You can offer an opinion, that based on what you know, that it is not for you. That does not necessarily make it an informed one.

[erosewater]

A question for you e.

Are the following 2 comments the same in your view?

"I think it is silly to drink wine for commumion in church."
"I think it is silly to drink jesus juice in church."

Yes. The second one trivializes the communion, but if you are firm in your beliefs why should you care what a non-believer thinks? I thought the whole PC thing died out sometime in the late 90's.

A question for you:

Why is this standard applied only to religious beliefs?

[Father of two]

Yes. The second one trivializes the communion, but if you are firm in your beliefs why should you care what a non-believer thinks? I thought the whole PC thing died out sometime in the late 90's.

A question for you:

Why is this standard applied only to religious beliefs?

It does not. Most people would not like anything that is sacred to them to be made fun of. Can I make fun of your relationship with your wife?

[things that go stab]

Hmmm... Sounds like me. Do I know you? :wave:
Nevermind, I thought you were him for a second there!

[erosewater]

No. You can offer an opinion, that based on what you know, that it is not for you. That does not necessarily make it an informed one.

We are splitting hairs here. It is an informed opinion, because to say it is uninformed would imply that someone is speaking about something they don't know about. I did not offer an opinion on the LDS view on life after death or the 2 year missions because I know next to nothing about that aspect of the religion. I offered my INFORMED opinion about a couple of the beliefs that are reason enough for me to have no interest in becoming a Mormon.

[Griffin 3]

Disagreeing with someone's beliefs and not wanting to further study their religion = bigotry?No, but displaying the bigotry you have displayed here = bigotry.

[Griffin 3]

I offered my INFORMED opinion about a couple of the beliefs that are reason enough for me to have no interest in becoming a Mormon.In order for you to offer an informed opinion about a couple of the beliefs, you would first have to be informed on the beliefs.

[Griffin 3]

... but if you are firm in your beliefs why should you care what a non-believer thinks?In other words, you are not firm in your beliefs.

[Father of two]

I offered my INFORMED opinion about a couple of the beliefs that are reason enough for me to have no interest in becoming a Mormon.

If you think it comes down to no one should tell you what kind of underware to wear, then that sir is UNINFORMED. Someone told you one thing about the "LDS belief system" and now you are INFORMED. Sorry to tell you but this is just not the case.

[Griffin 3]

No, because you do not need to have a complete and extensive knowledge of something to offer an informed opinion.But you should have at least some knowledge. As you continue to demonstrate, you have none on this subject.

[erosewater]

It does not. Most people would not like anything that is sacred to them to be made fun of. Can I make fun of your relationship with your wife?

If you'd like to be my guest. We are adults and we should not be so thin-skinned. In the absence of malice why should it bother you if someone makes light of a religious belief? It has happened to me on many occasions and I don't care, because I know what I believe, and I am comfortable enough in my beliefs to not be affected by other's opinions.

[Griffin 3]

We are adults and we should not be so thin-skinned.Then why are you so thin-skinned when your beliefs are challenged?

[Griffin 3]

... and I am comfortable enough in my beliefs to not be affected by other's opinions.That does not appear to be the case.

[erosewater]

No, but displaying the bigotry you have displayed here = bigotry.

Please show me where I have done anything other than disagree with someone beliefs and express my lack of desire to pursure the religion. You continue you attribute things to me that are not true.

[erosewater]

In order for you to offer an informed opinion about a couple of the beliefs, you would first have to be informed on the beliefs.

Please show me where I was uninformed on the beliefs in question.

[Father of two]

Please show me where I have done anything other than disagree with someone beliefs and express my lack of desire to pursure the religion. You continue you attribute things to me that are not true.


Hey Griff, does e sound a little thin skinned?

[erosewater]

If you think it comes down to no one should tell you what kind of underware to wear, then that sir is UNINFORMED. Someone told you one thing about the "LDS belief system" and now you are INFORMED. Sorry to tell you but this is just not the case.

