LDS II: The Mormons

[bruto]

I think there's a gray area where styles overlap, and some of the disagreement may depend on how one describes it, but maybe also on how and whether we choose to be happy.

I'm reminded a bit of my ex wife, one of those people who could not eat even a delicious meal without making note of the faults, as if to be honest requires that we never overlook anything. A feeling isn't fully felt unless you say it aloud. Maybe by now she's grown a bit mellower. Long ago she found life hard to live and love hard to give.

We do not have to deny reality to decide what parts of it we are better off setting aside. We love people despite their faults, and some of us are lucky enough to find equal favor. The world will be just as crazy when we die as it was when we were born, but we can kick up our heels and dance.

We live with faulty people in a faulty world, dreams don't come true and tomorrow the bus will come up behind you and your life will blink out like a bad bulb. There are bugs in your brussels sprouts and rust in your rocker panels. Whatever we do we give up something else, and even the greatest good is alloyed. There are also stars in the sky.

 

[Pup]

...and yet, if "someone" says that I may not marry my partner because I have not "touched the face" of that metaphorical 'god'; or if "someone" calls me willfully ignorant because I do not accept the "history" of that beautifully poetic metaphor, and do not believe that during one flight, one pilot "made contact" with an actual being that qualifies as the 'god' I should be worshiping; or "someone" claims that I need to stop being stupid and admit that someday there may be "evidence" that men may become as supersonic flying airchines are now; or makes any of the other misplaced claims of the reality-averse superstitious; I will, in fact, point out that their claims are ungrounded in reality, and, while they may derive comfort form their sectarian superstitions, I can see there is no foundation for the beliefs they are trying to pass off on me.

I have said, over and over, that I do not care with what a believer self-soothes, in the fastness of their sanctuary.

I thought this over last night, puzzled that people keep avoiding my specific examples. I'm beginning to believe that the non-sequiturs (quoting a post in which I said nothing about nature and then commenting about my position on nature) and the avoidance of addressing my concrete examples are ways of disagreeing with my examples while trying not to admit how narrow a life it leaves one.

I get that you don't like the LDS church's hostility toward marriage equality--I don't like it either.

I still don't understand, though. Would you personally be able to enjoy a poem like High Flight--maybe it's not your cup of tea specifically, but let's say something similar that includes counterfactual metaphors? Or do you think it's "clearly worthless for anyone who cares about facts and reason"?

However you personally feel, let's say that others have not disagreed because they agree that such poems are clearly worthless. That means no enjoyment of poetry, no metaphor, no fantasy in general. It's like hard-core Christians who won't let their kids read Harry Potter, only in this case, it's because fantasy is not acceptable compared to reality.

It also apparently means not believing that one's wife is the most beautiful woman, or one's newborn baby is amazing, or any such subjective but incorrect things. Unless they objectively exceed average, we need to keep in mind they're average or perhaps below average. No one has disagreed, so I'm left thinking they agree.

"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, [etc.]... but other than that, it's primarily about feeling good." Apparently I'm alone on that, other than Bruto, and illogically enjoying a meal for intangible reasons is discouraged.

Then we get to the even harder stuff, which I can't believe is true but no one has come to my defense.

"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'?"

No one has disagreed, so apparently they agree. Those deluded theists get to have friends and go to their churches, but others apparently must live a solitary life, lest they enjoy the company of like-minded friends which is, admittedly, illogical, though could be argued to be a need we've evolved to feel. But giving in to it might be the naturalistic fallacy; better to be alone. And one shouldn't try to become a better person because, well, I don't know why, but it's apparently something theists do so it must be bad.

I'm left stunned by all this. Really? Is this how most skeptics live? Is there so much pressure to distance themselves from theists that they don't dare admit they too like to associate with like-minded people, so they're pushed into a corner of refusing to admit even the obvious?

