Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

460 Excellent

About Exiled

  • Rank
    Separates Water & Dry Land

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. Precisely. How does one know anything, right? What do these questions tell you about the strength of you faith? Are you saying that feelings that are easily manipulated by the group are somehow superior? You are simply following the group and defining your feelings as an answer to something because that is what the group tells you is an answer. You read the book of mormon and are directed to believe by the group that the feelings you got after being in the company of nice people were from God. How do you know you weren't simply being manipulated by a religious system? How do you know you aren't being manipulated now? I would take a public visitation over feelings any day. Also, a real God wouldn't command that his children worship him. That seems like something an untrustworthy dictator would do. I don't think he would demand tangible time and money in exchange for nebulous future-world promises. He would certainly give us a better way to find out the truth other than easily manipulated feelings. He also would probably be fine with whatever order his leaders left the room or how they sat in a meeting, etc. My guess is that he wouldn't care if his church members stood or not when one of his precious leaders entered the room. I don't think God would care about such things. Now, you may ask how do I know these things? Good question. How is my knowing any better than yours? Well, shouldn't we determine the answer to this question prior to trying to convince the world that we have something when we really don't know anything? Taking the widdow's mite demands more.
  2. God appearing on TV or some public place. We are always required to "trust" that some questionable person saw God in secret. Wait a minute ..... I just saw God and he said Mormonism is a waste of time .... do you believe me? I have a good feeling about it. Maybe if I can get enough people to believe in my "revelation" it will become true for my group, for the world? If anyone disagrees it is religious persecution and my little group can then rally together based on the perceived opposition.
  3. While you are waiting, please explain how magic seer stones providing revelation isn't fraud in your opinion. I'd like to know why you persist to believe despite the evidence. Do you relish a good magician's trick?
  4. Right, but the D&C and Plot of Zion too? Is this person from Elizabethian times also giving revelations outside of the book of mormon? Also, I thought we all spoke the pure Adamic language when we go on to the nether worlds. Why then is this person speaking EmodE, when it raises the chances of confusion? Why couldn't God cause the gospel to be preached in JS's tongue as the bofm says will be done (I believe in Alma 13?)
  5. But supposedly God is communicating in these archaic forms. So, how is God not speaking archaic English, whether EmodE or some other form of early english? Obviously God knows all languages, but has some sort of predilection for the Elizabethian era?
  6. Kevin: By all means, believe what you want. Of course bias can be used to explain anyone who disagrees with your paradigm. However, it is a false equivalence. There is bias and there is BIAS. The outsider test of faith seems to be a way to resolve this question of bias. It is the heart of peer review in that it gets "outsiders" to consider one's belief system critically. One uses the same critical thinking skills one uses to determine scientology or flat-earthers are going down the wrong path. Also, how do you rationalize missionary work? Isn't the church using positivism to make it's claim of being the one and only? In other words, your use of post-modernism is great for defense. Who am I to say what is best for you? However, who are the missionaries to say what is best for the world? Who is the church to make these claims?
  7. How do you explain this passage from your Plot of Zion paper: "To a more limited degree, this type of analysis can be carried out in relation to Doctrine and Covenants language. Especially important to consider in this regard are the early revelations, given before or concurrently with the Book of Mormon dictation. Forms and syntactic structures that were obsolete, archaic, or rare in early 19th-century English point to a tightly controlled revelatory process, especially because receipt of the early revelations matched that of the Book of Mormon. The majority of the language, however, encompasses usage that persisted for centuries." ........ It seems you are saying here that archaic forms are evidence of God tightly controlling what was said, meaning that the archaic words were God's words, right? (of course, according to Joseph Smith, God supposedly speaks the pure Adamic language, whatever that is) Yet, here God speaks to Joseph Smith in EmodE or other archaic forms? Perhaps God goes between Adamic and EmodE?
  8. https://www.mormoninterpreter.com/on-doctrine-and-covenants-language-and-the-1833-plot-of-zion/ I think this is at least one place where Mr. Carmack says that evidence of archaic usage was evidence of tight control or evidence God was speaking. Mr. Carmack also says here that the plot of Zion is evidence of the sliding in and out of tight control. Does Mr. Carmack believe that God speaks in EmodE or at least uses archaic structures to show it is He that is speaking?
  9. You might have a dragon in your garage .... https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/The_Dragon_in_My_Garage
  10. Shifting the burden? Why don't you just admit that your "certainty" is based on feelings and guessing as to what lies beyond? I think you make the common mistake that a lot of members make in confusing "believe" with "know." However, "know" sounds a lot more forceful, of course, and gives the one in the "know" a lot more authority. But saying "know" means that you need to give a little more than just empty words and debate tactics. Is it too "sacred" to tell? Is that it?
  11. Personal belief, Pascal's wager, threats of the unknown are always there as a safe space when conjecture and mere speculation run into requests for actual proof.
  12. So, what makes you so certain? It seems you are just making a bald assertion without anything else. Counsel, I need evidence, other than feelings that can be easily manipulated by the group or manipulated by an over anxious desire to believe. Do you actually believe that Joseph Smith communicated with the divine via an ordinary rock? That seems like a fraud or delusion to me. Do you believe that God told the Q15 to make the November 2015 policy, then walk it back a little when the press found out back in 2015 and then walk it back further after a few years of criticism? That seems like the work of a man-made organization that merely makes empty assertions of inspiration. How can this even be justified much less preached to the world at large?
  13. You've proved it? How? Probably through feelings, right? And of course your feelings could never be wrong. Also, my guess is that you have to compartmentalize religious reliance on feelings from the thinking required everywhere else. Religious thinking just doesn't cut it outside of the church building.
  14. I am familiar with how the story goes. It's just too much like myth for me to believe. One would think God would make himself physically present if the christian myth story were reality. Making it based on feelings and trust in dubious religionists seems closer to fraud than truth. Fraudsters always demand faith/trust for their schemes to work. "Eternal" penalties to "sin" is more of the same faith based myth. Jesus dies and it shocks his followers that Rome could do this to their Son of God and messiah. A resurrection story is made up as well as the atonement to justify what happened to the supposed king. Eternal penalties for sin rounds out the myth, inventing a reason behind the untimely death. There is no proof for any of this and we are commanded by those who benefit to obey the myth and wait for "answers" in the future world. I think the better way is to live life now and not worry about whether or not the fraud looking story is true.
  15. I guess it goes back to the "necessity" of an atonement. One has to assume God couldn't forgive anyone unless he had his son killed in order to believe an atonement was necessary. That's hard to believe, given how powerful God supposedly is. So, the Abraham story seems entirely unnecessary.
  • Create New...