Religion
Related: About this forumWhy We Fear Mormons
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/06/04/opinion/anti-mormonism-past-and-present.htmlPlease note author's bio:
J. Spencer Fluhman, an assistant professor of history at Brigham Young University, is the author of the forthcoming book “ ‘A Peculiar People’: Anti-Mormonism and the Making of Religion in 19th-Century America.”
By J. SPENCER FLUHMAN
Published: June 3, 2012
Provo, Utah
MOCKERY of Mormonism comes easily for many Americans. Commentators have offered many reasons, but even they have found it difficult to turn their gaze from Mormon peculiarities. As a result, they have missed a critical function of American anti-Mormonism: the faith has been oddly reassuring to Americans. As a recent example, the Broadway hit “The Book of Mormon” lampoons the religion’s naïveté on racial issues, which is striking given that the most biting criticisms have focused on the show’s representations of Africans and blackness.
As a Mormon and a scholar of religious history, I am unsurprised by the juxtaposition of Mormon mocking and racial insensitivity. Anti-Mormonism has long masked America’s contradictions and soothed American self-doubt. In the 19th century, antagonists charged that Mormon men were tyrannical patriarchs, that Mormon women were virtual slaves and that Mormons diabolically blurred church and state. These accusations all contained some truth, though the selfsame accusers denied women the vote, bolstered racist patriarchy and enthroned mainstream Protestantism as something of a state religion.
Despite internal division, persecution and periods of rampant defection, the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints has continued to grow, even though it continues to make Americans uneasy. The political scientists Robert D. Putnam and David E. Campbell found that Mormonism ranked with Islam near the bottom of the list of Americans’ “most respected” religions.
Making Mormons look bad helps others feel good. By imagining Mormons as intolerant rubes, or as heretical deviants, Americans from left and right can imagine they are, by contrast, tolerant, rational and truly Christian. Mitt Romney’s candidacy is only the latest opportunity for such stereotypes to be aired.
more at link
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
kestrel91316
(51,666 posts)secretive control freaks inclined to rigid black and white thinking and NO acceptance of the separation of church and state. They are experts in indoctrination and mind control and TBM's are robotic cultists IMHO.
ETA: My assistant's favorite young cousin is finishing up his mission and she says he is Stepford-like in how the old fun-loving person is dead and gone and has been replaced by this rigid, scripture-obsessed fanatic. She doesn't recognize him anymore. Ane he started out very much NOT a good TBM.
-p
EvolveOrConvolve
(6,452 posts)If regular Americans understood how the Mormon church infests and controls the governments in area it's predominant, no one would vote for Mittens (outside or LDSers themselves).
fincenMIB
(6 posts)It is a unique study, especially to those of us who have lived in Utah
The civil rights movement in America was 1960's, to Mormons it was 1970's, thus the racial issues are not that weird! Like the FLDS and Warren Jeffs, the belief that "blacks" will be the last to receive their truth, is a twisted doctrine, but then so is Southern Baptist who believe in a literal hell. JW's or Dawn Bible Students that think they are of the 12 tribes of Juda.
But yes, I lived 10 years in Utah and fought the religion and its reach and control. It is a scary thing! But as an Independent who has studdied Obama's history in Kenya's puo tribe as well, one could make the same fears or racial bias in favor of blacks by Obama. I suspect both would be true!
My expertise has been Warren Jeffs and the FLDS for over a decade and raised as an issue by the Montana Governor, the polygamist history of the Mormons, put a focus on the Puo tribe and Obama's ancestors. His Grandfather had 4 wives, his Great Grandfather 5 fives, the puo were polygamist too.
It won't be a choice about religion, if it was, Obama's past would be equally scary.
But the Mormons are clanish, that is very true.
daaron
(763 posts)
dimbear
(6,271 posts)with that word. As the church has lurched toward modernity, impelled all the way and reluctantly dragging their feet, always that resource is in their pocket. "We were naive." Perhaps it's in the vault next to the Joseph Smith's magical talismans.
I guess it's mean to notice that they claim to have been divinely inspired to be naive. That's just me. I should just sit in the corner.
AlbertCat
(17,505 posts)This is true of EVERY church.
trotsky
(49,533 posts)once they get on the right side of a particular issue, they'll claim they were in favor of it the whole time.
Thats my opinion
(2,001 posts)has "evolved." I know none of them who claim they have been on the right side of these issues "the whole time." You obviously have such information. I would be happy to have you tell us what you know we don't. If you cannot verify that "every church" or any church says what you claim, you might want to retract your accusation.
trotsky
(49,533 posts)The common refrain when a church "sees the light" is that it was the correct stance (I.e., the one their god wanted them to take) all along, and it was merely human stubbornness, or prejudice, or whatever, that prevented them from taking that stance originally.
