LDS II: The Mormons

[skyrider44]

. . . How would you describe threatening a person's afterlife based upon how well they did or did not obey you? "Blackmail" is a fairly kind term for it, almost a euphemism.

Because you do not believe in a Supreme Being (that's what I must conclude), you are able to suggest that the author of the Ten Commandments, for example, is guilty of blackmail.

You fail to identify who is doing the threatening. Obviously, however, the source isn't divine authority.

And, oh, since when have you embraced the idea of an afterlife? Why are you concerned about something that in your mind doesn't exist?

Edited by Gaspode: 

Removed trailing content from quoted post.

 

[Giordano]

Because you do not believe in a Supreme Being (that's what I must conclude), you are able to suggest that the author of the Ten Commandments, for example, is guilty of blackmail.

You fail to identify who is doing the threatening. Obviously, however, the source isn't divine authority.

And, oh, since when have you embraced the idea of an afterlife? Why are you concerned about something that in your mind doesn't exist?

Edited by Gaspode: 

Removed trailing content from quoted post.

1. Whatever allows the questioner to ask the question (Boldness? Freedom? Lack of fear of retaliation?) I think you did not answer the question: what would you call it if not blackmail?

2. What do you mean by divine authority? God? Church officials? Who?

3. The question wasn't phrased in any way that requires the existence of either God or an afterlife. It can still be blackmail (extortion) even if the threat cannot be carried out in practice; it is blackmail if the victim of the threat fully believes it can be carried out, whether it can or cannot in practice. I can threaten to publish nude pictures of you unless you give me $100 dollars; if you the victim reasonably believes that I might have acquired nude pictures of you, this would be blackmail whether I actually have done so or not or intend to publish them or not. And obviously it does not matter whether a third party believes that I have nude pictures of you.

 

[Slowvehicle]

<snip for focus>...has it occurred to you that most Latter-day Saints derive enormous satisfaction from being active in the Church whether or not they have reservations about its validity?<snip for focus>...It isn't necessary to believe in the truthfulness of something to receive satisfaction by accepting it on a peripheral level.

As sad as this is, it explains much.

 

[Kopji]

Man Forbids Wife From Using Tampons

Meh, he's just a liar. This is not an RLDS (aka CofC) tenet, not even a mainstream belief, just something odd he believes.

I have difficultly accepting this vibe I get lately that religion is a bit like yoga - it is good for you even if the premises are not accepted, or known to be a useful lie.

Various religious texts actually speak of this type of thinking. They compare it to a mausoleum: pretty on the outside but rotten and full of bones on the inside. I tend to agree with the metaphor. If there is no true belief, it is a dead thing and they should all just move on.

 

[halleyscomet]

"Erosion and decline"? If that's true, what does the Church plan to do with the meeting houses and temples it's building worldwide at what I'm quite certain is the fastest rate in its history?

It appears you've missed part of the discussion and as a result missed a critical distinction. The Mormon decline is in educated, first world nations, while it's growing in poorly educated third world settings. Most of the new temple construction you mentioned is in the developing world, where Mormon missionaries are still winning new converts at a rate that appears to exceed attrition.

This is consistent with the Mormon church's history. The historical absurdities in the Book of Mormon and the claims about the origins of the Pearl of Great Price necessitates a certain lack of education on the part of the faithful. It's trivially simple to, for example, prove Native Americans are not descended from Jews. To make matters worse for the Mormon hierarchy, the evidence needed to prove the Book of Mormon is fiction and not history is readily accessible and easy to understand. While a comparison to the Creation vs evolution debate is attractive, it's not really applicable, because the science behind Evolution is far more complex than the simplicity of proving Joseph Smith a liar.

The Internet is a major challenge to the LDS church because it allows people raised in the LDS bubble the opportunity to learn about ACTUAL archeology and DNA research. This is why their growth is happening in the developing world, where its difficult for people to get reliable information on the fact that the Book of Mormon is simply not true, or the racist history of the LDS church.

I'm sure such individuals exist, just as some labor union members "go along" to keep their jobs, or some politicians are Democrats or Republicans for electability reasons, or some philanthropists make major donations to presidential campaigns with a view to receiving an ambassadorship if their candidate wins. Does any of this come as a surprise to you?