I think Bruto understood the distinction I was making between enjoying limited fantasy (happily watching MacBeth) and the full-time fantasy of theists (expecting the actress playing Lady MacBeth to lose her mind on her days off). But what I'm seeing is such fear of falling in the theists' trap that one can't even enjoy part-time fantasy, so it all must be purged from one's life.

All I can say is that if it's true, it's sad. Or if it's not true, but it can't be admitted because it makes skeptics sound too much like theists, well, that's not only sad, it's avoiding the truth, which surely skeptics would never do.

 

[Marcus]

I guess

If someone says: "Have you read High Flight by John Magee?" I'm not going to argue that only a person suffering from synesthesia would consider laughter to be silver, and wind cannot actually shout, and that a person cannot safely be "in space" and put his hand out of an aircraft, let alone touch the face of a non-existent god, so the poem is clearly worthless for anyone who cares about facts and reason. I'm absolutely going to enjoy the magic of that feel-good fog, as the words wash over me.

I guess this is an example you want a response for but I don't really get what there is to respond to. You seem to be saying that to enjoy a poem one must first treat the metaphors as real and then suspend disbelief in whatever nonsensical things result. You don't believe the wind can shout yet you enjoy the poem anyway, I don't see why you think it would be any different for a skeptic.

 

[Pup]

I guess this is an example you want a response for but I don't really get what there is to respond to. You seem to be saying that to enjoy a poem one must first treat the metaphors as real and then suspend disbelief in whatever nonsensical things result. You don't believe the wind can shout yet you enjoy the poem anyway, I don't see why you think it would be any different for a skeptic.

One suspends disbelief in order to enjoy some things: exactly.

I don't see why it would be any different for a skeptic either. In fact, I thought when it came to skepticism, I was fairly boring and average.

So it surprised me that most posters seemed to be hostile toward my ideas that skeptics/atheists have some things in common with theists (or with all people): Enjoyment of being with like-minded people, warm fuzzies of happiness about things that shouldn't logically cause such emotions, suspension of disbelief to enjoy fantasy in art, literature, performance, etc.

The difference is that theists (supposedly) consider the fantasy to be real forever, even when they're not suspending disbelief to experience it. That I can't understand, but I can understand all else around it.

 

[turingtest]

I think there's a gray area where styles overlap, and some of the disagreement may depend on how one describes it, but maybe also on how and whether we choose to be happy.

I'm reminded a bit of my ex wife, one of those people who could not eat even a delicious meal without making note of the faults, as if to be honest requires that we never overlook anything. A feeling isn't fully felt unless you say it aloud. Maybe by now she's grown a bit mellower. Long ago she found life hard to live and love hard to give.

We do not have to deny reality to decide what parts of it we are better off setting aside. We love people despite their faults, and some of us are lucky enough to find equal favor. The world will be just as crazy when we die as it was when we were born, but we can kick up our heels and dance.

We live with faulty people in a faulty world, dreams don't come true and tomorrow the bus will come up behind you and your life will blink out like a bad bulb. There are bugs in your brussels sprouts and rust in your rocker panels. Whatever we do we give up something else, and even the greatest good is alloyed. There are also stars in the sky.

Bruto, I've always felt that just about anything you write could be nominated for TLA; this is one of your best; nommed, and if it doesn't win, even if on just the merits of the language alone, then TLA is meaningless fluff.

 

[Slowvehicle]

I thought this over last night, puzzled that people keep avoiding my specific examples. I'm beginning to believe that the non-sequiturs (quoting a post in which I said nothing about nature and then commenting about my position on nature) and the avoidance of addressing my concrete examples are ways of disagreeing with my examples while trying not to admit how narrow a life it leaves one.

It is...interesting...to read you complaining about non-sequitur, then turning around and stating that my approach to literature leave me a "narrow life". You missed my point, entirely.

