LDS II: The Mormons

[Filippo Lippi]

We all like to have our beliefs reinforced, it's just that some beliefs fit the evidence and the "back slapping" is only a nice to have.

 

[RandFan]

I'm enjoying the break, watching hordes of you pat each other on the back in choreographed lockstep.

While you were gone, did you find any evidence for horses, steel, wheat and barley in Americca prior to Columbus and after the American extinction of the horse?

 

[halleyscomet]

This is not his first sabbatical from the forum. When things get too hot he drifts away for a bit and returns when he sees something he can snipe at without offering much meat for replies.

I'm enjoying the break, watching hordes of you pat each other on the back in choreographed lockstep.

I'd brag about the accuracy of my prediction, but lets be honest, it was low hanging fruit. I might as well do a cold reading for a Native English speaker and say I'm sensing someone with an "E" in their name.

 

[Giordano]

I'd brag about the accuracy of my prediction, but lets be honest, it was low hanging fruit. I might as well do a cold reading for a Native English speaker and say I'm sensing someone with an "E" in their name.

Good prediction, but bad cold reading for my name... Sorry.

 

[sackett]

Let's try it from this angle

Some people are anti-Mormon, no question about it, and not just because they’re anti-religion in general: they’re quite specifically and particularly down on the Latter Day Saints.

Now why would that be, do you suppose? Skyrider? Any ideas?

 

[Giordano]

I don't know why I feel the need to mention it, but LDS followers that I've known have often been very pleasant helpful people who are very friendly and try to do good. It is very odd to me, therefore, that the Church has advanced so many dreadful viewpoints over the years that included racism, homophobia, etc. and has been willing to impose these views on non-believers such as myself. I admittedly live in a very diverse area, and probably I am mainstream enough to not visibly violate many of the Church's viewpoints. I don't know what the reaction would be if I tried to introduce a same sex spouse to these Mormons, for example. But I suspect that most of the individual Mormons who I've met would be very polite even in such a circumstance, but would feel the need to pray for us later "knowing' we were committing a sin.

 

[halleyscomet]

Some people are anti-Mormon, no question about it, and not just because they’re anti-religion in general: they’re quite specifically and particularly down on the Latter Day Saints.

Now why would that be, do you suppose? Skyrider? Any ideas?

Many Christian denominations teach that Mormons are Pagans, not Christians. Worse than average pagans, they claim Jesus as part of their pantheon as a Satanic trick to lure REAL Christians into damnation.

I honestly doubt the GOP was thinking very clearly when they picked Romney, a Mormon, as their presidential candidate. They needed to motivate hard core Republicans to vote in droves, and they offered a candidate that many conservative Christians found just as objectionable as Obama, but for different reasons. If you need the religious nutjob base, as the GOP does now, then you need to actually cater to them and NOT pick candidates whose religion has been depicted in religious education as a pagan cult for generations.

Of course, nobody in this thread is "Anti-Mormon" for those reasons.

 

[Slowvehicle]

I don't know why I feel the need to mention it, but LDS followers that I've known have often been very pleasant helpful people who are very friendly and try to do good. It is very odd to me, therefore, that the Church has advanced so many dreadful viewpoints over the years that included racism, homophobia, etc. and has been willing to impose these views on non-believers such as myself. I admittedly live in a very diverse area, and probably I am mainstream enough to not visibly violate many of the Church's viewpoints. I don't know what the reaction would be if I tried to introduce a same sex spouse to these Mormons, for example. But I suspect that most of the individual Mormons who I've met would be very polite even in such a circumstance, but would feel the need to pray for us later "knowing' we were committing a sin.

Much the same way mainstream xians feel the need to pray for mormons, "knowing" they are committing heresy...

 

[turingtest]

I don't know why I feel the need to mention it, but LDS followers that I've known have often been very pleasant helpful people who are very friendly and try to do good. It is very odd to me, therefore, that the Church has advanced so many dreadful viewpoints over the years that included racism, homophobia, etc. and has been willing to impose these views on non-believers such as myself. I admittedly live in a very diverse area, and probably I am mainstream enough to not visibly violate many of the Church's viewpoints. I don't know what the reaction would be if I tried to introduce a same sex spouse to these Mormons, for example. But I suspect that most of the individual Mormons who I've met would be very polite even in such a circumstance, but would feel the need to pray for us later "knowing' we were committing a sin.

It might be from the same sort of thing as this:

Edwards: Why the big secret? People are smart. They can handle it.