(No matter how much the earlier church members insisted the previous stance was the one their god wanted them to take!)
Thats my opinion
(2,001 posts)Since you do, specify.
trotsky
(49,533 posts)#2, here's a good article that touches on the phenomenon: http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/belief/2010/nov/27/pope-condoms-catholic
Andy823
(11,495 posts)Probably the main reason so many "christians" fear Mormonism is because their beliefs are not the same as theirs. Many christian religions have strange beliefs, and they think, like Mormons do, that they are the only "true" religion. Sadly they consider any other group that has a different view point to be a "cult". As far as I am concerned any religion that makes such a claim, that they and they alone are the "only" true religion should be viewed the same. They all should be considered to be a cult.
What people should fear from the likes of Romney is that he believes that Mormons will "save" the U.S., and him becoming president helps to make that "prophecy come true. Mormons think they will bring about the "end of times", and if a Mormon becomes president, that is what we should be worried about. Any person running for the highest office in the world should not be convinced they are the "chosen" one who will make their religious prophecies come true, no matter what their religion may be.
Mormons have a thing called the "white horse prophecy". You can fine information about it by doing a search. There was also a good article about this at Salon.com by Sally Denton.
patrice
(47,992 posts)that to "reality" is a recipe for death, no matter how well it appears to work in the short term.
Andy823
(11,495 posts)A lot of religions require their members to put their religion first and everything else after that. Being the president of the U.S.A., or a leader in of any country, has far reaching affects with the whole world, and putting religious beliefs first can cause serious problems world wide, especially when one wants to bring about the end of the world as we know it for religious reasons.
Having a leader of any country that "thinks" they are doing God's work and that they have been put in place to fulfill some kind of prophecy that their religion believes in, is insane and can only lead to disaster! Romney has proved himself to be a liar, a pretty good liar, and when he says he would put country before religion, well I just don't buy that. I think some serious questions need to be brought up with Romney about his beliefs and his loyalties to his church.
patrice
(47,992 posts)
ashcroftgm
(13 posts)Mormon leaders have repeatedly declared the supposed White Horse Prophecy as being non-doctrinal and false.
Andy823
(11,495 posts)Just because they say that does not make it true, does it! Most religions that make outlandish claims, or who think they are the only way to salvation, the only "true" religion, say one thing to the public, but the followers all know that there are things they keep in the congregation that they don't want others to know. If Romney is any indication of the "honesty" of the Mormon leaders, then I wouldn't believe anything they might say.
ashcroftgm
(13 posts)From its very inception,the White Horse Prophecy was disavowed by Mormon leadership. It was never preached in official discourse and was only related by two individuals of dubious credibility (who did not occupy leadership positions). Furthermore, when it was discussed by those individuals, it was discussed decades subsequent to the supposed declaration of the "prophecy." As it began to circulate in the rumor mill, Church leaders were swift to condemn it as false and unreliable. For further information on this, see the following: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_Horse_Prophecy.
msongs
(67,420 posts)thought nobody was listening. their recreation field was right over my back wall, so while they were playing horseshoes, volleyball, and having the softball leagues I could listen to how they talked. the Public Face and the reality do not agree.
Phlem
(6,323 posts)is so true! The other thing I've learned, they are well equipped liars.
-p
kestrel91316
(51,666 posts)describe how they are as a general rule.
Karmasue
(95 posts)as a general rule?
kestrel91316
(51,666 posts)track record of grievously abusing authority.
Karmasue
(95 posts)with their "track record of grievously abusing authority".
Who's authority? The church's, the government's, God's?
I have seen occasions when they attempt to gather their members together to make a statement about certain values they want to protect. But that is no different than the Catholic Church or the Evangelical Christians.
They have had extremist fundamentalists who have broken off and formed their own groups that defy both the LDS Church and the government. Like the Warren Jeffs cult. But that has also happened in a number of other religions. Waco, a fundamentalist Christian cult, comes to mind, along with Jim Jones, and a host of others
They are wealthy, but that is not a grievous abuse of any authority. So is the Catholic Church. So are the TV Evangelists.
They believe their prophet gets revelations from God. The Pope also gets revelations from God. Christians believe everyone who is saved can talk to, and get answers from God.
I see nothing that would make me fear them. And no grievous abuse of authority.
kestrel91316
(51,666 posts)of "grievous abuse of authority".
You wouldn't be one of those folks who tries to deny that ever happened, would you? You wouldn't be the first. But I lived it, and I will never forget or forgive.
LDS official policy behind closed doors appears to be to seek theocracy at every opportunity. Secrecy is their longstanding preferred MO.
