I've been out of the church for less than a year, so forgive me if this is a repeat topic.


I've noticed, as a former missionary and church defender, one key flaw people face when trying to disprove the church.

Let me preface this by saying few on this board will have this problem since as I can tell, most of you are atheists.

As a 16 year old Mormon, my Baptist girlfriend would go on long bashing arguments with me, trying to use the Bible to disprove what I believed. She would bring up a scripture and I would use my seminary (early morning, for those of us outside of Utah) scripture mastery to attack her right back. Stalemate.

As a missionary we would get people who would want to 'Bible bash' with us and the same thing happened. They were more skilled debaters, but nothing really changed.

Also as a missionary, there was a fellow missionary who I actually really liked and respected. He joined the church after dating a girl in high school and decided, I'm sure at her demand, to go on a mission. When he joined the church, his parents went nuts! They started giving him every bit of 'anti' material they could, forced him to watch the Godmakers etc etc etc. He still came on a mission and still eventually married in the temple (though to another girl because the one he loved so much and converted for started dating someone else while he was there). They were super evangelical Christians and thought that their son was condemning himself to hell and by going on a mission was taking others with him. They approached their 'anti' campaign from the perspective as a Christian showing why their Christianity was right and the Mormons' was wrong.

On my mission my companion and I listened to a FARMS talk, which we weren't allowed to do on my super strict mission, by Ross Baron who gave a series of firesides. In his talk he describe a woman who tried to disprove the Book of Mormon by saying there were X number of changes to it. He responded that her argument has no weight because the Bible also has X number of changes to it. Her argument wasn't shot down because it wasn't true, it was shot down because she was making it as a Christian trying to disprove the Book of Mormon.

I have seen, especially in this presidential cycle, talking heads on TV bringing up problems with Mormonism, but too often it reverts back to approaching it from the perspective of this religion is wrong because Christianity says it is.

Trying to disprove Mormonism by using Christianity is like trying to disprove Cheez-its by using Goldfish. They're essentially the same thing with a few minor differences.


Now I understand the audience I write to here are predominately atheist, but I come from the Bible belt. Here it happens too often as it did to me in high school where people try to prove Mormon's wrong with the Bible.

In my experience the only way to disprove Mormonism is to approach not from a you're wrong and this is right, but rather just a 'it's wrong, regardless of any other religion.'

When my sister, the last sibling of mine to leave the church, and I first talked about the problems with the church she asked, "What, then, is the right religion?" I said, "I don't know. Could be any of them, but it's not this one."

Thanks for sharing. When I left, it was because I felt that all religions were wrong, not just specifically Mormonism. I guess that's the easiest way out...deciding that the idea of God is just BS, lol.

Doesnt God disaprove boasting? so why would he give the "right religion" to any specific group of people if it encourages boasting? I think we are all wrong, and need to stop focusing on who is right or wrong so we can focus on loving and supporting each other as people of the world. I know it sounds hippie-ish, but it's true.

Because the special have a special pre-mortal calling to get the special information and be challenged to overcome boasting on earth. It's part of the plan. ;-)

The stated "problem" is based on a logical fallacy.

this is correct.

He's discussing talking to Mormons about Mormonism, not to atheists or agnostics who already disbelieve Mormonism for the fact that they already disbelieve in the Christian God.

In context I think he's bringing up a valid point.

Yep. His point is well stated. He's saying that most of the time people argue about which flavor of ice cream is the true flavor.

You misunderstand.

The response given in the FARMS talk is based on a logical fallacy.

Seems to me the discussion begins and ends with the Nicene Creed. Since Mormonism doesn't accept it as relevant (it in fact is the main justification behind the idea of a "Restored" Church) there really isn't anywhere to go in this "debate" since each side has a mutually exclusive view of the history and legitimacy of Christianity.

The rest is just jawboning and time wasting, given that people don't tend to be believers based on logic, whatever they might claim.

It is impossible to disprove Mormonism just using the Bible and the Nicene Creed. It is just a bunch of circular arguments.

First you need to prove that the Book of Mormon, as literature has only one practical purpose-- to prove Mormonism as false.

Then you need to evaluate Utah Mormon history and scripture and teachings and structure and ethics and hierarchy and culture. They show much more bad than good.

THEN, and only then can you show that a system of beliefs and actions based on the Bible is better.

Decker-like arguments are pointless and circular.

Even at my most rabidly religious, it always bothered me that god had a "chosen" people but was no respecter of persons.

It bothered me that he commanded (not just allowed through his love of free agency) COMMANDED the deaths of innocent families- including infants.

I resolved my hatred of the OT by staying away from it and increasing my intensity of loyalty to the New Testament. People find a way to believe what they want to believe.

The same factoid or experience received when one's "shelf" (collection of negative realizations) is full is quite different from the person realizing they have not been fully informed (or lied to) for the first time.