Kay: A person is smart. People are dumb, panicky dangerous animals and you know it.

This may be naive of me, but I think that individuals are generally "pleasant helpful people who are very friendly and try to do good" on their own; put 'em in a club, though, and you've almost automatically created an "us vs them" mentality. And if that club is a religious one, that feels it has Absolute Truth on its side...well, here comes the imposition. You can't feel your club has the Truth without also feeling a little entitled by that Truth, and reinforced by the club, to insist on it for everyone.

 

[Craig4]

I don't know why I feel the need to mention it, but LDS followers that I've known have often been very pleasant helpful people who are very friendly and try to do good. It is very odd to me, therefore, that the Church has advanced so many dreadful viewpoints over the years that included racism, homophobia, etc. and has been willing to impose these views on non-believers such as myself. I admittedly live in a very diverse area, and probably I am mainstream enough to not visibly violate many of the Church's viewpoints. I don't know what the reaction would be if I tried to introduce a same sex spouse to these Mormons, for example. But I suspect that most of the individual Mormons who I've met would be very polite even in such a circumstance, but would feel the need to pray for us later "knowing' we were committing a sin.

Sure, Mormons make fine neighbors. I'd never want one to be president, secretary of defense or the commanding general or our nuclear forces or anything like that. The belief in things so obviously absurd should disqualify someone from a job where millions of lives are at risk and you have to evaluate information critically. To be fair, I wouldn't want someone who believed in the flood, or creationism in such positions either.

 

[Marcus]

I don't know about the FLDS, only the main LDS church, so take this with that grain of salt, but the first thing that occurs to me is the church's caution about sign seekers, or those who need evidence on which to base their faith. For example, Doctrine & Covenants 63:7-10:

7 And he that seeketh signs shall see signs, but not unto salvation.

8 Verily, I say unto you, there are those among you who seek signs, and there have been such even from the beginning;

9 But, behold, faith cometh not by signs, but signs follow those that believe.

10 Yea, signs come by faith, not by the will of men, nor as they please, but by the will of God.

What I'm seeing with this attempt at justifying steel is an insistence on "seeking signs" "by the will of men," declaring that one has found evidence that an average person would not consider evidence. Yet somehow feeling a need to present that evidence because apparently faith alone is not strong enough, and archaelogical or etymological evidence must be presented to bolster it.

I guess that's one way to play the religion game, but it's not one that I could ever do, nor could the pet Mormon that I keep in the house here.

We were talking about it on our walk this morning, and she agreed with my point above, that the whole goal should be how the religion and scriptures make you feel, rather than specific details. Heck, one could go through the Bible and demolish any of the gospels as wrong because it doesn't agree with the others.

But if you feel better about yourself and your life and enjoy associating with others who believe the same, arguing about steel is as silly as arguing about whether the explosions in outer space were correct in Star Wars. One can miss the larger sweep of the movie, the emotions and the enjoyment, by wasting too much time on such things, and with a religion of course it's much more, with the whole aspect of trying to better oneself and do good, and sharing time with others trying to help you do the same.

So in other words, my pet Mormon was not impressed by the entire approach of seeking signs (evidence) for steel in what's meant to be a greater story about Jesus's influence among men and good vs. evil. And honestly, if I were religious, I wouldn't be either.

I like this post. It gets to the heart of religion itself. It's all about how it makes you feel, actual reality, whether it's magic hats, golden tablets, or Jesus' superpowers, doesn't seem to count.

I'm sure your (wife?) is not impressed with atheists, but for me, the worship of truth is a higher calling than any religious fantasy.

 

[Giordano]

Sure, Mormons make fine neighbors. I'd never want one to be president, secretary of defense or the commanding general or our nuclear forces or anything like that. The belief in things so obviously absurd should disqualify someone from a job where millions of lives are at risk and you have to evaluate information critically. To be fair, I wouldn't want someone who believed in the flood, or creationism in such positions either.

I would be a little more narrow in stating my outlook, in that I would disqualify anyone who would use their beliefs in make-believe to impose those beliefs on the life of any non-believers. Beliefs that are not easily shown to be based on facts should not be allowed to guide passing laws or to influence job promotions. etc. This applies to all religions. I have known people who can successfully partition these two parts of their lives.

However, now that I think of it more, I do remember some Church of LDS members who were very pleasant and equally nice to both males and females in person, but who would preferentially hire males to their business because "husbands should be supporting their families, and not the wives." So even outwardly pleasant people can use their religion to negatively impact people. But I still think that it is avoidable with effort.

