Mormon calendar-maker excommunicated [Archive]

Bob Blaylock

20th July 2008, 07:03 PM

People controlling people. That's it. Some guy says that god told him that it is wrong to drink hot drinks. So Mormons don't drink Coke. Don't laugh, it's not a joke.

It's also simply not true. The term “hot drinks” has been specifically clarified to mean coffee and tea; even decaffeinated versions thereof; and even “iced” versions thereof. God hasn't told us why he doesn't want us to consume coffee or tea; just that he doesn't want us to, so we don't. The prohibition is not against caffeine. I'm drinking a Coke right now, as a matter of fact.

The ironic thing is that many Mormons died of Cholera crossing the plains. What would have saved them? Boiling the water to kill the Cholera bacteria (hot drink). Apparently god was more worried about caffeine than Cholera. Though to be sure caffeine isn't even mentioned in the Word of Wisdom (instructions to protect Mormons).

Non sequitur. There has never been any credible interpretation of the Word of Wisdom to prohibited or even discourage such basic sanitation measures as boiling water to kill germs. Your suggestion to this effect is pure nonsense.

Why? Why does god care about sex? Is it to protect us?

Yes, but it's more than that. And without even being specific to Mormonism, I'll point out that certainly in the entire spectrum of Abrahamic religions, it has always been made clear that sexual intimacy was to be reserved for the relationship between a man and his wife, and that it is highly inappropriate outside of that context. Similar beliefs are found in most non-Abrahamic religions and cultures as well.

In Mormon terms, we believe that the family (consisting of a man, a wife, and their children) is a sacred institution, and the vital building block of a stable society. All over the world, in every land, in every culture, with very, very, very few exceptions, this has been the norm, and where a culture deviates from this structure, the results have seldom been good.

Why didn't god tell his early prophets about germs? God could have saved tens of millions with a simple revelation. Oh well, at least Mormons aren't jittery from caffeine.

Why doesn't God just tell us everything that we could benefit from knowing? Why doesn't God just tell us how to cure all diseases, how to produce unlimited cheap energy, how to eliminate crime and poverty and war and all the other ills that plague mankind? I suppose we could have a whole thread on just this question, but there are a few points that seem very obvious to me:
Most of us don't do very well at listening to what God has been trying to tell us, or of acting in accordance therewith. What point is there in God trying to tell us even more, when we are already failing to listen to the little that he is offering us?
One doesn't learn very well from just being told things. God intends for us (us as individuals, and mankind as a whole) to learn things for ourselves, from our own experiences.

RandFan

20th July 2008, 07:18 PM

In other threads, I've seen you exhibit enough knowledge of Mormonism; that I am amazed at the ignorance that you appear to be exhibiting in this posting. It reads as if written by someone who hasn't the faintest clue about us and who is only ignorantly parroting what he has read from other equally ignorant sources.?

Do you have a rebuttal?

quixotecoyote

20th July 2008, 07:22 PM

?

Do you have a rebuttal?

Post 13?

I agree Mormonism is religious nuttery like most religions, but if smilin' Bob here is to be believed, you got some specific instances of nuttery incorrect.

I Ratant

20th July 2008, 07:24 PM

Being myself a Mormon, I have to think that there is much more to this story than has been reported.

As far as I can tell from the account of this calendar, it is something that I, as a Mormon, would most likely find to be highly inappropriate. During the time that they are serving their missions, our missionaries are expected to uphold certain standards in conduct, which were almost certainly violated by participating in this calendar; and it is certainly not appropriate for a member to encourage our missionaries to violate these standards. But I don't see anything in the reported story that appears to rise to the level of an excommunicatable offense.

As a matter of policy, the church does not publicly disclose the reasons why any person is excommunicated, any more than it makes public disclosures of other private matters between members and the church. I have to think that there were more serious issues regarding Mr. Hardy's conduct, that came out in his discussions with his Bishop, and which have not been publicly discussed. The calendar thing may be related or symptomatic of these more serious issues, or it may be unrelated.
.
As "they" say, "the thinking has been done for you."
Baaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa!

Olowkow

20th July 2008, 07:31 PM

This could just be anti Mormon stuff. Not sure where this guy got it from.
http://www.mormoncurtain.com/topic_wordofwisdom.html

"Of course Emma played a very important role here: she was one of the founding members of the Kirtland Temperance Society (disparagingly referred to as the Cold Water Society), and had successfully campaigned for the closure of a distillery in town. She was a woman with a mission, to eliminate the use of alcohol and tobacco, to reduce the eating of meat, and to recommend against the use of hot drinks. The Society promoted these ideas in the name of "health".

Unfortunately, shortly after this revelation was given, many Latter-Day Saints took the advice literally. They would not boil water which was to be used by humans. You often read of the horrible bouts of dysentery and cholera running rampant through various Mormon settlements after 1830; now you know the reason. The "cholera and dysentery" epidemics are fact, much has been written on it.

RandFan

20th July 2008, 07:37 PM

It's also simply not true. The term “hot drinks” has been specifically clarified to mean coffee and tea; even decaffeinated versions thereof; and even “iced” versions thereof. God hasn't told us why he doesn't want us to consume coffee or tea; just that he doesn't want us to, so we don't. The prohibition is not against caffeine. I'm drinking a Coke right now, as a matter of fact.

Larry King: No to caffeine?
Gordon B. Hinckley: No to caffeine, coffee and tea.

Non sequitur. There has never been any credible interpretation of the Word of Wisdom to prohibited or even discourage such basic sanitation measures as boiling water to kill germs. Your suggestion to this effect is pure nonsense. Non sequitur? Huh? I never said that Mormons were prohibited from boiling water only that they were prohibited from drinking hot drinks. Had they boiled the water for coffee it could very well have saved lives.

I'll point out that certainly in the entire spectrum of Abrahamic religions, it has always been made clear that sexual intimacy was to be reserved for the relationship between a man and his wife, and that it is highly inappropriate outside of that context.Why? To what end?

In Mormon terms, we believe that the family (consisting of a man, a wife[s], and their children) is a sacred institution, and the vital building block of a stable society. All over the world, in every land, in every culture, with very, very, very few exceptions, this has been the norm, and where a culture deviates from this structure, the results have seldom been good. (edit mine) Fixed it for you.

Abrahamic faiths? Oh yes, it's doing so much good for Muslims who stone their children for sexual indiscretion. Google "stoning" now and you can see one of god's commandments being carried out. Go ahead, do it... I'll wait.

There, isn't that lovely?

Question, is it really better to stone an adulterer than to let them live? Having read Infidel (http://www.amazon.com/Infidel-Ayaan-Hirsi-Ali/dp/0743289684) I think the life of a Muslim is pure hell. I wouldn't want that life for anything. And then there is the FLDS church that shuns young men making them orphans and giving young girls to old men as sexual prizes. Another one of gods commandments D&C 132

I'm not at all impressed with the 1 Man + X number of wives equation. History is only replete with oppression and murder.

I think liberty has shown to be far better than religious dietary and sexual prohibitions.

Why doesn't God just tell us everything that we could benefit from knowing? I think telling us to boil water would have been much better than to avoid strong drink. Why is god more concerned with the trivial as opposed to the important stuff like how to avoid death?

The problem Bob is that what god did ostensibly tell us was already known when he told it. There were already concerns about alcohol, tobacco, coffee and tea. Maybe god didn't tell us anything we didn't already know.

One doesn't learn very well from just being told things. God intends for us (us as individuals, and mankind as a whole) to learn things for ourselves, from our own experiences.
Then why did god tell us anything and why did the things he did tell us were already part and parcel of the culture. Why does it look like it was made up?

RandFan

20th July 2008, 07:50 PM

Post 13?

I agree Mormonism is religious nuttery like most religions, but if smilin' Bob here is to be believed, you got some specific instances of nuttery incorrect.:)

Sorry dude, no. Google Mormons and caffeine. You will find blogs and forums with Mormons debating whether it is ok or not ok to drink caffeine.

Gordon Hinkley, ostensibly a prophet of the living god, dealt with this in an interview with Larry King (http://www.lds-mormon.com/60min.shtml).

Larry King: No to caffeine?
Gordon B. Hinckley: No to caffeine, coffee and tea.

You would think the guy knew what he was talking about, right?

Coyote, just to put you at ease. I graduated Seminary, served a two year mission and served in a number of leadership positions. Let me hasten to add that many if not most Mormons graduate seminary (a high school course) and many Mormons serve in leadership positions. I don't want you to think I was anything more than the average Mormon but I was definitely there and I assure you I cared deeply and studied hard. I've read the Bible, Doctrine and Covenants and BOM cover to cover. I'm by no means infallible but I assure you I'm not ignorant.

I know my stuff.

Olowkow

20th July 2008, 07:56 PM

I guess they are way ahead of you Randfan:

http://www.fairlds.org/Misc/Word_of_Wisdom_Caffeine_and_Hypocrisy.html
"But," some may ask, "what about what President Hinckley said on the 'Larry King Show' and '60 Minutes'?" President Hinckley's acknowledgement of his interviewer's leading questions is not indicative of a shift in formal Church policy. It doesn't work that way. If the President of the Church ever wants to formally include caffeine in the Word of Wisdom, he will do so through established Church channels, not by a media interview.

They got the tobacco thing right at least, if only for the wrong reasons. Emma didn't like guys spitting their chew on the floor.

RandFan

20th July 2008, 08:08 PM

I guess they are way ahead of you Randfan:
Yeah, I've seen the apologetics. It's amazing. The prophet of god doesn't know whether or not Mormons should drink caffeine. I'm actually still, technically, a Mormon and I have a lot of family that are Mormons. I can't help but wince when I read that. I can't think of too many things that are more damming. It brings up so many questions.

Mormon: Our leader talks to god.
Reporter: Your leader says that Mormons should say no to caffeine.
Mormon: He wasn't speaking in an official capacity.

WHY THE HELL DID HE SAY IT? Does the prophet of the living god actually have an uninformed opinion about a subject that is so controversial in the Mormon Church? What is the basis of his opinion? Is caffeine good? Is coffee bad? Why is coffee bad? Is it the hot water? If so why do Mormons drink hot chocolate? Is it the caffeine in the coffee?

Sheesh.

Olowkow

20th July 2008, 08:14 PM

Actually, it seems the reasons were originally economic for not drinking coffee, interspersed with "temperance" issues, oddly. I've been reading up on it. One site even said the ladies had to give up their coffee if the men had to give up their chew. It all got started with the Cold Water Society, and Emma (Smith's wife) got on the band wagon. (see post 17). It is all confirmed on actual Mormon sites, but minus the part in red. So I was wondering if this is true or not. This is what you were being challenged on, the part about boiling water to drink, and the cholera epidemic. You may want to revisit that issue. :)

RandFan

20th July 2008, 08:25 PM

Actually, it seems the reasons were economic for not drinking coffee. I've been reading up on it. It all got started with the Cold Water Society, and Emma got on the band wagon. (see post 17). It is all confirmed on actual Mormon sites, but minus the part in red. So I was wondering if this is true or not. This is what you were being challenged on, the part about boiling water to drink, and the cholera epidemic. You may want to revisit that issue. :)It's a very fair question. Clearly there is a lot of contradictory information. Brigham Young instructed the Saints as to the amount of Coffee and Tea to take on the journey West. It's fair to point out that Mormons may very well have been boiling water then. I could be wrong about the the time Mormons suffered from Cholera. I will look at it more. That said, the fact remains that hot drinks are safer than drinks that are room temperature.

In any event, more about "hot drinks".

On April 7, 1868, the Mormon Apostle George Q. Cannon stated that chocolate drinks and hot soups were forbidden: "We are told, and very plainly too, that hot drinks--tea, coffee, chocolate, cocoa and all drinks of this kind are not good for man....we must feed our children properly.... We must not permit them to drink liquor or hot drinks, or hot soups or to use tobacco or other articles that are injurious." (Journal of Discourses, Vol. 12, pp. 221 & 223)

Foster Zygote

21st July 2008, 07:50 AM

The term “hot drinks” has been specifically clarified to mean coffee and tea; even decaffeinated versions thereof; and even “iced” versions thereof.

Clarified by whom?

I Ratant

21st July 2008, 10:08 AM

FramerDave

21st July 2008, 10:28 AM

I think there's one vital question in all of this that has been ignored, and I would like answered. Where would one find pictures of said hot shirtless Mormon men?

AgeGap

21st July 2008, 03:52 PM

I think there's one vital question in all of this that has been ignored, and I would like answered. Where would one find pictures of said hot shirtless Mormon men?
http://www.mormonsexposed.com/

RobRoy

21st July 2008, 04:41 PM

Were Smith to be peddling his "Book of Mormon" around the publishers today,
any that accepted it would promote it as Science Fiction, in the alternative history, or parallel universe section, because there's nothing in it that occurred in this one.
It has as little connection to reality as Scientology.

Disagree. He would self-publish, and start his religion just about anywhere he wanted in the U.S. Of course, he would be late to the game. He might manage a few hundred members, and with media exposure and proper marketing scale that into a few thousand, but I doubt, without his martyrdom, not to mention timely answers to pressing religious questions, that he'd see the kind of growth that occured back in the 1840s.

Feel free to poke any holes in this potential alt-history question.

IMST

21st July 2008, 04:53 PM

I hate how the Mormon faith pushes their disproportionate number of hot members into the closet. This calendar is just about my favorite thing they've ever done.

Perhaps I can get the next couple missionaries that show up at my door to pose...

Dr H

21st July 2008, 06:06 PM

Why? Why does god care about sex?

Doesn't everybody?

RandFan

22nd July 2008, 02:29 AM

Doesn't everybody?:) So true.

Beerina

22nd July 2008, 01:12 PM

I guess they are way ahead of you Randfan:

http://www.fairlds.org/Misc/Word_of_Wisdom_Caffeine_and_Hypocrisy.html

They got the tobacco thing right at least, if only for the wrong reasons. Emma didn't like guys spitting their chew on the floor.

Were spitoons frowned upon by Yahweh?

Agno

22nd July 2008, 01:22 PM

I remember when I was a kid, there was a Mormon minister and his wife who lived nearby. I sometimes played with their children. The mom was always preaching at us. One time she was preaching about Cain and Able. I asked her about the passage in the bible where Cain goes to the land of Nod and takes a wife. I asked if Adam and Eve and Cain and Able were the only people, then where did he get a wife? She replied that he married an ape and that's where black people came from (only she didn't say "black people"...) She said the black skin is the mark of Cain. Years later I looked it up and found an article that said that the Mormons claim they don't believe that anymore and haven't since the 1970's....hmmm.....yeah right.

Zygar

22nd July 2008, 02:17 PM

Zygar

22nd July 2008, 02:21 PM

Clarified by whom?

It has been variously clarified at different points in time. The most recent declaration specifies coffee and tea and anything which contains coffee or tea. And, as RandFan pointed out, the current stance of the Church is that all caffeine is bad.

Agno

22nd July 2008, 02:38 PM

She sounds like she was a very confused individual. I wouldn't put much stock in what she said.

Mmm....duh, ya think?

