There are many similarities between Quetzalcoatl and Jesus Christ

Reasons to agree

1.  "Teotihuacan arose as a new religious center in the Mexican Highland, around the time of Christ..." Teotihuacan: Introduction". Project Temple of Quetzalcoatl, Instituto Nacional de Antropología e Historia, Mexico/ ASU. 2001-08-20. Retrieved 2009-05-17

Reasons to agree

1. Mormons often say that 

There are some aspects of the Book of Mormon that support a literal historical interpretation +0

Reasons to agree: +1

1. Latter-day Saint President John Taylor was right when he wrote: "Quetzalcoatl and Christ are the same being". The fact that south american cultures believed in a bearded white God named Quetzalcoatl supports the story in the Book of Mormon. 

Reasons to disagree: -1

1. The Bible has enough problems with historical accuracy. If you are going to come along and start a new religion, and say that God has placed his official stamp of approval on this new religion, with new scriptures, the new scriptures should have less problems than the old scriptures, which have been around a long time so that errors of mankind can slip into the things of God... However the Book of Mormon has more archaeological problems than the Bible. There is no city in the Book of Mormon, that you can say existed in then and still exists now... I know, I know, Mormons will say you can't compare the two because the people who lived in cities, and kept written records, according to the Book of Mormon, were all killed off at the end of the Book... But still... we have some archaeology from that time, and it does not compare well to the amount of archaeology that we have to support the rest of Christianity. Right? I'm not an expert, but that is my impression. Is there any way of quantifying this? 

Score:

# of reasons to agree: +1

# of reasons to disagree: -1

# of reasons to agree with reasons to agree: +0

# of reasons to agree with reasons to disagree: -0

Total Idea Score: +0

Scriptures that agree: +

Scriptures that disagree: -

Images That agree: +

Images That disagree: -



Valid Interest of those who agree: +

Valid Interest of those who disagree: -





Videos That agree: +

Videos That disagree: -





Website that agree: +

Websites that disagree: -

Podcast that agree: +

Podcast that disagree: -



Unbiased Experts who agree: +

Unbiased Experts who disagree: -



Books that Agree: +

Books that Agree: -

Don't like the score? It is easy to change the score. Just post a reason to agree or disagree with the overall idea, or any of the reasons and the score will change.

Common Interest:

Opposing Interest:



Related arguments:

We should not begrudge faithful Mormon their desire to preserve faith by focusing on the good bits

Reasons to disagree

1. Some people need faith

Reasons to disagree

1. Following the spirit is problematic, because if all your family, and your upbringing tells you the Church is true, then of course when you doubt you are going to feel uncomfortable. The church tells you this uncomfortable feeling is the spirit leaving you, and so you get stuck never knowing the truth.

We should avoid conflating "the good" with "the true"

Reasons to agree

1. Whatever is good is true.


2. It is better to be good than right.

Reasons to disagree

1. Whatever is good, is not necessarily true.


2. Being right is good.


3. We can't face the real problems unless we live in reality.

It is moral not to hold on to implausible claims when they support a problematical construal of God

Reasons to agree

1. I'm not sure I get this right, but it sounded like he was saying that believing in "the God of 3 Nephi 9, D&C 132, Abraham 1" is immoral. Or at least not believing in them is Moral.


2. If God exists, perhaps He will forgive our stitching together models of goodness from “this-worldly” expressions untethered to extraordinary Mormon claims.


3. This stance seems to avoid conflating "the good" with "the true" while leaving one open to both.

Reasons to disagree

1. Just because a construct of God is problematic, does not make it immoral.


2. This is all just a mater of semantics. Sure, from a worldly standpoint it is moral to believe whatever you want. This does not mean it is true. Both believing and not believing can be moral. I'm not sure Bushman's point of view was accurately represented, but I assume Bushman feels that Josoph Smith was a Moral guy, and that Mormonism helps make Bushman a better guy. Much like what Peter said to Jesus, when he asked if Peter was also going to leave. Peter said, but where would we go for the worlds of Eternal life. I assume that is what Bushman meant, that he is still getting something out of Mormonism, and that he sticks with it because he thinks it makes him a more moral person.

Leaving the Church can be a moral choice.

Reasons to agree:

1. It is moral not to hold on to implausible claims when they support a problematical construal of God

Saying that God would test our faith with designed-implausibility, makes God into a pious-fraud.

Reasons to agree

1. A fraud is someone who says they are something that they are not. God never said he wouldn't hide himself so intellectuals couldn't find him. He does talk about stumbling blocks. I don't think that God tests our faith with designed implausibility, but if he did I wouldn't call him a fraud. I can see why he would do it. He would want nice people who pray, and stuff to make it into heaven, not people that construct logical towers of Babel.

Book of Mormon anachronistic do not prove the Book of Mormon is false.