Karmasue
(95 posts)I live in Texas...and we had (have) the very same "Blue Laws" here. Up until the early 2000s those laws were still in effect in many Texas counties. I think it actually goes back to the Puritans, but has been reinforced by various Christian fundamentalists, not the Mormons, to this day in some parts of Texas. The Blue Laws included - and like I said still does in some Texas Counties, and some other states - laws that prohibit specific activities; some dry counties (no alcohol can be sold at all); prohibition on the sales of specific goods or alcohol sales on Sunday before noon; no car dealerships open on Sunday; specific types of stores closed on Sunday; and a number of other religiously inspired and enforced laws.
And there are many other states with the same laws. It is a matter of history that religion has had a stifling effect on lots of freedoms through the pressure to institute and enforce draconian laws.
I never said the Mormons have no influence over anything. ALL wealthy religions can and do assert their influence where they believe it will benefit the church, or the members. That includes Catholics, Baptists, Mormons, Evangelicals, and any other religion you would care to name. But, to my knowledge, none of them are seeking a Theocracy in this country. They are simply taking advantage of a freedom that allows them to assert that power.
If you are can not forget or forgive the Mormons for a Sunday closing law in the 1970's, then I cannot fathom how you must be tormented by the devastatingly horrendous acts of other religious denominations.
Dawson Leery
(19,348 posts)The Mormon Community is closed to the outside world.
cbayer
(146,218 posts)I have known Mormons and found them to be really delightful individuals. Not one ever discussed their church with me.
ashcroftgm
(13 posts)Where is your evidence for this assertion? Joseph Smith ordained black men to the Mormon priesthood and was a fierce advocate for abolition. As Mormons occupy a litany of prominent positions in secular society(Democratic and Republican politicians(Larry Echohawk, Harry Reid, etc), entertainers (Brandon Flowers of The Killers), athletes, etc.), I think you will be hard-pressed to say that the community is as insular as you have claimed.
daaron
(763 posts)and doctrine that Blacks were excluded. It's just history. Nobody needs to provide evidence. Just look it up on WikiPedia (DU isn't anybody's personal research team, near as I can tell - one is expected to inform oneself).
Additionally, it was (and is, among some LDS) doctrine that Native Americans would turn White as they were brought into the fold of the Mormon Temple. It's in the Book of Mormon - I'd call that evidence of racism. Read Vine Deloria, Jr. Or Frank Waters, for that matter - Mormons took special delight in converting Hopi tribal members, who enjoy a particularly respected status among Native Americans in the southwest.
So, yeah, Mormonism is based in some pretty severe racism, from which only in the last few decades they've begun to distance themselves. To claim otherwise is simply contra-factual.
ashcroftgm
(13 posts)Daaron, please don't interpret this reply as being combative in nature. I would just like to call your attention to the fact that blacks were given the priesthood prior to 1978. Elijah Abel, who I mentioned in one of my other posts on this thread, was given the priesthood and made a member of one of the Church's ruling hierarchies (the Quorum of the 70) during Joseph Smith's tenure as president of the Church. Other black males were also given the priesthood during this time period. Only later, under Brigham Young, was the unfortunate practice of excluding blacks from the priesthood adopted. I won't say that the exclusion of African-Americans from the priesthood wasn't a mistake, or that it wasn't evidence of racism (Brigham Young was obviously racist), but I will refute the fact that Joseph Smith, Mormonism's founder, was fundamentally racist. There are too many statements on his part that fly in the face of that assertion.
dimbear
(6,271 posts)racist views, but of course they were common at that time in America. For a really serious racist one needs to jump up one notch to Brigham Young. It was Young, for instance, who authorized holding slaves in Deseret.
Those two men, Young and Smith, are the two most important Mormons. It is important to know their characters, for ones own character can be judged by the heroes one holds. The Romneys must have held Brigham Young in great awe, for when greatgrandfather Miles Romney was told by Brigham Young to abandon the United States and flee to Mexico with his five wives*, he did so. Such is the power of the President of the Mormon Church over the Romney family. Is that power now decreased?
*some say four
daaron
(763 posts)It's a classic case of the exception which proves the rule.
ashcroftgm
(13 posts)Early Church leaders, including Joseph Smith, often talked in glowing terms of Native Americans (in some cases they spoke of them as being superior to European Americans). In fact, Smith is on the record as saying that Native Americans were the ones who truly had the right to the Americas; whites were cast as illegal interlocutors who would one day be at the mercy of the original inhabitants of the continents. In addition to this, Mormons generally maintained better relations with Native Americans than did other American settlers. Yes, there were some clashes, but Mormons largely avoided the vindictive episodes of wholesale slaughter engaged in by other Caucasian immigrants. I myself had ancestors who regularly invited Native Americans into their home (an uncommon occurrence among other 19th-century Americans), where they would offer them free food and clothing. This continued despite one episode in which a Zuni chieftain threatened to kill my great-great-grandmother. Despite these positive views, early Mormon settlers also seemed to sometimes associate darker skin with a cursing from God (as did many other Americans in their day and age). Such backwards, unsavory views have also been evidenced at times in the twentieth century, at some points by high-placed men in the Church hierarchy. This merely reflects the fact that Mormonism, like so much else in human culture, is a compilation of both positive and negative aspects. To cast a whole religion in a Manichean, black-and-white paradigm, as you have done, rings more of the absolutist religious intolerance that you claim to abhor. Most deliberate academics will acknowledge that much of our knowledge is relative, residing in varying degrees of gray. Isn't it fundamentalist Christians who condemn entire groups of people to hell for not believing as they do? You seem to be doing the same, albeit with demagoguery coached not in the fire and brimstone of the puritanical Jonathan Edwards, but in the militant language of New Atheists like Christopher Hitchens. Again, no offense intended.