RobRoy

22nd July 2008, 03:46 PM

She sounds like she was a very confused individual. I wouldn't put much stock in what she said.

This is actually, very roughly, correct. I'm reasonably certain the ape-wife part is incorrect, but according to LDS practice, the mark of Cain "is the flat nose and black skin" of Africans and their decendants (2 Nephi 5:21). Based on a letter by Phelps who theorized that the "curse" had been passed through Noah's son, Ham, when he took a black wife, they were collectively refered to as Hamites. Hamites were allowed membership in the LDS church, but it was a second-class membership. Black men could not hold the priesthood as any other full male member (huh-huh, I said "male member") was expected to, and black men and women couldn't go through the LDS temples. In 1978 (I think it was June, and I also want to say it was called "Black Friday" by some LDS with both meanings implied, but don't quote me on that), the LDS church made the declaration that God had forgiven the Hamites, and that full members (male, of course) could now hold the priesthood.

Interestingly enough, Joseph Smith himself had ordained Elijah Abel (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elijah_Abel), a black man as a priest back in 1836. There are church records which show that other black men held the LDS priesthood and even high-ranking positions within the church.

Zygar

23rd July 2008, 10:14 AM

This is actually, very roughly, correct. I'm reasonably certain the ape-wife part is incorrect, but according to LDS practice, the mark of Cain "is the flat nose and black skin" of Africans and their decendants (2 Nephi 5:21). Based on a letter by Phelps who theorized that the "curse" had been passed through Noah's son, Ham, when he took a black wife, they were collectively refered to as Hamites. Hamites were allowed membership in the LDS church, but it was a second-class membership. Black men could not hold the priesthood as any other full male member (huh-huh, I said "male member") was expected to, and black men and women couldn't go through the LDS temples. In 1978 (I think it was June, and I also want to say it was called "Black Friday" by some LDS with both meanings implied, but don't quote me on that), the LDS church made the declaration that God had forgiven the Hamites, and that full members (male, of course) could now hold the priesthood.

Interestingly enough, Joseph Smith himself had ordained Elijah Abel (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elijah_Abel), a black man as a priest back in 1836. There are church records which show that other black men held the LDS priesthood and even high-ranking positions within the church.

Yes. I just didn't feel like picking apart all the BS mixed in with the small amount of accurate information.

RobRoy

23rd July 2008, 12:59 PM

Yes. I just didn't feel like picking apart all the BS mixed in with the small amount of accurate information.

I have to disagree with your assertion here as I did with your previous statement. There was as much accurate information as inaccurate (from an LDS perspective).

The real BS is how the LDS church treated blacks for nearly 130 years.

I Ratant

23rd July 2008, 01:16 PM

...the LDS church made the declaration that God had forgiven the Hamites,
.
This is a howler!
With all the discontent existing in the world in 1978 ( and for many years before and after) god wakes up from counting the descending sparrows and tells some goober in Salt Lake City that blacks are people, now.
Didn't do anything about the wars in Africa and Asia.
His priorities suck!

RobRoy

23rd July 2008, 01:27 PM

.
This is a howler!
With all the discontent existing in the world in 1978 ( and for many years before and after) god wakes up from counting the descending sparrows and tells some goober in Salt Lake City that blacks are people, now.
Didn't do anything about the wars in Africa and Asia.
His priorities suck!

It is a bit disconcerting in this context, but only if you claim to know the nature and mind of God. :D

On the other hand, the LDS Heavenly Father has always been a timely gent, answering the pressing questions of the times, and settling religious debates with a revelation. I can see how that kind of thing, though awfully convenient, can be quite comforting.

Zygar

23rd July 2008, 03:48 PM

Rewritten so that it's accurate:

I remember when I was a kid, there was a Mormon minister bishop and his wife who lived nearby. I sometimes played with their children. The mom was always preaching at us. One time she was preaching about Cain and Able Abel. I asked her about the passage in the bible where Cain goes to the land of Nod and takes a wife. I asked if Adam and Eve and Cain and Able were the only people, then where did he get a wife? She replied that he married an ape and that's where black people came from (only she didn't say "black people"...) Given that they lived for such long times in the Bible, Protestants at the time when the Mormon religion was founded believed that there were a large number of children of Adam and Eve who were younger than Cain and Abel, it is assumed that she was a sister or niece. She said the black skin is the mark of Cain. Years later I looked it up and found an article that said that the Mormons claim they don't believe that anymore and haven't since the 1970's....hmmm.....yeah right.The Mark of Cain was a comon "reason" given for keeping Black slaves. They were a cursed people, according to Protestants in the early to mid 1800's. The LDS Church issued a proclaimation in 1970 retracting this theory.

I have to disagree with your assertion here as I did with your previous statement. There was as much accurate information as inaccurate (from an LDS perspective).

What the **** is your problem? I could write a *********** dissertation on what is wrong with what he wrote, but I decided to trim it to the minimum.

The real BS is how the LDS church treated blacks for nearly 130 years.

Agreed. And your point? There's no reason to be a dick.

RobRoy

23rd July 2008, 04:16 PM

What the **** is your problem?

<shrug> I have no idea why you're so angry. I haven't made any ad hom attacks against you. Only the "information" you've presented. [insert discussion forums argument here]

There's no reason to be a dick.

Agreed. And yet, here you are.

I Ratant

23rd July 2008, 04:17 PM

It is a bit disconcerting in this context, but only if you claim to know the nature and mind of God. :D

On the other hand, the LDS Heavenly Father has always been a timely gent, answering the pressing questions of the times, and settling religious debates with a revelation. I can see how that kind of thing, though awfully convenient, can be quite comforting.
.
Especially, as mentioned previously, "The thinking has been done for you".
Knowing that black can become white overnight, depending on the dyspepsia of the "revealer" of the immutable truth, whatever it may be, is hardly something to depend on.
Just what "sin" were all those descendants of Ham guilty of, other than not chosing the proper color of parent when being born as those that made the rules did, when they were selecting which color to have.
.
The number of raving maniacs that "know the mind of god" are a curse on the planet.

cbish

23rd July 2008, 04:23 PM

Why doesn't God just tell us everything that we could benefit from knowing? Why doesn't God just tell us how to cure all diseases, how to produce unlimited cheap energy, how to eliminate crime and poverty and war and all the other ills that plague mankind? That's a great question, Bob! Why doesn't he?

RobRoy

23rd July 2008, 04:32 PM

Especially, as mentioned previously, "The thinking has been done for you".

For many people, that's actually quite comforting.

Knowing that black can become white overnight, depending on the dyspepsia of the "revealer" of the immutable truth, whatever it may be, is hardly something to depend on.

Agreed.

Just what "sin" were all those descendants of Ham guilty of, other than not choosing the proper color of parent when being born as those that made the rules did, when they were selecting which color to have.

They were doubly cursed, IIRC. First, in the pre-existence they were not as "valiant" in the fight between Jesus and Lucifer. The second was being descendants of Cain. Sometimes the two are cited as being the same thing, in that the "less valiant souls" were deliberately placed in Mark of Cain bodies to reflect their lack.

The number of raving maniacs that "know the mind of god" are a curse on the planet.

They need not even be "raving maniacs". Plenty of reasonable folk do unreasonable things in the name of their religion. On the other hand, plenty of hypocrits do terrible things by not adhering to the basic tenets of their faith. It's unfortunate all around.

cbish

23rd July 2008, 04:46 PM

Most of us don't do very well at listening to what God has been trying to tell us, or of acting in accordance therewith. What point is there in God trying to tell us even more, when we are already failing to listen to the little that he is offering us? Well Bob, as the church leaders know (the ones that talk with God), God is one wild and crazy guy!! (laughing) Remember that one about Native Americans being decedents of Israel? (laughing) And it turned out to be wrong!! (laughing) That God! What a prankster!!

GreNME

23rd July 2008, 09:44 PM

I've seen and heard a lot of very weird claims from people who said they were LDS before.

However, I have to admit that I've heard way more weird claims from people making claims against the LDS church.

Don't get me wrong, though: I think that the Book of Mormon reads like a KJV science fiction story. I think that Smith was a huckster who from a very early age found that telling fantastic tales got him plenty of attention. I think Brigham Young happened to be part organized criminal and part militant kook. I think the Church of Latter-Day Saints spent the better portion of the nineteenth and twentieth centuries working some doctrinal logic like pretzels to get around the racist proclamations of Brigham Young (who was the one to institute the doctrines against blacks). I think that Smith used the racism against Native Americans exemplified by the likes of non-Mormons like Andrew Jackson to gain converts and massage his religious narrative.

On the other hand, I haven't met an LDS member I just couldn't get along with (though I'm sure they exist). Quite a few LDS members I've met have tended to be fairly honest, friendly, and at times downright generous. The majority of LDS I've met have had pretty good family lives, and are very close with their siblings, parents, and extended family (something I can appreciate because of my own family biases).

I think the LDS church tends to be a bit overbearing and it definitely has a high number of blonde-haired white kids in it. I'm annoyed at its tendency toward heavy conservatism for what break down to "because my god says so" arguments. On the other hand I don't find Mormon beliefs any more weird or odd than most Christian churches, just different in a matter of focuses. I might take issue with some things I might hear in discussions by Mormons (trust me, Kolob is not an anglicization of the Arabic words Qulub or Qutb, and there's no Egyptian derivative of similar meaning), but in the end they always fall back onto a document whose very existence requires religious faith and not empirical evidence in the first place-- sorry, I don't argue the presence or absence of someone's faith. But for all of my disagreements with the church as an entity I don't normally find much to be bothered about by its followers, who tend to seem to me just like anyone else who is religious and holds their religious faith as their personal Truth (capital T).

To me Mormons tend to seem like the awkward, weirdo Christian kid that everyone seems to feel justified picking on because they're perceived as awkward and weird. Thanks, but I gave that up in primary school.

RandFan

24th July 2008, 12:49 AM

RobRoy

24th July 2008, 02:21 PM

I think the Church of Latter-Day Saints spent the better portion of the nineteenth and twentieth centuries working some doctrinal logic like pretzels to get around the racist proclamations of Brigham Young (who was the one to institute the doctrines against blacks).

To be fair, Young did not initially preach racist sentiments. He seems to have been somewhat separate-but-equal in his concept until several events decided him against, or played into a concept of us-versus-them proselytizing. Foremost the McCary Incident. McCary, an elder of the church, seduced several white (gasp!) female LDS. He claimed to be an LDS Lamanite prophet, and was able to break some of its members away from the general group to form his own little LDS enclave.

But yes, it was Young's statements starting in 1849 that began the long road of denying black LDS full membership. An unfortunate occurance for those that joined and believed.

Nearly everyone I know and love is Mormon. Often neurotic but yes, they are in many ways kind and decent people. There is something about the culture that makes them a bit more conscious of living to certain standards. However, in the end, they are humans and subject to all of the problems associated with being human.

Agreed. I think its the guilt, which rivals anything the Catholic, Protestant or Jewish faiths have been able to muster. With the highly structures lifestyle the LDS church has established, it's just to easy to commit a "sin".

Spung

24th July 2008, 09:13 PM

On the other hand, I haven't met an LDS member I just couldn't get along with (though I'm sure they exist). Quite a few LDS members I've met have tended to be fairly honest, friendly, and at times downright generous. The majority of LDS I've met have had pretty good family lives, and are very close with their siblings, parents, and extended family (something I can appreciate because of my own family biases).
. . .
To me Mormons tend to seem like the awkward, weirdo Christian kid that everyone seems to feel justified picking on because they're perceived as awkward and weird. Thanks, but I gave that up in primary school.

I absolutely agree. Mormons might be a bit whack, but they're no more ridiculous than any other Christian group and it riles me to see Christians from other denominations use them as a whipping boy. Pot, kettle, black. Almost all the Mormons I've known have been quite agreeable and pleasant. (The political weight of the group bugs me, but no more than, say, the political weight of any other conservative religious group or NRA members or golf-course users or motorboat owners)

ETA-- and man, excommunication is harsh. Sheesh. I hope for the Church's sake that there's more behind this than just the calendar--I don't think Church leaders should be using excommunication as a punishment for not toeing the current Church line (after all, if they're correct in their belief system, Father Son and the Holy Ghost will take care of it in the end, right?)

GreNME

24th July 2008, 11:34 PM

autumn1971

25th July 2008, 12:37 AM

I think that one of the disconnects that "mainstream" Christians feel re the CoJCoLDS is the time factor.
The Abrahamic religions, as well as the major Eastern religions can hide behind a patina of centuries to disguise the inevitable absurdities. Mormanism (I'm sorry if this is not the preferred term, but LDS also seemed wrong. What's the best term to use?) has no such buffer. Jesus may not have existed in the way that he is thought ot have, Mohammed may have actually been as big a jerk as history seems to say, but in these cases time has made arguments an exercise in debate, not a search for facts.
Smith, on the other hand, existed in recent times, and was a proven confidence-man. Young was an historical figure, replete with the failings which plauge us all. To those who don't like their prophets mocked, time is the best shield against reality.
Most people give a pass to the past. If asked to discuss various beliefs, many people will give a nod to the most ancient (but still practiced) religions from the East, will allow that Judaism is an ancient tradition, but note its parallel in Zoroastrianism, will call Christianity an outgrowth predictable by the turbulance of the times, will grant Islam a grain of salt, but wonder about Mohammed's criminality, as well as such teachings as his "you all should really only marry one or two girls, but I'm getting thirteen". Anything much later than the first millenium CE is too well known to be fodder for most folks's wonder-meters.
The religions of recent history are almost linearly less respected as time moves forward. Quakers are wierd, but still accepted as a religion. Unitarians, still a religious group, but blander than WASPS. Christian Scientists (the religion, not the category of theistic workers in empirical research) are much less likely to be called mainstream. The LDS is simply too recent to have achieved the pass that older religions have been granted. Even so, most people still would call the Mormons a religious denomination. Scientology, having been founded within the memory of most of the population, is universally seen as the inane spoutings of a megalomaniac. With Jim Jones or Heaven's Gate, the insanity is so forward that even those whose religion also promises self-sacrifice and destruction are forced to see the insanity, but sadly miss that the same is present in their own beliefs, just filtered out of the common conciousness by interveneing years.
I apologise if this is seen as insulting or off-topic.
Autumn

AstralWar

25th July 2008, 01:35 AM

To be fair, Young did not initially preach racist sentiments. He seems to have been somewhat separate-but-equal in his concept until several events decided him against, or played into a concept of us-versus-them proselytizing. Foremost the McCary Incident. McCary, an elder of the church, seduced several white (gasp!) female LDS. He claimed to be an LDS Lamanite prophet, and was able to break some of its members away from the general group to form his own little LDS enclave.

But yes, it was Young's statements starting in 1849 that began the long road of denying black LDS full membership. An unfortunate occurance for those that joined and believed.

Agreed. I think its the guilt, which rivals anything the Catholic, Protestant or Jewish faiths have been able to muster. With the highly structures lifestyle the LDS church has established, it's just to easy to commit a "sin".

when young told Elijah able he could not enter the temples or be sealed over and over and over again even since he was a seventy

young made things so bad that jospeh's father started his own religion..

