Exmormon Anger Toward The Lds Church.

[robuchan]

If i believe i was conned. And i believe i have damages due to the con. Why would it matter if you think i have evidence to support my claim? My feelings are related to my beliefs.

[why me]

And of course the most enduring separation between them was due to his being murdered. The anger and pain that must have caused her was likely much, much more than any uncertainty of who he was with and why due to their involvement with plural marriage.

To my understanding emma also still taught her children from the book of mormon after joseph was murdered and they were taught to believe in the book of mormon. She also expressed complete belief in the book of mormon after Joseph was murdered. (Bushman page 555)

Edited August 19, 2012 by why me

[selek1]

It's a fact to me not speculative faith. Rethink your assumptions with that in mind.

Just as a friendly warning, you have just disqualified yourself from quibbling with any Mormons who says "I know" when bearing their testimonies.

[why me]

If i believe i was conned. And i believe i have damages due to the con. Why would it matter if you think i have evidence to support my claim? My feelings are related to my beliefs.

A belief without proof would not get you a day in court. If I claimed that someone defrauded me and i make the accusation but I have no proof, I will be sued by that person.

[Alvino]

Has Richard Dawkins proved that god doesn't exist? I don't think so.

Did you read what I wrote about evidence and proof? About "plausible"?

One can argue that there is plenty of evidence that god exists.

You can always bring it up, you know? I'd be happy to talk about it. There's plenty of evidence but it's pretty bad.

But again it all takes faith regardless what side of the coin a person is on.

I don't think that's true. Actually, I think faith shouldn't be absent from a person so they can believe in the Mormon claims and the reason is that Mormons believe that Mormon ideas are supported by evidence and are more rational or better than non-Mormon ones. Someone who is thoroughly convince of the truthfulness of the Mormon claims can't really be said to have faith that Mormonism is true. It's like saying one has faith that the computer in front of me uses electricity. Faith is not "believe despite uncertainty", but if you define it as such (thus making it completely equal with what normal people call "beliefs") then it is rather clear than some faiths are irrational and silly while other ones are not and you go back to the same discussion of whether any belief requires faith. That is, you haven't solved anything.

The anger shown the lds church by some exmormons is not based on evolution

Darn it! Did you read anything I wrote? I gave a way in which such anger is very well understandable and it had nothing to do with evolution. Seriously, "why me".

but on a belief that Joseph Smith was a con artist. Yet, there is no proof that he was nor does it explain how he conned 11 people into it and to such an extent that they affirmed their experience over and over again.

We've got people today who firmly believe lots of false stuff. So? Plus, there are people who are as convinced of atheism as any religious folk can be of their particular religion... do you take their testimony to hold as much weight and be as valid as these guys'?

Edited August 19, 2012 by Alvino

[robuchan]

Just as a friendly warning, you have just disqualified yourself from quibbling with any Mormons who says "I know" when bearing their testimonies.

Disagree. I'll explain later when im not on my phone at church.

[cwald]

A belief without proof would not get you a day in court. If I claimed that someone defrauded me and i make the accusation but I have no proof, I will be sued by that person.

True, but it doesn't necessarily mean the person wasn't defrauded. Just that the fraud couldn't be proven. Aren't there many cases of fraud, where the guilty go unpunished because the crime can't be proven in a court of law?

[selek1]

True, but it doesn't necessarily mean the person wasn't defrauded. Just that the fraud couldn't be proven. Aren't there many cases of fraud, where the guilty go unpunished because the crime can't be proven in a court of law?

And especially in message board registrations?

[cwald]

And especially in message board registrations?

Please address the topic, and not attack and mock the posters.

[why me]

True, but it doesn't necessarily mean the person wasn't defrauded. Just that the fraud couldn't be proven. Aren't there many cases of fraud, where the guilty go unpunished because the crime can't be proven in a court of law?

If a person loses money in a fraud and the person knows who defrauded him but has no proof of it, then yes, one can be angry at that person. However, this doesn't exist for exmormons now who claim fraud when it comes to the book of mormon and anger.

[robuchan]

A belief without proof would not get you a day in court. If I claimed that someone defrauded me and i make the accusation but I have no proof, I will be sued by that person.

Again, this thread is not for the purpose of proving anything. Im just giving you motivation for feelings.

[cwald]

If a person loses money in a fraud and the person knows who defrauded him but has no proof of it, then yes, one can be angry at that person. However, this doesn't exist for exmormons now who claim fraud when it comes to the book of mormon and anger.

Sure it does. They may believe it is a fraud...that they have been defrauded...but they can't prove it. I can understand why they might be angry.

