Slate Refers to Mormonism's "Foundational Whoppers"

[_Equality]

The nonbelievers on this board have pointed to the "whopper" of all religions being based upon a false premise. Slate itself is no stranger in promoting the concept of this falsity in publishing many essays on atheism.

Unless they are able to stand up and say this also applies to the faith of every candidate, then they are guilty of partisan reporting based on religious discrimination. That is no small feat for atheists.

I'm not sure that the faith of every candidate is equally relevant to the political discourse. I agree that Romney should not be singled out solely because he belongs to a religion that is outside the societal mainstream. But I don't think that's all there is to it. And, in fact, other candidates have not been immune from criticism and inquiry about their beliefs, to the extent those beliefs are both out of the mainstream and could have an impact on the policies those candidates might pursue as President. Michelle Bachmann and Rick Perry have both come under fire for some of their associations with various religious wingnuts.

[_Sethbag]

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?

The religions of Perry, Bachmann, and Cain are ridiculous, and don't deserve to be believed. Mormonism is ridiculous and does not deserve to be believed for all of the same reasons, or at least for a reasonably large subset of the same reasons, and also for a whole bushel of new reasons.

"We believe the Bible to be the word of God as far as it is translated correctly. We also believe the Book of Mormon to be the word of God."

Talking snakes and donkeys, and levitating Jesus, and so forth, are all part of the Bible that Mormons declare to be the Word of God, but for some translation errors. Was the donkey not really talking in the original? Was the snake? Did Jesus not really levitate in the original Aramaic? Unless these problems can be explained by translation problems, talking donkeys and snakes and levitating Jesus are the Word of God according to Mormonism. Is God just having us on?

So Mormons get to suffer all of the problems of the Bible the same as all these other Bible-based religions. And added to that they get Joseph Smith pressing his face into his hat, gazing into a magic rock, to find buried treasure, and then doing the exact same thing to translate golden plates that were locked away in another room, or out in the woods or whatever. And then you get to add in ancient Native American Christians in 600 BC, barges "tight like a dish" crossing the ocean together, Nephites riding horses and wielding steel swords and wearing platemail, and so much more. You get to add in the Facsimiles to the Book of Abraham and Joseph's false translations of the characters on them, and the whole rest of the Book of Abraham fiasco.

So yes, I do think Mormonism bears a greater burden of absurdity than most of the rest of mainstream Christianity, because it inherits nearly all of the burden of mainstream Christianity, then adds a whole bushel of new absurdities of its own.

[_maklelan]

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

Now we're back to middle school rhetoric. You're taking your ball and going home, and I'm a stupidhead.

[_Some Schmo]

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

Now we're back to middle school rhetoric.

It's all about knowing your audience. I thought that's what you wanted since it was all I was getting from you.

You're taking your ball and going home, and I'm a stupidhead.

You said it, not me. Since I see little use in arguing with someone who refuses to do so honestly, I will defer to your assessment.

*shrug*

[_Doctor Scratch]

It's interesting to see that Maklelan, whose grad school education is being funded in part by the Church via the Maxwell Institute, is busy announcing that there are legitimate "whoppers" among the LDS Church's truth claims. It's been interesting, too, watching him ridicule the supernatural stories from the Bible.

[_maklelan]

The religions of Perry, Bachmann, and Cain are ridiculous, and don't deserve to be believed. Mormonism is ridiculous and does not deserve to be believed for all of the same reasons, or at least for a reasonably large subset of the same reasons, and also for a whole bushel of new reasons.

"We believe the Bible to be the word of God as far as it is translated correctly. We also believe the Book of Mormon to be the word of God."

Talking snakes and donkeys, and levitating Jesus, and so forth, are all part of the Bible that Mormons declare to be the Word of God, but for some translation errors.

This is a rather restrictive understanding of "translated correctly." Smith talked more about issues in transmission than translation.

Was the donkey not really talking in the original? Was the snake? Did Jesus not really levitate in the original Aramaic? Unless these problems can be explained by translation problems, talking donkeys and snakes and levitating Jesus are the Word of God according to Mormonism. Is God just having us on?

An appeal to the Bible certainly doesn't indicate that God can't put us on, but your understanding of "translated correctly" is not the understanding I nor any of the thinking Latter-day Saints I know espouse.

So Mormons get to suffer all of the problems of the Bible the same as all these other Bible-based religions.

I disagree that Latter-day Saints are beholden to anywhere near as many of the Bible's claims as those who assert the Bible's inerrancy.

And added to that they get Joseph Smith pressing his face into his hat, gazing into a magic rock, to find buried treasure, and then doing the exact same thing to translate golden plates that were locked away in another room, or out in the woods or whatever. And then you get to add in ancient Native American Christians in 600 BC, barges "tight like a dish" crossing the ocean together, Nephites riding horses and wielding steel swords and wearing platemail, and so much more. You get to add in the Facsimiles to the Book of Abraham and Joseph's false translations of the characters on them, and the whole rest of the Book of Abraham fiasco.

I don't think there's an appreciable difference between holding to 546 physical impossibilities and holding to 567. I already asked someone to quantify the ridiculousness of the truth claims held to by various religions and denominations and show me what priority they take on the scale of deserving ridicule. So far nothing has been forthcoming.

So yes, I do think Mormonism bears a greater burden of absurdity than most of the rest of mainstream Christianity, because it inherits nearly all of the burden of mainstream Christianity, then adds a whole bushel of new absurdities of its own.

I disagree.

[_maklelan]

It's all about knowing your audience. I thought that's what you wanted since it was all I was getting from you.

Another zinger!

You said it, not me. Since I see little use in arguing with someone who refuses to do so honestly, I will defer to your assessment.

*shrug*

You can't point to a single word I've posted on this board today that is dishonest in the least. Prove me wrong.

[_Some Schmo]

You can't point to a single word I've posted on this board today that is dishonest in the least. Prove me wrong.

Here you go:

You can't point to a single word I've posted on this board today that is dishonest in the least.

[_maklelan]

You can't point to a single word I've posted on this board today that is dishonest in the least. Prove me wrong.

Here you go:

You can't point to a single word I've posted on this board today that is dishonest in the least.

Wow, that was creative.

[_Sethbag]

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.

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.