Slate Refers to Mormonism's "Foundational Whoppers"

[_Chap]

Of course the practical political point is not really whether Romney deserves special ridicule for believing in unlikely (relatively) modern events peculiar to the CoJCoLDS in addition to the unlikely ancient ones that the CoJCoLDS shares with certain other Christian groups. What matters is that he will probably get it.

My personal impression is that really clever people can be de-sensitized to pretty well any belief if their parents bring them up to take it for granted, and if they are immersed in an early social environment that affirms and indeed expects such beliefs. It is not the young Romney's fault that he was brought up to listen respectfully to adults telling him about Jaredite barges, Nephite gold plates, the Book of Abraham and all the rest of it. The grown-up Romney no doubt realizes that many people find those things weird, but to him that just seems like religious intolerance - which to some extent it is.

The only additional criticism I would make of a prominent and well-educated person remaining in the CoJCoLDS after being brought up in it, as opposed to remaining in (say) a literal Bible-believing non-LDS Christian group, is that it is somewhat easier to see the flaws in the claims of a religion started in the early 19th century than in one started in the first century. But very few people really begin looking critically at the claims of their birth religion, even if they drift away from its practice. So on the whole I don't think that LDS deserve significantly more ridicule than any other religious groups.

[_maklelan]

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.

I don't reconcile the two. I don't claim that that particular belief is empirically justified. It's not. I believe it because of personal experiences that I have had. I'm aware that I accept on faith a claim that is precluded by the empirical evidence, and I am aware that many others do the same regarding talking donkeys and snakes. I'm not saying their faith is any more or less ridiculous than mine. All supernatural claims are equally at odds with what we can show about the world around us, which is why I make no accusations about atheists. There's nothing illogical or unreasonable about atheism in and of itself. To insist that one supernatural claim is somehow more ridiculous than another, or that two supernatural claims are more ridiculous than one supernatural claim, however, is ludicrous.

[_Quasimodo]

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.

I think Mormonism has some specific problems that earlier christian religions don't.

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).

The Mormon Church is based on a book that both science and history have proven to be a deliberate attempt at deception (only TBMs would disagree with this).

I worry that a Presidential candidate would not be logical and introspective enough to step away from the obvious con game that is his religion. As President, what other decisions would he base on this sort of poor judgement?

[_Some Schmo]

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.

Except with yourself, I guess.

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.

I'm not advocating any definition as it is not germane to my point. I'm not sure how many times I have to say that in order for it to take.

"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?

I don't have training in those fields, and I'm not pretending to. Again (now pay attention here, because this is important and you seem to keep missing it), how I define atheism is not relevant to my point.

I wasn't insulted by you pointing out my ignorance on those subjects. I was merely commenting on the idiotic implications of your statement: what you seem to think is your own massive superiority because you happen to have studied subjects I haven't. In other words, you sound like an arrogant dumb ass.

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.

Yes, that's it. Oh, the frustration in dealing with such a superior intellect! It couldn't possibly be exasperation in dealing with an obtuse dumb ass, could it? Not at all!

So... were you holding your dick when you said that? A little physical to go along with the mental masturbation?

[Guest]

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?

Every group has fundamentalists at its fringes. I don't think there have ever been (a) talking donkeys or snakes (not of a human language anyway), nor (b) dividing seas or teleporting/flying guys (except involving aircraft of one sort or another). The judgment of anyone--Perry, Bachmann, Cain, Romney, etc--who thinks there have been is beyond seriously suspect for me. If I were to vote (and that is a big "if"), it would be for Newt Gingrich. (Obama sat for nearly 20 years in the pews of that radical Christian church in Chicago, after all.) My belief in Tiffany's on 5th Avenue is much stronger having purchased my wife a diamond ring there, than it is in talking donkeys and snakes and teleporting/flying guys (without aircraft).

[_Chap]

There's nothing illogical or unreasonable about atheism in and of itself.

How kind. I feel significantly less persecuted now.

[_maklelan]

Every group has fundamentalists at its fringes.

Fundamentalism in American Evangelicalism is far from being on the fringe.

