maklelan wrote: So would I be correct in assuming you agree with me that it's ridiculous to single out Romney from Perry, Bachmann, and Cain as the one with the kooky beliefs?
I agree that we shouldn't single them out, but most already share Christian beliefs and will vote for fellow Christians. Mormonism just has more crazy beliefs that most voters do not have, and they are much more recent and easy to see they are wrong. I personally prefer Mitt to Perry.
maklelan wrote: I believe that Jesus rose from the dead and that he lives. I believe the scriptures are the word of God. What exactly that means, I don't know.
I believe that Papa Smurf lives. I believe that he has magical powers, including the power to "smurf" the world, if that be his smurf.
What exactly that means, I don't know.
I also believe that Gremlins steal gold and hide it in their Gremlin-mobile. However, they only steal pink gold and only on 1/2 Sundays.
What exactly that means, I don't know.
FYI: You should generally try to understand things before you believe in them. :)
Here is an example of the word of God from the Book of Mormon
9 Now I, Chemish, write what few things I write, in the same book with my brother; for behold, I saw the last which he wrote, that he wrote it with his own hand; and he wrote it in the day that he delivered them unto me. And after this manner we keep the records, for it is according to the commandments of our fathers. And I make an end.
“We look to not only the spiritual but also the temporal, and we believe that a person who is impoverished temporally cannot blossom spiritually.” Keith McMullin - Counsellor in Presiding Bishopric
"One, two, three...let's go shopping!" Thomas S Monson - Prophet, Seer, Revelator
Sethbag wrote:And by the way, when I criticize Mormonism, I'm criticizing the actual LDS church's teachings, not your own private interpretations, where you've pruned out a lot of the things you know the LDS church has wrong, in order to make continued belief in the LDS church more tenable to you. To the actual LDS church, by its own teachings, the talking snake and donkey, the levitating Jesus, the global Flood of Noah, Adam and Eve being the first homo sapiens a few thousand years ago, etc. is all real. They get to share the burden of the ridiculousness of those teachings with the evangelicals.
So your criticisms may have nothing to do with Mitt Romney or your average Mormon? You're saying they only apply to the Mormon who fully accepts the inerrancy of the Bible save those specific issues that have been pointed out as translations errors?
The title of this thread refers to Mormonism's "Foundational Whoppers". Although this occurs in the context of discussing Mitt Romney, I take it that this is about Mormonism more than what subset of Mormonism Mitt Romney specifically practices or believes in. Mitt is not inclined to discuss what he actually believes anyhow.
I care about the beliefs of "Mormonism", not the beliefs of Maklelan, or Mitt Romney, or my dad, or whatever. The teachings of Mormonism, as propogated to the membership by over 170 years worth of conference talks, Ensign articles, lesson manuals, missionary sales pitches, and so forth, contain "whoppers" that truly do not deserve to be believed. That you have personally chosen not to believe some of them does not change anything.
Mormonism ceased being a compelling topic for me when I finally came to terms with its transformation from a personality cult into a combination of a real estate company, a SuperPac, and Westboro Baptist Church. - Kishkumen
maklelan, in response to 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?
Certainly not. BS is BS regardless of its vintage. Wouldn't you agree?
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.
No, it’s not “like” a base rhetorical jab; it is a base rhetorical jab, but the analogy is perfectly appropriate because Mormonism’s foundational narrative encompasses many base deceptions.
I think at this point it should be mentioned that Scientology's whoppers aren't any more extreme than the whoppers told by Joseph Smith, in fact, they are more believable.
Both told bigger "whoppers" than fundamentalist Christians do.
While I agree with Sethbag that eternity in hell etc. strains the imagination, Christians already believe in the Bible and "fundamentalist" Christians are only making the attempt to take more seriously the Bible that everyone already believes in. This is much different than Joseph Smith or L. Ron making stuff up whole cloth, stories that they know are false, and gathering a following based on these whoppers. Books like "23 Minutes in Hell" most certainly come close to a Joseph Smith level Whopper, but while there are movements within Christianity that gather around bizarre stories such as these, these kinds of extra-Biblical sources get movements labeled as cults by their Bible-believing peers if taken too seriously.
