Romney's Magic Mormon Underpants makes the News (link)

[_schreech]

***EDIT***

I take that back:

What is the point of this poll and who knew about it?

I asserted that it was actually more common than the notion that they have supernatural protective powers. He was shown to be wrong.

So, you think a poll of 39, very specific people (your Facebook friends who happen to be self-identifying Mormons), who chose to answer the questions, shows that he was wrong? lol...

11 of the 39 specifically selected people actually agreed that the garments have supernatural powers! Why were non-self-identifying-LDS not included (I am still a member and was taught that they were magic)?

What was the average age of the people who took the poll (past mission, ward and school friends who are most likely your age and share similar, non-traditional LDS beliefs? - hmmm. great sample group there).

This poll is complete non-sense and the fact that 11 of your 39 specifically selected people actually stated that they felt like the "garments" have supernatural powers shows that you are likely wrong on this whole issue...Only 21 people chose your, very leading, question about WWJD bracelets as there is NO comparison between the 2....

"It is a broad functional equivalence I highlight. If you and others need your hand held through an explanation of what that means in terms of degree of conceptual and attributive overlap then this discussion isn't for you."

Lol - are you taking over droopy's position as the residential thesaurus abuser? I like how you used a bunch of words to avoid answering the question.

All I can say is:

[_Darth J]

Dear Maklelan:

Thank you for your presentation of bastardized Mormonism as a scholarly exercise, where everything is an abstract symbol or an allegory, and there are no supernatural components.

Obviously scholarly and dispassionate approaches to religion pervert the fact that people's etic and subjective impressions of religion are all that really matters. How silly of me to think that human experience could be evaluated objectively.

That is entirely non-responsive to what I said. I am saying that the Mormonism you describe is in substance a scholarly exercise, where everything is an abstract symbol or an allegory, and there are no supernatural components.

Good to know, though, that human experience can be evaluated objectively, but finding out what the tenets are of a given religion cannot---by looking at the statements of its leaders and official curricula, for example.

I've made my argument, and it's clear you are unwilling and unable to speak intelligently and objectively to the main concerns I expressed. They are still there and they remain unaddressed. All you can do it try to find peripheral flaws, whether real or imagined, that you can exploit for rhetorical capital in the hopes that you'll run me off or confuse me. It's clear a rational and dispassionate approach is not going to be entertained or undertaken by you or Scratch, so I'm not going to waste any more time. I can't argue with people who do not appear to understand what I say, if they even read it. Your ignorant rhetoric has fatigued a reasonable and respectful approach. My faith in rational debate has been shattered. You and Scratch win. Congratulations.

In other words, you accuse everyone else of rhetoric, yet your "concerns" that supposedly remain unaddressed consist entirely of argument by assertion.

Despite the way you would like to characterize it, your problem is that you want to control the terms of the debate by insisting that everyone talk about temple garments and priesthood blessings in reverential tones. Doing so allows you to dress up (no pun intended) superstitious beliefs and juvenile submission by thinking adults to ecclesiastical paternalism as something more profound or deserving of respect than those things really are. By demanding that LDS temple garments must be spoken of as sacred instead of superstitious, you are attempting to get anyone who disagrees with you to concede the point without argument. When I have been talking about priesthood blessings as casting spells and garments as magic underwear, it is not just juvenile mocking. It is making a point: that that's all these things are.

If you want to take your ball and go home because of what you summarily label "juvenile rhetoric," it says more about you than your interlocutors. I have referenced a working definition of magic ritual and shown how LDS priesthood ordinances fit every part of that definition. I have repeatedly cited LDS teachings that contradict your assertions about what the LDS Church allegedly teaches. I have explained why your analogies to things like WWJD bracelets are misplaced. What is apparent on this thread is that you, not the people you complain about, are the one relying on rhetoric because you really can't defend the idea that LDS temple garments are anything other than magic underwear.

Good job keeping your survey hidden, though. I probably would indeed have screwed with it somehow, and thus ruined the conclusive sociological data to be gleaned from a secret invitation-only internet survey of 39 handpicked Mormons.

[_Chap]

...
Despite the way you would like to characterize it, your problem is that you want to control the terms of the debate by insisting that everyone talk about temple garments and priesthood blessings in reverential tones. Doing so allows you to dress up (no pun intended) superstitious beliefs and juvenile submission by thinking adults to ecclesiastical paternalism as something more profound or deserving of respect than those things really are. By demanding that LDS temple garments must be spoken of as sacred instead of superstitious, you are attempting to get anyone who disagrees with you to concede the point without argument. When I have been talking about priesthood blessings as casting spells and garments as magic underwear, it is not just juvenile mocking. It is making a point: that that's all these things are.
...

