LDS II: The Mormons

Well put Jay. It must be hard for religions like Mormonism these days when it's so easy to fact check claims, especially when they involve recent history and geography. It seems to me that to believe in the BoM these days you would have to actively avoid and ignore contradictory information, whereas in the past you could go your whole life without knowing your religion was based on falsehoods. You would still have to swallow some pretty big whoppers, but that is true off all religions.
 
American Fundamentalism is quite happy not only to ignore all of science but the cast scientists in the role of demons sent to destroy their faith. Consequently they largely don't care that their critics see them as illiterate bumpkins. They've simply redefined success for their purposes and redefined the role of secular knowledge. And they gather (geographically) in large enough groups to reinforce their mindset.

That's an extreme. Mormonism seems to want to be seen as a thinking person's religion. Even though it's patriarchal and autocratic, it wants to set out a putatively rational basis for it, and for the rest of its beliefs. Toward that end, Mormons seem to regard the disparity with history as a temporary condition, that the scientists are good, sincere people who just haven't stumbled onto the right facts yet. It's still rewriting the rest of the world to suit their beliefs, but at least in a way that doesn't vilify everyone else as badly.

That particular via media seems to be popular among holders of fringe claims. It grants that one's critics may have the more rational position according to the present picture of evidence, but expresses a hope to be vindicated by future evidence.

But that won't hold up for long. The picture of evidence is marching steadily away from the Book of Mormon. Before too long there won't be enough ambiguity left to hide behind. And naturally some would argue that point was reached a long time ago, but the non-believers always recognize that before the believers. Their standard of proof is different.

And naturally Mormon intellectuals provide fodder for ad hoc revisionism that seems to console most members. For example, the Book of Mormon describes the lay of the land as two land masses separated by a "narrow neck of land." Originally this was interpreted -- sensibly enough -- as the North and South American continents and the isthmus of Panama. As that became untenable according to the evidence, the map was rewritten to a smaller scale (e.g., confined to Mesoamerica) and more fanciful interpretations of "narrow neck of land" were contemplated. Just last week I overheard two Mormons talking about yet another location, this time in North America.

This is the sort of gymnastics that occur to keep the ball in play. You have to give them props for at least reacting to the evidence. No horses or steel in Mesoamerica? Okay, then I guess that's not the right place. How about New Hampshire? The skeptic still wants to bang his head against the wall and pull these people back to a more objective perspective. But it's a more refreshing approach than entrenching themselves in their pseudo-history and vilifying all non-Mormons.

There's also a trump card. And it hurts. I've heard some Mormons speculate that God just took all the ruins away, back into heaven, in order to try their faith. Yeah, it smells the same as Fundamentalists claiming Satan put dinosaur bones in the ground to lead everyone into sin. That's why I think that's not the official line.
 
JayUtah said:
There's also a trump card. And it hurts. I've heard some Mormons speculate that God just took all the ruins away, back into heaven, in order to try their faith. Yeah, it smells the same as Fundamentalists claiming Satan put dinosaur bones in the ground to lead everyone into sin. That's why I think that's not the official line.
Click to expand...
Don't forget, all that light from distant galaxies that's been traveling for billions of years? It was created in situ by God 6000 years ago.

Sometimes I get Mormons and Scientologists confused. Scientologists say you get your own planet, Mormons say you get to be a God, so I suppose you would have your own Universe rather than merely a planet.
 
Last edited:
MikeG said:
JC, an illiterate woodworker from a tribe of goat-herders in the bronze age middle east, visited America, did he? OK, have we any evidence for this intriguing journey? What sort of boat did he use? How did they navigate? How come this isn't mentioned in the babble?
Click to expand...
This is sadly full of fail and makes skeptics look as dumb as Mormons. The Old Testament was solidified roughly 2300 years ago, with add-ins filched from their neighbors. All of this was thoroughly in the Iron Age. JC's entrance Herod, having (eventually) picked the right horse (Augustus) after Caesar died, made Jerusalem one of the glamour capitols of the Empire. I also see no need to dismiss JC as illiterate. Divine or human, he was a bright kid whom, at least, the local rabbi brought under his wing to learn to read and write Greek, just like the Quality. In Year Zip the Jews were a happening people in an empire overloaded with doltish Germans and Gauls--an empire always needs accountants.
 
Last edited:
dropzone said:
This is sadly full of fail and makes skeptics look as dumb as Mormons. The Old Testament was solidified roughly 2300 years ago, with add-ins filched from their neighbors. All of this was thoroughly in the Iron Age. JC's entrance Herod, having (eventually) picked the right horse (Augustus) after Caesar died, made Jerusalem one of the glamour capitols of the Empire. I also see no need to dismiss JC as illiterate. Divine or human, he was a bright kid whom, at least, the local rabbi brought under his wing to learn to read and write Greek, just like the Quality. In Year Zip the Jews were a happening people in an empire overloaded with doltish Germans and Gauls--an empire always needs accountants.
Click to expand...
Maybe I'm not quite with it tonight, but what does this have to do with the post you're replying to?