DO ANY OF YOU KNOW WHAT IT IS CALLED? ;P)

Bob Blaylock

25th July 2008, 01:43 AM

ETA-- and man, excommunication is harsh. Sheesh. I hope for the Church's sake that there's more behind this than just the calendar--I don't think Church leaders should be using excommunication as a punishment for not toeing the current Church line (after all, if they're correct in their belief system, Father Son and the Holy Ghost will take care of it in the end, right?)

I have to think that there's much more to this story than has been reported. The church is not a museum for saints, but a hospital for sinners. If we excommunicated everyone who committed any significant amount of wrongdoing, then there would not be any of us left.

Excommunication is the most serious disciplinary action that the church can take. It's generally reserved for serious sins, or for activities are disruptive to the church itself. In general, the church's purpose is to help us all to overcome our sins and our weaknesses; excommunication is for those who are beyond any such help, or who are actively leading others astray.

If it were active missionaries that were appearing in this calendar, then there might be sufficient basis for this man to be excommunicated. Active missionaries are expected, during the time that they are serving their mission, to behave to a considerably higher standard than that to which the rest of us are held. Allowing themselves to be photographed in an immodest state of dress, for commercial publication, would certainly be a violation of these higher standards; and for someone to actively solicit and encourage them to do so might very well be grounds for excommunication.

These are, however, returned missionaries in the calendar. They've completed their missions, and returned to normal life. This being the case, I just don't see anything in the story, as reported, which appears to be to be sufficient grounds for excommunication.

AstralWar

25th July 2008, 02:15 AM

It has been variously clarified at different points in time. The most recent declaration specifies coffee and tea and anything which contains coffee or tea. And, as RandFan pointed out, the current stance of the Church is that all caffeine is bad.

I am an Employee of Deseret Industries. There is no tea or coffee allowed to be drank there. soda is fine. in the break room there is a soda machine but is only filled with caffine free soda. now there is a taco truck that comes every morning at first break on the dot and you see everyone running to get their soda and rock star drinks ;p)

coffee was bad and was forbidden because of addiction. tea was forbidden cause it was drugs and no one never knew what they was gonna get rather it be for health or narcotic no one never knew and to not be put in that position tea was forbidden

Bob Blaylock

25th July 2008, 03:12 AM

I am an Employee of Deseret Industries.

Are you actually an employee or a trainee? I spent a year as a trainee at the Deseret Industries (DI) facility in Sacramento. I thought I was just going there to learn to drive a forklift, but I ended up getting much, much more than that out of it. I think that if everyone were to spend a year of their lives working at DI, the world would be a much better place.

There is no tea or coffee allowed to be drank there. soda is fine. in the break room there is a soda machine but is only filled with caffine free soda. now there is a taco truck that comes every morning at first break on the dot and you see everyone running to get their soda and rock star drinks ;p)

At DI, I kept my locker well-stocked with energy drinks.

coffee was bad and was forbidden because of addiction. tea was forbidden cause it was drugs and no one never knew what they was gonna get rather it be for health or narcotic no one never knew and to not be put in that position tea was forbidden

This last paragraph does not seem to make much sense.

In any event, to clarify, here is the church's position on caffeine, coffee, tea, and such, as best as I understand it.

Coffee and tea are strictly prohibited. Caffeine is not, but is rather frowned upon. As it happens, I am addicted to caffeine. It would be better that I wasn't, but I am. My bishop is aware of my addiction, and yet he does not see that as reason to deny me a Temple recommend. Were I a habitual user of coffee and/or tea, that would disqualify me from a Temple recommend.

There has never been any official, solid, explanation as to why coffee and tea are off limits. Just that God has told us not to use them, so we don't. There's been a great deal of speculation as to why, but no solid answer. The prohibition applies, by the way, to decaffeinated forms and to “iced” forms as well; which would seem to indicate that neither caffeine nor temperature are relevant to the reason why these things are prohibited to us.

I'm sure you'll find your observations at DI are consistent with this. Though DI, in keeping with the church's policies, will not provide caffeine in any form in its breakroom facilities, your colleagues are allowed to bring it in themselves and consume it in the form of soft drinks and energy drinks; but are not allowed to bring in coffee or tea.

RandFan

25th July 2008, 08:29 AM

Coffee and tea are strictly prohibited. Why? Prohibition is an extreme form of control. There ought to be sume underlying reason for such an extreme. Remember, boiling water for coffee and tea could have made it much safer during a time that the Saints were dying of Cholera. It is irrational to prohibit something that has no evidence of harm while there is evidence of significant good.

My bishop is aware of my addiction, and yet he does not see that as reason to deny me a Temple recommend. You are an anecdote. What about Brigham Young's recommendations for how much coffee to pack for migrating west? Your anecdote is useless in the face of contradicting evidence.

There has never been any official, solid, explanation as to why coffee and tea are off limits. Just that God has told us not to use them, so we don't. The better to control you. Don't question. Don't think. Just obey. Islam translated means submission. Most if not all religions seek to control people. For two reasons.

It is the best way to propagate the meme.
It serves those who are leaders.
When you look at the facts and the history behind the prohibition of coffee it is quite clear that a.) strong drink was allready a concern to people of the time and that b.) the prohibition only became such after the saints migration west.

RobRoy

25th July 2008, 09:28 AM

Why? Prohibition is an extreme form of control. There ought to be sume underlying reason for such an extreme. Remember, boiling water for coffee and tea could have made it much safer during a time that the Saints were dying of Cholera. It is irrational to prohibit something that has no evidence of harm while there is evidence of significant good.

God doesn't need to provide his followers with reasons for the things He asks. This prohibition is similar, to some extent, as the food prohibitions of the Jews or the Catholics. At the time Smith was making these revelations, hot drinks were considered by some as a good way to get yourself sick. This was based on the concept of "humours" in the body, and varying degrees of heat or cold were considered bad things.

You are an anecdote. What about Brigham Young's recommendations for how much coffee to pack for migrating west? Your anecdote is useless in the face of contradicting evidence.

There has always been a lot of confusion regarding what Smith meant. His brother, Hyrum, stated that it did not mean coffee and tea. The early LDS church was still feeling its way.

Consider Young's comments regarding blacks which we've discussed above. Some members consider that Young was not speaking doctrinally, and that he was making a human error in his prohibitions.

[quote[The better to control you. Don't question. Don't think. Just obey. Islam translated means submission. Most if not all religions seek to control people.[/quote]

I don't think the religions seek to control, but the folk running the religions do. The LDS religion is like most other Christian faiths. It wants it's members to get back to God. The LDS just subscribe to a very narrow, iron path to get there. At least if you want to get to their highest kingdom.

Civilized Worm

25th July 2008, 09:32 AM

I just wanted to emphasize that Mormons aren't any more deserving of criticism than other religious beliefs, and that more often than not (just like any other religion) LDS members are decent enough people with a few loud whackos who always get the attention. I just think the Mormons get a bad rap sometimes, and if I was mistaken by the tone of the thread up to the point of my post I apologize.

Mormonism's wackyness just seems more aparrent to people because as Autumn pointed out, it's a relatively young and small religion that hasn't earned the respect we afford to antiquity.

Personally I think catholicism is far wackier than mormonism what with the turning wafers into Jesus nonsense and the every sperm is sacred crap. And the LDS suddenly changing it's stances on polygamy and black people is no worse than the pope suddenly deciding that limbo doesn't exist.

RobRoy

25th July 2008, 09:35 AM

RandFan

25th July 2008, 09:45 AM

I don't think the religions seek to control, but the folk running the religions do. Given that "religion" is not sentient and therefore can't actually seek anything and given the premise that religion is in all actuality an organization of leaders and followers I would have to say that the first statement is contradicted by the second.

On the other hand, given the premise that religion is a meme or group of memes then religions in fact do seek to control.

That said, I'm not sure how conscious religious leaders are when it comes to control. I doubt they wake up in the morning pondering how they can control their members. That's not what I'm talking about. It's a bit more subtle and nuanced than that.

RandFan

25th July 2008, 09:49 AM

God doesn't need to provide his followers with reasons for the things He asks. If you assume that people truly are sheep when it comes to religion and that the reasoning center of the brain that god ostensibly gave us is to be switched off when people who claim to speak for god tell us to flap our hands and cluck then I agree with you.

Religion: No thinking required.

RandFan

25th July 2008, 10:01 AM

http://img57.imageshack.us/img57/1399/w1vqekfrazlc0.jpg

Believe in god, pass it on.

RobRoy

25th July 2008, 10:20 AM

Given that "religion" is not sentient and therefore can't actually seek anything and given the premise that religion is in all actuality an organization of leaders and followers I would have to say that the first statement is contradicted by the second.

I'm sorry, I wasn't trying to bandy words or be clever. I was just distinguishing between the stated goals of religions, and the actions of the religious.

That said, I'm not sure how conscious religious leaders are when it comes to control. I doubt they wake up in the morning pondering how they can control their members. That's not what I'm talking about. It's a bit more subtle and nuanced than that.

I wonder. I think we could make a case that many religious leaders do just that. Wake up in the morning and consider how they are going to control their various adherent followers for the day. The Papacy was sought by any number of folk who saw it for the control, and thus the power, it would give them.

I think this was the case, in the begining, with Joseph Smith. It is my opinion that he thought he was using religion as a tool, but I think in the end he believed what he was saying and doing as being divinely guided.

I Ratant

25th July 2008, 10:25 AM

God doesn't need to provide his followers with reasons for the things He asks.
.
C'mon, guy!
It ain't god telling you what to think, it's your leaders, who if they get the noises in their heads, are fruit-loops. Otherwise, they're exercising their ability to make you jump thru any hoop they can think up.
After all, they do the thinking, you don't!
They ring the bell, you salivate.
They tell you it's god's words.
Shuure!

I Ratant

25th July 2008, 10:30 AM

Mormonism's wackyness just seems more aparrent to people because as Autumn pointed out, it's a relatively young and small religion that hasn't earned the respect we afford to antiquity.

...
.
As it isn't protected by 2000 years of murk and coverups, it is a good indication of the temporal genesis of any religion.
Mormonism's base in Smith's conjuring acts is well documented in secular history, and shows quite well how swifties can mislead the uncertain into mental slavery.
And the leaders get lots of pussy.
Islam has the same roots, and ends.
Scientology is even better, as its science fiction basis is well-known.

I Ratant

25th July 2008, 10:31 AM

...

I think this was the case, in the begining, with Joseph Smith. It is my opinion that he thought he was using religion as a tool, but I think in the end he believed what he was saying and doing as being divinely guided.

"Fruit loop"

GreNME

25th July 2008, 10:33 AM

I'm sorry if this is not the preferred term, but LDS also seemed wrong. What's the best term to use?

If there are any Mormons here they can correct me, but from what I've been told when I asked the term "LDS" for the church and for plural followers is pretty much the default preferred, unless you want to go into the whole "Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints" (which I find way too long).

YMMV

RobRoy

25th July 2008, 04:42 PM

.
C'mon, guy!
It ain't god telling you what to think, it's your leaders, who if they get the noises in their heads, are fruit-loops. Otherwise, they're exercising their ability to make you jump thru any hoop they can think up.
After all, they do the thinking, you don't!
They ring the bell, you salivate.
They tell you it's god's words.
Shuure!

Ummm, you proceed from a false assumption. I was only attempting to answer the question. I am not now, nor have I ever been, LDS.

If you're asking for a reason why God asks certain people not to partake of certain foods . . . the answer is that God doesn't have to tell you the reason.

"Fruit loop"

Is this aimed at me, or at Joseph Smith? If at me, I did not say that Joseph Smith was divinely influenced, only that he believed he was. <shrug>

If there are any Mormons here they can correct me, but from what I've been told when I asked the term "LDS" for the church and for plural followers is pretty much the default preferred, unless you want to go into the whole "Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints" (which I find way too long).

According to my sources, the preferred is a: a member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Later-Day Saints.

Second to that is: Latter-Day Saint, or LDS

Last, but most often used is: Mormon

I typically use LDS when I refer to the folk, but that depends on my audience. Some people don't know LDS from LSD.

Bob Blaylock

26th July 2008, 02:32 AM

Why? Prohibition is an extreme form of control. There ought to be sume (sic) underlying reason for such an extreme. Remember, boiling water for coffee and tea could have made it much safer during a time that the Saints were dying of Cholera. It is irrational to prohibit something that has no evidence of harm while there is evidence of significant good.

I've already addressed this. The church did not ever, as a matter of policy, discourage people from boiling water for sanitation purposes. Your repeated suggestion that it did is false, nonsensical, and dishonest.

There were some individuals who came up with their own erroneous interpretations to this effect, but this was never reflected in church policy.

Bob Blaylock

26th July 2008, 02:48 AM

young made things so bad that jospeh's father started his own religion..

DO ANY OF YOU KNOW WHAT IT IS CALLED? ;P)

Joseph Smith, Sr. died September 14, 1840.
Joseph Smith, Jr., the first Prophet of the LDS Church died June 27, 1844.
Brigham Young succeeded Smith on August 8, 1844.

Joseph Smith, Sr. did not start his own religion and certainly not based on Young's actions regarding blacks, which did not become policy until after the migration to Utah.

My guess is that AstralWar is really thinking of Joseph Smith III. When Joseph Smith Jr. was murdered, there were several conflicting claims as to who should succeed him, and a number of various splinter groups that broke off based on these conflicting claims. Among them was a group that believed that leadership of the church was to be hereditary —*to pass from father to son. Joseph Smith III was about three years old at the time, so this bunch simply laid low until he was old enough to lead them, and then formed their church which they called “Reorganized Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints”, or “RLDS”. Much more recently, the RLDS renamed themselves to “The Community of Christ”. I'm given to understand that over the time since they split off from us, that they've more or less abandoned a great deal of “Mormon” traits, and generally mutated into something that bears much more resemblance to mainstream Protestantism than to anything that was ever in any way connected with the genuine LDS church.

They've also built a monstrous-looking “Temple” in Independence, Missouri, which looks, more than anything else, like some sinister villain's lair out of a really, really bad science fiction movie. I guess, when they split off from us, we got to keep all the architectural talent, and they got none at all.

RandFan

26th July 2008, 10:46 AM

I've already addressed this. The church did not ever, as a matter of policy, discourage people from boiling water for sanitation purposes. Your repeated suggestion that it did is false, nonsensical, and dishonest.Please to show where I ever said that the church discouraged people from boiling water? In fact I said specifically that there was no such discouragement so it is you who are being dishonest. You are now simply being obtuse. That is not my point. It's never been my point.

My point is simple.

God could have told the people to boil water and he would have saved lives. God didn't do that. In fact, god told people NOT to drink hot drinks. My point is that the WOM clearly would reduce the boiling of water thus very likely contributing to the incidents of Cholera and death.

Bob, what you can't get through your head is that people didn't know that their water contained Cholera and therefore had no reason to boil it. So saying that the Church wasn't against it is like saying that Columbus wasn't against outboard motors.

And please note, you've ignored a plethora of points and arguments to focus on this very week argument that is easily dispatched.