daaron
(763 posts)I was speaking of Mormon doctrine in the BoM, not specific instances. The argument made above defends early Mormon Church leaders by noting that they placed Natives on an ideological pedestal - but in no way did they consider Native Americans "superior", which is noted several sentences in. Even if it was true, the attempt to rewrite history that is made in BoM is not just contra-factual, but insulting, as I already said, and won't say again. The difference from other religiously motivated attitudes toward Natives by Americans at the time is that early Mormon church leaders codified this racist doctrine into the founding text of their cult (a cult it was, then, though it has grown into a religion). There's just no way to spin either Mormon doctrine (or in fact actions) towards Natives as being benign without working oneself closer and closer to an openly racist statement, and it's intellectually dishonest to expect others to disregard such recent U.S. history (let's all keep in mind that New Mexico became a state in 1912, please).
This apologia fails because it asks the reader to walk a mile in Mormon moccasins, but fails to walk an inch in Native's - and it was (and is) their damn moccasins. I would suggest the author extend the same consideration to Natives that they now ask the rest of us to extend to Mormons. Phillip Deloria's "Playing Indian" (Yale Historical Publications, by the brilliant son of equally brilliant Lakota scholar Vine Deloria, Jr.) would be a good place to start. "Bury My Heart At Wounded Knee" by Dee Brown might be a good follow up. These books, unlike the anecdote regarding the Zuni "chieftain" - a laughable term that betrays ignorance of Zuni culture - utilize incontrovertible, recorded, verifiable historical facts to give one an appreciation of U.S. history from the point of view of America's original inhabitants. It's only fair, and the very least that an honest scholar would do. I won't bother to summarize these books, since it's not my intent to educate anyone here; it's self-evident that we're each responsible for pursuing knowledge for our own benefit.
The final dig at me, personally, verges on the ad hominem, and seems provoked by my recent decision to stop calling myself an agnostic Christian, which the author appears to have read in the Atheists/Agnostics forum. To this, I'll only respond that I've never read word one of any Hitchens book. Or Dawkins. Or any other atheist writing about atheism. The first I heard of them was from Christians. See, I just don't do pop meta-philosophy. If you're interested in my philosophical perspective, just ask. Please don't assume. I like a weird combo of Hume, Kafka and Jorge Borges, if you must know, with a healthy smattering of pretty much any Existentialist. You?
GeorgeGist
(25,321 posts)The original meaning of this idiom is that the presence of an exception applying to a specific case establishes that a general rule exists. For example, a sign that says "parking prohibited on Sundays" (the exception) "proves" that parking is allowed on the other six days of the week (the rule).
daaron
(763 posts)who was trying to convert his people to a religion that believes they will turn White if 'adopted' into the correct (Mormon) belief (the rule).
AlbertCat
(17,505 posts)How about just illogical magical thinking and beliefs in outrageous, stupid, myopic made-up mythologies?
This goes for ALL religions.
It's worse for Mormon because, for goat herders in the Bronze Age there is some excuse. But by the 19th century, most of that crap should send up a red flag.
And in today's world, there is simply no excuse.
enough
(13,259 posts)cbayer
(146,218 posts)The link seems to indicate that the title was "anti-mormonism-past-and-present".
laconicsax
(14,860 posts)There is not one belief in the Mormon church that is any wackier than what's believed by other Christian sects.
backscatter712
(26,355 posts)
trotsky
(49,533 posts)darkstar3
(8,763 posts)dimbear
(6,271 posts)Dimbear is caught in the middle. I have Mormon relatives, I have gay relatives, so when the Mormons came from outside the state to pour millions of dollars into California's Proposition Hate designed to take away the civil rights of the gays, I began to imagine that they might be intolerant.
Please understand that I'm not attacking individual Mormons, many of whom are fine people, especially the ones who are my cousins and in-laws, they're (naturally) great people. It's just the ones behind all the hate that irritate me.