It doesn't surprise me at all. That said, the consequences of being kicked out of the LDS church are FAR more severe than quitting a union, even if you're quitting the Teamsters. My parents never cut me off just because my religious and political views have diverged from the ones they taught me in my youth. The comparisons you used are a bit disingenuous because all of them are quite mild compared to having your family, community and possibly your employer kick you out because of a perceived religious transgression. Families who stick together despite LDS doctrine appear to be so rare, they get media coverage.

I assume this is of interest to you because you want it to happen.

Aside from liking it when con artists and liars fail, and wanting my gay friends to be able to marry without religious bigots interfering with their lives, I really don't care what happens to the LDS church. I find this interesting for the same reasons I enjoyed the book "Catch me if you Can." The guts and bravado of the con job Smith pulled is fascinating. Modern LDS events are rather boring by comparison. Yes, it's fun watching the LDS church try to explain away the overt racism in the Book of Mormon, but it lacks the drama, hubris and unmitigated egotism of the LDS founders as they conned people into believing their absurd theology, lead them to Utah, and splintered over polygamy.

That aside, has it occurred to you that most Latter-day Saints derive enormous satisfaction from being active in the Church whether or not they have reservations about its validity? Why do millions of parents spend substantial time and money playing Santa Claus? Because it brings them and their children joy. Or why do professional wrestling fans spend big bucks to attend matches knowing full well that the wrestlers are faking it? It isn't necessary to believe in the truthfulness of something to receive satisfaction by accepting it on a peripheral level.

We're largely in agreement here. I have no qualms with parents who want their kids to believe in Santa Clause or who want to raise their kids with the fantasy that Nephi was a real person. My problem is when such people intrude upon the rights of others. It pisses me off when some jerk yells at me for saying "Happy Holidays" instead of "Merry Christmas." It pisses me off when the LDS Church pushes legislation to keep gay people from getting married, wasting MILLIONS of dollars nationwide on a pointless, bigotry fueled legal battle over marriage equality. If the behavior of the LDS Church and its members were as benign as belief in Santa or thinking prop wresting were real, then I'd happily let people enjoy the delusions that make them happy.

 

[skyrider44]

1. Whatever allows the questioner to ask the question (Boldness? Freedom? Lack of fear of retaliation?) I think you did not answer the question: what would you call it if not blackmail?

I premised my statement on the assumption that the writer is an atheist or at least an agnostic. If that is the case, then he may be justified in using the term "blackmail." If it isn't the case and he believes the threats of which he speaks are of divine origin (Ten Commandments, for example), "blackmail" is incorrect usage.

2. What do you mean by divine authority? God? Church officials? Who?

The source of divine authority is God.

3. The question wasn't phrased in any way that requires the existence of either God or an afterlife. It can still be blackmail (extortion) even if the threat cannot be carried out in practice; it is blackmail if the victim of the threat fully believes it can be carried out, whether it can or cannot in practice. I can threaten to publish nude pictures of you unless you give me $100 dollars; if you the victim reasonably believes that I might have acquired nude pictures of you, this would be blackmail whether I actually have done so or not or intend to publish them or not. And obviously it does not matter whether a third party believes that I have nude pictures of you.

It's obvious, if you read the writer's post in context (and his previous posts as well), that he is referring to the LDS Church. Consequently, your first sentence (in the above post) is incorrect.

 

[skyrider44]

Let's take a look at those scriptures. They aren't really relevant, as I've already demonstrated that Paul NEVER ACTUALLY SPOKE AGAINST HOMOSEXUALITY unless you deliberately mistranslate scripture, but I'll humor this tangent.

If Paul didn't "actually" speak against homosexuality, what is your motivation for denigrating him?