QFT. Sacralisation is an excellent weapon for authority to render itself immune to criticism. Mockery is the obvious counter. And of course authority always hates such mockery, and tries to get it labelled as 'immature', 'adolescent', and so on.

[_maklelan]

That is entirely non-responsive to what I said.

I know. I pointed out that I'm not going to try to reason with your or Scratch anymore. It's like banging one's head against a wall. You guys neither listen nor care.

[_Darth J]

That is entirely non-responsive to what I said.

I know. I pointed out that I'm not going to try to reason with your or Scratch anymore. It's like banging one's head against a wall. You guys neither listen nor care.

I wouldn't say that. I think our posts are richly anaphoric.

[_Chap]

That is entirely non-responsive to what I said.

I know. I pointed out that I'm not going to try to reason with your or Scratch anymore. It's like banging one's head against a wall. You guys neither listen nor care.

The fact that some people do not find your rebuttals effective, or even relevant, does not necessarily mean that they are not listening to them. Just saying.

[_cinepro]

Haven't read the whole thread, but all I can say is that Brother Coppins may have done more to de-mystify LDS garments than a skeptical LDS like myself could hope for.

And the LDS equivalent to a WWJD bracelet is the CTR ring, not the Temple garment. Unless Baptists incinerate their bracelets in tuna cans before disposing of them.

If anyone needs evidence of a shift in LDS thought away from the supernatural toward the practical, this could be a good bellwether.

[_maklelan]

So, you think a poll of 39, very specific people (your Facebook friends who happen to be self-identifying Mormons), who chose to answer the questions, shows that he was wrong?

I think the only two actual data sets on the question show the same trend, which is the one I predicated and is the opposite of what Scratch predicted. Would I publish these results? Don't be stupid. Is it more objective than Scratch and Darth's etic and antagonistic "Nu-uh!"? Absolutely.

lol...

11 of the 39 specifically selected people actually agreed that the garments have supernatural powers!

And I have repeatedly pointed out that that is an interpretation that many Latter-day Saints espouse. Scratch began this crusade when I said I knew few of them. What are you trying to show by pointing out exactly what I explained before I ran the polls?

Why were non-self-identifying-LDS not included (I am still a member and was taught that they were magic)?

Because I'm looking specifically for what Latter-day Saints believe. I take self-identification to be the most important criteria in ideological or religious identification.

What was the average age of the people who took the poll (past mission, ward and school friends who are most likely your age and share similar, non-traditional LDS beliefs? - hmmm.

Actually the vast majority of my Facebook friends have quite traditional and conservative LDS ideas, and the only people on Facebook who told me they participated are those friends. The ages range in the 20s, and most are post-Mormon and ward friends from Utah, Texas, Uruguay, or Oxford wards.

great sample group there).

I know it's not ideal, but it's the best I could do in ten minutes. If you'd like to put together something with a better sample size and spread you be my guest.

This poll is complete non-sense and the fact that 11 of your 39 specifically selected people actually stated that they felt like the "garments" have supernatural powers shows that you are likely wrong on this whole issue...

No, they do not show I'm wrong. I pointed out that the notion of supernatural power is common, but I also pointed out that I think the notion of acting as a reminder is more common. It certainly isn't atypical or something that gets anyone branded an anti-Mormon.

Only 21 people chose your, very leading, question about WWJD bracelets as there is NO comparison between the 2....

Yes there is. Both serve to call to mind a moral ideal and keep it at the forefront of a person's mind. The majority of the respondents were perfectly happy to acknowledge the functional relationship.

"It is a broad functional equivalence I highlight. If you and others need your hand held through an explanation of what that means in terms of degree of conceptual and attributive overlap then this discussion isn't for you."

Lol - are you taking over droopy's position as the residential thesaurus abuser? I like how you used a bunch of words to avoid answering the question.

So pointing out that I used a bunch of words now means my argument is invalid? If I dumb it down the the semantic vagaries get manipulated. If I am precise and technical I get accused of being a "thesaurus abuser"? Just how stupid would you prefer your Mormons to be?

All I can say is:

http://heartstandards.files.wordpress.c ... -foot1.jpg

I look forward to your more comprehensive and objective survey. I can tell it's going to be stunning.

[_maklelan]

I wouldn't say that. I think our posts are richly anaphoric.

You should learn the correct way to use the word before you start throwing it back at me to sound clever.

[_maklelan]

And the LDS equivalent to a WWJD bracelet is the CTR ring, not the Temple garment.

The CTR ring is a more formal equivalent, but in terms of functionality, a WWJD bracelet is a very apt comparison. The fact that they are not direct analogues is really irrelevant.