 

[Olowkow]

Sure, Mormons make fine neighbors. I'd never want one to be president, secretary of defense or the commanding general or our nuclear forces or anything like that. The belief in things so obviously absurd should disqualify someone from a job where millions of lives are at risk and you have to evaluate information critically. To be fair, I wouldn't want someone who believed in the flood, or creationism in such positions either.

Kind of like Michele Bachmann on the Intelligence Committee? Or John Shimkus or Louie Gohmert on any scientific panel. I can't disagree with you there.

But I think we have to listen to what the individual theist has to say publicly about the real world. The problem with rejecting people based on their religious identity is that not all LDS or Christians generally believe all the absurd stuff. Many need the group for their social identity, political survival and often for their family's cohesion, but they rely on their own sense of morality which derives from first principles in business and government. I don't think Romney would have made a good president because of his character, not because of his religion.

My LDS neighbor and friend for over 30 years, whom we lost last year at Christmas, would have made a brilliant administrator. He was a closet atheist, but enjoyed the church because of the choir and his family ties. A fellow liberal and university professor, we had many animated conversations about the foolishness of religions and conservative politics.

I'm guessing Harry Reid has disabused himself of certain Mormon dogma that he would be embarrassed to try to defend.

 

[halleyscomet]

Mormon themed gay and lesbian adult entertainment is a booming business

It makes sense on another level, too, according to Wolf: Much of America thinks Mormons are kind of freaky. "Mormonism has always been seen as a place for secret sexuality," he says. "Ever since Joe Smith was secretly marrying (multiple) wives, people have thought of the Church as a sexually libertine one that was a danger to the mainstream way of life."

The church has banned polygamy since the late 19th century, and it's not as if Mormons' sex lives are weirder than anyone else's. Still, their rituals definitely have an erotic flavor. When a young Mormon gets inducted into the temple, he or she gets "anointed" while wearing a sheet with a hole in the top. The elder then washes the newbie's body, including his or her thighs and groin area. Then they put on the Temple Garment—or dowdy white underwear that devotees are required to wear at all times after the ceremony.

Perhaps unsurprisingly, this ceremony is a common set on the site. And according to Wolf, people aren't exactly disappointed by the repetitiveness. He says that while business was slow for the first two years of the site's existence, it's taken off in the last two.

 

[Pup]

I like this post. It gets to the heart of religion itself. It's all about how it makes you feel, actual reality, whether it's magic hats, golden tablets, or Jesus' superpowers, doesn't seem to count.

I'm sure your (wife?) is not impressed with atheists, but for me, the worship of truth is a higher calling than any religious fantasy.

Yes, the "pet Mormon" I was joking about is my wife.

But isn't how one feels a large part of everyone's life? There are some religious people who take it to truly bizare levels (Fred Phelps, Mother Theresa), but then there are non-religious or barely religious people who do that too--all the people who hate gays because they're gross or icky, not primarily because they're sinning against God, or all the people who sadistically mistreat their wives or children or pets, then turn around and love them in remorse, then mistreat them again, not because God likes to see them suffer, but because of mental health problems concerning anger and empathy. And don't even get me started on conspiracy theorists or bigfoot hunters.

To get the full import of my post, it probably works better along with my reply to tsig at post #2066. But I would have thought it's most people's goal to "feel better about yourself and your life and enjoy associating with others who believe the same..." Or maybe I'm just weird that way.

We joke I'm a member of the "Church of the Living History" because I have friends around the country who get together a few weekends a year and do 1850s/1860s living history events, high-quality stuff where you take nothing modern, talk about nothing modern, and try to recreate a historic situation for three or four days.

It's certainly educational, as it requires a lot of study, but it's also fun, it's all about how it makes us feel, it's a way of associating with others who believe the same: that doing this admittedly strange stuff which adds insight into the lives of long-dead people has an intrinsic value for us living folks.

I live in too isolated of an area, but if there were a skeptic group around here who didn't drink or meet in bars/pubs (hate that atmosphere), I'd love to be around others like myself, but instead, I go to virtual gatherings like this forum, where all the things I believe in are encouraged--critical thinking, the scientific method, skepticism, etc.

It makes me feel good about myself to hone my skeptical side, it's great to have that encouraged, and it's just fun to share thoughts and insight with like-minded others. I do the same only different on history-related boards.

I don't see that that side of me is really any different from what a theist is looking for, emotionally, and churches have filled that niche very well.