Zygar

26th July 2008, 05:11 PM

I've already addressed this. The church did not ever, as a matter of policy, discourage people from boiling water for sanitation purposes. Your repeated suggestion that it did is false, nonsensical, and dishonest.

There were some individuals who came up with their own erroneous interpretations to this effect, but this was never reflected in church policy.

Boiling water specifically for sanitation purposes is not what he was talking about. I'm shocked that you have so much trouble understanding his point.

Bob Blaylock

26th July 2008, 05:33 PM

Please to show where I ever said that the church discouraged people from boiling water? In fact I said specifically that there was no such discouragement so it is you who are being dishonest. You are now simply being obtuse. That is not my point. It's never been my point.

I've just read back through every posting of yours in this thread, and I certainly cannot find anywhere where you've “said specifically that there was no such discouragement”. If you haven't come out and explicitly said so, it seems very clear to me that your intent has been, at the least, to strongly imply that, as a matter of church policy, people were discouraged from boiling water for sanitary purposes, on the basis that water boiled for any reason would constitute a “hot drink” in violation of the Word of Wisdom (a premise which is absurd on its face).

My point is simple.

God could have told the people to boil water and he would have saved lives. God didn't do that. In fact, god told people NOT to drink hot drinks. My point is that the WOM clearly would reduce the boiling of water thus very likely contributing to the incidents of Cholera and death.

Bob, what you can't get through your head is that people didn't know that their water contained Cholera and therefore had no reason to boil it. So saying that the Church wasn't against it is like saying that Columbus wasn't against outboard motors.

Well that gets down to a point that I have already addressed in this thread. God could have told us all sorts of things that, in our own limited wisdom, would seem to have been more useful than what he has told us. Cholera was the least of our problems. He could have revealed to us better military strategy and technology, to allow us to better defend ourselves against the constant attacks from our enemies. He could have revealed to us more advanced medical knowledge, to allows us to better treat and prevent various diseases and injuries. He could have provided us with knowledge that would have allowed us to better use our scarce resources to produce sufficient food. There are all sorts of things that God could have revealed to Mankind, at any point in history, to allow us to live better than we otherwise have. There are things he could reveal to us now, if that was his choice. He could tell us how to produce abundant free non-polluting energy, or how to cure cancer and other diseases, or how to overcome the problems of crime and war and poverty.

It seems to be God's intent to let us figure most of these things out for ourselves.

In any event, things have unfolded more or less as God has intended them. In spite of the hardships that the early Mormons faced, we have been greatly successful as a people and as an organization. Perhaps we would not have been nearly so successful if God had simply handed us everything that we thought we needed, without requiring some hardship and sacrifice on our part to achieve it. And now, more than a century and a half later, ignoramuses such as yourself are still attacking us, and trying to tear us down, with no more success (considerably less, in fact) than our earlier enemies had.

GreNME

26th July 2008, 06:46 PM

According to my sources, the preferred is a: a member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Later-Day Saints.

Second to that is: Latter-Day Saint, or LDS

Last, but most often used is: Mormon

I typically use LDS when I refer to the folk, but that depends on my audience. Some people don't know LDS from LSD.

A joke which came to much amusement of many LDS I know when talking about one of the Star Trek films. :)

RandFan

26th July 2008, 08:32 PM

If you haven't come out and explicitly said so, it seems very clear to me that your intent has been, at the least, to strongly imply that, as a matter of church policy, people were discouraged from boiling water for sanitary purposes, on the basis that water boiled for any reason would constitute a “hot drink” in violation of the Word of Wisdom (a premise which is absurd on its face). In a word. "NO!"

Hopefully that is clear. I don't know how to make it any more clearer. I've said on at least 3 occasions that was not my intent. Perhaps the poet was right.

"A man he hears what he wants to hear and disregards the rest." --Paul Simon.

Hopefully, that will put an end to this because it is silly and beside the point.

Well that gets down to a point that I have already addressed in this thread. God could have told us all sorts of things that, in our own limited wisdom, would seem to have been more useful than what he has told us. "Limited wisdom"?
Don't drink hot drinks.
Boil water before you drink it.
Is there any evidence that #1 is more significant than #2? Saying that we are limited in our wisdom is simply arguing from ignorance. It's a get out of jail card. God had a reason but won't tell us his reason. Ok, well, he gave us a brain perhaps we can figure this out.

It was believed at the time (as part of popular culture) that drinking hot water was bad.
It was not known that boiling water would save lives.
QUESTION: Which is more parsimonious, that a.) god is keeping it secret from people for hidden reasons for what seems a trivial commandmant or b.) Mormons simply adopted popular and spurious health proscriptions?

Cholera was the least of our problems. For the mother who watched her children die of diarhea, vomiting and convulsions it wasn't the least of her problems.

This is a very big point for me. When god ostensibly gave the word of wisdom it seems that he was doing it because he cared about people and he gave it with a promise.

Word of Wisdom (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Word_of_Wisdom)

"Given for a principle with a promise...

...And all saints who remember to keep and do these sayings, walking in obedience to the commandments, shall receive health in their navel and marrow to their bones; and shall find wisdom and great treasures of knowledge, even hidden treasures; and shall run and not be weary, and shall walk and not faint. And I, the Lord, give unto them a promise, that the destroying angel shall pass by them, as the children of Israel, and not slay them."

Yet Mormon children were slain by a destroying angel named Cholera. A single instruction could have saved them but instead he told the saints to do something that was believed at the time, don't drink hot drinks. How did that help the saints? It's a secret.

And now, more than a century and a half later, ignoramuses such as yourself are still attacking us, and trying to tear us down, with no more success (considerably less, in fact) than our earlier enemies had. Victimization is common of most religious sects. Most see non-members who question and critisize as enimies. It's part of the self defense of the Meme (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meme).

Let me point out that I've not attacked you personally. And for what it's worth, I'm not your enemy. I'm just a human being. An individual with children, a wife, parents, siblings and other loved ones. I work with Mormons and have good relations with them. I still volunteer my time to help members move. We also donate to a women's shelter sponsored by the local Relief Society. I answer the calls from my home teacher for blood drives and I allow home teachers and the Bishop into my home. We have discussions, sometimes they are strong, but I respect them and they me.

Whatever I've said here simply cannot justify your response and as an ambasador of Christ it serves you poorly.

Having strong negative feelings and attacking others simply because they challenge your beliefs is rather poor form.

I bear you no ill will Bob.

fishkr

26th July 2008, 10:19 PM

Do LDS members realize how closely, in words and actions, they resemble Islamic Fundamentalists?

Based on the contents of this thread, there is ample evidence that Utah should be reclaimed from the LDS church into the the Union, once and for all. :D

Roadtoad

27th July 2008, 10:53 AM

In any event, things have unfolded more or less as God has intended them. In spite of the hardships that the early Mormons faced, we have been greatly successful as a people and as an organization. Perhaps we would not have been nearly so successful if God had simply handed us everything that we thought we needed, without requiring some hardship and sacrifice on our part to achieve it. And now, more than a century and a half later, ignoramuses such as yourself are still attacking us, and trying to tear us down, with no more success (considerably less, in fact) than our earlier enemies had.

Bob, let me point out a few things regarding my own experience with Mormons...

First, I'm not one, nor have I ever been one. My aunt married a Mormon dairy farmer from around Wheatland, CA, back in the 1950's, dropping out of high school to do so. She became a Mormon herself, and settled into the life of a wife and mother.

My aunt is probably one of the kindest individuals I know. She continues to spend time with me when we get the chance to connect. However, my cousins have pretty much blown me off, given that I am not a Mormon, and deliberately chose to not become one back in 1979 after meeting with missionaries in our area. I wasn't choosing to become an enemy of the Church, I simply couldn't make sense of what I was being told. I became even more confused in the early 80's when I met one of the folks involved in the making of the movie, The God Makers, who actually turned out to be one of the kindest individuals I've known. (Oddly enough, now that I'm an atheist, we're no longer talking. Go fig.) It marked me as an enemy for just about any Mormon I knew.

My father-in-law's wife is Mormon. When he and my wife's step-mother married, she brought a grown family with her. While I get along well enough with her oldest son, who's also a truck driver, and the husband of the oldest daughter, the younger two, in spite of my efforts to help them when they've needed it, including two moves for the younger daughter, have pretty much declared their animus towards me simply because I am not Mormon. I'm an enemy, not because I attack the Church, (I don't, at least, not yet), but because, for example, Peggy and I are not signed, sealed, delivered into the hands of Jesus, away from his spirit brother Lucifer. Then again, given the outright hate I get from Mormons, I'm not so sure I would want to be.

Your actions declare your beliefs. RandFan isn't hating the Church. He's asking some serious questions, questions whose answers drove him from the LDS. I'd like to see what in his line of questioning makes him an ignoramus, or even makes him hateful to your gospel.

I said years ago to the Mormon Church, "I don't get it." I still don't. I think it's great that people years ago were able to settle in one of the most inhospitable places in the North American continent and make it bloom. But that owes more, in my mind, to good old fashioned American cussedness than any kind of divin intervention. If you have evidence to show otherwise, I'm willing to listen, and that's the same offer I've made to Mormon family members for years. But from what I see, there's nothing being offered which would change my mind. I could be wrong on this, but when I can't roll through SLC and hook up with my cousin, because I'm not worthy of it, I doubt it.

Pixel42

27th July 2008, 02:37 PM

In any event, things have unfolded more or less as God has intended them.
It was God's intention that, a couple of centuries after the founding of his One True Church, it would comprise less than 0.2% of the population, and be regarded as a joke by most of that small fraction of the human race that had even heard of it?

How odd.

Olowkow

27th July 2008, 03:51 PM

The blog referenced below should be of great interest to ex-Mormons. This lady has really done her homework. A long but fascinating read.

http://slingnmom.blogspot.com/2008/02/why-we-are-leaving-mormon-church.html

So any ways, I've been "served" with an invitation to this disciplinary court. I have behaviour unbecoming to a Mormon. LOL I am a Mormon who likes to think and talk - how dare I!! ((gasp))

Zygar

27th July 2008, 04:19 PM

Bob Blaylock

27th July 2008, 05:58 PM

Bob, let me point out a few things regarding my own experience with Mormons...

First, I'm not one, nor have I ever been one. My aunt married a Mormon dairy farmer from around Wheatland, CA, back in the 1950's, dropping out of high school to do so. She became a Mormon herself, and settled into the life of a wife and mother.

… However, my cousins have pretty much blown me off, given that I am not a Mormon, and deliberately chose to not become one back in 1979 after meeting with missionaries in our area. …

My father-in-law's wife is Mormon. When he and my wife's step-mother married, she brought a grown family with her. While I get along well enough with her oldest son, who's also a truck driver, and the husband of the oldest daughter, the younger two, in spite of my efforts to help them when they've needed it, including two moves for the younger daughter, have pretty much declared their animus towards me simply because I am not Mormon. I'm an enemy, not because I attack the Church, (I don't, at least, not yet), but because, for example, Peggy and I are not signed, sealed, delivered into the hands of Jesus, away from his spirit brother Lucifer. Then again, given the outright hate I get from Mormons, I'm not so sure I would want to be.

All I can say about this is that your family obviously has some issues, for which the religious thing is merely an excuse, and not the underlying cause. It is very certainly not in keeping with the teachings and beliefs of this faith to reject a family member simply because of such differences in religious belief of non-belief.

I come from a very heavily Mormon family. Through both of my parents, I have Mormon ancestors going back to the very start of the church. I'm told that a few of my ancestors were close personal friends of Joseph Smith. My ancestors were among those who were driven from place to place; and eventually driven out of what, at the time, constituted the United States; who survived the journey across the plains, and settle into what is now Utah.

Mormonism is more to me than just a body of religious belief and practice; it is a deep part of my heritage and my identity. That said, I do have some relatives on both sides of my family who have not chosen to continue in this faith. Some have become atheists, and some have chosen other religious faiths more to their liking. I love them every bit as much as those members of my family who have remained true to this faith. Family is very important to me, and it is very important to any Mormon who truly understands and accepts the principles upon which this faith is based.

It's not my place to judge your family members, of course, but I think that one day, when they stand before their maker and are held to answer for what they have done with their lives, one issue in particular for which they will be held responsible will very likely be their rejection of you and any other family members who chose not to join them in this faith.

Your actions declare your beliefs. RandFan isn't hating the Church. He's asking some serious questions, questions whose answers drove him from the LDS. I'd like to see what in his line of questioning makes him an ignoramus, or even makes him hateful to your gospel.

All my life, I've had to deal with people who were desperate to convince me of the falsehood of my religion. I've heard every single argument against my faith more times than I can count. Most of them are very easy to refute, and sometimes I get some entertainment out of doing so. But other times, it just gets very, very tiresome, responding to the same false claims over and over and over again.

I am always more than happy to discuss my faith with someone who is sincerely interested in learning about it, even if he isn't interested in joining it. But RandFan doesn't come across to me as such a person. He comes across, instead, more as the person who is desperate to convince me that my beliefs are false, and that I am a fool for believing them. He comes across to me as someone who is more interested in attacking and tearing down my faith than in sincerely learning about it. A common meme in this forum seems to have to do with atheists depicting people of any religious faith as gullible, deceived, narrow-minded, bigoted and arrogantly derisive of those who believe differently. Yet I see here that many atheists are not the least bit less afflicted by these traits than they accuse those of us who hold any religious beliefs of being. I suppose, really, this is just a normal human trait to which all of us — theist or atheist — are subject to some degree or another.

I said years ago to the Mormon Church, "I don't get it." I still don't. I think it's great that people years ago were able to settle in one of the most inhospitable places in the North American continent and make it bloom. But that owes more, in my mind, to good old fashioned American cussedness than any kind of divin intervention. If you have evidence to show otherwise, I'm willing to listen, and that's the same offer I've made to Mormon family members for years. But from what I see, there's nothing being offered which would change my mind. I could be wrong on this, but when I can't roll through SLC and hook up with my cousin, because I'm not worthy of it, I doubt it.

I've met you once, and you seem like a decent fellow. (I wonder how many of the others on this forum realize that you are to blame for leading me here.) As long as you can show some basic respect for my beliefs (which does not mean in the least that you have to agree with them), I will gladly have you as a friend. That you do not believe the same as I do does not render you in any way unworthy of my friendship, nor should any of your family members think that it renders you unworthy of their acceptance.

Roadtoad

27th July 2008, 06:09 PM

I'd agree we have some issues. That, amigo, is a major understatement.

As to the main point of this: As long as you aren't singing the praises of Britney Spears, we'll get along fine.

Bob Blaylock

27th July 2008, 06:09 PM

In what way do they resemble Islamic Fundamentalists?

He's probably thinking of all the Mormon (http://www.fairlds.org/Anti-Mormons/Without_the_Walls_of_Temple_Square.html) protesters (http://www.fairlds.org/Anti-Mormons/2004_April_General_Conference.html) that show (http://www.fairlds.org/Anti-Mormons/2003_October_General_Conference.html) up (http://www.fairlds.org/Anti-Mormons/2003_Mesa_Easter_Pageant.html) and try (http://www.fairlds.org/Anti-Mormons/Anti-Mormon_Efforts_at_the_2002_Winter_Olympics.html) to disrupt (http://www.fairlds.org/Anti-Mormons/2002_October_General_Conference.html) other (http://www.fairlds.org/Anti-Mormons/2003_April_General_Conference.html) churches (http://www.fairlds.org/Anti-Mormons/2004_October_General_Conference.html).

