Slate Refers to Mormonism's "Foundational Whoppers"

[_DarkHelmet]

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

Phaedrus

Yeah, the Old and New Testaments are packed with whoppers, Joseph Smith just added a few more to the mix. It's like getting Herpes when you already have AIDS, and then all the other AIDS patients laughing at you because you have Herpes.

[_Themis]

So talking snakes and donkeys and flying men who raise the dead are unclear at this point. We've never seen it, and we don't have evidence for it, but we're going to stay on the fence. It's vague.

The events around them are unclear.

The Book of Mormon and the Book of Abraham, however, just obviously can't be true. It's black and white with those. Is this really the argument you want to make?

Based on the evidence, yes it is obvious as I said for outsiders and many insiders. This is of course based on outsiders and insiders who at least know the evidences. I said nothing of black and white.

That's the context of the discussion.

No it's not. Lets be clear. You said

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 are making the false claim that people here, and me in particular are saying it is less ridiculous for mainstream Christian to believe the same things that LDS do. No one has made this claim. They would both be equally ridiculous. With LDS they just have a number of new ones which have more evidence against.

Are you saying that it's unfair to insist that Mormonism deserves more scrutiny or ridicule than fundamentalist Evangelicalism?

I have never advocated for ridicule, and scrutiny should be done equally. It's just us LDS have more to scrutinize in Mormonism then Christianity, and much more evidence showing it to be whoppers. I did already say that some christian and LDS do not believe all the same whoppers from the Bible.

[_stemelbow]

Ya, stem, I'm the only one who thinks the LDS gospel is nonsense. You just keep telling yourself that, mmm'kay?

I didn't tell myself that, schmoe.

[_Themis]

First, this is not true. I don't believe in talking donkeys and snakes. I don't believe that Jesus flew up to heaven and teleported into a room with locked doors. I don't believe that Moses split a sea in half. 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. Irrespective, you don't get to tack all of fundamentalist Christianity's kooky beliefs on to my beliefs and point at the sum.

Some LDS do and some don't. Some Christians do and some don't. I see you think talking donkeys and such are ridiculous but Jesus rising from the dead is not. Care to explain that. :)

[_maklelan]

The events around them are unclear.

This has nothing whatsoever to do with the possibility of talking donkeys and snakes.

Based on the evidence, yes it is obvious as I said for outsiders and many insiders. This is of course based on outsiders and insiders who at least know the evidences. I said nothing of black and white.

But the exact same is true of talking donkeys and snakes. The only difference is one is unilaterally precluded by natural law, and the other is only partly so.

No it's not. Lets be clear. You said

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 are making the false claim that people here, and me in particular are saying it is less ridiculous for mainstream Christian to believe the same things that LDS do. No one has made this claim.

That's completely false. Not only did Phaedruss and Cardinal say exactly that, but it is the clear implication of arguing that Mitt Romney's faith, specifically, merits ridicule.

They would both be equally ridiculous. With LDS they just have a number of new ones which have more evidence against.

So there's more evidence against the Book of Mormon than against the notion of a talking donkey? Are you serious?

I have never advocated for ridicule, and scrutiny should be done equally. It's just us LDS have more to scrutinize in Mormonism then Christianity, and much more evidence showing it to be whoppers. I did already say that some christian and LDS do not believe all the same whoppers from the Bible.

You seem to be saying that because we have more of a historical context around the development of Mormonism, there is more evidence to falsify the Book of Mormon than to falsify the notion of a talking donkey and a talking snake. How much evidence do you believe is needed to arrive at the incontrovertible conclusion that a donkey and a snake did not, in fact, speak with humans? I submit that the fact that the notion is completely and totally precluded by all relevant natural laws is evidence enough. Do you insist that conclusions that are established by piles and piles of evidence are more conclusive than those that are established by simple appeals to natural law?

[_sock puppet]

If this "Whopper" terminology becomes part of the campaign for the general election, how can the LDS Church really defend itself?

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.

I think Mormonism has crazier s*** than other current religions that started much longer ago. I think that time has allowed those other religions to file off more of their thornier parts, and Mormonism just hasn't been at this "going maintstream" as long, so yet has thornier parts of its teachings. Give Mormonism another couple of hundred years, probably look damn close to Presbyterianism.

[_maklelan]

Who's being dishonest now?

You are still clearly the one being dishonest. It's obviously not me. I've yet to be anything other than perfectly honest.

At what point did I define atheism in that conversation?

You are advocating for a definition that I am rejecting, are you not? If you are saying that people aren't actually born atheists then let me know and I will apologize for my presumptuousness.

"You guys don't know the first thing about lexicology or etymology, you're just arguing from your dogmatism." Man, I forgot what a blowhard you are. Oh yes, you're the only one who knows anything about anything. *rolls eyes* What are you, 12?

f*****g dumb ass.

You may feel insulted by it, but the fact clearly remains that you two have no training in this field and are just trying to find ways to prop up your dogmatism. Perhaps I'm wrong about your training, though. Do you have formal training in lexicology and etymology? If so, what is your training?

Your silly mental gymnastic do not cover what is obvious. You're full of s***, man. But then, you're LDS. Occupational hazard, I suppose.

You're still just nakedly asserting stuff, only now you're using profanity because you are clearly getting aggravated and can't otherwise express yourself.

[_maklelan]

I think Mormonism has crazier s*** than other current religions that started much longer ago. I think that time has allowed those other religions to file off more of their thornier parts, and Mormonism just hasn't been at this "going maintstream" as long, so yet has thornier parts of its teachings. Give Mormonism another couple of hundred years, probably look damn close to Presbyterianism.

And what about fundamental Evangelicalism? What about the religions of Perry, Bachmann, and Cain? How would they respond to the question of whether or not they believe in talking donkeys and snakes, and dividing seas and teleporting and flying guys?

[_Phaedrus Ut]

Yeah, the Old and New Testaments are packed with whoppers, Joseph Smith just added a few more to the mix. It's like getting Herpes when you already have AIDS, and then all the other AIDS patients laughing at you because you have Herpes.

That reminds me of the story of the ranch hands talking the new guy into having his way with the sheep out back. When he is finally convinced and gives it a try they all tease him for choosing the ugliest one.


Phaedrus

[_Equality]

How do you reconcile this:

How much evidence do you believe is needed to arrive at the incontrovertible conclusion that a donkey and a snake did not, in fact, speak with humans? I submit that the fact that the notion is completely and totally precluded by all relevant natural laws is evidence enough. Do you insist that conclusions that are established by piles and piles of evidence are more conclusive than those that are established by simple appeals to natural law?

with this?:

I believe that Jesus rose from the dead and that he lives.

Talking donkeys and snakes can be dismissed based on the fact the notion is completely and totally precluded by all relevant natural laws, but the resurrection of a guy who had been tortured to death and buried for three days is, um, not to be dismissed on the same grounds? I am not just being snarky here. I'd like to hear how the resurrection is not at least as violative of natural laws as talking snakes and donkeys.