As far as encouraging institutionalized bigotry, well, yes, they're good at that, but I really think that such bigotry would exist without churches, and that even with churches, it will fade as society pressures it to fade.

Most southern churches in the US were preaching from the pulpit that God endorsed slavery when southern society endorsed slavery; they discovered that God didn't do so when slavery was outlawed. Racism also faded apace.

Mormon women used to be encouraged not to work outside the home, but that's faded to mere lip service, as most Mormon women I know at least (my wife excepted) work to bring in household income like any other modern American women.

I guess I see most people as so stubbornly themselves, that their religion barely makes a dent in who they are, or who they would be if they weren't a member.

 

[tsig]

Yes, the "pet Mormon" I was joking about is my wife.

But isn't how one feels a large part of everyone's life? There are some religious people who take it to truly bizare levels (Fred Phelps, Mother Theresa), but then there are non-religious or barely religious people who do that too--all the people who hate gays because they're gross or icky, not primarily because they're sinning against God, or all the people who sadistically mistreat their wives or children or pets, then turn around and love them in remorse, then mistreat them again, not because God likes to see them suffer, but because of mental health problems concerning anger and empathy. And don't even get me started on conspiracy theorists or bigfoot hunters.

To get the full import of my post, it probably works better along with my reply to tsig at post #2066. But I would have thought it's most people's goal to "feel better about yourself and your life and enjoy associating with others who believe the same..." Or maybe I'm just weird that way.
We joke I'm a member of the "Church of the Living History" because I have friends around the country who get together a few weekends a year and do 1850s/1860s living history events, high-quality stuff where you take nothing modern, talk about nothing modern, and try to recreate a historic situation for three or four days.

It's certainly educational, as it requires a lot of study, but it's also fun, it's all about how it makes us feel, it's a way of associating with others who believe the same: that doing this admittedly strange stuff which adds insight into the lives of long-dead people has an intrinsic value for us living folks.

I live in too isolated of an area, but if there were a skeptic group around here who didn't drink or meet in bars/pubs (hate that atmosphere), I'd love to be around others like myself, but instead, I go to virtual gatherings like this forum, where all the things I believe in are encouraged--critical thinking, the scientific method, skepticism, etc.

It makes me feel good about myself to hone my skeptical side, it's great to have that encouraged, and it's just fun to share thoughts and insight with like-minded others. I do the same only different on history-related boards.

I don't see that that side of me is really any different from what a theist is looking for, emotionally, and churches have filled that niche very well.

As far as encouraging institutionalized bigotry, well, yes, they're good at that, but I really think that such bigotry would exist without churches, and that even with churches, it will fade as society pressures it to fade.

Most southern churches in the US were preaching from the pulpit that God endorsed slavery when southern society endorsed slavery; they discovered that God didn't do so when slavery was outlawed. Racism also faded apace.

Mormon women used to be encouraged not to work outside the home, but that's faded to mere lip service, as most Mormon women I know at least (my wife excepted) work to bring in household income like any other modern American women.

I guess I see most people as so stubbornly themselves, that their religion barely makes a dent in who they are, or who they would be if they weren't a member.

My goal has always been to know the truth no matter what.

If you live by lies then you will be subject to liars and the next thing you know you're enjoying a kool-aid* aperitif in a jungle environment.

 

[Pup]

[for reference, the part tsig highlighted]: But I would have thought it's most people's goal to "feel better about yourself and your life and enjoy associating with others who believe the same..." Or maybe I'm just weird that way.

My goal has always been to know the truth no matter what.

If you live by lies then you will be subject to liars and the next thing you know you're enjoying a kool-aid* aperitif in a jungle environment.

I don't get it. Knowing the truth is intellection/factual/research, that kind of thing.

Feeling good is emotional/subjective/changeable, that kind of thing.

Why would I have to choose just one and purge the other from my life? If I couldn't even "associat[e] with others who believe the same" I'd have to give up the friends I get along with and only associate with people who constantly disagree with me. As a first step, it would mean no longer posting here, lest I associate with people who believe skepticism is good, and those who go to skepics at the pub meetings or TAMs would have to stop. And you're saying I could no longer have a goal of "feeling good about yourself and your life"? You mean I'd have to go around filled with self-loathing? Sorry, that's just not my thing.

Okay, here are two specific examples, one about subjectively feeling good (or living by lies, as you call it) and the other about seeking the truth. Both seem to fit nicely in different circumstances, with no conflict even when there's a bit of one included with the other.