Reasons to agree:

1. Someone on the other side perhaps Nephi in a ‘postmortem’ state provided the anachronistic Isaiah material.” (I'm not sure I follow this line of thought. It it assuming that this person provided a more accurate version of Isiah? I'm not sure how getting help from an Angel would explain problems with Isaiah in 2nd Nephi any differently than getting the translation from the Urim and Thummim.

2. Jesus could have intentionally communicated the Isaiah anachronisms to Mormon and Moroni.

Jesus could have intentionally communicated the Isaiah anachronisms to Mormon and Moroni

Reasons to agree

1. Our ways are not God's ways.


2. God did lots of things in the Old Testament, and some in the New Testament, that don't sound ethical to us. But God may not have to live by our definition of ethical.


3. God could be testing us. "Smart" people won't believe, but people that keep praying, and reading their scriptures will believe, just as God intended.

Reasons to disagree

1. God would not test our faith with designed-implausibility.

God would not test our faith with designed-implausibility. -2

Reasons to agree: 3

1. God cannot be said to purposely deceive us, and also be a god of truth. 


2. Saying that God purposely made his Church hard for intellectuals to accept disrespects God


3. The normal course of life provide enough stumbling blocks, without designed-implausibility.  What would such a construct of God be salvaging?

Reasons to disagree: -5

1. God never explains himself. He told Abraham to kill his son. Abraham could have researched if that commandment jived with the other commandments, but we are supposed to believe that it was counted to Abraham for righteousness.


2. Elijah (?) didn't explain himself when he told that guy to bath in that river (?) to fix his leprosy


3. We are told that Jesus purposely made the "eat of my flesh" and "drink of my blood" commandment confusing, as a test to weed out his followers.


4. God's ways are not our ways. 


5. God doesn't have to follow our rules. 

Score:

# of reasons to agree: 3

# of reasons to disagree: -5

# of reasons to agree with reasons to agree: 0

# of reasons to agree with reasons to disagree: -0

Total Idea Score: -2

Related arguments:

1. Saying there are Old Testament scriptures that support something is meaningless, because so many Old Scriptures contradict each other.


2. Saying there are Old Testament scriptures that support something is meaningless, because so many Old Scriptures contradict the New Testament.


3. Saying there are Old Testament scriptures that support something is meaningless, because so many Old Scriptures can be used to do terrible things.

The LDS Church should move beyond apologetics.

Reasons to agree

1. LDS apologetics don't work.

Reasons to disagree

1.  If the LDS Church doesn't defend themselves intellectually, then no one will.


2. It is possible for LDS scholars to present the LDS perspective while also being completely faithful to the truth.


3. LDS apologetics do work (see contrading claim above).


4. The term "biased apologetics" is an oxymoron. Apologetics is the discipline of defending a position  through the SYSTEMATIC use of reason. If an apologetic essay is "biased" it is not "systematic", as a systematic approach would address all aspects of an argument and not favor a biased perspective.

Score:

# of reasons to agree: 0

# of reasons to disagree: -0

# of reasons to agree with reasons to agree: 0

# of reasons to disagree with reasons to agree: 0

Total Idea Score: 0

Don't like the score? It is easy to change the score. Just post a reason to agree or disagree with the overall idea, or any of the reasons and the score will change

Conclusion: The important remaining question is which attempts at apologetic really use a systematic use of reason, and which ones try to confuse the reader.

The LDS Church should move beyond biased apologetics

I think we should dare to be boring, and investigate each belief on its own, and from each angle, because we don't want to keep having portions of the same conversations over and over again, from now until the crack of doom.  Lets do it very well, but only do it once. 

Belief: The LDS Church should move beyond biased apologetics. 

Reasons to agree

1. LDS apologetics don't work. 

Reasons to disagree

1. If the LDS Church doesn't defend themselves intellectually, then no one will.


2. It is possible for LDS scholars to present the LDS perspective without being biased to anything to the truth. 


3. LDS apologetics do work. 


4. The term "biased apologetics" is an oxymoron. Apologetics is the discipline of defending a position  through the SYSTEMATIC use of reason. If it is biased it is not systematic, as a systematic approach would address all aspects of an argument and not favor a biased perspective. 

Score:

# of reasons to agree: 1

# of reasons to disagree: -4

# of reasons to agree with reasons to agree: 0

# of reasons to disagree with reasons to agree: 0

Total Idea Score: 0

Don't like the score? It is easy to change the score. Just post a reason to agree or disagree with the overall idea, or any of the reasons and the score will change

The Book of Mormon mentions several animals, plants, and technologies for which there is currently no evidence in pre-Columbian history +7

Reasons to agree: +7

1. The Book of Mormon claims that Ancient Americans had Silk, which there is no evidence to support. I don't even think the silk worm lived in North or South America. (Ether 9:17: "Having all manner of fruit, and of grain, and of silks, and of fine linen, and of gold, and of silver, and of precious things."