RandFan

27th July 2008, 06:19 PM

I am always more than happy to discuss my faith with someone who is sincerely interested in learning about it, even if he isn't interested in joining it. But RandFan doesn't come across to me as such a person. He comes across, instead, more as the person who is desperate to convince me that my beliefs are false, and that I am a fool for believing them. He comes across to me as someone who is more interested in attacking and tearing down my faith than in sincerely learning about it.

Some important points.

I've never attacked you personally.
You attacked me personally.
I spent the first 25 years of my life in the Church. I graduated seminary. I served a mission. I served in various leadership positions in the church. I was a sunday school teacher. I've read many books on Mormon history and I've read the standard works a number of times.
You are not special in your understanding of the Mormon Church.

That said, let's assume for a moment that I am in fact your enemy. I'm not but let's go with that for a moment. Are Mormons Christian? Do they believe in the concept of forgiveness?

If someone strikes you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also. --Matthew 5:38-42

Bless them that curse you, and pray for them which despitefully use you. --Luke 6:28

Charity suffereth long, and is kind; charity envieth not; charity vaunteth not itself, is not puffed up. --1 Corinthians 13:4

“I, the Lord, will forgive whom I will forgive, but of you it is required to forgive all men." --D&C 64:8

"Therefore, whoever humbles himself like this child is the greatest in the kingdom of heaven." --Matthew 18:4

"Jesus saith unto him, I say not unto thee, Until seven times: but, Until seventy times seven." --Matthew 18:22

I've done nothing to warrant your abuse but even if I had you would not be demonstrating yourself as a Christian. You are incredibly arrogant and rude. Thankfully I can say in all sincerity that most Mormons are not like you. You do not represent the Church well.

And Bob, for whatever it's worth, you've not exposed a single false belief and you know it. There's a scripture for that also.

Roadtoad

27th July 2008, 06:25 PM

We just had a couple of Mormon missionaries show up at the door. My Wiccan son, (the youngest), just invited them in to participate as the blood sacrifice.

God, I am soooo red faced.

RandFan

27th July 2008, 06:33 PM

A common meme in this forum seems to have to do with atheists depicting people of any religious faith as gullible, deceived, narrow-minded, bigoted and arrogantly derisive of those who believe differently. Could you point to something that would demonstrate that I have done this?

There is nothing wrong with challenging belief systems. Muslims believe that it is ok to oppress women and treat them as property. Not that long ago many Christians believed that slavery was ok. To effect change these beliefs had to be challenged.

I don't come here simply to learn about people's beliefs. I come here to challenge thinking and to have my thinking challenged. When I first came here I was a deist and an ID proponent. I was against gay marriage. I changed my mind because the evidence and arguments were persuasive.

The problem Bob is that you are so certain that you are right and your skin is so thin you can't whether a little challenge.

If I was attacking you personally you would have a point but you and I both know that I never did. I challenged your beliefs and to the religious that is sacrilege.

Sorry but this is a skeptics forum. If you don't like your beliefs challenged then you are in the wrong place.

RandFan

27th July 2008, 06:40 PM

From a different thread but quite apropos.

And if you're overly sensitive? Probably a wide-open message board is a place for you to avoid. Especially a message board like JREForum, where religious dogma is directly and openly challenged. Where belief in angels and original sin and heaven and hell are akin to believing in the Easter Bunny. Couldn't have said it better myself.

Kopji

28th July 2008, 12:19 AM

Actually, this one made sense to me.

10% of the profit from the calendars would be expected to be submitted as tithe. This transaction would make the Church profit from something they viewed as immoral. The simple way to divest themselves of the problem would be to excommunicate.

The topless missionaries did not present the Church with the same paradox so they probably got away with a spanking, or whatever passes for one.

Now, MY idea of a scandal would be finding the calendars posted in the locker rooms of temples. :)

Oh, Happy Birthday RandFan!

GreNME

28th July 2008, 08:45 AM

In what way do they resemble Islamic Fundamentalists?

I would posit that it's mostly in the doctrinal fundamentalist sense. And the LDS doctrines are, from what little I know (having read the BoM, D&C, and PoGP) it's pretty fundamentalist. There are some groups who are equally or more fundamentalist in the US (Jehovah's Witnesses, hardline Southern Baptists and Evangelicals, etc.), but I'd argue they have similarities as well (to Islamic fundamentalists).

Also, the LDS gets many of its negative modern stereotypes from the extremely high concentration of LDS in Utah (and near the borders of surrounding states), and the odd behaviors of some people there claiming to be LDS but not always representative of the Church itself or its current beliefs and practices. The FLDS who was on news stations recently are one example, but there are loads of 'plygs' and other unsanctioned group behaviors that I'm pretty sure are not supported by the LDS Church.

ETA: Additionally, it should be pointed out that the persecution sermonizing gets a bit old to those of us who get the shpeil from LDS we know. I would agree that there was institutional prejudice and violent harassment in the LDS history, but I find calling it persecution is over the top (similar to over-use of the term 'holocaust') and inaccurate. There is a persecution complex among all of the more fundamentalist Abrahamic religious groups, and with maybe one or two exceptions they are mostly appeals to the emotions of the members of the faith, not based actually persecution.

RobRoy

28th July 2008, 09:35 AM

I would posit that it's mostly in the doctrinal fundamentalist sense. And the LDS doctrines are, from what little I know (having read the BoM, D&C, and PoGP) it's pretty fundamentalist. There are some groups who are equally or more fundamentalist in the US (Jehovah's Witnesses, hardline Southern Baptists and Evangelicals, etc.), but I'd argue they have similarities as well (to Islamic fundamentalists).

I'm sorry, but I'm not seeing the connnection between LDS and Islamic Fundamentalists. Perhaps it's the definition being used. Islamic Fundamentalist, as used in most discussions, is a term that it carries a very negative connotation, one step away from "terrorist" in most regards.

Perhaps some examples that parallel LDS practices, either doctrinally or culturally, with those of Islamic Fundamentalists would better make the argument. Right now, I can only see them being linked to fundy Christians, which is hardly the same thing.

A joke which came to much amusement of many LDS I know when talking about one of the Star Trek films. :)

"Oh, him? He's harmless. Part of the free speech movement at Berkeley in the sixties. I think he did a little too much LDS." - Kirk, about Spock Star Trek IV: The Voyage Home

:D

Still funny.

Zygar

28th July 2008, 04:12 PM

ETA: Additionally, it should be pointed out that the persecution sermonizing gets a bit old to those of us who get the shpeil from LDS we know. I would agree that there was institutional prejudice and violent harassment in the LDS history, but I find calling it persecution is over the top (similar to over-use of the term 'holocaust') and inaccurate. There is a persecution complex among all of the more fundamentalist Abrahamic religious groups, and with maybe one or two exceptions they are mostly appeals to the emotions of the members of the faith, not based actually persecution.

I definitely agree with that. There's a persecution complex. But I do think there is a strongly negative stereotype. Which is not the same thing as being persecuted.

Civilized Worm

28th July 2008, 04:25 PM

And now, more than a century and a half later, ignoramuses such as yourself are still attacking us, and trying to tear us down, with no more success (considerably less, in fact) than our earlier enemies had.

We "ignoramuses" have been unable to "tear down" $cientology or homeopathy either, what does that prove? That those who believe in such things are right? Or does it merely show that some people cannot be swayed by evidence and reason?

GreNME

28th July 2008, 08:29 PM

I'm sorry, but I'm not seeing the connnection between LDS and Islamic Fundamentalists. Perhaps it's the definition being used. Islamic Fundamentalist, as used in most discussions, is a term that it carries a very negative connotation, one step away from "terrorist" in most regards.

Yes, and I find that connotation to be overtly and intentionally over-the-top and extreme.

Perhaps some examples that parallel LDS practices, either doctrinally or culturally, with those of Islamic Fundamentalists would better make the argument. Right now, I can only see them being linked to fundy Christians, which is hardly the same thing.

In a general sense, the demand that religious belief that homosexuals don't deserve the same rights as couples who are heterosexual is somehow a valid argument is the first thing that comes to mind. For an LDS-specific example, the nearly complete integration of ranked Church members in positions of political authority-- never to a degree that could be labeled illegal, but certainly to a level where religious affiliation plays a defining role-- also comes to mind (don't get me wrong, Utah is beautiful, but I wouldn't want to live there). Yeah, there's definitely correlation with fundie Christians, but then again I could see a Muslim making it to POTUS before I see an atheist or agnostic elected, even here in the US.

"Oh, him? He's harmless. Part of the free speech movement at Berkeley in the sixties. I think he did a little too much LDS." - Kirk, about Spock Star Trek IV: The Voyage Home

:D

Still funny.

:)

GreNME

28th July 2008, 08:30 PM

I definitely agree with that. There's a persecution complex. But I do think there is a strongly negative stereotype. Which is not the same thing as being persecuted.

Yeah, I agree there. Like I said, the LDS are typically overly mischaracterized and negatively stereotyped because they are the weird kid who is slightly different from the larger group of weird kids. It's a classic school-bus-bully hierarchy.

RandFan

29th July 2008, 12:15 AM

Yeah, I agree there. Like I said, the LDS are typically overly mischaracterized and negatively stereotyped because they are the weird kid who is slightly different from the larger group of weird kids. It's a classic school-bus-bully hierarchy.Agreed but it's a bit more than that. Feeling persecuted is the meme's defensive mechanism. Assuming of course you subscribe to memes and Dennet's thesis about religion being a parasitic meme.

I do.

Undesired Walrus

29th July 2008, 01:39 AM

Here's something I am interested in about Mormons:

Do they (you) actually believe that a group of Israelites came over to America 2600 years ago?

articulett

29th July 2008, 05:38 AM

The blog referenced below should be of great interest to ex-Mormons. This lady has really done her homework. A long but fascinating read.

It was a great link... I should write her a note of support. The first blog response was so creepy and brainwashed sounding. The Minnesota Atheist Podcast has a former Mormon on this week: http://mnatheists.org/content/view/154/1/

Mashuna

29th July 2008, 06:16 AM

GreNME

29th July 2008, 08:59 AM

Agreed but it's a bit more than that. Feeling persecuted is the meme's defensive mechanism. Assuming of course you subscribe to memes and Dennet's thesis about religion being a parasitic meme.

I do.

Nah, persecution complexes stem from more than just religious memes. I also don't think religion in general could be considered parasitic, despite many qualities of many religions that may share some properties (but that's perhaps a conversation in its own right). I do agree that it's a defense mechanism, though. It's not that religions can't be persecuted (they definitely can), it's that this defense mechanism has taken the place of genuine addresses of wrongdoing in an attempt to display piety.

Marcus

29th July 2008, 09:29 AM

In a word. "NO!"

Hopefully that is clear. I don't know how to make it any more clearer. I've said on at least 3 occasions that was not my intent. Perhaps the poet was right.

"A man he hears what he wants to hear and disregards the rest." --Paul Simon.

Hopefully, that will put an end to this because it is silly and beside the point.

"Limited wisdom"?
Don't drink hot drinks.
Boil water before you drink it.
Is there any evidence that #1 is more significant than #2? Saying that we are limited in our wisdom is simply arguing from ignorance. It's a get out of jail card. God had a reason but won't tell us his reason. Ok, well, he gave us a brain perhaps we can figure this out.

It was believed at the time (as part of popular culture) that drinking hot water was bad.
It was not known that boiling water would save lives.
QUESTION: Which is more parsimonious, that a.) god is keeping it secret from people for hidden reasons for what seems a trivial commandmant or b.) Mormons simply adopted popular and spurious health proscriptions?

For the mother who watched her children die of diarhea, vomiting and convulsions it wasn't the least of her problems.

This is a very big point for me. When god ostensibly gave the word of wisdom it seems that he was doing it because he cared about people and he gave it with a promise.

Yet Mormon children were slain by a destroying angel named Cholera. A single instruction could have saved them but instead he told the saints to do something that was believed at the time, don't drink hot drinks. How did that help the saints? It's a secret.

Victimization is common of most religious sects. Most see non-members who question and critisize as enimies. It's part of the self defense of the Meme (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meme).

Let me point out that I've not attacked you personally. And for what it's worth, I'm not your enemy. I'm just a human being. An individual with children, a wife, parents, siblings and other loved ones. I work with Mormons and have good relations with them. I still volunteer my time to help members move. We also donate to a women's shelter sponsored by the local Relief Society. I answer the calls from my home teacher for blood drives and I allow home teachers and the Bishop into my home. We have discussions, sometimes they are strong, but I respect them and they me.

Whatever I've said here simply cannot justify your response and as an ambasador of Christ it serves you poorly.

Having strong negative feelings and attacking others simply because they challenge your beliefs is rather poor form.

I bear you no ill will Bob.

Funny how god never seems to impart any information not known at the time. One could make excuses for this, but the more likely explanation is that He is purely a human construct, no new information can be given because there is none present in the minds that concieved Him.

RandFan

29th July 2008, 09:55 AM

Nah, persecution complexes stem from more than just religious memes. I also don't think religion in general could be considered parasitic, despite many qualities of many religions that may share some properties (but that's perhaps a conversation in its own right). I do agree that it's a defense mechanism, though. It's not that religions can't be persecuted (they definitely can), it's that this defense mechanism has taken the place of genuine addresses of wrongdoing in an attempt to display piety.Thank you for the response.

Unless you can come up with a good rebuttal to the hypothesis posited by Dan Dennett I'm affraid we will have to disagree. When I saw Dennett at TAM 5 explaining the Lancet Fluke (http://www.weichtiere.at/Mollusks/Schnecken/parasitismus/dicrocoelium.html) and how religion functions very much like a Fluke it made so much sense. I've not seen a good rebutal to Dennett's thesis. Are you familiar with it? At the risk of appealing to authority I highly recomend his TED video.

http://blog.ted.com/2007/07/dan_dennett_on_2.php

In any event, the analogy best explains, IMO, how someone can kill themselves in the name of religion (see suicide bombers). I concede that it's not a fact but absent any good rebuttal I'm going to stick with it.

RandFan

29th July 2008, 10:02 AM

It was a great link... I should write her a note of support. The first blog response was so creepy and brainwashed sounding. The Minnesota Atheist Podcast has a former Mormon on this week: http://mnatheists.org/content/view/154/1/I have to agree with Mashuna. The forum is better with you here.

Thanks.

RandFan AKA Mormon persecutor and all around enemy :)

Which is funny since Ive spent considerable time defending Mormons on this forum.

RandFan

29th July 2008, 10:12 AM

It was believed at the time (as part of popular culture) that drinking hot water was bad.
It was not known that boiling water would save lives.
QUESTION: Which is more parsimonious, that a.) god is keeping it secret from people for hidden reasons for what seems a trivial commandment or b.) Mormons simply adopted popular and spurious health proscriptions?