On edit: we don't fear Mormons. When the US of A fought its one and only war against a religion we beat the Mormons hands down. No contest.
kestrel91316
(51,666 posts)VERY real. They may not come right out and say they hate you, but you feel it in the tendency to act like you don't exist except when they feel the need to boss you around in that phony nice way they have.
Goblinmonger
(22,340 posts)but I have had many Mormon friends over the years and some students that I teach in high school. My son has some Mormon friends in his high school, too. We live in central WI so they are a pretty stark minority. I have NEVER gotten the vibe from them that you talk about. They have all been wonderful people.
kestrel91316
(51,666 posts)outside of UT and in the minority they tend to behave themselves. But the ones in UT are scary.
AlbertCat
(17,505 posts)I worked for a company run by a Mormon family here in NC.
I found them generally looking down their nose at everyone... especially if you were gay... the nepotism ran rampant to the point that the company suffered, and the anti-intellectualism was dizzying!
Of course none of these traits are exclusive to Mormons, but they seemed to use their religion as an excuse for it all.
xfundy
(5,105 posts)Blacks, Jews, nonwhites in the past, gay people today. But notice how closely the religious uproar against gays fits in perfectly with the political one. Why, it's almost as if it was PLANNED! But who could be so diabolical to have come up with the old "divide and conquer" strategy that Scott Walker bragged about?
(The list is far too long for me to type out. But the answer is repigs and fundies, working in unison, in a master plan that started when Nixon was drummed out, resulting in most of this, and especially Fox Noise, in which the stick-up-the-butt "religious" crowd continually "attack" Fox for "evil" content as they worship at the altar of Murdoch's "news" division.)
ashcroftgm
(13 posts)As a Mormon Democrat, I find the level of vitriol displayed in the replies to this post abhorrent. Broad generalizations are made which lack supporting evidence, with such generalizations resembling in form the tired platitudes employed by Tea Partiers in denigrating Obama or other supposed "socialists." I find more in the way of unreliable emotionalism in these posts than I have ever found in Mormon doctrine. In reply to the more egregious canards perpetuated in such posts, let me make the following points:
1. Unlike many strains of Christianity, Mormonism has a relatively enlightened view of science vis-a-vis faith. For example, there have been many statements by Mormon general authorities (church leaders at the top of the administrative hierarchy) in support of the theory of evolution. Yes, there have been some who have opposed such views in that same hierarchy, but at no time have they employed the kind of neo-Luddite-esque antipathy towards the the theory as has been employed by prominent evangelicals/conservative Roman Catholics.
2. At a time when many mainline Protestant churches refused to ordain African Americans to their ministries, early Mormon leaders ordained black men to the Mormon priesthood. Elijah Abel, a black man, was ordained to the priesthood by Mormonism's founder, Joseph Smith. Only later, under Smith's successor Brigham Young, was the ban on blacks receiving the priesthood enacted. Nowhere in the historical record is there evidence that Church leaders claimed the sanction of deity for this practice; many modern-day Mormons view the practice as a discriminatory policy enacted by Brigham Young because of a negative experience he had with a black priesthood holder who committed adultery. Unfortunately, later Church leaders were unclear on the origin of the practice and chose to perpetuate it. However, even during the dark days of such institutional discrimination, many Mormons were vocally opposed to such practices. Despite this apparent racism, one must keep in mind that ethno-centrism is visible in many faith traditions; one can argue that proto-Christianity was grossly ethno-centric/ Jewish nativist (observe Christ's interactions with the heterodox monotheist Samaritans and other Gentiles). Racist currents have also been evidenced in Hinduism (the caste system), Judaism (ethno-centric doctrines), Islam (early caliphs displayed preferential treatment towards Arabs), and many other religions. Such discrimination seems to be an unfortunate, but universal, aspect of the human experience.
3. While evangelical Christians and conservative Catholics have increasingly adopted an intolerant stance relative to Islam, Mormon leaders and laity alike have extended a remarkably brotherly arm to Muslims. Mormons generally refuse to proselyte to Muslims, have adopted a remarkably understanding perspective of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict (the Church professes neutrality in the matter; Mormon prophet Howard W. Hunter was decidedly pro-Palestinian), and consider Muhammad to be a man who received inspiration from God.
4. Mormon actions in relation to LGBT issues have been affirmedly disappointing recently (see Prop 8), but there has been a remarkable amount of improvement in that realm as well. Mormon leadership endorsed the election of an openly gay man as the chair of the Utah Democratic Party, endorsed anti-discrimination legislation in Salt Lake City and pushed to get it passed, and has allowed the formation of a Gay-Straight Alliance on BYU's Provo campus.
5. Harry Reid (Democratic U.S. Senate Majority Leader) is an active, faithful Mormon. Do you fear him?
In closing, with all due respect, I would advise that posters engage in a more deliberate, thoughtful review of their opinions before they give credence to bigoted views that pigeon-hole a remarkable diverse (and progressive) faith tradition.
cbayer
(146,218 posts)I appreciate your taking the time to offer this response.
