Believing in Mormonism requires believing in....

[_Scottie]

Beastie,

The claims of the Bible are no less ridiculous than those in Mormonism. In fact, quite a bit less believable.

[_Boaz & Lidia]

That is bull and you know it. If a guy has made up his mind to have sex with a woman nothing is stopping him, not even wearing Flash Gordon B. Hinckley under pants.

You're wrong, B&L. The garments stopped me from having an sex with a girl once.

I'm sure it has stopped more than me.

But thanks for advancing the sterotype that men are mindless sex machines that can't control themselves no matter what.

Really. Huh.

I could understand, a bit more, with the one piece jammies, but the two piece are simply long underwear and a t-shirt. The bottoms can come off with one fell swoop with the pants, and the top with the t-shirt. Just ask Lidia ;)

[_Jersey Girl]

B&L

The bottoms can come off with one fell swoop with the pants, and the top with the t-shirt. Just ask Lidia ;)

Okay, that was darn cute!

[_Boaz & Lidia]

B&L

The bottoms can come off with one fell swoop with the pants, and the top with the t-shirt. Just ask Lidia ;)

Okay, that was darn cute!

Funny dat. She called it hot. :)

Back in the day she would say, "you weren't wearing any garmies???", then she see them still inside the pants..(almost like they were sewn in) on the floor!

[_Jersey Girl]

B&L

The bottoms can come off with one fell swoop with the pants, and the top with the t-shirt. Just ask Lidia ;)

Okay, that was darn cute!

Funny dat. She called it hot. :)

Back in the day she would say, "you weren't wearing any garmies???", then she see them still inside the pants..(almost like they were sewn in) on the floor!

On the floor? Stick shift or automatic?

;-)

[_beastie]

I agree with you in principle. Having said that, would you agree that there are people in other venues of life who also find themselves in the position of defending things that others laugh at and who might feel discouraged or mocked? I don't think religion is the only thing that could make people believe in what seems to others, beyond belief.

I see no compassion in your post for those who do believe. Weren't you one of them? Perhaps that wasn't the connection you hoped to make.

Sometimes, and I'm not pointing directly to your post, when I see ex-LDS mocking LDS I think that what they're really doing is mocking the image of their former believing selves.

I didn't believe in the majority of these things, because I didn't know about these things. I didn't know about Joseph Smith" magic rock, nor did I know that there was zero evidence for a massive Judeo-Christian culture in ancient America (see, I was converted back in the time when the missionaries led us astray on that point, also having been led astray themselves), I didn't know Joseph Smith practiced polygamy at ALL, much less with married women at the point of a flaming sword. Finding about about these things is what led me to stop believing.

Now there were a couple of points I DID know about, and DID believe, with some qualms. The idea of magic underwear and passwords to get into heaven always seemed a bit "off" to me, but I shelved it. Mormons tend to have an internal "shelf" on which they place issues that trouble them a bit. The first time I read about this concept was in Sonja Johnson's book, and I immediately recognized it. I'd been doing it, too. The problem is, of course, that if too much junk gets put on the shelf it tends to break. And Jason is right on this point, it is possible to find a way to reinterpret those things so they're not so "off".

The aspect of my former self that I regret is my huge gullibility. I do feel like I was "had", although it's hard to figure out WHO did the "had-ding". Certainly not other LDS who believed it as much as I did. I suppose it was dead people - Joseph Smith, Sidney Rigdon, those who set up the whole shebang. Do I mock my former self? Yes, at times I do. I do not share the idea that all beliefs deserve respect of some sort just because they're religious. Some beliefs are patently ridiculous, and to encourage people to continue embracing them by showing them (the ideas) respect the ideas don't deserve isn't beneficial either to the individual or society as a whole.

But the main point of my post wasn't to mock, but rather to put the prerequisite beliefs in stark black and white terms. The only reason it ends up sounding "mocking" is because the beliefs themselves are patently ridiculous, and everyone knows it, including the people who insist on embracing them in order to preserve religious belief. That's why they're so defensive about it (by "they", I don't mean questioning LDS, but apologists whose sole purpose is defense of the faith, regardless of what they end up defending). That's why they trumpet their degrees and professional accomplishments - they KNOW that these beliefs make them look stupid, and they're assuring everyone they're not stupid.

I think I have quite a bit of compassion towards believers who struggle with these issues. I also have compassion for those who don't have an easy "out" due to familial issues, and don't like seeing them attacked as cowards or some such. The one group I do not have compassion for are apologists - and I'm not referring to dabblers with that term, people who probably are just trying to work these things out - but the apologists who are quasi-professional. I don't respect the majority of them, either. They know just what is required to believe in the LDS church. They would have understood each and every point I cited. They know that some of the ideas they defend are patently ridiculous, but they have made a decision to defend the faith no matter what that requires. The "no matter" is often deliberately misleading people as well as obfuscating the issues as much as possible. It's one thing for them to have decided that, likely due to their private investment paradigm, belief must be preserved no matter what, but it's quite another for them to try to lead others down that same path. The strongest belief I have in all this back and forth between LDS and exLDS is that people who are seeking for legitimate information in order to help them evaluate the claims of the church deserve to have factual, honest, and complete information offered to them. I'm not talking about subjective evaluations of what occurred, I understand that can differ - I'm talking about the simple facts. That's what they deserve.