I am (for instance) fond of a fantasy trilogy, The Riddlemaster of Hed, written by Patricia McKellips. I fond the themes compelling; the weltanshauung fascinating; and the story engaging; it is, in fact, one of the things I read when I am tired, or sad, or just need a place to go R&R for a bit. That does not, in any way, however, mean that I accept the idea that the Morgol inherits the ability to see though walls; or that Morgon can reach his starred harp and his starred sword, wherever he left it last, by reaching into his cloak; or that the High One ruled the land for thousands of years, meting and dispensing land-law to land-heirs.

My enjoyment of the books does not depend upon my believing that they are "real".

My enjoyment of, and profit from, the Just So Stories does not depend upon my believing that the tides really are pulled back and forth by a giant crab, or that cetaceans eat krill because of rafts stuck in their craws, held in place by suspenders (did you forget the suspenders, O best beloved?)

Having a full, rich, life; enjoying poetry, music, art, food and drink, the arms of my beloved[ these do not depend upon me believing in a boogeyman and comporting myself according to what I am told are its requirements of me.

I don't know what gives you leave to arrogate to call my life, free of "demons" and 'gods', a "narrow"one.

I get that you don't like the LDS church 's hostility toward marriage equality--I don't like it either.

Homoodium is a symptom. I don't care who "disapproves" of my partner-choice. I find it laughable when someone pretends to be justified in disapproving of something they find "icky" because their 'god' tells them to disapprove of it.

I still don't understand, though. Would you personally be able to enjoy a poem like High Flight--maybe it's not your cup of tea specifically, but let's say something similar that includes counterfactual metaphors? Or do you think it's "clearly worthless for anyone who cares about facts and reason"?

Not sure who you are quoting, but it a'n't me. I like High Flight; at one timeit helped fuel my desire to become a pilot. At no point, however, did I mistake it for a flight-training (or life-training) manual.

However you personally feel, let's say that others have not disagreed because they agree that such poems are clearly worthless. That means no enjoyment of poetry, no metaphor, no fantasy in general. It's like hard-core Christians who won't let their kids read Harry Potter, only in this case, it's because fantasy is not acceptable compared to reality.

Sigh. The difference is, of course (again) that I do not delude myself into thinking that fantasies I enjoy must somehow be "real". I can enjoy Weyr Search without losing sight of the fact that a 727-sized lizard could not, physically, fly, or chew firestone. My understanding that F'nar is a fictional character does not make me less moved by, or less jealous,of his relationship with Mnementh the Bronze.

I do not arrogate to disapprove of those with green growing among the stones of their holds.

It also apparently means not believing that one's wife is the most beautiful woman, or one's newborn baby is amazing, or any such subjective but incorrect things. Unless they objectively exceed average, we need to keep in mind they're average or perhaps below average. No one has disagreed, so I'm left thinking they agree.

I am convinced that my partner is the finest, most attractive, most talented person I have ever "met, seen, nor heard tell about"--but that is my opinion. I would not, and do not, insist that you agree; again, Cosi Fan Tutti is a work of fiction. It is silly to pretend otherwise.

"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, [etc.]... but other than that, it's primarily about feeling good." Apparently I'm alone on that, other than Bruto, and illogically enjoying a meal for intangible reasons is discouraged.

Perhaps you should escort that person of straw to stand with the others, over under that windmill. I can "go my way", "eat my bread with joy", and "enjoy my wine" with my partner without having to pretend that any of it was provided me by a 'god', particularly a 'god' that cannot be shown to exist at all (to say nothing of which of the multiple thousands of invented ones it would be).

If you need to pretend in a 'god', it the taste of your meal, the touch of your partner's hand, is improved by your belief that a 'god' had a hand in it; make free so to do. As with other forms of onanism, I would prefer you did so in private, and did not tell me about it.

<snip of more of the same.

 

[Slowvehicle]

I think there's a gray area where styles overlap, and some of the disagreement may depend on how one describes it, but maybe also on how and whether we choose to be happy.