Note the following:

1) "Although other early Christian missionaries converted Gentiles, and the Christian movement without Paul probably would have broken away from its Jewish parent, Paul played a crucial role in those developments and accordingly is regarded as the second founder of the Christian movement" (emphasis added).
(Encyclopaedia Britannica, "Saint Paul, the Apostle")

2) "Paul traveled tirelessly through the ancient world, taking the message of salvation to the Gentiles. Paul towers as one of the all-time giants of Christianity. . . . He made three long missionary journeys throughout the Roman Empire, planting churches, preaching the gospel, and giving strength and encouragement to early Christians. . . . Paul had a brilliant mind, a commanding knowledge of philosophy and religion, and could debate with the most educated scholars of his day." http://christianity.about.com/od/newtestamentpeople/a/Apostle-Paul.htm

That's a pretty standard "calling." Just about every pastor or priest claims to have felt a similar calling at some point in their lives. Using a call to evangelism as a declaration of Gospel level authority is absurd at best.

So, there are many other pastors and priests who not only received a calling issued by Christ himself (after having first been radical anti-Christians), but whose accomplishments are comparable to being designated as the "second founder of the Christian movement."

Your dedicated effort to belittle the Apostle Paul is an exercise in futility.

 

[Pup]

Because you do not believe in a Supreme Being (that's what I must conclude), you are able to suggest that the author of the Ten Commandments, for example, is guilty of blackmail.

I don't think a belief or disbelief in a supreme being makes a difference. Either the divine being is doing the blackmailing, by saying I'll punish you if you don't do these things, or the regular guy is doing it, by saying a supreme being will punish you if you don't do these things.

If there's no supreme being, at most one can say the regular guy made up a story in the hopes that others would believe it and be scared.

If there is a supreme being, it's straight-up blackmail and the regular guy is just the messenger.

I'd think the usual LDS defense would hinge somehow on the premortal existence and how we chose this challenging life. It's not blackmail if one agreed to the rules of the game in advance and was okay with the penalties for failing.

 

[halleyscomet]

If Paul didn't "actually" speak against homosexuality, what is your motivation for denigrating him?

I'm not trying to denigrate him.

Your dedicated effort to belittle the Apostle Paul is an exercise in futility.

Why are you still trying to argue about this when you've already recanted the claim that I was examining in the first place?

What, exactly, is the point you're trying to make? My main point was that Paul's epistles did not carry the same theological weight as the words of Christ in the Gospels, a point you have essentially conceded. You seem to be laboring under the impression that I was trying to minimize the role the Bible says Paul played in establishing the Early church. You are not arguing against what I've actually written, but against an imagined slight about an issue that is immaterial to the point I was actually making.

Your Encyclopedia Britannica quote reflects not something new to this thread, but a point I made myself when I brought up the Incident at Antioch.

I premised my statement on the assumption that the writer is an atheist or at least an agnostic. If that is the case, then he may be justified in using the term "blackmail." If it isn't the case and he believes the threats of which he speaks are of divine origin (Ten Commandments, for example), "blackmail" is incorrect usage.

You seem to keep forgetting I'm a deist, not an agnostic or atheist.

Regardless, my religious convictions are not relevant to my use of the term "blackmail." Neither God nor an afterlife need to exist for a religion to be engaging in blackmail of its members with threats or promises about an afterlife.

I would like to request that in the future you quote the statements I've made to which you are responding. I have no interest in trying to defend a position I've taken not in my writing, but in your imagination.

 

[skyrider44]

. . . Fortunately for us, the difference between a risen Jesus appearing in the flesh and Jesus appearing in a vision when recruiting Saul is irrelevant to the question of Paul's legitimacy as an apostle. If Jesus was responsible for whatever Saul saw, then his transformation into Paul is legitimate.

Let's assume that Jesus didn't appear to Saul in any form; i.e., that Saul fabricated the whole story. That doesn't change the well-documented fact that Paul was far more than the common preachers to whom you compare him. Note:

1) "[Paul], one of the leaders of the first generation of Christians, [is] often considered to be the second most important person in the history of Christianity" (again, from the Britannica). I quoted a similar statement from the same source, but it bears repeating. Your insistence that there was nothing exceptional about Paul is false.