2. The Book of Mormon claims that Ancient Americans had Linen, which there is no evidence to support. (Ether 9:17: "Having all manner of fruit, and of grain, and of silks, and of fine linen, and of gold, and of silver, and of precious things."


3. The Book of Mormon claims that Ancient Americans had cattle, which there is no evidence to support.  (Ether 9:18: "And also all manner of cattle, of oxen, and cows, and of sheep, and of swine, and of goats, and also many other kinds of animals which were useful for the food of man."


4. The Book of Mormon claims that Ancient Americans had Oxen, which there is no evidence to support.  (Ether 9:18: "And also all manner of cattle, of oxen, and cows, and of sheep, and of swine, and of goats, and also many other kinds of animals which were useful for the food of man."


5. The Book of Mormon claims that Ancient Americans had horses, which there is no evidence to support.  (Ether 9:19: "And they also had horses, and asses, and there were elephants and cureloms and cumoms; all of which were useful unto man, and more especially the elephants and cureloms and cumoms.."


6. The Book of Mormon claims that Ancient Americans had asses, which there is no evidence to support.  (Ether 9:19: "And they also had horses, and asses, and there were elephants and cureloms and cumoms; all of which were useful unto man, and more especially the elephants and cureloms and cumoms.."


7. The Book of Mormon claims that Ancient Americans had sheep, swine, goats, elephants wheat barley, figs, grapes, silk, steel, bellows, brass, breast plates, chains, iron working, plows, swords, scimitars, and chariots. The Smithsonian Institution has stated that "none of the principal food plants and domestic animals of the Old World (except the dog) were present in the New World before Columbus."

Score:

# of reasons to agree: +7

# of reasons to disagree: -0

# of reasons to agree with reasons to agree: 0

# of reasons to disagree with reasons to agree: 0

Total Idea Score: 7

Don't like the score? It is easy to change the score. Just post a reason to agree or disagree with the overall idea, or any of the reasons and the score will change

Images That agree

Website that agree

1. 
   
   

Websites that disagree

1. 
   

God wouldn't purposely hide evidence of himself, in order to make us need faith to believe in him

Fundamentalist Christian Examples might including:

1. God wouldn't purposely plant dinosaur bones, so that we need faith to believe in him

Mormon Examples might including:

1. God wouldn't purposely change the DNA of Native Americans just to make us require faith to be a Mormon.


2. God wouldn't change the language of native Americans from Hebrew, to their current languages, just to make us require faith to be a Mormon.

Reasons to agree

1. If God purposely mislead us, that would be dishonest, and he would cease to be God. 

Reasons to disagree

1. Our laws are not Gods laws. God can kill and lie and stuff, and still be justified. 

Images That agree

1.   

Images That disagree

1. 
   
   

Scriptures that agree

1. 
   
   

Scriptures that disagree

1.  

Interest of those who agree

1. 
   
   

Interest of those who disagree

1.  

Common Interest

1. 
   
   

Opposing Interest

1.  

Videos That agree

1.  

Videos That disagree

1.  

Website that agree

1. 
   
   

Websites that disagree

1. 
   
   

Score:

# of reasons to agree: 0

# of reasons to disagree: -0

# of reasons to agree with reasons to agree: 0

# of reasons to disagree with reasons to agree: 0

Total Idea Score: 0

Don't like the score? It is easy to change the score. Just post a reason to agree or disagree with the overall idea, or any of the reasons and the score will change

The Book of Mormon says that the Jews are the "principal ancestors of the American Indians", but they were not +3

Reasons to agree

1. DNA proves that Native Americans were not primarily descendant from Jews, as the Book of Mormon says they were. 


2. God wouldn't purposely change the DNA of Native Americans just to make us require faith to be a Mormon. 


3. God wouldn't purposely hide evidence of himself, in order to make us need faith to believe in him. 

Reasons to disagree

1.   

Videos That agree

Videos That disagree

Scriptures that agree

1. 
   

Scriptures that disagree

1. 
   