I'm reminded a bit of my ex wife, one of those people who could not eat even a delicious meal without making note of the faults, as if to be honest requires that we never overlook anything. A feeling isn't fully felt unless you say it aloud. Maybe by now she's grown a bit mellower. Long ago she found life hard to live and love hard to give.

We do not have to deny reality to decide what parts of it we are better off setting aside. We love people despite their faults, and some of us are lucky enough to find equal favor. The world will be just as crazy when we die as it was when we were born, but we can kick up our heels and dance.

We live with faulty people in a faulty world, dreams don't come true and tomorrow the bus will come up behind you and your life will blink out like a bad bulb. There are bugs in your brussels sprouts and rust in your rocker panels. Whatever we do we give up something else, and even the greatest good is alloyed. There are also stars in the sky.

I stand. I cheer. Ave, Docerator! Ave, Docerator! Ave, Docerator!

 

[Pixel42]

I still don't understand, though. Would you personally be able to enjoy a poem like High Flight--maybe it's not your cup of tea specifically, but let's say something similar that includes counterfactual metaphors? Or do you think it's "clearly worthless for anyone who cares about facts and reason"?

I think there's been some talking at cross purposes going on in this thread. I don't think anyone has denied that it's possible to enjoy and be enriched by fiction; the point is that a mature adult remains aware that it is fiction. But the LDS church insists that the work of fiction (to put if kindly; obvious clumsy fraud is a more accurate description) at the heart of their religion is actually factual. This is what mystifies non Mormons, and makes us keep probing away to try to understand how anyone could ever believe that.

Mainstream Christianity is not as puzzling because at least in that case the stories are set in a society we know actually existed, not one we can be sure did not exist. If a bunch of Tolkien fans started insisting that Middle Earth was a real place and the events described in the books were actual historical events I would regard them with equal bewilderment.

 

[Marcus]

One suspends disbelief in order to enjoy some things: exactly.

I don't see why it would be any different for a skeptic either. In fact, I thought when it came to skepticism, I was fairly boring and average.

So it surprised me that most posters seemed to be hostile toward my ideas that skeptics/atheists have some things in common with theists (or with all people): Enjoyment of being with like-minded people, warm fuzzies of happiness about things that shouldn't logically cause such emotions, suspension of disbelief to enjoy fantasy in art, literature, performance, etc.

The difference is that theists (supposedly) consider the fantasy to be real forever, even when they're not suspending disbelief to experience it. That I can't understand, but I can understand all else around it.

My point was, I can enjoy the poem without suspending disbelief at all. Never for a moment do I believe that the wind can shout or that God is real. Now though, it occurs to me that you are understanding the phrase in a different manner. For example, if I enjoy a Star Wars movie one could say that I am suspending disbelief , deliberately ignoring shoddy science and impossible aerodynamics in order to do so.

If this is what you mean, that you are simply ignoring silly things like supernatural beings in order to enjoy the poem or movie or whatever, then yes, we would have that in common.

Actually believing that an aircraft can bank and turn in a vacuum is a different matter completely.

ETA: Similar to what Slowvehicle said

 

[Pup]

If this is what you mean, that you are simply ignoring silly things like supernatural beings in order to enjoy the poem or movie or whatever, then yes, we would have that in common.

It's going to be difficult for anyone to describe exactly what's going on in their mind, but I'd say it sounds very similar.

I'm just amazed at the hostility here to what I thought was a simple and inocuous observation that at least some Mormons didn't see the importance of arguing about the historical accuracy of steel, etc., and then from that, that theists and skeptics/atheists have things in common. Wow. Here's what started it all, from my post #2062, but it escalated quickly:

We were talking about it on our walk this morning, and she [a Mormon] 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.

Then I pointed out that skeptics/atheists also enjoy associating with like-minded people, feeling better about themselves, trying to improve, and occasionally enjoying things that have nothing to do with reason, like enjoying sunsets or good poetry, or as tsig put it "exist in a soft, feel-good fog," something skeptics are apparently never supposed to do.