I am not saying it is a fraud or trying to prove it is a fraud...just giving a possibility for a motive and why some might be angry.

Edited August 19, 2012 by cwald

[selek1]

Please address the topic, and not attack and mock the posters.

I was....

[Alvino]

In other words, it didn't happen to you, you have no first hand knowledge of it happening, and have zero evidence that the hypothetical is an exclusively Mormon phenomenon- but felt it necessary to throw out an unfounded allegation in order to set the proper tone for the rest of your attack.

Got it. It makes perfect sense now.

Not any more hypothetical than saying that if you punch me in the face it'll hurt me. You never punched me in the face but the statement "if you punch me in the face it'll hurt me" is still true.

For some reason I don't tend to think about my past very often, if at all. But now that I think about it I have indeed met people who seriously hated the Church because they were bothered at the things the Church as an institution motivate people to do.

You might want to diagram that sentence and then edit it to convey what you really meant.

I, personally, consider jumping out of a window in the belief you can fly to be prima facia evidence of an irrational act- but then again, I wear my underwear under my clothes. YMMV.

Sorry for the typo. We agree, then.

Alvino, there is a certain elegance in the ideological smugglings which you insert into your posts- almost the same degree of elegance one finds in a kindergartner finger-painting with one hand and eating paste with the other.

The first, of course, is your substitution of "evidence" for "proof". No one here denies that there is evidence to support the allegation that the LDS Church is not what it claims to be.

We cheerfully acknowledge that fact.

"Proof", however, is a higher- and far more subjective- standard.

By attempting this ideological sleight-of-hand, you are not addressing WhyMe's arguments, but are rather attempting to subtly (or blatantly, depending upon one's degree of finesse) attempting to shift the ground to your own rhetorical advantage- which leads us to your second ideological smuggling:

Well, I did answer why me's question by providing a very plausible way in which some could come to hate the Church. About changing the word, that's because I'm used to some mathematics and the philosophy of science and that distinction is crucial. It isn't just a word change, I wanted to make the change so why me could see clearer that he is attributing to "proofs" (of evidence) something they just aren't meant to do: prove (in the correct sense of the word) statements about the natural world.

Note the qualifiers.

Evidence suggesting that the Church is false is unmodified- therefore "value neutral".

Evidence suggesting that the Church is true, on the other hand, is "bad"- and therefore to be discounted.

The propaganda technique on display is sound- and has been used extensively throughout history- but the execution here is so clumsy, so sloppy that I am almost embarrassed for you.

No, it isn't bad because it attempts to support the Church's truthfulness. It just is bad and it happens to support the Church's truthfulness. I attack bad evidence wherever I see it.

[selek1]

If a person loses money in a fraud and the person knows who defrauded him but has no proof of it, then yes, one can be angry at that person. However, this doesn't exist for exmormons now who claim fraud when it comes to the book of mormon and anger.

I am not sure this is a profitable line of reasoning for you, W-M.

As we all acknowledge, membership in the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints represents a considerably investment in time, money, and energy.

Critics can argue (not that I would agree) that they were defrauded of the time and the money that they'd invested in the Church. They could further argue (again, not that I'd particularly agree) that they suffered emotional damages- both when they "discovered" that the Church was not what it claims to be, and in an "alienation of affection" role when their new found truths came between them and family members.

While it would be more than a lengthy stretch to pin the blame personally on Joseph Smith, they can argue that the Church itself and its present leaders are directly responsible.

I, personally, think it's a quart-crock-of-cow-manure: but I can see someone making (and believing) such an argument.

Edited August 19, 2012 by selek1

[why me]

Again, this thread is not for the purpose of proving anything. Im just giving you motivation for feelings.

But anger must have a source and this source should be real and not speculative. I cannot be angry at a friend unless I know for certainty that they did me wrong. I cannot base my anger on speculation of the friend. Of course, I can attempt to convince myself of the event. But still, to be angry over a speculation seems like a stretch.

[why me]

I, personally, think it's a quart-crock-of-cow-manure: but I can see someone making (and believing) such an argument.

The church claims to be the true church of christ. There is no proof that it is not. So, an exmormon line of argument still has no factual basis.

And what is wasted time? Going to church and taking part in fellowship does not seem to be a waste even after one has left the church. The church has saved many people from alcoholism, drug addiction etc.

[selek1]

Not any more hypothetical than saying that if you punch me in the face it'll hurt me. You never punched me in the face but the statement "if you punch me in the face it'll hurt me" is still true.

I'd say that depends more upon the respective strength of arms, bones, fists, and chin than upon objective fact.

That my punching you in the face would hurt is not an objective reality on any number of levels.

But it is a reasonably surmise.

