jmzero
Member Profile
Member Since: 2006-11-08
Last Power Points used: never • Available: now
Max Power Points: 1
Last Power Points used: never • Available: now
Max Power Points: 1
Comments
1
Subscribe
Books Videos Submitted by jmzeroNavigation
- profile
- unsifted videos (0)
- personal queue videos (2)
- sifted videos (4)
- promoted published vids
- promoted queued vids
- promoted Sift Talk posts
- promoted blog posts
- blog entries (0)
- Sift Talk posts
- discarded posts
- dead/deadpool videos (0)
- my playlist bookmarks
- my post bookmarks
- playlists bookmarked by others
- posts bookmarked by others
- voted up
- voted down
- playlists
Member Stats
Rank: 461
Rating: 4 star points
Votes Received: 220
Votes Cast: 215
Comments Posted: 100 • browse
Sifted Videos: 4
Profile Views: 3197
Rating: 4 star points
Votes Received: 220
Votes Cast: 215
Comments Posted: 100 • browse
Sifted Videos: 4
Profile Views: 3197
Member's Highest Rated Videos
In reply to this comment by jmzero:
I love the Tim Boetsch fight - hilarious throw at the end there. (at about 2:35)
How can you say that, when there is hardly a stretch of more than 5 seconds without some inaccuracy? I'll humor you, though (It should be noted that "Answers to Gospel Questions" by Joseph Fielding Smith is not Official LDS Doctrine).
-We don't believe in any being higher than God the Father. We worship Him and His son Jesus Christ. Not countless gods.
-We don't teach about any unidentified god and his wives.
-We don't teach anything in our doctrine about where God came from or that he lives on a planet with His many wives or "endless Celestial sex."
-Only one God was present at the council spoken of in the video with Lucifer and Jesus. God the Father.
-Lucifer DID want the glory for himself but he wouldn't have forced us all to become gods. He wanted to force us all to obey.
-It was never mormon doctrine that black people were neutral before this life. We don't believe that black people are inferior than white people.
-"White and delightsome" is never used to describe the faithful followers of Jesus in the pre-mortal life. We believe that ALL who live or have lived on Earth, regardless of race or color or religion, were faithful to Jesus Christ's plan and chose to be here.
-Adam is not Elohim. He is a child of God, as we all are. Eve was not a godess wife.
-We believe that when Mary gave birth to Jesus, she was still a virgin. We don't teach anything about God having physical sex with her. We don't teach anything about how the miracle was performed, only that Jesus is Begotten of the Father.
-We don't teach any specific doctrine about Jesus' marital status or children. Especially not that he had "at least 3 wives."
-We believe that the Nephites and Lamanites are descended from Israelites. Not quite how it's said in the cartoon.
-Joseph Smith was not a known treasure seeker. Neither was he known for any tales except his testimony about Mormonism.
-We believe that we will be judged by Jesus Christ because he was and is perfect, he suffered all, and atoned for our sins.
-I have never been taught that I will be a polygamist god.
-Joseph Smith himself never claimed anything about doing more for us than any other man.
-We absolutely do not believe that Joseph Smith did more for us than any other man, including Jesus Christ.
-We believe that Jesus Christ was the only perfect being ever to live on the Earth and that His Atonement is the most important thing ever done here.
In reply to this comment by jmzero:
I promise I wouldn't attempt to deceive you about what I believe. That gets me nowhere. Why would I do that. I'm not shy or ashamed. This video is full of half truths and mixed up facts. It isn't a fair or correct explanation of the Mormon religion by any stretch of the imagination.
(edit: the above quote was from you in my member comments)
I'm an active Mormon and an RM. I'm not speaking out of any kind of ignorance. The video in question was obviously hateful and misleading - but the facts stated were usually either correct with current doctrine, or are at least supported by statements from past church leaders. Have you read Mormon Doctrine, "Answers to Gospel Questions" (by Joseph F Smith), or read much of Brigham Young's discourses?
I'm not exactly anti-Mormon (repeat: I'm an active Mormon), but there's more to the Church than they teach you in Sunday School - and some doctrinal issues are fairly complicated. If you have specific factual objections to the video, please feel free to post them, but I don't think it does anyone any good to say it's all lies when it's mostly true.
It's like the South Park Mormon episode. I had a lot of friends who complained about the stones in the hat. "That's not how it went!!!" they said. Well, yes, it was done like that sometimes. A lot of people were mad at South Park, when instead perhaps they should have been lamenting that they were learning about their religion from it.