Funny how god never seems to impart any information not known at the time. One could make excuses for this, but the more likely explanation is that He is purely a human construct, no new information can be given because there is none present in the minds that conceived Him.

New Rule (we need a name).

God never does anything that can't be explained without him/her. God never heals amputees (http://whywontgodhealamputees.com/) but he does cure headaches and will help you find your wallet. So long as there is an alternative prosaic answer god will do it. Why? Plausible deniability?

Let's call it the amputee rule.

RobRoy

29th July 2008, 10:56 AM

Yes, and I find that connotation to be overtly and intentionally over-the-top and extreme.

Right. But that's the connotation/definition used, so the connection doesn't work.

In a general sense, the demand that religious belief that homosexuals don't deserve the same rights as couples who are heterosexual is somehow a valid argument is the first thing that comes to mind.

The majority of Christian religions also hold this. I'm not seeing the Fundamental Islamist connection here.

For an LDS-specific example, the nearly complete integration of ranked Church members in positions of political authority-- never to a degree that could be labeled illegal, but certainly to a level where religious affiliation plays a defining role-- also comes to mind (don't get me wrong, Utah is beautiful, but I wouldn't want to live there).

Two points here: religion has almost always played a role in the politics of the United States, whether we're talking Utah or not. Second, the LDS are the majority in Utah, and certainly in Salt Lake City. It stands to reason that you would see a majority of LDS members holding government positions.

But the influential and the powerful in Utah government are usually the influential and powerful in the LDS religion. But that doesn't connect/correlate them with Islamic Fundamentalists.

For the record, I'd gladly go back and live in Utah. It's a pretty damned nice place if you're a non-member. :D

Yeah, there's definitely correlation with fundie Christians, but then again I could see a Muslim making it to POTUS before I see an atheist or agnostic elected, even here in the US.

Naw. I'm sure plenty of atheists and agnostics have been elected. They just didn't state that they were an atheist or agnostic. I seem to recall Thomas Jefferson being somewhat iffy on the subject of his own faith.

GT/CS

29th July 2008, 11:13 AM

This may be considered a derail but I've always been annoyed by a comment a "good Southern Baptist" said a few years ago and maybe it will explain which religion is best.

After one of the hurricanes missed Houston an older lady said to another, "I'm so grateful the hurricane missed us. God certainy answered our prayers."

So, if I understood her correctly she prayed for the hurricane to miss her and blast the crap out of someone else. That doesn't sound very Christian to me.

Why would god answer her prayers and not the prayers of the people who were praying for it to miss them? Of course, the ones that got creamed just stood by the remnants of their houses and said that it was a miracle they were alive. God was looking out for them. What they failed to realize is that he targeted them because someone else prayed for him to do so!!!

So, seriously, why would god answer the prayers of one group of people over another group?

Question #2. Is the mormon church the most profitable non-tax paying business in the U.S.?

RobRoy

29th July 2008, 11:32 AM

So, if I understood her correctly she prayed for the hurricane to miss her and blast the crap out of someone else. That doesn't sound very Christian to me.

No, you did not understand her correctly. She was praying for her own salvation from the storm. She wasn't thinking of anyone else, because the concept of turning a storm which might then injure, maim or kill someone else was not something she had pondered. She made this statement only from her own position, and not that of anyone else.

She might be a hypocritic Christian in that regard, but she wasn't attempting to "blast the crap out of someone else".

What they failed to realize is that he targeted them because someone else prayed for him to do so!!!

Doubtful, at best, since there was no miraculous change in the weather that caused the storm to stop, swerve in a different direction, and then continue on against all rules of meteorology and geophysics. The storm followed patterns that we understand to be natural and semi-predictable. If God played a part, it wasn't in directing the storm toward or against anyone. Placing blame or credit at His feet is to misunderstand Him completely.

Question #2. Is the mormon church the most profitable non-tax paying business in the U.S.?

No. They're not a business.
Here's something I am interested in about Mormons:

Do they (you) actually believe that a group of Israelites came over to America 2600 years ago?

Yes, they do.

GreNME

29th July 2008, 11:59 AM

Thank you for the response.

Unless you can come up with a good rebuttal to the hypothesis posited by Dan Dennett I'm affraid we will have to disagree. When I saw Dennett at TAM 5 explaining the Lancet Fluke (http://www.weichtiere.at/Mollusks/Schnecken/parasitismus/dicrocoelium.html) and how religion functions very much like a Fluke it made so much sense. I've not seen a good rebutal to Dennett's thesis. Are you familiar with it? At the risk of appealing to authority I highly recomend his TED video.

http://blog.ted.com/2007/07/dan_dennett_on_2.php

In any event, the analogy best explains, IMO, how someone can kill themselves in the name of religion (see suicide bombers). I concede that it's not a fact but absent any good rebuttal I'm going to stick with it.

We're probably just going to have to disagree, then. :)

I appreciate the link you supplied to his TED appearance. I do love watching TED presentations. I was ready to reply before watching it, but I decided to give it a look as I ate lunch.

I'm not outright disagreeing with what he was saying in that presentation you linked. Instead, I'm of the opinion that you may have taken some of the things he was saying a bit too literally and taking his figurative comparison to an extreme. From what I saw, he seemed to be talking more about ideas from human thought-- thus making his thesis one on humanity as a whole-- and not singling out religion as you seem to be in your interpretation. Given that context, yes: ideas exist primarily to propagate, which can be figuratively compared to parasitic (particularly viral) behavior, just as Dennett said. In such context, Christianity, Islam, Conservatism, musical genre (hip-hop, rock, classical, etc.) fanaticism, pretty much all of pop culture, market trends, philosophies (including Objectivism ;) ), nationalism, tribalism, and even loyalty to sports teams, communities, and family all share the same kinds of comparable traits to parasites as described by Dennett. He even basically says as much in his presentation.

My only response to that isn't a desire to refute it. I'd say it's over-simplified, but a sound enough assertion as far as I can tell. I'd only caution that those correlations begin to disappear as the lens (or scope) is brought in closer to view defining features. That isn't a refutation, though. There's no need for one, since what we seem to be disagreeing on is a matter of scope and (I posit) how literally you are taking what seemed to me to be a figurative comparison.

RandFan

29th July 2008, 12:30 PM

We're probably just going to have to disagree, then. :)

I appreciate the link you supplied to his TED appearance. I do love watching TED presentations. I was ready to reply before watching it, but I decided to give it a look as I ate lunch.

I'm not outright disagreeing with what he was saying in that presentation you linked. Instead, I'm of the opinion that you may have taken some of the things he was saying a bit too literally and taking his figurative comparison to an extreme. From what I saw, he seemed to be talking more about ideas from human thought-- thus making his thesis one on humanity as a whole-- and not singling out religion as you seem to be in your interpretation. Given that context, yes: ideas exist primarily to propagate, which can be figuratively compared to parasitic (particularly viral) behavior, just as Dennett said. In such context, Christianity, Islam, Conservatism, musical genre (hip-hop, rock, classical, etc.) fanaticism, pretty much all of pop culture, market trends, philosophies (including Objectivism ;) ), nationalism, tribalism, and even loyalty to sports teams, communities, and family all share the same kinds of comparable traits to parasites as described by Dennett. He even basically says as much in his presentation.

My only response to that isn't a desire to refute it. I'd say it's over-simplified, but a sound enough assertion as far as I can tell. I'd only caution that those correlations begin to disappear as the lens (or scope) is brought in closer to view defining features. That isn't a refutation, though. There's no need for one, since what we seem to be disagreeing on is a matter of scope and (I posit) how literally you are taking what seemed to me to be a figurative comparison. I could be taking it a bit too literally but I really don't think so. Having read a significant amount of material from Dennett, Dawkins, Ramachandran's, Pinker and Blackmore, all who deal at length with the subject, I'm quite comfortable that I'm on solid ground in my thinking.

Let me hasten to add, I'm not offering these names as proof of anything only to explain why I'm reasonably certain that I'm right. It's not something I heard in passing and made and drew an erroneous conclusion about.

FTR, Dennett does in fact single out religion in his thesis specifically in reference to the lancet fluke. It is the best explanation to date for how a person will act counter to his or her own evolution. An ant will commit suicide for the Lancet Fluke. Suicide bombers commit suicide for religious memes. To say it is simply a metaphor is to miss Dennet's argument. Re-watch the video at "Misuse of Memes".

To be sure Dennett isn't saying that religious memes are biological parasites but they are parasitical in many significant and fundamental ways.

Analogies always fail in some way or they wouldn't be analogies. I suspect that you are focused too much in the failure of the meme-as-parasite analogy which I concede exists (otherwise the meme would be cellular).

That said, we can disagree and that would be fine with me so long as you understand my point.

Thank you.

P.S. I'm not an objectivist and I never have been. I think objectivism is a cult belief. I don't subscribe to any set philosophy or ideology. If you need a label you are free to call me a skeptical-pragmatic [l]ibertarian (lower case "L") who is accepting of a mix of some degree of capitalism and some degree of socialism.

I hope that helps.

GreNME

29th July 2008, 12:34 PM

Right. But that's the connotation/definition used, so the connection doesn't work.

I don't see why it doesn't. Just because an incorrect interpretation is common doesn't make it less incorrect.

In a general sense, the demand that religious belief that homosexuals don't deserve the same rights as couples who are heterosexual is somehow a valid argument is the first thing that comes to mind.
The majority of Christian religions also hold this. I'm not seeing the Fundamental Islamist connection here.

It's a fundamentalist connection, not just an Islamic one. Denying others rights for religious reasoning tends to be one of the common accusations against Islam for being extreme. I'm saying the comparison is striking because of that.

Two points here: religion has almost always played a role in the politics of the United States, whether we're talking Utah or not. Second, the LDS are the majority in Utah, and certainly in Salt Lake City. It stands to reason that you would see a majority of LDS members holding government positions.

But the influential and the powerful in Utah government are usually the influential and powerful in the LDS religion. But that doesn't connect/correlate them with Islamic Fundamentalists.

This is a tricky one and for quite a while I used to agree with your sentiment. It made sense that the individuals the majority of the population most identified with were in the political positions. However, I've noticed that in Utah politics there are striking instances of what I would call conflicts of interest between the civic responsibilities and positions of loyalty to the Church. This could be said to be a similar concern to when Kennedy was running for POTUS and was suspected of having too much Catholic influence, but just comparing and contrasting Kennedy's speech on the influence of his religion and Romney's more recent speech gives a strong indicator that the concerns might have more merit with a church that currently exiles or excommunicates those who disagree with its political stances. It is doctrinally legitimate for a Catholic to disagree politically with the Pope; it is not doctrinally legitimate for a Mormon to disagree politically with the current prophet (as far as I know).

For the record, I'd gladly go back and live in Utah. It's a pretty damned nice place if you're a non-member. :D

It may sound dismissive of me, but I find the population of the state to be a bit too homogeneous for me. Then again, I'm an East-Coaster (a northeastern one at that). I wasn't even comfortable in Dallas until I moved to a neighborhood that reminded me more of home.

Naw. I'm sure plenty of atheists and agnostics have been elected. They just didn't state that they were an atheist or agnostic. I seem to recall Thomas Jefferson being somewhat iffy on the subject of his own faith.

Emphasis mine. Forgive me for altering your words, but you pretty much make my case for me by pointing out how it really isn't openly acceptable. But let's use a more real-world example: what do you think the reasoning is for all the "Obama is a Muslim" accusations that were popping up in chain letters and commentator implications by pundits?

I will say that I'd agree that LDS practices are no more similar to fundamentalist Islam than other Christian fundamentalist groups. It was never my intention to imply otherwise.

GreNME

29th July 2008, 01:12 PM

I could be taking it a bit too literally but I really don't think so. Having read a significant amount of material from Dennett, Dawkins, Ramachandran's, Pinker and Blackmore, all who deal at length with the subject, I'm quite comfortable that I'm on solid ground in my thinking.

I'm glad for you that you feel confident in it. :)

Let me hasten to add, I'm not offering these names as proof of anything only to explain why I'm reasonably certain that I'm right. It's not something I heard in passing and made and drew an erroneous conclusion about.

I'm not saying that you are drawing an erroneous conclusion, though. I'm saying that you're focusing too specifically for the analogy to stick.

FTR, Dennett does in fact single out religion in his thesis specifically in reference to the lancet fluke. It is the best explanation to date for how a person will act counter to his or her own evolution. An ant will commit suicide for the Lancet Fluke. Suicide bombers commit suicide for religious memes. To say it is simply a metaphor is to miss Dennet's argument. Re-watch the video at "Misuse of Memes".

To be sure Dennett isn't saying that religious memes are biological parasites but they are parasitical in many significant and fundamental ways.

I think you're misunderstanding what I'm saying here. What I'm saying, point-blank, is that the analogy works as long as the lens through which the comparison is viewed stays at a very distant and very generalized perspective, to which not only he states applies to several types of memes (he also specifically mentions Communism and Capitalism) but keeps his language on that general level to avoid making the mistake I'm suggesting you did in focusing too specifically.

Analogies always fail in some way or they wouldn't be analogies. I suspect that you are focused too much in the failure of the meme-as-parasite analogy which I concede exists (otherwise the meme would be cellular).

I don't know why you would suspect such a thing, since I already said I don't disagree with anything in the video you linked. Our disagreement seems to stem from your interpretation of the concept, not my disagreement with the example you provided.

That said, we can disagree and that would be fine with me so long as you understand my point.

I understand your point, I just think it's too focused on religion as opposed to the idea of memetics, from which your point seems to have originated. I should probably mention that I'm familiar with memetics, and also enjoy Ramachandran's writing-- which I'm not sure why you mention, since he has described religious proclivities to practically being a survival mechanism rather than parasitic.

P.S. I'm not an objectivist and I never have been. I think objectivism is a cult belief. I don't subscribe to any set philosophy or ideology. If you need a label you are free to call me a skeptical-pragmatic [l]ibertarian (lower case "L") who is accepting of a mix of some degree of capitalism and some degree of socialism.

I apologize for appearing to accuse you of being an Objectivist. I put it like I did as a slight teasing jab to your username. The other reason I did it was to highlight what I was saying about the similarities to parasitic nature applying to pretty much everyone. It wasn't really an integral talking point, it was just pointing back to what I was saying about the breadth and scope of the comparison on a memetic level.

RandFan

29th July 2008, 01:44 PM

I think you're misunderstanding what I'm saying here. What I'm saying, point-blank, is that the analogy works as long as the lens through which the comparison is viewed stays at a very distant and very generalized perspective, to which not only he states applies to several types of memes (he also specifically mentions Communism and Capitalism) but keeps his language on that general level to avoid making the mistake I'm suggesting you did in focusing too specifically. I guess I'm confused as to your point of focusing too specifically. Please to clarify?

FWIW, any "learned thought, feeling, or behavior (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meme)" is a meme. Religions are actually a body of memes. As an example, I enjoy a wide range of musical tastes. Each genre itself is a general form of a meme. The genre of rock and roll is an evolutionary fit meme. Each song a more specific meme. If you criticize rock and roll music you will experience a strong response from many of those who like rock and roll. This response is an adaptive behavior that protects the meme. That's all I'm talking about. Religion like rock and roll has evolved with a defense mechanism to protect the meme.