2) "[Paul] was to become one of the greatest evangelists of his day . . . ."
(BiblePath.com)

3) "[Paul] is generally considered one of most important figures of the Apostolic Age." (Wikipedia, "Paul the Apostle")

4) ". . . during his ministry, [Paul] writes 14 epistles that become part of the Bible. This is almost triple the number of books written by Moses. He also conducts at least five missionary journeys (44 to 46, 49 to 52, 53 to 58, 60 to 63, and 63 to 67 AD that take him to Asia Minor, Syria, Greece, Italy, Spain, Britain, and elsewhere. He evangelizes countless cities and helps others to do so. . . . " (Enter "The Apostle Paul: His Life and Missionary Journeys" into your search engine.

You may want to "adjust" your evaluation of the Apostle Paul.



It's important to remember that early Christians would have seen the epistles in a light not unlike the Talmud. The writers would have seen their epistles in the same light, as guidance from wise teachers, but not divine edict. Treating the epistles with equal weight to the words of Jesus in the gospels is theologically flawed, even absurd. It's a church tradition that arouse around 400 or 500 C.E., and not the text of the Bible itself, that gives the writings of Paul greater weight than, for example, Thomas Aquinas or C. S. Lewis.

The elevation of the Epistles beyond anything their authors would have dared attach to them is the act not of a priest, but of the Roman Empire, as it crafted the Christian religion into a tool of conquest. Paul, given his education, life and writings, would no doubt have been horrified by the fact that we're discussing his words as if ANYONE would consider them of equal weight to those of Jesus.[/QUOTE]

 

[bruto]

Meh, he's just a liar. This is not an RLDS (aka CofC) tenet, not even a mainstream belief, just something odd he believes.

I have difficultly accepting this vibe I get lately that religion is a bit like yoga - it is good for you even if the premises are not accepted, or known to be a useful lie.

Various religious texts actually speak of this type of thinking. They compare it to a mausoleum: pretty on the outside but rotten and full of bones on the inside. I tend to agree with the metaphor. If there is no true belief, it is a dead thing and they should all just move on.

Indeed, considering that one of the most iconic examples of that, which has entered the language, is the speech by Jesus referring (in the KJ version) to religious hypocrites as "whited sepulchres," it's ironic to see a Christian here suggesting that truthfulness is secondary to satisfaction.

Alas, I apparently went to the wrong Sunday school, because my teachers suggested that belief in what is true comes first whether you like it or not. Where you draw the line between the desire for faith and the completeness of it may be open to dispute, but not the basic idea that truth is the paramount goal. My atheism owes a considerable debt to the wisdom of my Christian teachers. I'm pretty sure my last Sunday school teacher would be happier to know I've given up religion than to think I'd swallowed undigested doctrine like Kool Aid. If I dallied too long with deism and agnosticism, it was probably partly his fault: I hoped I'd find he was right.

 

[Giordano]

I premised my statement on the assumption that the writer is an atheist or at least an agnostic. If that is the case, then he may be justified in using the term "blackmail." If it isn't the case and he believes the threats of which he speaks are of divine origin (Ten Commandments, for example), "blackmail" is incorrect usage.



It's obvious, if you read the writer's post in context (and his previous posts as well), that he is referring to the LDS Church. Consequently, your first sentence (in the above post) is incorrect.

Why is it the wrong term if there is a divine being? Isn't this divine being making threats to get people to do what he wants? Do this or I will make you suffer? Forever!
This is especially true if the divine being can back up the threat by actually sending them to Hell. It is event blackmail if the divine being is not omnipotent and going to Hell has nothing to do with the actions of the divine being. It is the threat, which is believed by the victim, not whether the threat is carried out or not. This applies whether referring to a divine being or to the LDS. Perhaps it is just a bit more true if they are referring to the LDS.

 

[Giordano]

If Paul didn't "actually" speak against homosexuality, what is your motivation for denigrating him?

Note the following:

1) "Although other early Christian missionaries converted Gentiles, and the Christian movement without Paul probably would have broken away from its Jewish parent, Paul played a crucial role in those developments and accordingly is regarded as the second founder of the Christian movement" (emphasis added).
(Encyclopaedia Britannica, "Saint Paul, the Apostle")

2) "Paul traveled tirelessly through the ancient world, taking the message of salvation to the Gentiles. Paul towers as one of the all-time giants of Christianity. . . . He made three long missionary journeys throughout the Roman Empire, planting churches, preaching the gospel, and giving strength and encouragement to early Christians. . . . Paul had a brilliant mind, a commanding knowledge of philosophy and religion, and could debate with the most educated scholars of his day." http://christianity.about.com/od/newtestamentpeople/a/Apostle-Paul.htm



So, there are many other pastors and priests who not only received a calling issued by Christ himself (after having first been radical anti-Christians), but whose accomplishments are comparable to being designated as the "second founder of the Christian movement."

