LDS II: The Mormons

[bruto]

I meant I might be extra snarky coming to HC's defense. Sorry, I'm convalescing after a bike accident. Maybe it's only funny if you're on narcotic pain killers.

Completely off topic, but I hope you're better soon, and able to ride again.

 

[halleyscomet]

I mean, like, where's your tabernacle, wise guy?

I prefer being a poor honest man to a wealthy liar, as such, I have no tabernacle in my name.

Hmm... If a Protestant kills a Mormon because he hates the Mormon religion, does that count as both killing for Joseph Smith and dying for him? Or would it be for Christ in both cases? Or killing for Christ and dying for Joseph Smith? And ditto if a Mormon kills a Protestant in revenge.

The participants would see it as being about Christ. The Mormon would be seen as a martyr by other Mormons, the killer as a holy warrior by other sects who see religious murder as justified. The average Christian however would no doubt see the murder of a Mormon for being Mormon as horrific. Christians who think Mormons are also Christian would probably also see the murder victim as a martyr for Christ.

The reality however is that the murder victim died because of the repercussions of John Smith's long con, and the murderer killed because of whatever psychologically damaged zealots were involved in his radicalization.

 

[SezMe]

I prefer being a poor honest man to a wealthy liar, as such, I have no tabernacle in my name.

I dunno. I could go for being a wealthy liar but I'm so damn bad at it I'd end up being a poor liar so I might as well ditch the effort and just be honest from the git go.

 

[Craig4]

I dunno. I could go for being a wealthy liar but I'm so damn bad at it I'd end up being a poor liar so I might as well ditch the effort and just be honest from the git go.

It's worth noting that while Smith screwed his followers (literally and figuratively) he ended having his salad dressed with his own brains in the end. Hard to spend money and screw when you're worm food.

Best stay honest and skip the part where you get your head blown off.

 

[skyrider44]

Quote #1 is from an essay by Mike Ash:
http://www.fairmormon.org/perspectives/publications/archaeological-evidence-and-the-book-of-mormon

Quote #2 is from this article:
http://www.mormoninterpreter.com/a-scientist-looks-at-book-of-mormon-anachronisms/

#2 is a book review where the "evidence" about the BoM amounts to speculation derived from unverifiable claims. For example, the second article has the text:



Notice the bolded parts. The "evidence" offered for horses in the Americas during the BoM's time frame consists of "bone fragments" an author CLAIMS to have collected and CLAIMS to have sent out for testing. The actual research is unpublished, and no data is given as to which Carbon-14 dating method was used or who did the testing. More to the point, this claim about mystery bone fragments is coming from a BOOK REVIEW, not even the person claiming to have collected the samples and sent them out for testing.

I encourage everyone to read both articles in their entirety. Both are an excellent study in cognitive dissonance.

The book review is of "Science and the Book of Mormon: Cureloms, Cumoms, Horses & More" by Wade E. Miller which isn't published in a scientific journal of any kind. The author is a Brigham young professor whose writing credits are limited to similar apologetic work, and one contribution to a book about the 2012 presidential election (ZOUNDS! Check out what they're asking for the Kindle edition!). I haven't found any evidence of him having published in any scientific journals, but that doesn't mean he's COMPLETELY devoid of credibility, I just haven't found anything beyond his BYU degree.

Pro same-sex marriage proponents relentlessly attack LDS scholars on virtually every issue. Some of those proponents refuse to even look at research done by Mormon sources.

Assume you are a reporter assigned to write an objective article about the Catholic Church. Your goal is to present a balanced article and to let your readers decide for themselves the merits or lack thereof of the Catholic Church. You begin your article by researching everything you can find about the CC—with one proviso: You refuse to interview anyone associated with the CC, and you refuse to consult any material in the Vatican's vast library, and you refuse to read anything published under the indicia of the CC. However, you place no restrictions of any kind on non-Catholic sources, even though some are known to be biased against Catholicism. In other words, you refuse to consult with the very sources that know the most about the CC.

Some on this thread should be able to identify with the reporter assigned to write a balanced article about the Catholic Church.

 

[halleyscomet]

It looks like the LDS is well aware of the failings of their scriptures. Like the Catholics they've modeled themselves after, they're abstracting teaching away from their core religious texts and focusing on church doctrine.

New Mormon curriculum divides scholars

"It will result in the further decay of scriptural literacy — already a significant problem among the Saints. Scripture study in the church has now become nothing more than completely decontextualized proof-texting," Hamblin writes in a Patheos online essay. "There is, practically speaking, no further institutional support by the church for the actual study of scripture —as opposed to church doctrine, devotion and daily application."

In a second essay on Patheos, Hamblin scolds liberal Mormon scholars, who he says want to study LDS scripture, especially the Book of Mormon, apart from its "authentic ancient history."

Latter-day Saints believe Joseph Smith translated ancient American writings from a set of gold plates into English, which became the Book of Mormon. Critics assert the book is a 19th-century creation.

Removing the text from it's historical context is a clever means of sidestepping questions about it's authenticity. While the old school Mormon scholars find this new distance from the core texts abhorrent, they're failing to take into account just how EASY it is to debunk the historical claims of the BoM especially in the modern information age. Professor William Hamblin was indoctrinated in an educational vacuum that simply cannot be maintained on a large scale anymore. This very thread has numerous examples of the kind of nonsense Mormon apologists are reduced to. In the end, Mormon apologetic about the BoM anachronisms boil down to "Well, you aren't addressing our most recent excuses."

Reformed Jews have already learned these lessons, increasingly treating the Torah as metaphor instead of literal history. When my wife's family celebrates Passover, it's in a cultural and religious context wherein empathy for the enslaved and the egalitarianism of overall freedom is taught regardless of if the Exodus story has a basis in realty or not.

The information age is a profound challenge for the LDS. It's even forced the Mormon Church to Admit That Founder Joseph Smith Had A 14-Year-Old Bride

 

[RandFan]

Assume you are a reporter assigned to write an objective article about the Catholic Church. Your goal is to present a balanced article and to let your readers decide for themselves the merits or lack thereof of the Catholic Church. You begin your article by researching everything you can find about the CC—with one proviso: You refuse to interview anyone associated with the CC, and you refuse to consult any material in the Vatican's vast library, and you refuse to read anything published under the indicia of the CC. However, you place no restrictions of any kind on non-Catholic sources, even though some are known to be biased against Catholicism. In other words, you refuse to consult with the very sources that know the most about the CC.

I don't dismiss Mormon scholarship out of hand. That's a straw man and a red herring. I don't dismiss arguments and data for 9/11 truth, scientology, bigfoot or leprechauns out of hand either.

 

[halleyscomet]

Pro same-sex marriage proponents relentlessly attack LDS scholars on virtually every issue. Some of those proponents refuse to even look at research done by Mormon sources.

No such people however are in this thread. We've all quoted and discussed Mormon sources. Most those sources tend to use arguments that are flat out wrong and easily debunked, but if you have ACTUAL responses to any of the arguments we've dismissed or debunked, please provide them.

Assume you are a reporter assigned to write an objective article about the Catholic Church. Your goal is to present a balanced article and to let your readers decide for themselves the merits or lack thereof of the Catholic Church. You begin your article by researching everything you can find about the CC—with one proviso: You refuse to interview anyone associated with the CC, and you refuse to consult any material in the Vatican's vast library, and you refuse to read anything published under the indicia of the CC. However, you place no restrictions of any kind on non-Catholic sources, even though some are known to be biased against Catholicism. In other words, you refuse to consult with the very sources that know the most about the CC.

Well, that was a useless and irrelevant analogy. I know I've personally introduced a number of Mormon authored articles and sources, some of which you went on to quote yourself without attribution!

Some on this thread should be able to identify with the reporter assigned to write a balanced article about the Catholic Church.

No, not really. To make your analogy relevant to this thread, the reporter has done extensive research on the Catholic Church using the Church's own sources and publications. Having published several articles, said reporter is now being criticized by Catholics for using "Outdated" information. The reporter has asked his critics for information on where he can find more up-to-date material, and his critics have responded by lying about him and claiming he never used any Catholic sources to begin with.

 

[Slowvehicle]

Pro same-sex marriage proponents relentlessly attack LDS scholars on virtually every issue.

Given that this is not the thread specifically set up to hold the recurring discussion of Marriage Equality, this bit of misdirection certainly looks like well-poisoning.

Some of those proponents refuse to even look at research done by Mormon sources.

Pointing out bias is not the same thing as "refusing to look at a source". Remember me? I'm the one who keeps asking you to provide links to the sources you are actually using, that I might read them...

Pointing out execrable scholarship (the Spencer Lake Horse Hoax, forsooth) is engendered by the fact that the "scholarship" is poorly done, not by the fact that it is done by a mormon.

Assume you are a reporter assigned to write an objective article about the Catholic Church. Your goal is to present a balanced article and to let your readers decide for themselves the merits or lack thereof of the Catholic Church. You begin your article by researching everything you can find about the CC—with one proviso: You refuse to interview anyone associated with the CC, and you refuse to consult any material in the Vatican's vast library, and you refuse to read anything published under the indicia of the CC. However, you place no restrictions of any kind on non-Catholic sources, even though some are known to be biased against Catholicism. In other words, you refuse to consult with the very sources that know the most about the CC.

Praps you should send your straw "journalist" to stand with all your other people of straw, over there under that windmill.

Some on this thread should be able to identify with the reporter assigned to write a balanced article about the Catholic Church.

And some of us simply keep requesting tangible, empirical, objective, non-anecdotal, real-world evidence for the claims of horse culture, etc., in the pre-colombian americas. Have you any of that to offer?

 

[Slowvehicle]

No such people however are in this thread. We've all quoted and discussed Mormon sources. Most those sources tend to use arguments that are flat out wrong and easily debunked, but if you have ACTUAL responses to any of the arguments we've dismissed or debunked, please provide them.



Well, that was a useless and irrelevant analogy. I know I've personally introduced a number of Mormon authored articles and sources, some of which you went on to quote yourself without attribution!



No, not really. To make your analogy relevant to this thread, the reporter has done extensive research on the Catholic Church using the Church's own sources and publications. Having published several articles, said reporter is now being criticized by Catholics for using "Outdated" information. The reporter has asked his critics for information on where he can find more up-to-date material, and his critics have responded by lying about him and claiming he never used any Catholic sources to begin with.

^^this^^

 

[tsig]

I don't dismiss Mormon scholarship out of hand. That's a straw man and a red herring. I don't dismiss arguments and data for 9/11 truth, scientology, bigfoot or leprechauns out of hand either.

As you know they believe that if you read their book in just the right way the truth will burn in your bosom so if you don't acknowledge the truth of Mormonism then you have either not read the book in the right way or read it and know the truth but refuse to admit it.

To acknowledge that someone could have read and studied the church and not become a Mormon or (shudder) apostatized, is a faith shaking experience and massive dissonance will be employed to prevent it.

 

[halleyscomet]

^^this^^

Thank you

As you know they believe that if you read their book in just the right way the truth will burn in your bosom so if you don't acknowledge the truth of Mormonism then you have either not read the book in the right way or read it and know the truth but refuse to admit it.

To acknowledge that someone could have read and studied the church and not become a Mormon or (shudder) apostatized, is a faith shaking experience and massive dissonance will be employed to prevent it.

Remember also that all the atheists in the BoM are eventually revealed to be merely denying a God they know to be real. By not converting to Mormonism after reading the BoM we are willfully denying what we know in our hearts to be true. Any non-Mormon is therefore either unfamiliar with the teachings or an intentional antagonist, possibly both.