One more example from Dennett. Sheep used to be relatively rare. Then humans domesticated them, ensured their protection from the elements, provided extra food and protected them from predators. Domestic sheep today are in far greater number then before their symbiotic relationship to humans.

Sheep (actually sheep genes) evolved a defense mechanism. Humans. Or, to put in Dennet's own words ""How clever was it for sheep to aquire shepherds?"

I understand your point, I just think it's too focused on religion as opposed to the idea of memetics, from which your point seems to have originated. I don't hold that religion is the only meme. I hold that religion can be understood in terms of memetics.

I should probably mention that I'm familiar with memetics, and also enjoy Ramachandran's writing-- which I'm not sure why you mention, since he has described religious proclivities to practically being a survival mechanism rather than parasitic. You are right. I'm confusing something that Ramachandran wrote with something Blackmore wrote. I apologize.

Nonetheless I don't think Ramachandran's position is in conflict with the concept of memes.

I apologize for appearing to accuse you of being an Objectivist. I put it like I did as a slight teasing jab to your username. The other reason I did it was to highlight what I was saying about the similarities to parasitic nature applying to pretty much everyone. It wasn't really an integral talking point, it was just pointing back to what I was saying about the breadth and scope of the comparison on a memetic level. I have always understood memes to be universal. As Dennett notes there are many kinds of memes. Blackmore goes further and gives us another neologism with temes (http://www.susanblackmore.co.uk/memetics/temes.htm). It would be near impossible to be free of memes. To be without a meme one would have to be raised in isolation.

RobRoy

29th July 2008, 01:47 PM

I don't see why it doesn't. Just because an incorrect interpretation is common doesn't make it less incorrect.

Because the interpretation, erroneous or not, is the most likely one that fishkr used when making the correlation.

Unless my interpretation (and that of several other folks) of fishkr's statement is incorrect. I will happily sit corrected and listen to any arguments as I have yours.

It's a fundamentalist connection, not just an Islamic one. Denying others rights for religious reasoning tends to be one of the common accusations against Islam for being extreme. I'm saying the comparison is striking because of that.

Won't deny the fundy connection at all. All religions at a fundamental level seek to make an us-and-them division, no matter how harmless the belief system is in practice. There are things you can/must do to be a part of the faithful, and there are things you can't/must not do to remain a part.

However, I've noticed that in Utah politics there are striking instances of what I would call conflicts of interest between the civic responsibilities and positions of loyalty to the Church.

I'd actually extend that out to a general statement. There are striking instances of conflicts of interests between civic positions and religious beliefs. From George W. Bush on down the line.

It is doctrinally legitimate for a Catholic to disagree politically with the Pope; it is not doctrinally legitimate for a Mormon to disagree politically with the current prophet (as far as I know).

As far as I know, that's the case. But as I said, I'm sure there's some behind-the-scenes action that goes on. That's politics/religion. Utah and the LDS are no more or less guilty of this than any other state and it's majority religious populations.

It may sound dismissive of me, but I find the population of the state to be a bit too homogeneous for me. Then again, I'm an East-Coaster (a northeastern one at that). I wasn't even comfortable in Dallas until I moved to a neighborhood that reminded me more of home.

Oh, I'll readily admit my bias. I grew up there (also Wyoming, Idaho, and Nevada). I won't bore you with the places I've lived, or my particular interests. Suffice to say that in matching me to a place where I would like to live, Utah tops my list.

However, I would not want to be LDS and live there. There is a vast difference between Utah LDS culture and that of LDS outside of the state.

Emphasis mine. Forgive me for altering your words, but you pretty much make my case for me by pointing out how it really isn't openly acceptable.

We're not in disagreement. I don't think that an open atheist/agnostic could be elected at this time. I was just disagreeing that no atheist/agnostic had been elected.

But let's use a more real-world example: what do you think the reasoning is for all the "Obama is a Muslim" accusations that were popping up in chain letters and commentator implications by pundits?

Several reasons, I'm certain. The Christian vote is the most obvious. But we should not rule out the negative connotation of which we've spoken above. Erroneous as it may be, the connotation and usage is currently attached.

I will say that I'd agree that LDS practices are no more similar to fundamentalist Islam than other Christian fundamentalist groups. It was never my intention to imply otherwise.

ETA: I missed address this one the first time. I appreciate your response here. Thanks!

GreNME

29th July 2008, 02:15 PM

Because the interpretation, erroneous or not, is the most likely one that fishkr used when making the correlation.

Unless my interpretation (and that of several other folks) of fishkr's statement is incorrect. I will happily sit corrected and listen to any arguments as I have yours.

In retrospect, I suspect you're right about fishkr's statement and I think my interpretation is an entirely different direction than that. As such, I think we're probably far less in disagreement than I originally surmised. :)

RobRoy

29th July 2008, 02:40 PM

In retrospect, I suspect you're right about fishkr's statement and I think my interpretation is an entirely different direction than that. As such, I think we're probably far less in disagreement than I originally surmised. :)

No problem. Next time I'm at Folsom, you can buy me a pint! :D

GreNME

29th July 2008, 03:11 PM

You are right. I'm confusing something that Ramachandran wrote with something Blackmore wrote. I apologize.

Nonetheless I don't think Ramachandran's position is in conflict with the concept of memes.

I agree, but I wasn't saying Ramachandran said anything contradicting memes, only that Ramachandran's assessments of religiosity as a psychological mechanism contradict correlation to parasitic behavior and instead resemble other defense mechanisms in the brain.

To avoid derailing the thread into a discussion of memetics (which I admit would be interesting):

I guess I'm confused as to your point of focusing too specifically. Please to clarify?

I'll attempt to clarify.

What Dennett describes is religion as one of many different memes that, when separated and compared to a parasite, have correlating characteristics that are useful as a tool in presenting an idea (or meme) to people. That's all well and good, but what Dennett used in his presentation as a rhetorical tool and what you have presented in the form of a conclusion on its own simply don't seem to be the same thing.

Put simply:
Dennett's presentation describes the behavior of a parasite in a host to the fact that there are people who would die for religion (and Communism and Capitalism), leading to the conclusion that there can be methods to make use of the same spread of ideas (or memes) to promote a less death-causing and more positive world.
Your assertion so far has been that religion is like a parasite. Period.

Essentially, what Dennett uses as a rhetorical tool to reach a conclusion-- a means to a rhetorical end-- you are stating as the conclusion itself. That is what I would consider a misplaced focus.

RandFan

29th July 2008, 04:36 PM

Put simply:

Dennett's presentation describes the behavior of a parasite in a host to the fact that there are people who would die for religion (and Communism and Capitalism), leading to the conclusion that there can be methods to make use of the same spread of ideas (or memes) to promote a less death-causing and more positive world.
Your assertion so far has been that religion is like a parasite. Period.
Essentially, what Dennett uses as a rhetorical tool to reach a conclusion-- a means to a rhetorical end-- you are stating as the conclusion itself. That is what I would consider a misplaced focus. Thanks for the clarification. I think I understand your point.

If correct then it would seem, IMHO, that your complaint is rather trivial and really beside the point and I don't see much purpose in debating it. Let me state my understanding of Dennett with a supporting argument and you can respond to it and we will leave it at that. I reserve of course the right to respond but I would like to work toward an end game and not a long running tit for tat argument as I see that as silly.

If I understand you correctly, Dennett is trying to convey to his audience the effects and mechanism of religion by using as an analogy a parasite (this could be the source of confusion if this is not your position in which case I can't understand how you could disagree given the lengths Dennett goes to draw parallels between parasites and religion).

Well, to put it simply, an analogy is akin to saying "like". In other words, an analogy of a parasite is the same as saying "religion is like a parasite". It would seem trivially true that religion is in a number of significant ways like a parasite. That is why Dennett uses the analogy in the first place or as he says, "makes the comparison". I think if you asked him if religion is in any way like a parasite he would look at you with wonder and then state, well, yeah, that's the point of the analogy.

Points of comparison:

Parasites often use the host to replicate.
Parasites often use the host to protect the parasite.
Parasites often change fundamental biological structures and/or behavior of the host (see Lancet Fluke) to do the bidding of the parasite, often to the detriment of the host.
I think it demonstrable that these are the points of commonality that Dennett is making (see below). If you accept these premises and you also accept that memes act in the same way as Dennett posits then I don't think there is a point of contention. In these ways religion is like a parasite.

That said, I never underestimate ego and imagination. It's what makes progress possible. :) I look forward to your response.

RandFan

ETA:

Breaking the Spell (http://books.google.com/books?id=yWtwDDqR61QC&pg=PA5&lpg=PA5&dq=Dennett+lancet+fluke&source=web&ots=zIn_o6zwoB&sig=uYJGnWW8kPzIZlBPSNEgH0r4DoE&hl=en&sa=X&oi=book_result&resnum=7&ct=result#PPA5,M1).

The comparison with which I began, between a parasitic worm invading an ant's brain and an idea invading a human brain seems both far-fetched and outrageous. Unlike Worms, ideas aren't alive, and don't invade brains; they are created by minds. True on both counts, but these are not as telling objections as they first appear. Ideas aren't alive; they can't see where they're going and have no limbs with which to steer a host brain even if they could see. True, but a lancet fluke isn't exactly a rocket scientist either; it's no more intelligent than a carrot, really; it doesn't have a brain. What it has is just the good fortune of being endowed with features that ffect ant brains in this useful way whenever it comes in contact with them. ... An inert idea, if it were designed just right, might have a beneficial effect on a brain without having to know it was doing so! And if it did, it might prosper because it had that design.

Olowkow

29th July 2008, 05:11 PM

It was a great link... I should write her a note of support. The first blog response was so creepy and brainwashed sounding. The Minnesota Atheist Podcast has a former Mormon on this week: http://mnatheists.org/content/view/154/1/

Hey! Welcome back! It's been lonely here. Boring too.

Yeah, I figured no one would read it since they were too involved in cat fighting, but it is really very interesting. I just pictured that lady as someone who has so much going for her.

I heard PZ and the former Mormon on Minn Atheist podcast. PZ was super. The guy can sure explain things for the layman.

RandFan

29th July 2008, 05:31 PM

Hey! Welcome back! It's been lonely here. Boring too.

Yeah, I figured no one would read it since they were too involved in cat fighting, but it is really very interesting. I just pictured that lady as someone who has so much going for her.

I heard PZ and the former Mormon on Minn Atheist podcast. PZ was super. The guy can sure explain things for the layman.:) Hey, I listened to the pod cast.

It was outstanding. I like that the woman was actually quite postive and not at all anti-Mormon. I would highly recomend it to any Mormons.

Olowkow

29th July 2008, 05:45 PM

:) Hey, I listened to the pod cast.

It was outstanding. I like that the woman was actually quite postive and not at all anti-Mormon. I would highly recomend it to any Mormons.

I enjoyed her too. PZ wrote about the time he spent with her.

http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2008/07/i_spent_sunday_morning_with_an.php

I have known quite a few Mormons and consider them good friends. So, I am not into Mormon bashing. I just find a lot of their beliefs goofy, and I have told them so. It never seemed to bother them at all. I guess they found me goofy sometimes too.

RandFan

29th July 2008, 06:00 PM

I enjoyed her too. PZ wrote about the time he spent with her.

http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2008/07/i_spent_sunday_morning_with_an.php

I have known quite a few Mormons and consider them good friends. So, I am not into Mormon bashing. I just find a lot of their beliefs goofy, and I have told them so. It never seemed to bother them at all. I guess they found me goofy sometimes too. I definately come off as anti-Mormon at times and I regret that. I'm really not. I don't see myself as better than Mormons simply because I left the religion. As I've said a number of times, some of my closest friends and loved ones are Mormon. Some of the smartest people I know are Mormon and I have a great deal of respect for them.

We're all goofy at times.

GreNME

29th July 2008, 06:39 PM

Thanks for the clarification. I think I understand your point.

If correct then it would seem, IMHO, that your complaint is rather trivial and really beside the point and I don't see much purpose in debating it. Let me state my understanding of Dennett with a supporting argument and you can respond to it and we will leave it at that. I reserve of course the right to respond but I would like to work toward an end game and not a long running tit for tat argument as I see that as silly.

If I understand you correctly, Dennett is trying to convey to his audience the effects and mechanism of religion by using as an analogy a parasite (this could be the source of confusion if this is not your position in which case I can't understand how you could disagree given the lengths Dennett goes to draw parallels between parasites and religion).

Unfortunately I don't think you understand me correctly. Taking that video as a whole, and keeping in mind that more than once he even points out his lack of time to expand his conclusion, he makes it clear that his intent for using the example of the fluke is to convey how people might be able to spread ideas that are less involved with death (or, ostensibly, other negative qualities) and more for the benefit of people everywhere. I am going only by the video to which you linked, where he not just uses memes and flukes in his example but also references Jared Diamond (another author whose work I like) and his book Guns, Germs, and Steel as an example of how we (in the West) affect other cultures.

Well, to put it simply, an analogy is akin to saying "like". In other words, an analogy of a parasite is the same as saying "religion is like a parasite". It would seem trivially true that religion is in a number of significant ways like a parasite. That is why Dennett uses the analogy. I think if you asked him if religion is in any way like a parasite he would look at you with wonder and then state, well, yeah, that's the point of the analogy.

The difference is that (in the video) Dennett uses the analogy to illustrate a point, with the point being the focus of his presentation. You, on the other hand, are focused on the analogy because, thus far, the analogy is your point. Further, Dennett makes it a point (again, in the video) to clarify that what he's talking about applies to all ideas and focuses on a few in paricular (mainly, as you have been citing, religion). You, however, have been pretty adamant about focusing solely on a single subset of ideas as if there is a significance outside of the larger framework of ideas in general for this analogy-- before you bother, by the way, I know you haven't said as much outright, but every time I have pointed out the wider scope of what the video presentation states you fall back on this "I know what he's actually saying" defense.

So, unless Dennett himself would like to post or you would like to provide material showing otherwise, I am going to continue under the impression that Dennett's scope and yours are different in terms of focus (hence my disagreement with your statement).

Points of comparison:

Parasites often use the host to replicate.
Parasites often use the host to protect the parasite.
Parasites often change fundamental biological structures and/or behavior of the host (see Lancet Fluke) to do the bidding of the parasite, often to the detriment of the host.

I think it demonstrable that these are the points of commonality that Dennett is making (see below). If you accept these premises and you also accept that memes act in the same way as Dennett posits then I don't think there is a point of contention. In these ways religion is like a parasite.

If you really want to go into why I think your list there contains a division fallacy I strongly suggest you start another thread here and we can concentrate specifically on that. Having said that, while there are traits I agree are similar it is incorrect to assume both religion and parasites share all traits, and I challenge you to present an example of Dennett saying as much without you having to resort to a division fallacy or an existential fallacy to point out religion specifically.

ETA:
Breaking the Spell (http://books.google.com/books?id=yWtwDDqR61QC&pg=PA5&lpg=PA5&dq=Dennett+lancet+fluke&source=web&ots=zIn_o6zwoB&sig=uYJGnWW8kPzIZlBPSNEgH0r4DoE&hl=en&sa=X&oi=book_result&resnum=7&ct=result#PPA5,M1).