Joseph Smith a polygamist? No way--they would have taught me that in Seminary.

Joseph Smith sent his friends on missions then "married" their wives? No way--I would have heard about this.

The Book of Abraham DIDN'T come from the papyri? They HAVE the papyri and it says something DIFFERENT? Holy Sh*t!

The bishop called and assigned us to clean the chapel on the day of (CHILD)'s birthday party and you have to pick up your parents from the airport. What do you mean you can't say no? WHAT!!! You think I AM GOING TO DO IT instead? WTF? I already have two callings and just had a baby six damn weeks ago.

And then you jump on the internet to find a janitorial service that will swoop in and clean for you and VOILA! There's the name of the family that the church used to pay to clean the chapel. Great--they know what to do.

Throw into this stew an argument about Mark Hofmann and a priesthood interview for your son where he comes home crying because he is just mortified that he was forced to admit he masturbates. He slams the door and won't talk to anyone.

Let that marinate for a few months--result? One more hits the road.

This is why I always tell people there is no need to have "that" conversation that says you have to leave with me. You can show love and respect for your brainwashed spouse and rest assured, your happy life and his/her observation that you are happy, loving, and unburdened by the guilt and demands of the voracious cult.

You can chill because truth and time are on your side.


Anagrammy

jameswilmons Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
...
> Trying to disprove Mormonism by using Christianity
> is like trying to disprove Cheez-its by using
> Goldfish. They're essentially the same thing with
> a few minor differences.
...

I'd say that the differences can be more than "a few" and
more than "minor" in several instances -- unless perhaps
we are comparing the LDS Church to Calvin's Geneva, or to
the Vatican's old Papal States in Italy.

However -- the Mormons will always win a substantial share
of "proof-texting" arguments, in which the Bible is consulted
as though it were a metaphysical cookbook and repository of
all scientific and historical truth.

Which is why you are right -- that winning an argument
against Mormon polemics requires us to move to some sort
of intellectual "higher ground," than just arguing over
whether the Bible proves that angels have no wings.

Joseph Smith's lies might prove to be a more fruitful topic
for argument. Could Mormonism be true, if Smith lied about
being able to see hidden treasures underground?

Or Brigham's lies. Could Mormonism be true if Brigham lied
about his control over (and use of) Danites, blood atonement,
persecution of apostates, rebellion against the federal
government, etc.?

The trouble with that sort of disproof of Mormonism, is that
it requires the person doing the disproving to study, sort out
the facts, and prioritize the evidence against the topmost
LDS leaders --- an effort beyond most people's interest and
abilities.

Besides which -- the cult-like conformist mind of the LDS
defender will generally retreat away from such arguments,
relying upon the wisdom of "The Brethren" as having already
settled all such political/historical controversies.

In other words, I can get my Mormon neighbor to argue with
me over whether or not St. Paul administered baptisms for
the dead, but I cannot get that same neighbor to argue with
me over whether or not Joseph Smith, Jr. attempted to
assassinate Grandison Newell at Kirtland.

The Mormon leaders have already game-planned a thousand and
one Bible-based theological arguments. The LDS members can
rely upon that argumentative groundwork having already been
done for them, and tested in actual confrontations with
mainstream Christian defenders.

The same leaders and members are a bit less prepared to
argue with me over why a Book of Mormon believer should
choose to join the LDS Church instead of an RLDS congregation.

UD

Proof that one is right or the other is wrong would require:

A) Proof that there is a God to begin with

and

B) Proof that one of the religions represents the will of that God.

At this point, neither side has gotten past "A" yet. To yammer about which religion represents God when you have not proven there is a god is getting ahead of yourselves. Without proof of a God, you are only arguing over opinions, and that PROVES nothing

MJ Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Proof that one is right or the other is wrong
> would require:
>
> A) Proof that there is a God to begin with
>
> and
>
> B) Proof that one of the religions represents the
> will of that God.
>
> At this point, neither side has gotten past "A"
> yet. To yammer about which religion represents God
> when you have not proven there is a god is getting
> ahead of yourselves. Without proof of a God, you
> are only arguing over opinions, and that PROVES
> nothing

Tell a drowning man that there is an invisible log floating
just within his reach, and he'll grab for it, without much
thought about how such a life preserver could exist.

My experience has been -- that a good many converts to
Mormonism are looking for a means by which to extend their
earthly lives beyond death. Also, they are looking for an
authority structure that will help provide temporal security
and a social support group.

It's a tough sell, to first of all convince such hopeful
converts, that they need not survive past their deaths. And
it is just as tough a sell, to convince them that they do
not need to become immersed in a group-think pseudo-family,
which will tell them what is right and wrong, how to raise
their kids, etc.

People who long ago quit believing in Santa Claus, still
get a Christmas tree and sing Rudolph the Red-nosed Reindeer.