You are correct that there is a lot of animosity towards Mormonism here. Much of that has to do with events surrounding the Prop 8 issue in 2008. We have an active and strong LGBT community here and the rest of the community is comprised primarily of strong allies. I think there is evidence that some within the church are trying to rectify some of the wrongs that have been done, but Romney does not appear to be one of those people.
Like the Obama campaign, many here agree that Romney's religion should not be an issue. Others disagree. At any rate, during the heat of the campaign, you are likely to see some significant anti-Mormon sentiments.
Again, welcome and thank you for taking the time to respond here. I think the more we know, the less we will respond negatively.
dimbear
(6,271 posts)descends uniquely from antecedents in central Asia. Uniquely from there with no strain at all from Semitic sources. Believe that part of science? The evidence is of two main sorts: DNA evidence and linguistic evidence. The languages of the Amerinds have distinctive resemblances to the languages of Central Asia, but none can be discerned relating to Semitic tongues. The Semitic peoples have distinctive DNA tracers which are absent in all Amerinds. These parts of science and the core of the Book of Mormon are absolutely at odds, which is understandable because they weren't available to Joseph Smith. This isn't elephants or steel weapons or horses, this is real science.
BYU has an impressive department which studies ancient documents. They do fine work. They do practically all of it AFAIK on near-Eastern documents, none at all on American reformed-Egyptian documents. Why? What if a Mormon scholar noticed this oddity? Would he/she be disfellowshipped?
A sincere student of Mormonism with an open mind can find a number of remarkable facts which tend to shed doubt on the idea that Mormonism is progressive. One might start with the list of scholars that have been shown the door.
ashcroftgm
(13 posts)I'll admit that there does not appear to be much in the way of science supporting Semitic origins for Native Americans. However, this can be explained in a number of ways:
1. The Semitic population was a small subset of the Native American population. If such was the case, it would be highly unlikely that DNA evidence concerning them would easily be found.
2. We are still just barely scratching the surface of pre-Colombian archaeology. Charles Mann's popular book 1491 has recently shown how many of the supposed orthodoxies concerning Native American civilization are inherently wrong. More research in this area may bear additional insights.
3. The Book of Mormon could be taken to be just an esoteric text, i.e. like many books of the Hebrew Bible (Job, Jonah, etc.), which do not deal with real events or people. Such books were intended to convey a certain lesson or moral. The Book of Mormon could be interpreted in a similar light. Although I myself don't adhere to this point of view, I think it is a viable perspective.
As far as censorship of LDS scholarship is concerned, I'll admit that the disciplinary actions taken against the September Six were unfortunate. However, we still are unsure of all the extenuating circumstances surrounding their cases. Furthermore, under the patronage of Church historians like Marlin K. Jensen, there has been a greater tendency to accept unorthodox views of Mormon history. Observe Richard Bushman of Columbia and his work Joseph Smith: Rough Stone Rolling. In it, he challenged many commonly believed "orthodoxies" concerning Smith, yet he faced no disciplinary action. I still believe that Mormonism at its heard is a progressive faith; I think it is still just trying to deal with the non-doctrinal conservatism introduced into its culture by individuals like Ezra Taft Benson and Ernest Wilkinson.
dimbear
(6,271 posts)supporting Obama? Were they pretty accepting?
kestrel91316
(51,666 posts)Some of my relatives were supportive, while others weren't. Funnily enough, some of my relatives who are Mormon seem more supportive of my views than my non-Mormon relatives. Notice I said some, not all. I have a lot of Republican relatives who (sadly) love Glenn Beck's B.S. However, those relatives are both Mormon and non-Mormon.
trotsky
(49,533 posts)You wield the No True Scotsman fallacy just as well as any other believer.
daaron
(763 posts)There is no apologia that may be written for doctrines concerning Native Americans which is NOT racist. Defending that doctrine with any level of vigor would most certainly be considered racist by very many people - certainly I am one such. According to DU terms of service, which I read when I signed up, expressing or defending racism is a good way to earn oneself a lifetime ban.
Goblinmonger
(22,340 posts)Pi = 3
Rabbits chew their cud
Worldwide flood
There are plenty of things that aren't scientific in the Bible.
daaron
(763 posts)That one just makes me smile.
kestrel91316
(51,666 posts)
daaron
(763 posts)
JNelson6563
(28,151 posts)And I never thought I'd say that about any publication.
I'm sorry but I have read the BOM and it is incredible to me that anyone can read that pap and think it enlightened in any way. I would find it very difficult to take anyone with such view seriously on an intellectual level.
Julie
Goblinmonger
(22,340 posts)There's some pretty absurd stuff in the Bible. Have you read it all? Revelations?