I am completely surprised at the hostility to what I thought was a fairly benign point, and at how hard it was to get actual responses to the concrete examples I'd give, in an attempt to nail down what exactly the disagreement was about.

Apparently I wouldn't fit in well at all with skeptics in real life because I wouldn't be able to predict how to censor what I say correctlly, to avoid such attacks, since I didn't predict how that one would escalate. I live in too isolated an area for any meet-ups around here, but it's good to know that traveling to one wouldn't be worth it.

Admittedly, I can't help concluding that there's just a tad defensiveness going on--We're not a bit like those stupid theists, nuh uh, not us, no way, never--but of course that would just start another fight if I went down that road. At least I could predict that one.

So this time, I really am out, until some specific Mormon-related factoid needs discussed. Y'all have fun.

 

[Marcus]

It's going to be difficult for anyone to describe exactly what's going on in their mind, but I'd say it sounds very similar.

I'm just amazed at the hostility here to what I thought was a simple and inocuous observation that at least some Mormons didn't see the importance of arguing about the historical accuracy of steel, etc., and then from that, that theists and skeptics/atheists have things in common. Wow. Here's what started it all, from my post #2062, but it escalated quickly:
.

I didn't see any hostility. but the point seems pretty straight forward. The BoM is supposedly information taken straight from God, and yet it is full of egregious errors. It is clear that it actually comes from the mind of a con man with inadequate information.

 

[RandFan]

It's easy to forget the power of parsimony.

I didn't see any hostility. but the point seems pretty straight forward. The BoM is supposedly information taken straight from God, and yet it is full of egregious errors. It is clear that it actually comes from the mind of a con man with inadequate information.

Too often people bend over backwards to excuse fatuous beliefs.

• Mormonism is not parsimonious.
• Mormonism makes grand claims that it cannot begin to support.

Mormonism can and should be dismissed on the grounds that it lacks any evidence.

 

[Tommy Jeppesen]

Okay, I will derail in regards to evidence. There is not just one kind of an universal method for evidence; i.e. only one kind of evidence. So within skepticism in an over-reductive sense we have two kinds of skeptics:

• There is an universal method for evidence and it is science.
• Science is a limited, but useful method for evidence.

Of course, it is not just so and I have overdone it in a sense, but if you accept that science or rather scientists are biological and cultural things in a physical reality, you can understand that science is not value-free in practice.

 

[halleyscomet]

Pulling the cabal's strings is richly satisfying. Here, Myriad obligingly provides a demonstration of choreographed lockstep.

It's sad really. There were points where you showed promise, where you hinted at having critical thinking skills buried deep inside. Now, faced with vast volumes of information proving Smith's description of pre-Columbian America a lie, your precious Brigham Young University scholars unable to offer an "explanation" that can survive even the slightest scrutiny, you are reduced to sniping and insults.

Instead of facing the challenges we offer, you retreat into a cloak of denial and fourth grade insults. What value is there in a religion that offers nothing but smugness and egotism? It soothes you, I'm sure, but it does nothing to make you a valuable member of society. Quite the opposite.

I pity you SkyRider44. I really do. You had a chance to have the scales washed from your eyes, to see clearly for the first time and you chose to flee the truth to return to your folly as a dog returns to his vomit.

 

[Nonpareil]

There is not just one kind of an universal method for evidence; i.e. only one kind of evidence.

Evidence is either objectively verifiable or it is not valid. There is no wriggle room.

 

[Giordano]

Okay, I will derail in regards to evidence. There is not just one kind of an universal method for evidence; i.e. only one kind of evidence. So within skepticism in an over-reductive sense we have two kinds of skeptics:

• There is an universal method for evidence and it is science.
• Science is a limited, but useful method for evidence.

Of course, it is not just so and I have overdone it in a sense, but if you accept that science or rather scientists are biological and cultural things in a physical reality, you can understand that science is not value-free in practice.