Personally, I think people who have discovered the things I cited in my OP (and many others) and still maintain FULL belief (I'm not talking about truly liberal believers, not "liberal" in the sense it's been distorted by certain apologists) have drunk the kool-aid. That particular aspect of human nature - and yes, it is NOT unique to Mormonism nor to religion - is deeply regrettable and does not deserve to be painted over with a veneer of "respect". When respect is offered for NO reason other than that the beliefs are religious in origin, then the term "respect" is being distorted to the point where it is meaningless.

But, once again, I want to emphasize - the point of my post wasn't to MOCK, but rather to state in stark terms just what fully believing in Mormonism requires. It can sound "mocking" simply due to the fact that these beliefs are ridiculous, and stating them simply without a lot of smoke and mirrors reveals just how ridiculous they are.

[_beastie]

Yes I see the problems. People lie at times. It seems though the Joseph Smith was bothered by his treasure digging days and was pushed by his father to do it. Later He decided it was not appropriate and gave it up. He was young so I can give him some slack there. But yea it is an issue.

As for the other question one was my SP and a bishop as well. I asked them if it was figurative or literal. All fiurative. Others are just members and I do not know it they may be privately more liberal.

I'll give you the garments and passwords, although I do feel that these are presented in a literal fashion to believers, but agree that it's possible to find a way to view these things as figurative. But I'm standing firm on the magic rocks. The point isn't just that Joseph Smith lied - and yes, people lie at times. It is that the lie Joseph told was exactly the same as the story he later told about how he translated the Book of Mormon. Same stone, same process.

For example - Mr. Smith claims that he can predict exactly what the next lottery numbers will be via the ouija board with the help of friendly spirits, and persuades investors to pay him money for that service. He gives excuses for why it didn't work, but eventually the investors catch on, get mad, and take him to court. He stops offering that service, but soon is claiming that he can predict what the stock market will do via the ouija board with the help of friendly spirits.

There really is no logical way in which you can accept his claim about the stock market, but reject his claim about the lottery numbers.

[_beastie]

4. Joseph Smith was born with the gift of sight. This gift was in it's embryonic stage at 14. Joseph Smith COULD see things, but he didn't understand what he was seeing. As his faith matured and he tuned this gift in later years, he became proficient in reading the stone accurately.

Remember, here are the options I outlined earlier on this thread:

1. Joseph lied and couldn't really see buried treasures guarded by mean ghosts.
2. Joseph really thought he was seeing buried treasures, but was confused for some reason, and wasn't really seeing real buried treasure.
3. Joseph really did see buried treasure being guarded by mean ghosts.

I think that number 2 covers your response. He was confused about what he was seeing. In that case, I would say he was equally confused when "translating" the Book of Mormon.

[_antishock8]

1. Joseph lied and couldn't really see buried treasures guarded by mean ghosts.
2. Joseph really thought he was seeing buried treasures, but was confused for some reason, and wasn't really seeing real buried treasure.
3. Joseph really did see buried treasure being guarded by mean ghosts.

Just to play devil's advocate...

4. Joseph Smith was born with the gift of sight. This gift was in it's embryonic stage at 14. Joseph Smith COULD see things, but he didn't understand what he was seeing. As his faith matured and he tuned this gift in later years, he became proficient in reading the stone accurately.

Oooo, this is fun. I think Mr. Smith was actually cybernetically engineered by space faring cyborgs. Since it was the 1800's, it would be impossible for anyone to understand what had happened to him. Think about it. He was anesthetized, but he interpreted that as Satan attacking him. Really, it was nanoprobes infiltrating his nervous system causing him paralysis and, as to be expected, anxiety. After that, he could hear "them" communicating to him, and sometimes he would get holographic messages sent to him. He then knew, that most people wouldn't understand this thing happening to him, so he related his experiences in a religious context. He was smart enough to know that he would be killed or ostracized if he attempted to explain things in a literal sense. So, as you see, it makes sense from a scientific perspective what really happened to him.

Bam. Too easy.

[_beastie]

Beastie,

The claims of the Bible are no less ridiculous than those in Mormonism. In fact, quite a bit less believable.

Yes, you are right, the claims of the Bible are often ridiculous. However, mainstream Christians have an "out" that Mormons can't access. Mainstream Christians can view the Bible as partly myth. In fact, with the exception of Bible inerrants (whom I agree have just as much of a challenge as Mormons), that is exactly what mainstream Christians do with the Bible. But Mormons don't have that option with most of these issues.

Now one could certainly argue that the primary foundation of all Christianity - mainstream and offshoots like Mormonism - is that an omnipotent God couldn't forgive human beings for their sins and weaknesses without having blood shed in their behalf, and that only the magic blood of a half-god would do, hence, Jesus - is just as ridiculous as believing in magic rocks. I actually agree with that point. I think it is just as ridiculous, frankly. It just doesn't sound as ridiculous because it is almost universally accepted in our particular culture.