JNelson6563
(28,151 posts)In fact, the bible was my gateway to atheism. I consider the BOM more moronic, what do you think about that?
Have you read it? It's the work of a nearly illiterate who is practicing plagiarism on the King James version of the bible. Poorly done on all counts. Hard to pinpoint a certain part, it's pretty obvious what it is by page one.
Julie
Goblinmonger
(22,340 posts)The bible twice. 2nd time caused a lot of my atheism, too. Clearly the bible is better written. As an English teacher I wouldn't argue that. But if you boil it down to plot events, I don't think the BOM is that much more absurd than the bible.
JNelson6563
(28,151 posts)It's the writing style that screamed to me immediately. As a teacher I should think you had a similar experience but perhaps you were able to see past that and focus on plots and story-lines better than I.
I had a hard time getting past the "so the angle Morini translated the gold tablets during the 1800s, in America, to a known drunken womanizer with maybe a 6th grade education, in Elizabethan English." Hmmm.
It probably didn't help that a couple of pimply faced "elders" gave me the book and shpeel in the first place. They were only about 18 years old but they did each have a penis so I guess I needed to be respectful of them...*gag*
Yeah, I found the book to be one messed up piece of work, as well as the distributors.
Julie
Starboard Tack
(11,181 posts)"It probably didn't help that a couple of pimply faced "elders" gave me the book and shpeel in the first place. They were only about 18 years old but they did each have a penis so I guess I needed to be respectful of them...*gag* "
Is it people with pimples you dislike, or teenagers, or just people with penises?
I was a pimply teenager with a penis when I became an atheist. I wonder if that would have dissuaded you from becoming an atheist.
laconicsax
(14,860 posts)Quick! What was her post about?
A) The questionable quality and origin of the Book of Mormon.
B) A couple of teenagers with bad skin.
C) Penises.
D) You (Starboard Tack).
If you answered (A), then you admit that your comment #104 completely ignores the point of her post.
If you answered (B) or (C), you may want to take a course in reading comprehension.
If you answered (D), you may want to realize that not everything is about you and take a course in reading comprehension.
Starboard Tack
(11,181 posts)She lost me regarding her point at pimply, which rendered any point she was trying to make about as valid as the BoM. Spewing prejudicial drivel isn't the best way to make a point. You should know that already.
laconicsax
(14,860 posts)Focusing on the word "pimply" as a description of a couple of teenagers in an aside gives quite the indication that you're more interested in grabbing hold of something to attack the messenger rather than discuss the point they made.
Starboard Tack
(11,181 posts)Let's take a look and see if we can find a point
"It's the writing style that screamed to me immediately"
Yeah that was a really salient point. The fucking writing style!
maybe you can find a point in this one
"I had a hard time getting past the "so the angle Morini translated the gold tablets during the 1800s, in America, to a known drunken womanizer with maybe a 6th grade education, in Elizabethan English." Hmmm. "
What do you think was hard for her to get past?
Was it
(a) the angel's name being Morini. (Good Italian name btw)?
(b) the gold thing?
(c) the language he used. We know she disapproves of his writing style?
(d) that he drank alcohol (interesting, as Mormons don't touch alcohol)?
(e) he was a "womanizer", whatever that means?
(f) all of the above?
laconicsax
(14,860 posts)Let's simplify things.
The drunken womanizer with maybe a 6th grade education refers to Joseph Smith. The drunken part is a verifiable historical fact. While Smith said that his followers shouldn't drink alcohol, he didn't follow his own advice and as far as I can tell, it wasn't a hard and fast rule until much later. One of the Mormon towns he helped set up (Nauvoo) even had its own brewery. He was also behind the early Mormon attitude towards polygamy. He possibly had as many as 50 wives, so calling him a womanizer isn't a stretch at all. (Since you seem to have never heard the term despite it being a fairly common term used to describe promiscuous men, here's a dictionary definition: http://www.thefreedictionary.com/womanizer)
So, with that simplification, the sentence you find undecipherable now reads:
While that's certainly not the most lucid or accurate sentence, it's pretty easy to figure out what's being said:
She "had a hard time getting past" the idea that the tablets were translated into Elizabethan English to someone living in 19th century America.
Another way of saying this is that the writing style isn't believable--why would newly revealed scriptures be translated into Elizabethan English to someone who was neither English nor Elizabethan? If we add the subject line, we have
(That's (c), by the way.)
Here's something you may find immensely helpful: http://drb.lifestreamcenter.net/Lessons/TS/diagram.htm
Starboard Tack
(11,181 posts)I didn't think for one moment she was referring to anyone else but Smith. I'm not quite as ignorant as you think and I did major in English literature in a little country called England, but your gesture is noted.
I am, in no way, defending the drivel contained in the BoM.