Another matter is the level of coercion that the "whopper" forces. It's one thing for Joseph Smith to tell "whoppers" but another to use these whoppers to force young women to have sex with him and to get his buddies to hand over their wives.
And yes, Contra Mak's apologetic, it does matter how recent the "whopper" is told, especially by the doctrines of presentism the Mopologists teach. According to the apologists, critics wrongly judge scripture by historical standards that didn't exist in the times when the scriptures were written. While it might seem as if scriptural accounts tell "lies", when understood in context of the cultural norms of the day, the accusation is absurd. In other words, Joshua might get a free pass, but Joe Smith does not. If the Book of Mormon and D&C are falsified documents, they are lies in the usual, modern sense. If Joshua told equivalent falsehoods, they are not lies -- this according to the apologetic of presentism. The only way to save Joseph Smith from the gross immorality of his whoppers would be to welcome Mike Quinn back into the fold and go the "magic worldview" of the 19th century route.
The scientific plausibility of a belief is only one of many factors to consider when grading the intensity of a whopper.
Quasimodo wrote: I don't think the people who originally wrote the books of the Bible (who ever they were) were being deliberately deceptive. I think they were just trying to explain a confusing world from a very primitive point of view (making their best guess).
?
Really? I assume you reject Christianity. How do you account for forgeries that both did and did not make it into the canon? Is that not deliberately deceptive? And if those who wrote the gospels in the New Testament were writing about things that did not really happen is that not a flat out lie? If Jesus was not really resurrected and they wrote that he was that seems deceptive to me and not really trying to explain a confusing world at all. If Paul did not see Jesus and said he did was he deceptive or not? If the person who wrote Acts knew that Paul did not see Jesus was that person not being deliberately deceptive?
Quasimodo wrote: I don't think the people who originally wrote the books of the Bible (who ever they were) were being deliberately deceptive. I think they were just trying to explain a confusing world from a very primitive point of view (making their best guess).
?
Really? I assume you reject Christianity. How do you account for forgeries that both did and did not make it into the canon? Is that not deliberately deceptive? And if those who wrote the gospels in the New Testament were writing about things that did not really happen is that not a flat out lie? If Jesus was not really resurrected and they wrote that he was that seems deceptive to me and not really trying to explain a confusing world at all. If Paul did not see Jesus and said he did was he deceptive or not? If the person who wrote Acts knew that Paul did not see Jesus was that person not being deliberately deceptive?
Jason, I'm a bit confused. I thought you believed in Jesus' resurrection and his appearance to Saul who then became Paul. They'd only be forgeries to someone who doesn't believe those events occurred, right?
sock puppet wrote:Jason, I'm a bit confused. I thought you believed in Jesus' resurrection and his appearance to Saul who then became Paul. They'd only be forgeries to someone who doesn't believe those events occurred, right?
I maintain faith in the message of Christianity but also a high level of skepticism. However, it is accepted by almost every New Testament scholar I have read that there are books in the New Testament that are forgeries. At least one Epistle of Peter, the Timothy's an letters to the Thessalonians were highly likely not written by Paul. We are not even sure that authors of the gospels are who at least I always thought they were growing up.
But my main point was to another skeptic or non believer who said that he was a ok with the Bible because those who penned it were not intentionally deceptive. Given what he likely believes I am puzzled how he came to his conclusion.
sock puppet wrote:Jason, I'm a bit confused. I thought you believed in Jesus' resurrection and his appearance to Saul who then became Paul. They'd only be forgeries to someone who doesn't believe those events occurred, right?
I maintain faith in the message of Christianity but also a high level of skepticism. However, it is accepted by almost every New Testament scholar I have read that there are books in the New Testament that are forgeries. At least one Epistle of Peter, the Timothy's an letters to the Thessalonians were highly likely not written by Paul. We are not even sure that authors of the gospels are who at least I always thought they were growing up.
But my main point was to another skeptic or non believer who said that he was a ok with the Bible because those who penned it were not intentionally deceptive. Given what he likely believes I am puzzled how he came to his conclusion.
Thanks for the clarification. Apart from our differing posting demeanors, we may be more similar than I have imagined. I am a skeptic and put stock in scholars rather than myths. As for the message, I have a bit different take on the golden rule. I am okay with incoming and outgoing incendiaries. You are not a flamethrower, but you are not a whiner either. I respect that.