I never claimed to know anything about the underwear belief and had not even heard of it until this thread. I know about the caffeine/alcohol restriction ,the belief in evangelism, and the belief in the BoM. Enough to turn me off of the religion. Like i said, why should one have to know everything about a religion before they decide if it is for them? If the only things you know you disagree with why is that not enough? I haven't made any false statements about the religion.

[erosewater]

But you should have at least some knowledge. As you continue to demonstrate, you have none on this subject.

I was correct about the only things I claimed to know about the LDS faith.

[erosewater]

Then why are you so thin-skinned when your beliefs are challenged?

I couldn't care less about someone challenging my beliefs, but I do care about being characterized as a bigot and being told I am uninformed when I have made nothing but true statements about the Mormon faith.

[Griffin 3]

I was correct about the only things I claimed to know about the LDS faith.Oh? What thread was that in?

[Griffin 3]

I know about ... the belief in the BoM. Enough to turn me off of the religion.You know about the belief in a book you know nothing about, which is a factor in your rejection of the religion. Yep, that sounds very informed.

[Griffin 3]

I couldn't care less about someone challenging my beliefs, but I do care about being characterized as a bigot and being told I am uninformed when I have made nothing but true statements about the Mormon faith.I am almost starting to think that you believe what you are writing.

[erosewater]

Hey Griff, does e sound a little thin skinned?

It's a fun game to play I'm sure, but you are still wrong here.

Let's sum up here:

Me: this is what I know about LDS and it is reason enough for me to not be interested, I find these beliefs silly and trivial

Griff, Fo2: You are an uninformed bigot

Me: I do not have extensive knowledge of all of their beliefs, but I know enough to know it's not for me. Since I do not claim to know more than I've stated I am giving my informed (though limited) opinion.

Griff, Fo2: Since you don't know everything you are uninformed. You have no knowledge of anything about the church and what's more you are big poopy-head bigot.

Me: How I can I be a bigot when all I've done is express my disagreement with the beliefs?

Griff, Fo2: You are not comfortable with your own beliefs, and you are a thin-skinned bigot.

[erosewater]

Oh? What thread was that in?

Instead of making your trite little comments, how about showing us where I made a false statement about Mormonism?

[Father of two]

It's a fun game to play I'm sure, but you are still wrong here.

Let's sum up here:

Me: this is what I know about LDS and it is reason enough for me to not be interested, I find these beliefs silly and trivial

Griff, Fo2: You are an uninformed bigot

Me: I do not have extensive knowledge of all of their beliefs, but I know enough to know it's not for me. Since I do not claim to know more than I've stated I am giving my informed (though limited) opinion.

Griff, Fo2: Since you don't know everything you are uninformed. You have no knowledge of anything about the church and what's more you are big poopy-head bigot.

Me: How I can I be a bigot when all I've done is express my disagreement with the beliefs?

Griff, Fo2: You are not comfortable with your own beliefs, and you are a thin-skinned bigot.

I guess this goes to show that e has not been following this thread.

[Griffin 3]

Instead of making your trite little comments, how about showing us where I made a false statement about Mormonism?Pick anything you've said about Mormonism in this thread.

[Griffin 3]

I guess this goes to show that e has not been following this thread.When someone resorts to re-writing the conversation (and being serious about it), it is a sign that the person knows he or she is wrong.

[erosewater]

You know about the belief in a book you know nothing about, which is a factor in your rejection of the religion. Yep, that sounds very informed.

I have not read the book, but I know about it's origins and it's major teachings. That is why it is a factor in my rejection. Why do you assume I know know nothing about the book? Oh yeah, because it's easier to dismiss me as a bigot if you just assume I am completely ignorant.

[erosewater]

Pick anything you've said about Mormonism in this thread.

Continuing with the trite statements because you know for a fact that I have not made a single false statement about Mormonism in this thread. Are you going to show us one, or just continue to lie about it?

[erosewater]

When someone resorts to re-writing the conversation (and being serious about it), it is a sign that the person knows he or she is wrong.

When someone resorts to making sarcastic comment after sarcastic comment without adding anything to the conversation and accusing others of making false statements without actually being able to quote one of said false statements, it is a sign that you are talking to Griffin.