Your dedicated effort to belittle the Apostle Paul is an exercise in futility.

Honestly in reading the actual posts, I don't think that halleyscoment is "denigrating" Paul in the way you claim, and I actually think that you both are in agreement on many of the points you post here. There is no doubt that Paul was very influential in the early formation of Christian theology, but that his words are less important in significance to this theology than are those words ascribed to Jesus. Do you believe otherwise?

 

[RandFan]

That aside, has it occurred to you that most Latter-day Saints derive enormous satisfaction from being active in the Church whether or not they have reservations about its validity?

"The fact that a believer is happier than a skeptic is no more to the point than the fact that a drunken man is happier than a sober one." --George Bernard Shaw

 

[halleyscomet]

Let's assume that Jesus didn't appear to Saul in any form; i.e., that Saul fabricated the whole story. That doesn't change the well-documented fact that Paul was far more than the common preachers to whom you compare him. Note:



...



You may want to "adjust" your evaluation of the Apostle Paul.

No, not really. There wasn't anything in what you quoted that contradicts what I've been saying all along.

You seem to be trying to articulate some sort of theology of works, where being a prolific writer and preacher makes Paul's epistles somehow theologically elevated above those of the other epistle writers. What is your basis for making this connection?

I find it perplexing that a Mormon would be arguing that Paul was somehow more spiritually authoritative based upon volume of writing and number of converts. Such a metric would declare the Roman Catholic Church or even the Megachurch movement as more theologically "correct" than Mormons by several orders of magnitude.

Are you perhaps going by some sort of supernatural extension of the Protestant work ethic? If so, I have to wonder why this "right by number of converts" theology of yours hasn't prompted you to drop this whole "Mormon" thing and join a Baptist Megachurch. If you think Paul is somehow more theologically important because of popularity then why have you not picked your religion by the same metric?

Do you also decide what music is best by what is most popular? You must be a HUGE "One Direction" fan.

 

[halleyscomet]

Honestly in reading the actual posts, I don't think that halleyscoment is "denigrating" Paul in the way you claim, and I actually think that you both are in agreement on many of the points you post here. There is no doubt that Paul was very influential in the early formation of Christian theology, but that his words are less important in significance to this theology than are those words ascribed to Jesus. Do you believe otherwise?

At one point he did claim otherwise. Later in the thread however he dropped that assertion. He never explicitly recanted the statement I repeatedly asked him to recant, but he began expressing ideas that contradicted the statement with which I had taken issue in the first place.

I don't deny the substantial role Paul played in founding the Christian faith. Historically, there is probably more evidence of his existence of that of Christ himself. Wile I don't think I've mentioned it in this thread I have long agreed with the assertion of other writers that term "Christian" is inaccurate because Paul's writing has shaped the ideas many people hold more than the words of Christ himself. Most "Christians" are more members of a Pauline sect of Christianity than "Christians."

Upon all these things skyrider44 and I appeared to agree.

The point at which there seems to be some sort of diversion seems to be on if all of this makes Paul's writing theologically more important than that of the other epistle writers or theologically on par with the words of Christ in the Gospels. The only support offered for the idea that Paul is on par with Christ in theological importance seems to be an argument from popularity. That's a very poor metric for anyone to use, especially a Mormon. Joseph Smith writes in the first book of Nephi saying that the people who follow the faith described by Nephi will remain small in number. How could a member of a church whose founder wrote the concept of remaining unpopular into their very scriptures, use the argument from popularity as the basis for a theological debate?!?

In theological terms, proving me "wrong" about Paul would also establish that the entire Mormon faith should be discarded because it is not large enough to justify its existence.

