Believing in Mormonism requires believing in....

[_beastie]

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.

Impressive. I sense a hybrid scientology/Mormonism offshoot in the making.

[_antishock8]

You're wrong, B&L. The garments stopped me from having an sex with a girl once.... But thanks for advancing the sterotype that men are mindless sex machines that can't control themselves no matter what.

Yeah. I mean, in your case, you needed stitched-together fabric to "control yourself". Get the f*** out of here. Are you serious? I mean, your convenants to your god weren't enough to keep your d*** in your pants? You needed some stitched-together fabric as a barrier between your mindless-sex machine and her vagina? I mean................................... REALLY?? That's pathetic if that's the case, and it doesn't cast you in a good light at all, and it's hardly an argument for the use of garmets to keep your ass out of trouble.

Jesus. I mean.... Jesus.....

[_beastie]

In scottie's defense, I think it is possible that a believer could get caught up in passion and decide to throw caution and covenants out the window, and then, when confronted with the act of actually taking the garments off in order to have sex, have second thoughts, be filled with guilt and remorse, and stop. I do agree that was likely always one of the purposes of the garments.

[_antishock8]

In scottie's defense, I think it is possible that a believer could get caught up in passion and decide to throw caution and covenants out the window, and then, when confronted with the act of actually taking the garments off in order to have sex, have second thoughts, be filled with guilt and remorse, and stop. I do agree that was likely always one of the purposes of the garments.

I understand that, but what does that say about Mormonism if the reason why someone stopped short of adultery was some stitched-together fabric instead of an internal process? If him sticking to his beliefs requires a fabric barrier rather than the belief itself... Then really... What does that say about the effectiveness of Mormon dogma? I'm really resisting the urge to suggest he wear prayer shawl and an ephod so he's constantly reminded of his duties as a Son of the House of Israel to walk in righteousness at all times.

[_beastie]

I understand that, but what does that say about Mormonism if the reason why someone stopped short of adultery was some stitched-together fabric instead of an internal process? If him sticking to his beliefs requires a fabric barrier rather than the belief itself... Then really... What does that say about the effectiveness of Mormon dogma? I'm really resisting the urge to suggest he wear prayer shawl and an ephod so he's constantly reminded of his duties as a Son of the House of Israel to walk in righteousness at all times.

I'm sure it was still the internal process that stopped him. The garment was just a concrete, stark reminder and trigger of that internal process.

But I do believe there are some similarities in purpose between the garment and the prayer shawl and ephod.

[_Jersey Girl]

You're wrong, B&L. The garments stopped me from having an sex with a girl once.... But thanks for advancing the sterotype that men are mindless sex machines that can't control themselves no matter what.

Yeah. I mean, in your case, you needed stitched-together fabric to "control yourself". Get the f*** out of here. Are you serious? I mean, your convenants to your god weren't enough to keep your d*** in your pants? You needed some stitched-together fabric as a barrier between your mindless-sex machine and her vagina? I mean................................... REALLY?? That's pathetic if that's the case, and it doesn't cast you in a good light at all, and it's hardly an argument for the use of garmets to keep your ass out of trouble.

Jesus. I mean.... Jesus.....

If I am not mistaken, the garments are symbolic in nature. Human beings respond to symbols. I'm afraid I don't understand the point you're trying to make here.

[_harmony]

Every religion has impossible things to believe in. Mormons are far from alone in this.

We're back to the God/no God thing again. It seems like everything devolves to this point nowadays.

[_beastie]

Every religion has impossible things to believe in. Mormons are far from alone in this.

Of course they're far from alone in this. And yes, every religion has impossible things to believe in. The problem that I see for Mormonism is that it not only adopted the "impossible things" from mainstream Christianity (see: global flood, adam and eve) but then added on a bunch more impossible stuff (see: magic rocks). Isn't there some point at which human beings' gag reflex kicks in? Or do most human beings just keep swallowing, if the culture around them demands it?

We're back to the God/no God thing again. It seems like everything devolves to this point nowadays.

You seem to be saying that the belief in god always requires the belief in impossible things. Is this what you intend to say?

[_harmony]

Every religion has impossible things to believe in. Mormons are far from alone in this.

Of course they're far from alone in this. And yes, every religion has impossible things to believe in. The problem that I see for Mormonism is that it not only adopted the "impossible things" from mainstream Christianity (see: global flood, adam and eve) but then added on a bunch more impossible stuff (see: magic rocks). Isn't there some point at which human beings' gag reflex kicks in? Or do most human beings just keep swallowing, if the culture around them demands it?

Obviously not. And the "magic rocks", at least the Urim and Thummim, were taken from the Old Testament, like quite a lot of the rest. They were a Jewish device. Joseph usurped them in order to give his story more believability.

We're back to the God/no God thing again. It seems like everything devolves to this point nowadays.

You seem to be saying that the belief in god always requires the belief in impossible things. Is this what you intend to say?

God himself is impossible, yet necessary to man's development. But that's not what I was getting at. My point was much more shallow. We don't discuss Mormons and Mormon culture so much as we discuss atheists.

[_beastie]

Obviously not. And the "magic rocks", at least the Urim and Thummim, were taken from the Old Testament, like quite a lot of the rest. They were a Jewish device. Joseph usurped them in order to give his story more believability.

I'm not sure what you're obviously not referenced. Was it towards "does the gag reflex ever kick in"? It does seem that it only kicks in with a very small minority of human beings.

Joseph Smith utilized the urim and thummim to give a biblical reference, but he was using magic rocks for treasure digging long before that time. And it's THOSE magic rocks that ought to trigger the gag reflex, in my opinion. Yes, we live in a culture saturated in Judeo-Christian thought, so the magic rocks of the Urim and Thummim aren't going to seem ridiculous. But taken outside THEIR cultural background - ie, nineteenth century folk magic of New England - Joseph Smith' treasure digging magic rocks seem ridiculous. THAT is why they are treated like "meat" and hidden behind the "milk".

God himself is impossible, yet necessary to man's development. But that's not what I was getting at. My point was much more shallow. We don't discuss Mormons and Mormon culture so much as we discuss atheists.

Of course I disagree with your first sentence here. I think the god concept is entirely unnecessary to man's development. In regards to your second point, the OP was quite specifically about Mormonism. It only becomes about atheism when posters respond by saying Mormonism is no worse than any religion in general. The only response to that, for an atheist, is to say: d'uh. And then it becomes about atheism. So if theists don't want to discussion to become about atheism, they ought to avoid that train of thought altogether.