We did some digging and learned a bit about men becoming gods:

[url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exaltation_(Mormonism[/url])
[url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/King_Follett_discourse[/url]

In the "talk" parts of those pages there is mention of sources other than the Bible that are considered doctrine.

We are surprised that this isn't talked much. We have had close (working) relationships with Mormons and we do not remember hearing about this. One would think that this would be an attractive idea to potential converts. Or at least something interesting to share since it is a pretty big deal, right?

Well I certainly think it is a big deal!

Besides the Bible we have the Book of Mormon, the Doctrine and Covenants (some of Joseph Smith's revelations and some later revelations), the Pearl of Great Price (a small collection of other writings), and the words of our prophets (although most of these are not canonized, we consider many of them as on par with scripture). The discourse you linked to is in the last category.

When I was a missionary, during the first lesson we would give the investigator a copy of the Book of Mormon.

Tried that data base for 5 different deities, from 5 different areas and times. Didn't find any. I am quite angry with them right now, especially for not knowing Zamolxis (tried different spellings for this one, all from wikipedia, no result returned).

:yucky:

[QUOTE=Zeta-Flux;378113]Do you not similarly believe in only one of the options?[/QUOTE]

No. I personally believe that none of the options are likely correct. Or, alternatively, they all are.

[QUOTE=chalsall;378133]No. I personally believe that none of the options are likely correct. Or, alternatively, they all are.[/QUOTE]

Hmmm... I guess I'm a believer in the law of the excluded middle. So I don't think it likely that "they all are" likely correct.

That said, I think there is some truth to be found in most of them. So I follow the one that I believe possesses the most truth, and is the most likely to continue incorporating more truth as it is revealed.

(By the way, I would probably label "atheism" as one of the categories of options.)

[QUOTE=Zeta-Flux;378116]When I was a missionary, during the first lesson we would give the investigator a copy of the Book of Mormon.[/QUOTE]I suspect that I am one of a tiny minority who, not being a member of that church, acquired a copy without it being given to me by one of their representatives.

[QUOTE=Zeta-Flux;378136]That said, I think there is some truth to be found in most of them. So I follow the one that I believe possesses the most truth, and is the most likely to continue incorporating more truth as it is revealed.[/QUOTE]

That said, would it not make sense to accept the possiblity that others might be correct, and you might be wrong? (I believe it is called the scientific method.)

To "cut to the chase", many have made a great deal of money with these false positives. And many have died.

All over beleifs which, by definition, cannot be proven.

Hmmmm....

[QUOTE]That said, would it not make sense to accept the possiblity that others might be correct, and you might be wrong? (I believe it is called the scientific method.)[/QUOTE]Yes, I too believe it makes sense to accept the possibility that others might be correct, and you might be wrong. Indeed, I believe this is required of a logically consistent person working within a complicated enough system, by Godel's second incompleteness theorem. (And no, accepting this possibility is not the [URL="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method"]scientific method[/URL]. It's called [I]humility[/I]-- and it can, however, be usefully applied within the context of the scientific method.)

[quote]To "cut to the chase", many have made a great deal of money with these false positives. And many have died.[/quote]And many have given away a lot of money because of those beliefs, in order to help the poor. Many have been enlightened. And many improvements in life have been made.

[quote]All over beleifs which, by definition, cannot be proven.[/quote]While some belief systems (including certain axiomatic systems in mathematics!!) posit unprovables, not all do.

[QUOTE=xilman;378137]I suspect that I am one of a tiny minority who, not being a member of that church, acquired a copy without it being given to me by one of their representatives.[/QUOTE]

But apparently not an [b]infinitesimally[/b] small minority. :wink:

[QUOTE=Zeta-Flux;378154]And many have given away a lot of money because of those beliefs, in order to help the poor. Many have been enlightened. And many improvements in life have been made.[/QUOTE]

Just for clarity, are you arguing that because some believers gave to non-believers means that everything is OK?

[QUOTE=Zeta-Flux;378154]While some belief systems (including certain axiomatic systems in mathematics!!) posit unprovables, not all do.[/QUOTE]

Sure. But your point is?????

[QUOTE=chalsall;378159]Just for clarity, are you arguing that because some believers gave to non-believers means that everything is OK?[/quote]No, I'm saying that not all believers (and not all non-believers) are alike.

Some are wolves in sheep's clothing.

Some are sincere seekers for the truth, who are tricked by the wolves.

And some sincerely go about doing good in the world.

If we were to judge belief systems by how much money people are making on false positives, I'm not sure atheism would come out much better. [But I also think that lumping together all atheists causes another problem. It mixes genuinely good groups with some nasty ones. Similarly, lumping (say) all Christian groups together can muddy up the waters.]

[quote][quote]While some belief systems (including certain axiomatic systems in mathematics!!) posit unprovables, not all do.[/quote]Sure. But your point is?????[/QUOTE]It is two-fold.

First, the existence of unprovables is not always a negative (hence my example from mathematics).

Second, not all people who believe in God posit that he is unknowable. Indeed, some posit specific tests whereby one can come to know God.