For some reason I don't tend to think about my past very often, if at all. But now that I think about it I have indeed met people who seriously hated the Church because they were bothered at the things the Church as an institution motivate people to do.

As have I- but in every instance, it was the offender- not the Church- who was responsible for their choices and actions. Invariably, examination of the facts has demonstrated that the offender had either exceeded or was acting in direct contravention of the Church's teachings "for [the victim's] own good".

No, it isn't bad because it attempts to support the Church's truthfulness. It just is bad and it happens to support the Church's truthfulness. I attack bad evidence wherever I see it.

"Bad", in this instance, being a wholly subjective judgement- which illustrates W-M's greater point about "proof".

[Libs]

I just wanted to ask why the standard for "unbelief" in the church is set higher (on this thread) than the standard for "belief" in the church? There is no "proof", either way, except by spiritual confirmation, which is very subjective.

[selek1]

I just wanted to ask why the standard for "unbelief" in the church is set higher (on this thread) than the standard for "belief" in the church? There is no "proof", either way, except by spiritual confirmation, which is very subjective.

Ummm...."because I say so" ?.

All teasing aside, I'm not sure this is an accurate characterization, Libs.

I know I certainly don't see where disparate standards have been imposed.

Can you elaborate on this charge?

Edited August 19, 2012 by selek1

[Calm]

A belief without proof would not get you a day in court. If I claimed that someone defrauded me and i make the accusation but I have no proof, I will be sued by that person.

But you opened the discussion about the reality/existence of anger, not about whether it had valid rational grounds it was based on. Anger being an emotion doesn't have to be proved or based on solid evidence so arguing that someone doesn't have the grounds to be angry based on the fact they can't prove that their basis of anger is valid is taking the wrong approach, imo.

[cwald]

But you opened the discussion about the reality/existence of anger, not about whether it had valid rational grounds it was based on. Anger being an emotion doesn't have to be proved or based on solid evidence so arguing that someone doesn't have the grounds to be angry based on the fact they can't prove that their basis of anger is valid is taking the wrong approach, imo.

Exactly.

[Libs]

Ummm...."because I say so"?.

Well, you know that will send me spiraling in the opposite direction.

All teasing aside, I'm not sure this is an accurate characterization, Libs.

I know I certainly don't see where disparate standards have been imposed.

Can you elaborate on this charge?

That was directed at why me, who keeps asserting that, because there is no "proof" that the church is not true, there are no grounds for anger. First of all, I agree with Calmoriah that there need be no "rational" explanation for anger. Emotions can sometimes be the antithesis of logic or reason. But, that aside, there is no "proof" that the church is true, other than subjective proof, which is subject to individual interpretation and experience.

Edited August 19, 2012 by Libs

[Calm]

If a person loses money in a fraud and the person knows who defrauded him but has no proof of it, then yes, one can be angry at that person. However, this doesn't exist for exmormons now who claim fraud when it comes to the book of mormon and anger.

What about the tithing and time they have invested in the Church? Why can't this qualify as solicitation of resources under false pretenses in someone's view, even if they can't prove it legally?

Again you asked why someone felt anger. This is something completely different than someone attempting to prove fraud has taken place. Anger can exist for the most flimsiest of reasons.

Edited August 19, 2012 by calmoriah

[Alvino]

I'd say that depends more upon the respective strength of arms, bones, fists, and chin than upon objective fact.

That my punching you in the face would hurt is not an objective reality on any number of levels.

But it is a reasonably surmise.

If you do so with all your strength and it's me, it'll hurt me for sure.

As have I- but in every instance, it was the offender- not the Church- who was responsible for their choices and actions. Invariably, examination of the facts has demonstrated that the offender had either exceeded or was acting in direct contravention of the Church's teachings "for [the victim's] own good".

First, it doesn't matter. It just matters that they blame the Church for being responsible for these members acting as they did. The point is that there's a plausible way to come to hate the Church.

Secondly, if person X thinks it's OK to masturbate or to have sex before marriage and they know that a young person is seriously suffering because he had sex with his girlfriend and feels terribly guilty because he thinks that's the second worst thing he could have done, then it is correct for X to say that this young man is suffering unnecessarily because of the silly puritan teachings as the Church. Whether you, selek1, think this is right or wrong doesn't matter. The point is that it would be understandable that X feels as he could.

"Bad", in this instance, being a wholly subjective judgement- which illustrates W-M's greater point about "proof".

No more subjective than saying it's "good evidence", is it? And this doesn't illustrate anything about why me's point at all. That a belief is held by only subjective (an idea which I find useless as is often used, to begin with) reasons doesn't mean it is false.

Edited August 19, 2012 by Alvino