"I don't know... a lot of it, from what I've learned, is pretty accurate."
Sorry, but you learned wrong, Son!
"Very little is without some justification..."
Very few complete sentences in this video are without a flat out lie!
"I'd say parts are misleading, but most of it is correct..."
Name one part that isn't misleading!
I promise I wouldn't attempt to deceive you about what I believe. That gets me nowhere. Why would I do that. I'm not shy or ashamed. This video is full of half truths and mixed up facts. It isn't a fair or correct explanation of the Mormon religion by any stretch of the imagination.
In reply to this comment by jmzero:
Very little is without some justification, though much of it doesn't correspond with modern LDS belief. For example, the idea that blacks were neutral in the pre-existence is not doctrine in the church now (and blacks can hold the priesthood since 1978). However, you will find this idea was taught by past church leaders.
I'd say parts are misleading, but most of it is correct in the loosest terms.
thanks
Qruel
In reply to this comment by jmzero:
Hi qruel;
It's certainly possible I misunderstood your argument - but here's how I saw things. The argument from the video was something like this:
1. Butterflies are so cool.
2. Only an omnipotent God could create something so cool.
3. Therefore, (our Christian) God exists.
Your response was "this begs the question of 'which God'". I think this is a valid response, as you've identified the way that "God" goes from a general "being who creates things" to a specific "God". This is the fallacy of equivocation.
In order to "beg the question" in the sense of the named logical fallacy, you have to assume the conclusion you're trying to put forward. If you read the argument as:
1. Butterflies are all around.
2. God made butterflies.
3. Therefore, God exists.
I don't think this is a fair reading, but if that's what you see then that is indeed circular - because nobody is going to accept premise 2 without already accepting the conclusion. But note that while this argument "begs the question" that doesn't mean it begs for some particular question to be asked (such as your "which God" as before, though - again - that question brings up a good point). That seemed to be the sense in which you used the term "begs the question" - but, again, I may just have misunderstood.
It's certainly possible I misunderstood your argument - but here's how I saw things. The argument from the video was something like this:
1. Butterflies are so cool.
2. Only an omnipotent God could create something so cool.
3. Therefore, (our Christian) God exists.
Your response was "this begs the question of 'which God'". I think this is a valid response, as you've identified the way that "God" goes from a general "being who creates things" to a specific "God". This is the fallacy of equivocation.
In order to "beg the question" in the sense of the named logical fallacy, you have to assume the conclusion you're trying to put forward. If you read the argument as:
1. Butterflies are all around.
2. God made butterflies.
3. Therefore, God exists.
I don't think this is a fair reading, but if that's what you see then that is indeed circular - because nobody is going to accept premise 2 without already accepting the conclusion. But note that while this argument "begs the question" that doesn't mean it begs for some particular question to be asked (such as your "which God" as before, though - again - that question brings up a good point). That seemed to be the sense in which you used the term "begs the question" - but, again, I may just have misunderstood.
Description of Begging the Question
Begging the Question is a fallacy in which the premises include the claim that the conclusion is true or (directly or indirectly) assume that the conclusion is true. This sort of "reasoning" typically has the following form.
Premises in which the truth of the conclusion is claimed or the truth of the conclusion is assumed (either directly or indirectly).
Claim C (the conclusion) is true.
This sort of "reasoning" is fallacious because simply assuming that the conclusion is true (directly or indirectly) in the premises does not constitute evidence for that conclusion. Obviously, simply assuming a claim is true does not serve as evidence for that claim. This is especially clear in particularly blatant cases: "X is true. The evidence for this claim is that X is true."
Some cases of question begging are fairly blatant, while others can be extremely subtle.
Examples of Begging the Question
Bill: "God must exist."
Jill: "How do you know."
Bill: "Because the Bible says so."
Jill: "Why should I believe the Bible?"
Bill: "Because the Bible was written by God."
"If such actions were not illegal, then they would not be prohibited by the law."
"The belief in God is universal. After all, everyone believes in God."
Interviewer: "Your resume looks impressive but I need another reference."
Bill: "Jill can give me a good reference."
Interviewer: "Good. But how do I know that Jill is trustworthy?"
Bill: "Certainly. I can vouch for her."
In reply to this comment by jmzero:
Normally I wouldn't criticize someone for using "begs the question" to mean "brings up the question" or "prompts the question to be asked". I accept that people have taken to using it that way, even if it makes no sense to me.
However, there's a certain irony to misusing a phrase while in the same post linking to a page with the proper definition (ie. the one having to do with a circular argument).