This signature is intended to irritate people.
 
Beady said:
Maybe I'm not quite with it tonight, but what does this have to do with the post you're replying to?
Click to expand...
The first partial sentence. It is a misconception put forward by some skeptics to dismiss the Bible, but, historically, leaves them hanging wearing dunce caps. Learn some history so your statements cannot be easily dismissed!
This signature is intended to irritate people.
Click to expand...
It succeeds. I am not impressed. My home board has standards beyond being merely annoying. Being annoying with nothing to back it up is what trolls do. You need to be annoying with facts to back you up, or you're dismissed.

You aren't a troll. Don't pretend you are. It's unbecoming.
 
Last edited:
dropzone said:
The first partial sentence. It is a misconception put forward by some skeptics to dismiss the Bible, but, historically, leaves them hanging wearing dunce caps. Learn some history so your statements cannot be easily dismissed!
Click to expand...



It's a fair point. The "Illiterate Goat Herder" crack might have been applicable to Abraham and some of the Patriarchs and Judges, but by the time Jesus is on the scene we're talking about a Rabbi who could read scripture. Some of the apostles may have been fishermen but they too appear to have been literate and had a religious education.
 
halleyscomet said:
It's a fair point. The "Illiterate Goat Herder" crack might have been applicable to Abraham and some of the Patriarchs and Judges, but by the time Jesus is on the scene we're talking about a Rabbi who could read scripture. Some of the apostles may have been fishermen but they too appear to have been literate and had a religious education.
Click to expand...

The "Illiterate Goat Herder" crack has become common parlance for religious texts in general. It was not originally intended in that way.

I suspect it is part of the "caveman" meme. The Homo Sapiens of 10, 20, 30, etc thousands of years ago were actually every bit as intelligent as Homo Sapiens today. They simply had to make do with the information they had to hand at the time. To this day, that is exactly what we continue to do.

There is one difference. The scientific method was born to eliminate such superstitious thinking. Proponents of woo do not like that much.
 
The problem with the skeptics' approach to the BOM's authenticity is, it focuses on the nitpicky details, while the true believer focuses on the doctrines instead. To date, I've never seen anyone disprove the Christian doctrines and teachings of the BOM. Skeptics tend to throw out the baby with the bathwater.

bb
 
Billy Baxter said:
The problem with the skeptics' approach to the BOM's authenticity is, it focuses on the nitpicky details, while the true believer focuses on the doctrines instead. To date, I've never seen anyone disprove the Christian doctrines and teachings of the BOM. Skeptics tend to throw out the baby with the bathwater.

bb
Click to expand...

He's back! Just can't stay away, I guess.

Well, here's a question: Assuming the deity who allegedly wrote those "nitpicky details" is divinely infallible, why can so many of them be demonstrated to be wrong?

And if virtually *all* of those "nitpicky details" can be demonstrated to be wrong, then aren't the doctrines and teachings which are made up of those "nitpicky details " also wrong?

Seems to me that, at the very least, they would be undependable.

This signature is intended to irritate people.
 
Billy Baxter said:
The problem with the skeptics' approach to the BOM's authenticity is, it focuses on the nitpicky details, while the true believer focuses on the doctrines instead. To date, I've never seen anyone disprove the Christian doctrines and teachings of the BOM. Skeptics tend to throw out the baby with the bathwater.

bb
Click to expand...


Then you concede the Book of Mormon is a parable and not to be taken as literal historical fact.

Good for you. It shows a real graduation from theological milk to theological meat to jettison the humiliating dead end of trying to claim the Book of Mormon was historically accurate.
 
Beady said:
He's back! Just can't stay away, I guess.
Click to expand...

i'm bored silly.

Well, here's a question: Assuming the deity who allegedly wrote those "nitpicky details" is divinely infallible, why can so many of them be demonstrated to be wrong?
Click to expand...

Fallible men wrote the BOM. LDS leaders have often emphasized that the scriptures and prophets are not infallible.

And if virtually *all* of those "nitpicky details" can be demonstrated to be wrong, then aren't the doctrines and teachings which are made up of those "nitpicky details " also wrong?

Seems to me that, at the very least, they would be undependable.

This signature is intended to irritate people.
Click to expand...

The law of gravity is true whether or not the horses in the scriptures were speckled, to use a highly flawed analogy.

bb
 
halleyscomet said:
Then you concede the Book of Mormon is a parable and not to be taken as literal historical fact.

Good for you. It shows a real graduation from theological milk to theological meat to jettison the humiliating dead end of trying to claim the Book of Mormon was historically accurate.
Click to expand...

no, my belief that the BOM is historically accurate remains intact.

bb
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom