Further Light and Knowledge

That one applies to both sides of the fence. People who don't believe in God are just as inclined to do this one as people who do.

Not really. No duty here. All pleasure.

_________________
"Let go of what you know and honor what exists."--David Bazan

http://www.equalitysblog.typepad.com

Interesting idea of pleasure, if you ask me. Still boils down to telling one group they're wrong and another they're right, whatever your motivation.

Not this person. I think the evangelicals that believe in god are only slightly more annoying than the evangelicals that don't believe in god.

It's not the belief I have any issues with. Believe what you want (or not). It's the pushing of those beliefs on someone else that I take issue with. It just never works.

I mostly agree with you. Except that some beliefs are so ridiculous that they deserve to be mocked. If you said any reasonable, or moderate beliefs, then we would be in almost complete agreement.

The Flood was a world-wide event = The Flood was a world-wide event
1. Many creationists "accept the existence of the Geologic Column and seek to interpret it in terms of a sequence of events that might have occurred during the Flood. This is the approach taken by Institute for Creation Research creationists such as Andrew Snelling, Steven A. Austin and Kurt Wise, as well as Creation Ministries International" (wiki). . . . and so on and so on covering all the flood issues: Fossilization, Fossil layering, Frozen mammoths, Liquefaction, Radiometric dating, Submarine canyon formation.

2. A large contingency of Christians believe that the terminology used in Genesis allows for a LOCAL flood, rather than a global one (see HERE). If you take this approach, which is perfectly fine, then the whole issue of a global flood vanishes.

In other words there is an answer to everything. Now, whether those answers are good enough for any particular person, is another issue. The same can be said of Mormonism. For example, the answers provided by the likes of FARM apologists and FAIR folks are good enough for some -- not for others. For me, to be honest, I find the excuses for LDS beliefs to be lacking in substance far more than the explanations given by Christians for many of their beliefs. Case in point, the above issue you noted.


The Book of Mormon contains the inerrant Word of God = The Bible contains the inerrant Word of God
Again, we are talking degrees of plausibility here. The BOM can be shown as fraudulent in so many ways it's not funny, using linguistics, grammar, history, archeology, etc. etc. etc. It's clearly, at least to me, not at all what the LDS church purports it to be. The Bible, on the other hand, seems far more likely to be the Word of God than the BOM. What I am talking about here is the differences between likelihood of various assertions. Even if you want to maintain that for you it is still unlikely that the Bible is God's Word, I think it is inaccurate to say that both the Bible and the BOM are equally as unlikely to be God's Word.


God prefers men to be His messengers = God prefers men to be His messengers
Not quite sure why this would be prepostrous at all, whether we are talking about Christianity or Mormonism. If there is a God, he could pretty much choose to do anything he wanted to do -- including communicate to his created beings via other created beings. And, of course, the way you phrase this assertion, it is not really accurate. I don't think anything in Mormonism or Christianity states that God "prefers" men to be his messengers. Both belief systems merely say that he does use men, as well as angels, visions, dreams, and prophecy.


Masturbation is wrong = Masturbation is wrong
LOL. Well, that's more of an American/Puritan thing, truth be told, and is really not addressed at all in the Bible. And I certainly have never found anything about masterbation in the Creeds of Christendom (he sez blushing).

You know Domo, on one hand I see where you're coming from. Probably because we are both ex-mo, and I totally get feelings regarding that part of it all. I have my own issues there, as we all do.

On the other hand, I don't see what there is to be gained about mocking where people choose to go as far as beliefs AFTER leaving Mormonism? Just because another belief system (or lack of) doesn't work for you and I, is that a free pass to mock it if it does work for someone else?

I don't think so. I just don't see how that's helpful in any sense of the word, and I don't see what mocking other beliefs does in helping someone recover from Mormonism. I just don't.

Again, my opinion. Not that it will change anything. I'm not living under any delusions that it will. Those who choose to mock others' beliefs will continue to do so. I just don't think it's right, that's all.

Well, now you are making my original point. I would like to hear you elaborate on why you think that the "preposterous" portions of the Bible are any more reasonable or likely to have occurred than the Book of Mormon. Some examples of what I am talking about:

1. Jacob wrestling an angel
2. Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego being in a furnace and not consumed
3. Elijah being carried up to heaven in a chariot
4. God murdering Egyptian children
5. God commanding the Israelites to kill all the men, boys, and women who were not virgins, and keep the virgins for themselves (Numbers 31).
6. God talking through an ass.
7. People living for hundreds of years
8. Jonah being swallowed by a giant fish, residing in its belly for three days, then being coughed up unharmed
9. God striking down with a bolt of lightning Uzzah for touching the ark of the covenant
10. Lot's wife being turned to a pillar of salt
11. Moses parting the Red Sea
12. Manna from heaven

And on and on. No rational basis for believing any of this stuff ever actually happened. All the Bible has over the Book of Mormon is a few more centuries and several million more credulous people to believe in and perpetuate the myths it contains (and an actual geographical location in which the events were alleged to have taken place).

_________________
"Let go of what you know and honor what exists."--David Bazan

http://www.equalitysblog.typepad.com

I actually agree with this. I'm engaging in this exercise because it is the modus operandi of evangelicals who want to "minister" to Mormons to mock Mormon beliefs, twist and misrepresent the doctrines, and paint a distorted picture of what Mormons believe. I haven't read Richard's books, but the titles alone show this tendency. Evangelical anti-Mormonism has its own agenda--to win Mormon souls for their version of Christianity. I don't really care what people do religiously speaking after they get away from Mormonism. But I do think evangelical anti-Mormonism has been generally harmful to the cause of getting Mormons to look closely at their own religion, its history, and its teachings because Mormons can look at the distortions presented by the evangelicals and then use them to dismiss any information outsiders try to share with them.

_________________
"Let go of what you know and honor what exists."--David Bazan

http://www.equalitysblog.typepad.com

I haven't read the books either...but wow, judging simply by the title? That's a pretty big leap to make about something you haven't even read.

Seems like if you're going to jump to conclusions about someone's motives, it would be at least worth it to at least read the book. Then even if you don't agree, you've at least READ the thing.

Fair enough. I should say I also perused it while strolling through Barnes & Noble one day, I have read reviews of it online, and I listened to Richard and the Bible Answer Man discuss the book at some length. The title is instructive and informative: One Nation Under Gods. The title is designed to show that Mormons are different from other Christians because Mormons believe in the plurality of gods. This doctrinal difference is almost always highlighted in discussions of Mormonism by evangelicals. It's one of the distortions I was talking about earlier. Evangelical anti-Mormons invariably use this as a wedge issue and present the doctrine in a sensationalistic manner. The title also could be interpreted as an attempt to signal that Mormons are dangerous to the American way of life--that they believe in something that is fundamentally opposed to a principle so basic it is engraved on every American coin and printed on every American bill.

_________________
"Let go of what you know and honor what exists."--David Bazan

http://www.equalitysblog.typepad.com

The beliefs that I think are OK for mocking are the literalistic interpetations of bronze-age myths and crazy cultural practises of millenia-old, violent, misogynist, tribal nomads. Also stuff like snake-handling, speaking in tongues, expecting 72 virgins if you die while blowing up others, thinking that your tiny little obscure sect is the only one that has The Truth, and other things like that. I'm not talking about any non-provable, "faith" claim. And by mocking, I mean making light of among friends, laughing at the ridiculousness of, etc., I don't mean the making a spectacle of, with a public protest during a conference of that religion, for example.

That's a little like saying that Middle Earth is more likely a True Place than Narnia.



You totally missed my point. I wasn't saying anything about humanity being messengers or not, I meant MEN being God's Mouthpieces, not WOMEN. The gender inequality that mormonism displays is not much different than the gender inequality that much of christianity, or practically any other major religion, displays. God seems to favor his creations only if they have a penis. And only if they use that penis with vaginas.

First funniest line I've heard this week.



and that was the second (albeit unintentionally I suspect).

_________________
- CV Rick
-------------------------------------------------------