 

[Slowvehicle]

<respectful snip for focus>
In theological terms, proving me "wrong" about Paul would also establish that the entire Mormon faith should be discarded because it is not large enough to justify its existence.

Not to mention, were Tarsi, in fact, all that and a bag of crisps, would that not make the deriving "enormous satisfaction from being active in the Church" despite "reservations about its validity" anathema? something to be blotted out, corrected, or driven from the tent?

 

[skyrider44]

Honestly in reading the actual posts, I don't think that halleyscoment is "denigrating" Paul in the way you claim, and I actually think that you both are in agreement on many of the points you post here. There is no doubt that Paul was very influential in the early formation of Christian theology, but that his words are less important in significance to this theology than are those words ascribed to Jesus. Do you believe otherwise?

Obviously, I believe Paul's words are less important to Christian theology than the words of Jesus. However, for Christians who believe Jesus or some heavenly being appeared to Saul and commissioned him to continue Jesus' work, the words of Paul are much more than the words of preachers/ministers not so commissioned.

I believe the reason halleyscoment is driven to minimize Paul's stature goes straight to Paul's statements about homosexuality. Note:

"For almost the entire 2,000 years of recorded Christian history, the apostle Paul's condemnation of all types of homosexual practice was considered an unquestionable fact of biblical teaching. Not until the sexual revolution of the 1960s did 'gay liberation theologians' emerge to dispute and distort the plain reading of Scripture on this subject. And as Michael L. Brown notes in his book . . . 'Every major dictionary of New Testament Greek or Classical Greek understood Paul's key vocabulary (in particular the word arsenokoites) to refer to men engaging in homosexual acts.' . . . With society's rapid moral decline, rejection of authority and a self-centered approach to life, God's Word has come under an intense, unrelenting assault." www.charismanews.com/opinion/43977-the-apostle-paul-and-homosexuaity-answer

 

[halleyscomet]

Obviously, I believe Paul's words are less important to Christian theology than the words of Jesus.

On that we agree.

However, for Christians who believe Jesus or some heavenly being appeared to Saul and commissioned him to continue Jesus' work, the words of Paul are much more than the words of preachers/ministers not so commissioned.

That's a fascinating and novel interpretation of scripture. Is it a quirk of your own or one you learned from the Mormon church?

I was raised Lutheran, and I was taught that Jesus appearing to Saul did not elevate Saul to a position ABOVE those of the Apostles, but elevated him TO the level of the Apostles by having him personally recruited by Christ just as they were. You must keep in mind that without being personally recruited by Jesus, Saul would have just been a convert, not one of the Apostles. Saul never met Jesus before the crucifixion.

More to the point, it demonstrates a powerful redemption. A man who had formerly sought to attack Christianity became it's most ardent preacher. It extends salvation to all, regardless of what they had formerly done.

I'm perplexed at how you can take a passage that was meant to declare Paul the equal of Peter and the other apostles and mangle it into something that elevates him above them.

I also suspect Paul being more important theologically than Peter would come as quite a surprise to Roman Catholics!

I believe the reason halleyscoment is driven to minimize Paul's stature goes straight to Paul's statements about homosexuality.

Why do you persist in bearing false witness against me by accusing me of trying to do something that I am not? I am not trying to denigrate Paul. You are trying to blasphemously elevate him.

Your obsession with homosexuality is distracting you from the real theological debate at hand. I've ALREADY demonstrated that Paul was not speaking against homosexuality, but against the prostitution of children. Homosexuality is irrelevant to the role of Paul in Christian theology. Why does everything keep coming back to homosexuality for you?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conversion_of_Paul_the_Apostle#Theological_implications

 

[skyrider44]

. . . Most of the new temple construction you mentioned is in the developing world, where Mormon missionaries are still winning new converts at a rate that appears to exceed attrition.

The citizens of Paris, France, will be interested to know that. As will the citizens of Rome, Italy; Rio de Janeiro, Brazil; Montreal, Quebec; Winnipeg, Manitoba; Lisbon, Portugal; Star Valley, WY; Sapporo, Japan; Fort Collins, CO;
Hartford, CT; Indianapolis, IN; Phoenix, AZ; Philadelphia, PA; Cedar City, UT; and Tucson, AZ.