If somebody wishes to prove there is no God, then simply
drop a theromnuclear bomb on Mecca, and scare the crap out
of several hundred millions of Muslims. The disillusioned
survivors would, no doubt, simply grab onto the next invisible
log that came floating by -- Scientology, Satan worship, or
whatever promised to fulfill their innermost needs.

UD

It is not up to us to disprove Mormonism although it isn't really hard to do so for those believe in reason and actual facts.

It is up to mormons to prove their religion is true.

As far as comparing it to Christianity, well I still think it fails. I'm not a Christian and I'm saying that. There is some biblical evidence, while there is none for the Book of Mormon. I'm not endorsing Christianity, and think it is untrue. I just agree with Sam Harris that mormonism is even more ridiculous.

As I see it, there are two classes of "anti-mormon" material. The first, I call "evangelical" anti-mormonism is pretty low quality, as it is based on several unfounded assumptions, such as the infallibility of the Bible etc... It is also produced by people who in general have most likely never been deep into mormonism, and who certifiably have little-to-no experience with rational and critical thinking. It was this type of material that turned me off to "anti-mormonism" for most of my TBM life. I couldn't do anything but laugh at their lame excuses of arguments, and I assumed all "anti-mormonism" must have been just like it. I was wrong.

The other class of anti-mormonism comes from people who have been deep into mormonism and are better-studied in doctrine and history than even mormons themselves. This material is better described as informative rather than "anti-mormon." These people have developed enormous abilities in critical thinking, logic and reason. They are typically atheists because they have employed these skills uniformly across all religions and have discovered that mormonism is not the only one that suffers from deception and lack of reasonable evidence. They realize that you can't use unfounded assumptions, such as even the existence of a God, to disprove mormonism. Rather, raw cold logic disproves it well enough on its own, and anyone who is intellectually honest enough will use that same logic to disprove other religions as well.

Mormon basic works are the best "anti-Mormon" material there is to show it is a fraud.

I ask them, "How do you know the Bible is true?"

They usually talk about how it mentions real people and real places, unlike the Book of Mormon.

I then ask why they don't believe other books that mention real people and places are God's word.

They then talk about the miracles.

I ask them how they know the miracles actually happened.

It's usually some variant of "God said so."

How do you know God exists?

When I press them, they always revert to some personal experience when they "felt" the presence of God.

Then I go for the kill: How is that any different from the feelings Mormons have about their religion? Feelings are a terrible way to determine truth.

Am I too mean?



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 04/16/2012 03:32PM by runtu.

No, you're using simple logic, boiled down far enough for anyone to understand. It's up to them if they want to continue to live in their cognitive dissonance after that. If you really are concerned about the effect that logic will have on people, I would suggest prefacing your discussions with a disclaimer. I have started doing it with some success. For instance "if you really want to have a discussion with me, you should be prepared for cold, hard reason in response to any statements, including very personal ones. If you are concerned that this might offend you, I suggest we not have the discussion."

All it takes is one false prophecy to make a false prophet.

E2 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> All it takes is one false prophecy to make a false
> prophet.

As stated by the bible - god's word, or whose? Again, that's falling into the trap of believing the bible to be the authority without evidence, isn't it?

edited to add: Although, I'm good with with the definition "1 false prophecy = false prophet". I just don't like deferring to the bible for that definition.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 04/16/2012 05:39PM by dot.

the CLAIMS can be dis-proven, but not the church 'as a whole'.
(can't prove a negative, such as "there is no God" or 'there are No Quakers on the Moon'

I had my name officially removed when I found out about the church's hunting reserves. I have no respect for the institution. I would put their mall into the same category. I also have no respect for their lay penishood.

John Lennon got it right Imagine

Your sub line should read, "The problem CHRISTIANS face disproving Mormonism."

When Marlene Winnell spoke at the exmo conference last year, she said that mormonism is the only religion that can be demonstrably proven to be false. I tend to agree. One need look no further than the outrageous, fictional claims of the book of mormon, and the book of abraham, er, excuse me, scrolls of Horus.

Christianity can appeal to faith and win since recorded history was poorly documented 2000-4000 years ago.

Nobody can prove that Jesus and his Apostles and followers didnt exist as a flesh and blood humans.

It can be proven that Joseph Smith and Brigam Young were compulsive liars, narcisisstic and antisocial; just by using the LDS approved scriptures and historical documents.

However, I'm not going to believe any of them without some solid evidence. Haven't seen any yet...

Who said any religion has to be right while the others are wrong? Who is to say organized religion or no religion at all itself is right or wrong? What about spirituality? Is it right or wrong? Does it matter? What works for each person is what is right for that person. Leave it at that.

Mormonism can be disproven whether you are christian or not. That makes no difference. The Book of Mormon is a work of fiction that has been debunked. A fundamentalist Christian can accurately make that claim just as easy as an atheist can.