Slate Refers to Mormonism's "Foundational Whoppers"

[_Some Schmo]

Wow, that was creative.

LOL...

Not nearly as creative as the BS you tell yourself so you needn't feel the embarrassment of being so spectacularly wrong.

[_Fence Sitter]

Makelan,

The argument that we are just like other religions, to me, seems to be at odds with a very fundamental belief that as LDS we are unique. I find it strange that instead of touting what makes us different, we now are trying to fit in. I think the new TV adds showing how Mormons are like everyone else, are a great example of this. We also seem to be going out of our way to show other religions that we are Christians just like they are . Frankly I think that Joseph Smith would have ridiculed the notion that we are just like any other religion and claimed we are the only true Christians. Perhaps we are loosing sight of how these "whoopers" set us apart in a misguided effort to be accepted and a fear of being ridiculed for what we believe.

[_maklelan]

If A = the "absurdity burden" of traditional Christianity,
and ~A is more or less the same burden, or the large subset of A shared by Mormonism,
and B = the "absurdity burden" unique to Mormonism,
then it makes perfect sense to say that (~A + B) > A.

You asking for actual numeric values is itself an absurd ploy.

Is the probability of a physically impossible event something measurable, or would 1/∞ be an adequate measure?

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?

[_maklelan]

Makelan,

The argument that we are just like other religions, to me, seems to be at odds with a very fundamental belief that as LDS we are unique. I find it strange that instead of touting what makes us different, we now are trying to fit in. I think the new TV adds showing how Mormons are like everyone else, are a great example of this. We also seem to be going out of our way to show other religions that we are Christians just like they are . Frankly I think that Joseph Smith would have ridiculed the notion that we are just like any other religion and claimed we are the only true Christians. Perhaps we are loosing sight of how these "whoopers" set us apart in a misguided effort to be accepted and a fear of being ridiculed for what we believe.

I really don't care about being accepted, nor am I afraid of being ridiculed. What I'm criticizing is a rather myopic double standard. I can see the attractiveness of trying to align my methodologies with the idea of trying to sound more mainstream, but I'm the wrong guy to accuse of that. All I'm pointing out is that all religious beliefs are necessarily based on faith and not empirical evidence. That hardly constitutes an attempt to make Mormonism sound more mainstream.

[_Fence Sitter]

I really don't care about being accepted, nor am I afraid of being ridiculed. What I'm criticizing is a rather myopic double standard. I can see the attractiveness of trying to align my methodologies with the idea of trying to sound more mainstream, but I'm the wrong guy to accuse of that. All I'm pointing out is that all religious beliefs are necessarily based on faith and not empirical evidence. That hardly constitutes an attempt to make Mormonism sound more mainstream.

What I am asking is how can we claim to be unique and different and at the same time want to be mainstream? Either we hold beliefs that are radically different from other religions (whoppers to them) or we are not that different from them in which case Joseph Smith didn't introduce (restore if you like) anything new. I think the double standard lies in wanting it both ways. "Yes we are different but we are the same."

[_Themis]

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

It does in relation to the story.

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.

In what way is it only partly?

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.

I will let them aswer for themselves, but in regards to me you were completely wrong.

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

One has a lack of evidence, while the other has a multitude of evidence against. I do agree that a talking donkey is ridiculous, but so is the Book of Mormon and Book of Abraham. You just don't want to see it.

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.

The Book of Mormon has specific evidences against.

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?

Probably not, but again the Book of Mormon, Book of Abraham ,etc are much bigger claims then talking donkeys in that one is not required to believe in talking donkeys, while the other is expected. Same for the resurrection, but It's interesting that talking donkeys are just as likely as a man coming back from the dead 2000 years ago. I asked you about this, and I notice you have avioded comment.

[_maklelan]

What I am asking is how can we claim to be unique and different and at the same time want to be mainstream?

I have no idea. I don't care about being mainstream.

Either we hold beliefs that are radically different from other religions (whoppers to them) or we are not that different from them in which case Joseph Smith didn't introduce (restore if you like) anything new. I think the double standard lies in wanting it both ways. "Yes we are different but we are the same."

Obviously we are different in many ways and the same in many ways. I don't specifically want either way. I just want honest and objective dialogue.

[_Fence Sitter]

Obviously we are different in many ways and the same in many ways. I don't specifically want either way. I just want honest and objective dialogue.

Then I would suggest that in those ways we are different we might be viewed as holding "foundational Whoppers" to others and if as you say you are not looking to be mainstream it should not be an issue to you.

by the way I am a fan of your drawings/sketches. Very nice.

[_Themis]

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.

It's just interesting that you pick which ridiculous beliefs to accept and which to discard, admitting that they are all precluded from empirical evidence. I not ridiculing your beliefs. I shared most of the same, and discarded most of the same. I realize the double standard now, and that my beliefs were based on incorrect interpretation of spiritual experiences.

[_keithb]

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. :)