If I go out for a good dinner, I want to know the truth in the sense that I want to be charged the correct price, I want the food to be what's represented on the menu, I want the restaurant to follow food-handling laws... but other than that, it's primarily about feeling good. I'd choose the experience subjectively and enjoy it based on emotional and unjustifiable things. If the waiter wanted to lie and treat me like I was special when I was nobody, that's even better. I'd enjoy the dinner for illogical reasons like the good memories evoked of past occasions, the undefinable atmosphere of the place, whether I like the style of food, etc. If I enjoyed the evening, I'd plan to come back, but only if I subjectively enjoyed it, and no one could logically argue me in or out of that enjoyment. Yes, it would be the equivalent of drinking the kool-aid, because I'd be suckered by the polite waiters and deliberately crafted atmosphere designed to manipulate customers into returning, not by the facts of food production.

If I'm researching a particular topic, let's say my health, it'll be just the opposite. I want to feel as good as practical about what I find out, so I might try to be glad that my situation isn't as bad as others that are described. But otherwise, it's primarily about learning the truth. I'm not going to ignore certain topics, or go into denial and pretend I don't have some symptoms. Instead, I'm going to try to be as objective as possible, looking at my situation as if there was no particular preferred outcome and instead following the evidence wherever it leads. If the outcome is bad, that's not going to affect what i conclude the outcome is, because the goal is getting to the truth, and only afterwards would I worry about coping with it emotionally. I've noticed that some people are in heavy denial, even doctors, so this isn't a universal desire, but it's certainly my desire.

The above two examples are things I actually do on a regular basis, and they seem quite natural to combine in such a way. I don't get it.

How are those things mutually exclusive? Why do I have to choose between them and live a life filled only with all one or all the other? I wouldn't even know how to do that, without either stripping all pleasure from my life, or going insane and living in a literal fantasy world of denial.

 

[bruto]

I think tsig and pup are talking about somewhat different things here, even if they do overlap at times. I, like tsig, want first of all to know the truth, and have never understood how people can choose faith, and simply abandon the search for truth, or in many cases, to abandon the truth itself.

Of course we want to feel good. If I go to a restaurant I want to be treated as someone special even if the waiter thinks secretly that I'm scum. It's part of the deal, and I'm paying for people to be polite and non judgmental. If they do a good job in making me feel good, I'm getting what I pay for. If I go to the theater, I also do not require that Lady MacBeth loses her mind on her days off. That kind of artifice is a very different sort of lie from, say, being told I'm getting food that is not what I'm getting, or being served dangerous food without knowing it.

I've always figured the point of learning, study, philosophy and even the investigation of faith, is to find out what is really true and then to figure out how we, as humans, can make the most of it, feel best about it. But finding out what is really true has always seemed like the starting point. As the Japanese saying goes, I want to eat fugu and not die. But I need to know it's fugu.

 

[Tommy Jeppesen]

I don't get it. Knowing the truth is intellection/factual/research, that kind of thing.

Feeling good is emotional/subjective/changeable, that kind of thing.

...

There are at least 3 kinds of truth and nothing like the truth. There is natural science, math/logic and social/emotional truth. They are not the same and they can't be brought together coherently as far as I can tell. The moment someone argues for the truth, there is a possibility that she/he thinks that is only one kind of truth

 

[Pup]

I think tsig and pup are talking about somewhat different things here, even if they do overlap at times. I, like tsig, want first of all to know the truth, and have never understood how people can choose faith, and simply abandon the search for truth, or in many cases, to abandon the truth itself.

I agree with the highlighted part completely. It's why I could never be religious, because it seems every religion has to reach that point when it tells people to stop thinking, because it demands they believe in objective things that aren't true, like prayer works, a god actually exists, etc.

But I'm failing to understand what tsig's talking about, when he says the search for truth apparently prohibits all the other emotional or uplifting parts of life, like feeling good, socializing, being encouraged to be a better person, all discarded in a grim search for truth. It seems like the most horrible cliche of the sour, miserable atheist or skeptic, who feels no sense of wonder or joy, but focusses entirely on the mistakes of himself and others on the way to TRVTH.

Maybe someone can explain it to me in little words.

Just occurred to me, is it because I think tsig means never when we both mean sometimes? In other words, when he sarcastically says, "We toss aside facts and reason and just exist in a soft, feel-good fog?" I think he means we should never do that and argue that a soft feel-good fog is for watching sunrises and reading good poetry and should not be eliminated from life. But he actually means it's okay to sometimes do that, just not when specifically searching for truth, so in fact we agree?