I don't think there have every been (a) talking donkeys or snakes (not of a human language anyway), nor (b) dividing seas or teleporting/flying guys (except involving aircraft of one sort or another). The judgment of anyone--Perry, Bachmann, Cain, Romney, etc--who thinks there have been is beyond seriously suspect for me. If I were to vote (and that is a big "if"), it would be for Newt Gingrich. (Obama sat for nearly 20 years in the pews of that radical Christian church in Chicago, after all.) My belief in Tiffany's on 5th Avenue is much stronger having purchased my wife a diamond ring there, than it is in talking donkeys and snakes and teleporting/flying guys (without aircraft).

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?

[_maklelan]

Except with yourself, I guess.

What a subtle deflection of the issue. I should respond with an equally snarky insult, and then the fact that you slung an accusation against me you can't even begin to defend will be buried in our antagonism. Aren't discussion boards fun?

I'm not advocating any definition as it is not germane to my point. I'm not sure how many times I have to say that in order for it to take.

I'm beginning to see that you do quite a lot of insulting and accusing that has no bearing on your main point; at least, it has no bearing when you're called upon to defend it. Your main point, by the way, seems to have been that I'm a hypocrite for insisting that a certain definition isn't legitimate and then for not letting you define theism. Of course, I pointed out repeatedly that I never did the latter.

I don't have training in those fields, and I'm not pretending to. Again (now pay attention here, because this is important and you seem to keep missing it), how I define atheism is not relevant to my point.

I can see that now. I assumed your concerns had something to do with the definition of "atheism," since your accusation of hypocrisy obviously didn't apply to me.

I wasn't insulted by you pointing out my ignorance on those subjects. I was merely commenting on the idiotic implications of your statement: what you seem to think is your own massive superiority because you happen to have studied subjects I haven't. In other words, you sound like an arrogant dumb ass.

I apologize for misunderstanding your point. Now, since your main point about hypocrisy obviously doesn't apply to me, do you have any further concerns about my methods, or do you just not want to back down?

Yes, that's it. Oh, the frustration in dealing with such a superior intellect! It couldn't possibly be exasperation in dealing with an obtuse dumb ass, could it? Not at all!

So... were you holding your dick when you said that? A little physical to go along with the mental masturbation?

Masturbation jokes. We're into high school territory now.

[_sock puppet]

Every group has fundamentalists at its fringes.

Fundamentalism in American Evangelicalism is far from being on the fringe.

I don't think there have every been (a) talking donkeys or snakes (not of a human language anyway), nor (b) dividing seas or teleporting/flying guys (except involving aircraft of one sort or another). The judgment of anyone--Perry, Bachmann, Cain, Romney, etc--who thinks there have been is beyond seriously suspect for me. If I were to vote (and that is a big "if"), it would be for Newt Gingrich. (Obama sat for nearly 20 years in the pews of that radical Christian church in Chicago, after all.) My belief in Tiffany's on 5th Avenue is much stronger having purchased my wife a diamond ring there, than it is in talking donkeys and snakes and teleporting/flying guys (without aircraft).

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 would like to hear each of them questioned in depth by someone very knowledgeable of each of their stripes of religious belief and hear the answers first. I've not even heard Romney answer in depth for which unusual Mormon beliefs he does ascribe to and which he does not. I think most everyone except perhaps JFS/BRM were NOMs to one extent or another. So I am not ready to declare Romney, or the others in the "kooky beliefs" bin. With each of the four you name, religion has bubbled up to the surface in this Republican presidential primary. Perry has used it, i.e. the mass prayer meetings. Romney keeps invoking religion, so that he can attest to having faith but that it won't affect his decisions if elected president. (Kind of makes me wonder why some TBMs want Romney to win just because he's a Mormon when, if you take him at his word, Mormonism won't affect his decision making.) But I think Romney too is using his religion, just in a different way than Perry.

From what I've caught on the media (and it is not regular watching), Cain and Bachmann are using religion less in my opinion, but it is certainly there in their backgrounds, not deeply hidden.

Perry and Romney having invoked religion so heavily they should, to inform the voting public, be probed very specifically on their brands of religious belief.

[_Some Schmo]

I can see that now. I assumed your concerns had something to do with the definition of "atheism," since your accusation of hypocrisy obviously didn't apply to me.

I am bored of your willful ignorance, your denial of your hypocrisy, and your unjustified arrogance, now. Carry on. Fight the good fight!