Score:

# of reasons to agree: 0

# of reasons to disagree: -0

# of reasons to agree with reasons to agree: 0

# of reasons to agree with reasons to disagree: -0

Total Idea Score: 0

Images That agree

Images That disagree



Interest of those who agree

Interest of those who disagree



Common Interest

Opposing Interest



Website that agree

Websites that disagree



Related arguments:



Don't like the score? It is easy to change the score. Just post a reason to agree or disagree with the overall idea, or any of the reasons and the score will change

There are too many historical problems with the book of Mormon to say that it is "true" +13

RTA

1. The Book of Mormon says that the Jews are the "principal ancestors of the American Indians", +2 but they were not. +1


2. The Book of Mormon mentions several animals, plants, and technologies for which there is currently no evidence in pre-Columbian history +7


3. God would not send his message to humanity through a document that had serious historical problems.


4. God would not send his message to humanity through a document that had no historical support. 

Reasons to disagree

1. There are some aspects of the Book of Mormon that support a literal historical interpretation.  +0

Score:

# of reasons to agree: 4

# of reasons to disagree: -1

# of reasons to agree with reasons to agree: 10

# of reasons to disagree with reasons to agree: 0

Total Idea Score: 13

Don't like the score? It is easy to change the score. Just post a reason to agree or disagree with the overall idea, or any of the reasons and the score will change

Also see:

1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historical_authenticity_of_the_Book_of_Mormon

Easter Sunday at the LDS Church

It is Easter Sunday and the person was assigned to talk about "The Spirit of Christ". He spoke about how the Spirit of Christ can influence those who are not members of our Church. His example was how Robert E Lee took communion with a black man. He may have been nice, but he lead the South in a fight to keep their slaves.



Also quoted D&C 88 and read these word:



"As also he is in the sun, and the light of the sun, and the power thereof by which it was made.



As also he is in the moon, and is the light of the moon, and the power thereof by which it was made".



So the moon has its own power that is different than the power of the Sun, and the stars?



There were some good parts, but some very boring parts... In Sunday school we talked for about 20 mins about why Christ told us to be like little Children... So many of these concepts have just been beaten to death. Some of it I probably should be reminded of every once and a while, but for 3 hours every Sunday? Its just too much! Right?

The LDS Church supports a black and white view of the world

Does the LDS Church supports a black and white view of the world? and What are examples? It teaches a black and white view of sin, I guess, and its truth, but does it result in problems with people?



Reasons to agree: +3

1. Some things that the Church says are good for all Mormons are only really good for some Mormons. 


2. The LDS Church leaders say that either the Church is 100% true or it is 100% false, but then they make all these allowances for previous church leaders to sin, and change their opinions. They expect members to believe it 100% and be 100% righteous, but allow church leaders all this latitude to change their beliefs, and commit major sins. 


3. The LDS Church says it is the "one true church".


4. Gordon B. Hinkley: "Each of us has to face the matter—either the Church is true, or it is a fraud. There is no middle ground. It is the Church and kingdom of God, or it is nothing". Apr conference, 2003.

Reasons to disagree: -0 Leave a comment for me to add one

1.  

Images That agree

1.   

Images That disagree

1. 
   
   

Scriptures that agree

1. 
   
   

Scriptures that disagree

1.  

Interest of those who agree

1. 
   
   

Interest of those who disagree

1.  

Common Interest

1. 
   
   

Opposing Interest

1.  

Videos That agree

1.  

Videos That disagree

1.  

Website that agree

1. 
   
   

Websites that disagree

1. 
   
   

Score:

# of reasons to agree: 0

# of reasons to disagree: -0

# of reasons to agree with reasons to agree: 0

# of reasons to disagree with reasons to agree: 0

Total Idea Score: 0

Don't like the score? It is easy to change the score. Just post a reason to agree or disagree with the overall idea, or any of the reasons and the score will change

Score:

# of reasons to agree: 1

# of reasons to disagree: -3

# of reasons to agree with reasons to agree: -2

# of reasons to disagree with reasons to agree: -13

Total Idea Score: -17

Don't like the score? It is easy to change the score. Just post a reason to agree or disagree with the overall idea, or any of the reasons and the score will change

Reasons to agree (-1)

1. (-1) The Book of Mormon is True. (-1) If the Book of Mormon is true, than the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints is true.

Reasons to disagree (-5)

1. (-3) The LDS Church is still doing bad things



2. (-2) The LDS Church has changed doctrines too much for people to worry about following it


3. (-8) LDS leaders claim to have God's authority when they tell people what to do, however they claim they never said they were infallible when they want to change their minds


4. (-1) Joseph Smith lied about the Book of Abraham

e

Images That agree

Images That disagree

1. http://mormongags.com/

Scriptures that agree

1. 
   
   

Scriptures that disagree

Interest of those who agree

1. Not wanting to have to live all the strict rules of Mormonism. "If God had a face what would it look like. And would you want to see? If seeing meant that you would have to believe, in things like heaven and in Jesus and the saints and all the Prophets".

Interest of those who disagree

1. Not wanting to have wasted years of their life, and lots of money for nothing.

Common Interest

1. 
   
   

Opposing Interest

Videos That agree

Videos That disagree

Website that agree

1. http://lds.org



2. http://www.fairlds.org/

Websites that disagree

1. http://www.realmormonhistory.com/



2. http://www.irr.org/mit/