Themis wrote:Mainstream Christian whoppers are also a part of LDS whoppers. It just that they tend to be more vague, while many LDS ones are just so obvious like the Book of Mormon, Book of Abraham, etc.
Talking donkeys and snakes, parting seas, suspended suns, and flying and teleporting men who raise others from the dead are more vague than "the Book of Mormon" and "the Book of Abraham"? And why does the fact that Latter-day Saints believe some of those things too mean it's not as ridiculous for mainstream Christians to believe them?
Themis wrote:Mainstream Christian whoppers are also a part of LDS whoppers. It just that they tend to be more vague, while many LDS ones are just so obvious like the Book of Mormon, Book of Abraham, etc.
Talking donkeys and snakes, parting seas, suspended suns, and flying and teleporting men who raise others from the dead are more vague than "the Book of Mormon" and "the Book of Abraham"? And why does the fact that Latter-day Saints believe some of those things too mean it's not as ridiculous for mainstream Christians to believe them?
You're right, they are just as ridiculous, but they're less falsifiable. And most Biblical ridiculousness comes from the Old Testament, and most Bible believers, Mormons included, feel comfortable throwing the Old Testament under the bus when required, in my experience.
Parley P. Pratt wrote:We must lie to support brother Joseph, it is our duty to do so.
Themis wrote:Mainstream Christian whoppers are also a part of LDS whoppers. It just that they tend to be more vague, while many LDS ones are just so obvious like the Book of Mormon, Book of Abraham, etc.
Talking donkeys and snakes, parting seas, suspended suns, and flying and teleporting men who raise others from the dead are more vague than "the Book of Mormon" and "the Book of Abraham"? And why does the fact that Latter-day Saints believe some of those things too mean it's not as ridiculous for mainstream Christians to believe them?
Absolutely true. It's all nonsense with a different brand name.
A lot of nonsense by any other name would smell as bad...
God belief is for people who don't want to live life on the universe's terms.
maklelan wrote: Talking donkeys and snakes, parting seas, suspended suns, and flying and teleporting men who raise others from the dead are more vague than "the Book of Mormon" and "the Book of Abraham"?
In that we don't have any evidence for most of them and consider them whoopers due to never having seen it happen before. With the Book of Mormon, Book of Abraham, and many other LDS whoppers, much evidence is available that makes it obvious to the outsider and many insiders that they are whoppers. I used the word tend since I didn't want to include all Bible whoppers like a Global flood or young earth, but then some LDS and other Christians do not believe many of these whoppers. The main whopper that is common for most LDS and Christians is the resurrection.
And why does the fact that Latter-day Saints believe some of those things too mean it's not as ridiculous for mainstream Christians to believe them?
maklelan wrote:I don't think it needs to. The Church is perfectly aware that its claims are uncommon. I take issue, however, with the notion that anything in Mormonism is any more of a "whopper" than the claims of any of the United States' fundamentalist Christian denominations. One collection of whoppers has just been around a lot longer than another.
It's more of a whopper because the truth claims of Latter Day Saints are built upon the foundational claims of Christianity. Sam Harris expressed it very well with this quote:
Mormonism, it seems to me, is—objectively—just a little more idiotic than Christianity is. It has to be: because it is Christianity plus some very stupid ideas. For instance, the Mormons think Jesus is going to return to earth and administer his Thousand years of Peace, at least part of the time, from the state of Missouri. Why does this make Mormonism less likely to be true than Christianity? Because whatever probability you assign to Jesus’ coming back, you have to assign a lesser probability to his coming back and keeping a summer home in Jackson County, Missouri. - Sam Harris
Talking donkeys and snakes, parting seas, suspended suns, and flying and teleporting men who raise others from the dead are more vague than "the Book of Mormon" and "the Book of Abraham"? And why does the fact that Latter-day Saints believe some of those things too mean it's not as ridiculous for mainstream Christians to believe them?
But Mormon BS is quite a bit fresher your standard Christian BS, and therefore a lot stinkier.
Phaedrus Ut wrote: It's more of a whopper because the truth claims of Latter Day Saints are built upon the foundational claims of Christianity. Sam Harris expressed it very well with this quote:
Mormonism, it seems to me, is—objectively—just a little more idiotic than Christianity is. It has to be: because it is Christianity plus some very stupid ideas. For instance, the Mormons think Jesus is going to return to earth and administer his Thousand years of Peace, at least part of the time, from the state of Missouri. Why does this make Mormonism less likely to be true than Christianity? Because whatever probability you assign to Jesus’ coming back, you have to assign a lesser probability to his coming back and keeping a summer home in Jackson County, Missouri. - Sam Harris
If this "Whopper" terminology becomes part of the campaign for the general election, how can the LDS Church really defend itself?
I honestly don't think its that big of deal. Surely religion may cause the likelihood of Romney's chance of winning go down the tubes. But so?
Dowd ran through a laundry list of things she found odd or objectionable about Mormonism in an Oct. 19 column: "Magic underwear. Baptizing dead people. Celestial marriages. Private planets. Racism. Polygamy."
Its the way you present it. To just spit out some vague allusions, cleverly worded, about LDS beliefs and ideas will cause perceptions about LDS people. To truly understand people you ought to dig deeper than that and present it a little more contextually. But its a game. The Church will "defend itself", by not really defending. Just sticking its nose out there and saying things like, "we don't baptize dead people but rather seek to learn aobut our ancestors so we can feel bound to them and seek to do work for them by proxy, which work, our faith is, will benefit them eternally."
Love ya tons, Stem
I ain't nuttin'. don't get all worked up on account of me.
stemelbow wrote: Its the way you present it. To just spit out some vague allusions, cleverly worded, about LDS beliefs and ideas will cause perceptions about LDS people. To truly understand people you ought to dig deeper than that and present it a little more contextually. But its a game. The Church will "defend itself", by not really defending. Just sticking its nose out there and saying things like, "we don't baptize dead people but rather seek to learn aobut our ancestors so we can feel bound to them and seek to do work for them by proxy, which work, our faith is, will benefit them eternally."
I bet you really think this "context" helps the church's case, don't you?
I imagine for you it does, but I'll let you in on a secret: for non-members, it doesn't. As far as we're concerned, just throwing out those terms is shorthand for your "context."
It's like this:
"You really shouldn't have raped that girl."
"You don't understand... I only did it because she was unwilling to have sex with me."
Did context help there?
God belief is for people who don't want to live life on the universe's terms.
Corpsegrinder wrote:But Mormon BS is quite a bit fresher your standard Christian BS, and therefore a lot stinkier.
So you believe that the legitimacy of a truth claim is actually increased by the antiquity of the claim, or is it just the appearance of legitimacy? Either way, I disagree, and I don't think the transitory nature of the smell of poop really serves as a legitimate analogy. This seems more like a rather base rhetorical jab.