I don't wish to do a derail either, so perhaps you would like to start a new thread (or do you want me to)? In any case, I asked for further clarification of a prior post of yours that gave some examples (but I disagreed in my own post). Would you be willing, in a different thread, to discuss these issues more?

 

[Giordano]

I agree that skyrider44's posts appear to have lately become infrequent attempts to make offhanded criticisms of individual posting styles, and only when skyrider44 sees an opportunity to do so, rather than to address the major questions posted to him, or to participate in the main ideas in the thread as a whole. I assume from this behavior that there is no real response to these criticisms of important elements of the Church of LDS dogma. If I am wrong, I would appreciate skyrider44 setting me straight.

By the way- I believe that all other religions have similar problems when comparing their stories with physical or historic fact; it is just easier to question the LDS mythology because many of the events that supposedly took place according to the Book of Mormon were very recent, and we have much more evidence that they never occurred. For example, to my knowledge the Jewish people were never slaves in Egypt, despite what the Old Testament says and what my family believed.

 

[Giordano]

I would only add that I appreciate good fiction- it is entertaining, and by me reading it, it can improve my ability to think about certain ideas and to become a better person. I have fictional characters that have an entire "life" in my brain and I like to visit them there (or in books or movies) from time to time. I even think about "their" lessons when I am making my own choices. But I think it is important to remember they are fictional, and not real. Reading about Yossarian from Catch 22 helped me recognize how many of my prior ideas were bought into without thinking, and "he" still provides immense humor in my life. But he never was physical entity in real life. I will never meet him at the local supermarket, and it is Joseph Heller's genius that I really should thank.

 

[Slowvehicle]

<respectful snip>
By the way- I believe that all other religions have similar problems when comparing their stories with physical or historic fact; it is just easier to question the LDS mythology because many of the events that supposedly took place according to the Book of Mormon were very recent, and we have much more evidence that they never occurred. For example, to my knowledge the Jewish people were never slaves in Egypt, despite what the Old Testament says and what my family believed.

Right.

Transubsuperstition; the first OM of Lord Ganesh; "prosperity gospels"; these ans other similar sillinesses are not proper for a thread about LDS.

 

[halleyscomet]

http://wordtreefoundation.github.io/thelatewar/

This is REALLY cool. Researchers have found a book that was a MAJOR source for the Book of Mormon. The article even has partial chart listing some sample parallels between the two books.

Joseph most likely grew up reading a school book called The Late War by Gilbert J. Hunt and it heavily influenced his writing of The Book of Mormon.
Summary

In October 2013, the authors conducted a data analysis comparing The Book of Mormon to over 100,000 books from the pre-1830's era. Out of the top matches, we discovered a book called The Late War Between the United States and Great Britain, a scriptural style account of the War of 1812 published in New York in 1816. Between 1817 and 1819 it was marketed "for the use of schools throughout the United States" under the title The Historical Reader.

How rare are the 4gram matches?

While the above parallels are interesting, we believe that the more powerful connection between the two texts is the computer-aided discovery of matching, rare 4-grams.

If a 4 word phrase (4-gram) showed up less than once per thousand books, we considered it to be a rare 4-gram. After all biblical matches were removed from the comparison, the computer algorithm found over 100 rare 4-grams shared by both The Book of Mormon and The Late War. To put this into perspective, we found that The Late War contained more rare 4-gram connections to The Book of Mormon than 99.999% of the other books published before 1830. For comparison purposes, we chose an arbitrary book from Joseph Smith's time, Pride and Prejudice, and compared it to The Book of Mormon. The comparison showed a very low number of rare 4-gram matches per 1,000 words. The Late War, on the other hand, scored significantly higher:

I HIGHLY recommend the whole article, as they explore a number of ways that they demonstrated that "The Late War Between the United States and Great Britain" was heavily used by Smith in composing The Book of Mormon.