The depiction of Skeptcs in the BoM goes a long way towards explaining SkyRider44's hostility and willingness to lie about our behaviors and positions. To him, we are intentionally attacking LDS teachings despite knowing in our hears that they're true. This means we are intentionally aligning ourselves with Satan to attack Jesus. SlyRider44 isn't here to debate WITH us, but to provide a counter-voice in case anyone READS this thread.

 

[Slowvehicle]

As you know they believe that if you read their book in just the right way the truth will burn in your bosom so if you don't acknowledge the truth of Mormonism then you have either not read the book in the right way or read it and know the truth but refuse to admit it.

To acknowledge that someone could have read and studied the church and not become a Mormon or (shudder) apostatized, is a faith shaking experience and massive dissonance will be employed to prevent it.

I thought we agreed to leave my ample bosom out of this...

 

[Slowvehicle]

Thank you



Remember also that all the atheists in the BoM are eventually revealed to be merely denying a God they know to be real. By not converting to Mormonism after reading the BoM we are willfully denying what we know in our hearts to be true. Any non-Mormon is therefore either unfamiliar with the teachings or an intentional antagonist, possibly both.

The depiction of Skeptcs in the BoM goes a long way towards explaining SkyRider44's hostility and willingness to lie about our behaviors and positions. To him, we are intentionally attacking LDS teachings despite knowing in our hears that they're true. This means we are intentionally aligning ourselves with Satan to attack Jesus. SlyRider44 isn't here to debate WITH us, but to provide a counter-voice in case anyone READS this thread.

Right.

Atheists chose to "become faithless".

...or that's the accusation that has been made.

 

[halleyscomet]

Right.

Atheists chose to "become faithless".

...or that's the accusation that has been made.

I didn't say it was a SENSIBLE position to take, just that it seems to be the one prescribed by the BoM.

 

[Marcus]

And some of us simply keep requesting tangible, empirical, objective, non-anecdotal, real-world evidence for the claims of horse culture, etc., in the pre-colombian americas. Have you any of that to offer?

I have to wonder, being a long time lurker on this thread, if Skyrider, prompted by your many, many, requests, has gone looking, hoping to find some evidence, in the process becoming educated against his will. In which case he must be experiencing some major cognitive dissonance.

 

[Giordano]

The facts of history are biased against a lot of Mormon scholarship! Is that fair?

 

[Giordano]

It is interesting that the accusation often used by Church of LDS members again and again on this thread has often been that everyone else is biased against them, and that any organization or link or book that presents non-Mormon views in any area is really an anti-Mormon propaganda source and therefore can't be believed. Apparently the only truth comes from pro-Church of LDS sources. Many cults (far be it from me to lump the Church of LDS in that group) also use a similar theme: "Who are you going to believe-me or your lying eyes?"

 

[Craig4]

What balance can there be and what would a Mormon scholar offer? The beliefs of the Mormon church are simply incorrect. Unless said scholars are going offer evidence of a horse and steel producing culture they deserve a seat at the kid's table of self soothing apologetics publishing. We are talking about massive impacts on the landscape here. What is proposed in the Book of Mormon would be on par with discovering a first century Roman railroad.

If Mormon scholars can't provide evidence, it is good and proper that reviews of their literature are not balanced.

 

[RandFan]

As you know they believe that if you read their book in just the right way the truth will burn in your bosom so if you don't acknowledge the truth of Mormonism then you have either not read the book in the right way or read it and know the truth but refuse to admit it.

It was just such an experience that resulted in me serving a Mormon mission.

To acknowledge that someone could have read and studied the church and not become a Mormon or (shudder) apostatized, is a faith shaking experience and massive dissonance will be employed to prevent it.

Exactly, my neurosis that resulted from intellectual conflict resulted in me seeking therapy. After my mission my personality started to bifurcate. I became fanatically fundamentalist in public and in private I was engaging in self destructive behavior. I was that guy. The stereotypical judgmental religious hypocrite. It's okay to say it. I was creepy.