The comparison with which I began, between a parasitic worm invading an ant's brain and an idea invading a human brain seems both far-fetched and outrageous. Unlike Worms, ideas aren't alive, and don't invade brains; they are created by minds. True on both counts, but these are not as telling objections as they first appear. Ideas aren't alive; they can't see where they're going and have no limbs with which to steer a host brain even if they could see. True, but a lancet fluke isn't exactly a rocket scientist either; it's no more intelligent than a carrot, really; it doesn't have a brain. What it has is just the good fortune of being endowed with features that affect ant brains in this useful way whenever it comes in contact with them. ... An inert idea, if it were designed just right, might have a beneficial effect on a brain without having to know it was doing so! And if it did, it might prosper because it had that design.

Re-emphasis mine. Again, the book you are referencing is discussing religion, but when Dennett uses the fluke analogy he widens his scope yet again to ideas in general. This is why I maintain that I don't disagree with his statements while claiming that yours are making a mistake in terms of focus. At no point does Dennett focus this analogy on religion alone, because were he to do so he would be engaging in a division fallacy. He even acknowledges this just a couple pages later.

Breaking the Spell (http://books.google.com/books?id=yWtwDDqR61QC&pg=PA5&lpg=PA5&source=web&ots=zIn_o6zwoB&sig=uYJGnWW8kPzIZlBPSNEgH0r4DoE&hl=en&sa=X&oi=book_result&resnum=7&ct=result#PPA7,M1)

How do I define religion? It doesn't matter just how I define it, since I plan to examine and discuss the neighboring phenomena that (probably) aren't religions-- spirituality, committment to secular organizations, fanatical devotion to ethnic groups (or sports teams), superstition... So, wherever I "draw the line," I'll be going over the line in any case. As you will see, what we usually call religions are composed of a variety of quite different phenomena, arising from different circumstances and having different implications, forming a loose family of phenomena, not a "natural kind" like a chemical element or a species.

He goes on to avoid the division error:Breaking the Spell (http://books.google.com/books?id=yWtwDDqR61QC&pg=PA5&lpg=PA5&source=web&ots=zIn_o6zwoB&sig=uYJGnWW8kPzIZlBPSNEgH0r4DoE&hl=en&sa=X&oi=book_result&resnum=7&ct=result#PPA8,M1)

What is the essence of religion? This question should be considered askance. Even if there is a deep and important affinity between many or even most of the world's religions, there are sure to be variants that share some typical features while lacking one or another "essential" feature.
...
Sharks and dolphins look very much alike and behave in many similar ways, but they are not the same sort of thing at all. Perhaps, once we understand the whole field better, we will see that Buddhism and Islam, for all their similarities, deserve to be considered two entirely different species of cultural phenomenon.

Quote shortened so as to not violate posting guidelines.

As displayed in the two quotes above, Dennet is acknowledging that his scope must occasionally go beyond that of religion (and into some of the things I mentioned in an earlier post), as well as making it clear that he is not claiming to have a single set of criteria by which to define religion. This is wise on Dennett's part because it explicitly avoids making the mistakes you have that I'm taking issue with. What Dennett is doing with his fluke example is providing a visualization for the spread of ideas in order to reach a related point, while so far what I have seen of your citations of his words have been equivocation.

Yes, religion is an idea and Dennett certainly does state that ideas share multiple characteristics with parasites, but so far you have neither provided sufficient evidence to your assertion that religion is like a parasite nor have you shown that Dennett is saying such a thing (and, in fact, have provided material where he explicitly avoids exactly that).

RandFan

29th July 2008, 07:15 PM

Thanks for the reply. I've read through it and I don't think we are really all that far apart. I think you are finding a disagreement that really doesn't exist. Whether or not Dennet has a wide focus is of no consequence to my point. I can't agree with you that there is any significant difference between my position and Dennet's. It seems to me that you go to great lengths to find difference where there is none. I've conceded on at least two occasions that religion is not the only meme but that is really irrelevant.

Dennet's point is quite clear that religion is a meme and the meme is like a parasite. If Dennet didn't mean that, regardless of his focus, then he ought not to have said so. BTW, I never said that religion and parasites share all traits. That's a strawman. With that in mind, if you would like to start a thread on division fallacy I might make a comment if your intent is to show that I committed one. I clearly didn't engage in any such fallacy because I'm not claiming that what is true of the whole is true of the parts.

I'm simply claiming that religious memes are like religion in that a.) they rely on the host to replicate, b.) rely on the host for protection and c.) change the behavior of the host.

FTR, you don't say whether or not you accept or reject the premises for either parasite, religious memes or both. I wish you had. They are Dennett's premises.

One last point. Dennett is making his argument in a book called Breaking The Spell. I would encourage you to consider his argument in light of his book which is specifically about religion. To claim that religion is simply tangential to Dennett's thesis strikes me as really reaching to make your point.

Thanks,

RandFan

articulett

29th July 2008, 07:20 PM

I think to the rest of us and those who have read Dennett-- we understand the analogy just fine. Religion IS like a parasite and that IS what Dennett meant. He talked about it at TAM, one year, in fact.

In my analogy, I think religion is like a chain letter-- it promises great rewards for those who pass it on, and threatens that "scary stuff" will happen to those who don't.

And Santa is like "god"-- he's used to control the behavior of others so they will be "good".

I don't think anyone could provide significant evidence for you to conclude that religion is like a parasite nor that that is what Dennett meant, greNME.

But I think randfan gave a stellar explanation, and I think most people understand it just fine. Not everyone is great at analogies.

Randfan, like you I don't feel anything negative about believers-- I just feel sad for people trapped in beliefs that they feel compelled to prop up-- whether it's Mormonism, Catholicism, Scientology, or Sylvia Browne's church. I think all woo "entraps" people in a similar way and acts as a parasitic manner-- the more virulent do it even more so. I understand why they need to hear my dismissal of their faith as a personal attack-- it's another part of the religious meme infection. They feel similarly dismissive of other faiths or greek myths-- and yet, they have a different perspective when it comes to the woo they think is true.

Religions operate similarly--they make you feel guilty for asking questions--encourage you to "spread the good word"-- they have a "hook"-- they encourage you to "go forth and multiply" and indoctrinate from birth-- they shun outsiders and use fear to promote allegiance (fear of hell is especially obnoxious), --and most harmful of all is that they make "faith and obedience" the ticket to paradise-- at the expense of true and useful knowledge and thinking for oneself. They all have different faith and obedience to different imagined "higher laws"--all sure that they are the one that is really in touch with the invisible, immeasurable creator of the universe. It hurts me to think of what religion has done when I watch the pale blue dot clip p86BPM1GV8M They are so arrogant and they deny the real and powerful truth to their congregation.

I think the link showed a real struggle with this woman-- wanting to know the truth but afraid that it wasn't what she'd been indoctrinated to believe-- I think the response of the first blogger shows just how entrenching the brainwashing is--how the believer needs to demonize the non-believer so they can block out what they are actually saying. I know millions of people of assorted faiths go through this crisis daily-- they are forced to choose between wanting the truth and fitting in with their community.

Religion IS very much like a virus. But I understand why some people must play word games to avoid noticing the similarity. It fills the mind with stuff that feeds the "faith" rather than the amazing facts that are true for everyone no matter what they belief.

RandFan

29th July 2008, 07:30 PM

I think the response of the first blogger shows just how entrenching the brainwashing is--how the believer needs to demonize the non-believer so they can block out what they are actually saying. I know millions of people of assorted faiths go through this crisis daily-- they are forced to choose between wanting the truth and fitting in with their community.

Religion IS very much like a virus. But I understand why some people must play word games to avoid noticing the similarity. It fills the mind with stuff that feeds the "faith" rather than the amazing facts that are true for everyone no matter what they belief.I was there at TAM when I heard Dennett. I remember sitting there thinking "damn, I finaly get why it's so damn hard to get people to change". Religious memes evolved to be evolutionary fit. They change the human mind to resist reason and logic. Take Mormonism for example. It's the most obviously wrong religion that I can think of. The Mormon Church was clearly wrong about native Americans. The Mormon Church was clearly wrong about the papyrus. Reasonable non-Mormons don't seriously consider the apologetics about Native Americans and the Book of Abraham. And not because they hate Mormons but simply because it's not parsimonious. Mormonism is clearly wrong about so many things but none of that matters to Mormons. They will fight any attempt to convince them otherwise.

GreNME

29th July 2008, 08:36 PM

Dennet's point is quite clear that religion is a meme and the meme is like a parasite. If Dennet didn't mean that, regardless of his focus, then he ought not to have said so.

He did say so, in both the video and the book you linked. He states that a meme is like a parasite, not the meme of religion. He makes that pretty clear in both of your own citations. My only disagreement with you is that you are making the equivocation mistake of assuming that since he points out that memes are like parasites, and since religion is a meme, that religion must obviously be like a parasite. That assertion is yours alone, not Dennetts (based on the citations you gave).

I'm simply claiming that religious memes are like religion in that a.) they rely on the host to replicate, b.) rely on the host for protection and c.) change the behavior of the host.

Only a and b actually apply to religion in general, though. A case can be made for many religions that c applies, but again you would be making a mistake of logic in assuming that "some" or even "most" applies to "all" in terms of religion.

One last point. Dennett is making his argument in a book called Breaking The Spell. I would encourage you to consider his argument in light of his book which is specifically about religion. To claim that religion is simply tangential to Dennett's thesis strikes me as really reaching to make your point.

Since that's not what I said I can only assume I have not made myself clear. The thesis for the book you cite does not rely on the example of the fluke analogy to make its case, it proposes the fluke analogy with reference to the ability of ideas-- and religious ideas when put in the context of the book-- to be capable of spreading quickly and over large distances and different cultures. The thesis behind the TED presentation you linked doesn't seem to be the same as the book you linked, so unless you know of some longer version of the presentation you'd like to share I can only go by what he actually said in the presentation, where the fluke analogy was not the thesis but in fact a supporting analogy to lead to his thesis (which he gets to in the last two minutes).

It seems the real disagreement we're having is one of the depth of focus or specificity to his original analogy, which in examples you have provided yourself do not specify religion but instead mention ideas or memes as a whole. In order to gain clarification I've decided to e-mail Dennett directly, asking him for clarification instead of simply bickering over interpretation. I take it that my asking for a clarification from him is acceptable? (note: I got an immediate out-of-office reply stating that he'll be back on the 31st)

GreNME

29th July 2008, 08:40 PM

I think to the rest of us and those who have read Dennett-- we understand the analogy just fine. Religion IS like a parasite and that IS what Dennett meant. He talked about it at TAM, one year, in fact.

Great! It would stand to reason that there is likely a transcript or video or mp3 of this for verification, yes? That'd be pretty definitive to hear him actually clarify for himself instead of relying on someone's interpretation who has read his work (which, considering the topic is religion, I find ironic, to say the least).

I don't think anyone could provide significant evidence for you to conclude that religion is like a parasite nor that that is what Dennett meant, greNME.

Well, at least you're being honest about your lack of good faith. I appreciate that.

GreNME

29th July 2008, 08:42 PM

Zygar

29th July 2008, 08:50 PM

RandFan

29th July 2008, 08:53 PM

He did say so, in both the video and the book you linked. He states that a meme is like a parasite, not the meme of religion. Your syllogism is logically invalid unless you can show how some memes are different from other memes that make those memes like parasites.

a meme is like a parasite.
Religion is a meme.
Religion is not like a parasite.

a is like b
c = a
c is not like b.

Unless you can demonstrate why not all a's are like b's then your argument is invalid on its face.

Further, if Dennett truly believes that religious memes are different from other memes in that they are not like parasites then why is he making the point about parasites in the first place in a discussion about religion? It simply doesn't make sense. To do so is simply to introduce confusion.

He makes that pretty clear in both of your own citations. My only disagreement with you is that you are making the equivocation mistake of assuming that since he points out that memes are like parasites, and since religion is a meme, that religion must obviously be like a parasite. That assertion is yours alone, not Dennett's (based on the citations you gave). If this were true, there would be no reason for Dennett to make the point in the first place.

Only a and b actually apply to religion in general, though. A case can be made for many religions that c applies... Please to name a religion that does not alter behavior? Assuming they exist I don't claim that all religions always behave like parasites in every way.

but again you would be making a mistake of logic in assuming that "some" or even "most" applies to "all" in terms of religion. I've not a clue what you are talking about. Please to clarify?

It seems the real disagreement we're having is one of the depth of focus or specificity to his original analogy, which in examples you have provided yourself do not specify religion but instead mention ideas or memes as a whole.Dennett's point is clear. If he didn't mean to liken religion to parasites he would have saved everyone a lot of trouble by simply not mentioning it. I've discussed this with many skeptics since I first learned about it and no one has ever held the opinion that you have. If you are right Dennett has failed misserably at conveying his point. Of course, I'm not really sure what it is exactly you think Dennett is trying to convey.

Memes are like parasites except when they are religious memes then they are not like parasites and I'm telling you this in the context of a religious discussion because...

It buggars understanding.

articulett

29th July 2008, 09:15 PM

I was there at TAM when I heard Dennett. I remember sitting there thinking "damn, I finaly get why it's so damn hard to get people to change". Religious memes evolved to be evolutionary fit. They change the human mind to resist reason and logic. Take Mormonism for example. It's the most obviously wrong religion that I can think of. The Mormon Church was clearly wrong about native Americans. The Mormon Church was clearly wrong about the papyrus. Reasonable non-Mormons don't seriously consider the apologetics about Native Americans and the Book of Abraham. And not because they hate Mormons but simply because it's not parsimonious. Mormonism is clearly wrong about so many things but none of that matters to Mormons. They will fight any attempt to convince them otherwise.

And it isn't just the Mormons... you see a very similar cognitive dissonance when you read how Sylvia Browne believers defended her during RSL's visit, or you read the Scientologists that post here, or you watched the communion wafer debacle unfold on Pharyngula's blog... http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2008/07/the_great_desecration.php
The FFRF podcast had the girl who brought down Warren Jeffs on a few weeks ago, and it was they did the SAME mental games on her... I had the pleasure of reading her book (Elissa Wall). http://www.ffrf.org/radio/podcast/

I'm just struck by the similarities of the technique. The belief "meme" not only makes the believer feel "special" and "righteous"--but it also ensures that they find things to hate or fear about the non believer-- because the non believer is a threat to the belief that they are promised salvation for "believing in". I feel bad for all trusting people this is done to-- I don't know if it's a "choice" or how to help, but it's inspiring to read the stories of those who thought their way out. And I think it's almost funny when people use threats of hell or tools that work on believers to try to scare the non believers back into "believing".

I feel heartened that the blog owner's kids will not have to fight a similar mental battle. There's so much mental energy spend on keeping the delusion alive.

BTW, your explanations are clear. Perhaps some folks are baiting you because it helps build up their own opinions in their head... they get to tell themselves that their opinion withstood skeptical scrutiny. Their goal is to get the last word-- you may as well let them have it.