I was merely curious as to her take on it being influenced by the extraneous facts she mentioned, rather than the content. Her description of the messengers stands out, above all, displaying her bias toward the male of the species. That's what "screamed" at me. OMG - pimples and penises! Give me a break.
laconicsax
(14,860 posts)That really says more about you than about her.
Starboard Tack
(11,181 posts)Nice try though. Your speaking for her and defending her sexist comments says it all. Prejudice abounds.
laconicsax
(14,860 posts)I honestly can't tell if you're being serious.
Starboard Tack
(11,181 posts)
JNelson6563
(28,151 posts)Frankly, I took issue with a couple of pimply faced kids who haven't even lived yet being considered "elders" in any respect. I find that says a great deal about an organization, don't you?
Nothing like upping the patriarchal bullshit.
Julie
Starboard Tack
(11,181 posts)I've met several Mormon missionaries and found them always to be smart, polite, articulate and respectful. I think you could have learned something from them. From the mouths of babes and all that good stuff. What's your problem with people with penises, though? And what did their possessing penises have to do with anything?
Karmasue
(95 posts)When I first tried to read the post, right after she said she was a English teacher, I had a hard time getting past the spelling of "angle Morini" for the angel, Moroni. When someone makes a claim that implies a certain superior knowledge (an English teacher) immediately makes one want to find an eraser, it is tough to give the response any credence.
And then the "It probably didn't help that a couple of pimply faced "elders" gave me the book and shpeel in the first place." immediately following. When a sentence like that crops up you just kind of know that any intellectual analysis is probably not going to follow.
I did go back later and read it because I wanted to read all of the responses - but truthfully it was pretty off-putting.
Starboard Tack
(11,181 posts)When I saw the "Angle Morini" I thought it was some maybe some geometrical concept. Then I wondered what she meant by "shpeel", maybe some Cirque du Soleil tickets the Mormons were handing out for Banana Shpeel. I never got a "shpeel". Heck, I didn't even get any spiel.
cbayer
(146,218 posts)you sure have no problem expressing others.
Do you no see the irony?
JNelson6563
(28,151 posts)Where have I been objecting to bigotry specifically on DU?
So by commenting on the lunacy of a book I am a bigot?
Julie
laconicsax
(14,860 posts)Goblinmonger
(22,340 posts)Pretty suckily written, actually. So is Twilight. Twilight sucks really hard. Does saying that make me a bigot?
Dorian Gray
(13,496 posts)but you would inspire the murderous wrath of a bunch of squeeing tweens if you were to say that on certain internet forums.
Goblinmonger
(22,340 posts)and bring up that topic a couple times a year along with my hatred for Nicholas Sparks and Titanic. It's great to see their faces.
Dorian Gray
(13,496 posts)at an all girl's high school. I could only imagine the reaction if he did the same! LOL!
trotsky
(49,533 posts)Wow. What do you think about the people facing jail time around the world because they blasphemed a religion? Do you agree those people should be punished for their "bigotry?"
laconicsax
(14,860 posts)_ed_
(1,734 posts)but did you realize that about 1/3 of the Book of Mormon is lifted from the Bible. Joe Smith wasn't even trying to hide it: The Book of Esther became the Book of Ether.
JNelson6563
(28,151 posts)It smacked of plagiarism from the start imo. Somebody turned to the KJV for "inspiration".
Julie
ashcroftgm
(13 posts)The Book of Ether in the Book of Mormon is nothing like the Book of Esther. It deals with a story/material that is totally unrelated to the captivity of the Jews in Babylon/Persia,
dimbear
(6,271 posts)21 chapters and parts of some others are quoted practically word for word from the King James version of the Bible. The errors which were committed by the King James translators are repeated in the Book of Mormon. But that's not the most miraculous thing about this. Modern Bible scholars agree (for the most part) that the book of Isaiah was written after the date at which the Jews which were to become the Book of Mormon peoples had left Israel.
See the miracle? They brought over a book which hadn't been written yet.
That's something.
_ed_
(1,734 posts)But the name Ether is obviously stolen from the Bible and slightly changed.
Are you saying that large sections of the Bible are not plagiarized in the Book of Mormon? This is well documented.
dimbear
(6,271 posts)a large group of early inhabitants of the Americas who are descended from the Jews. At the end of the book there are imagined to be many hundreds of thousands of them, because there are that many in attendance at the final battle. These vast hordes left no trace whatever in the archaeological record. To non-Mormon archaeologists, the story of the Book of Mormon is a joke. In contrast, the peoples of the Bible were real, mostly, and their cities are there to be dug up. I challenge anyone to locate a place in the Book of Mormon, with the possible exception of Hill Cumorah, which has no particular archaeological features.
The reason DNA evidence is telling is that Joseph Smith had no idea it would be discovered, revealing his fraud. Fact is Smith did think he knew who the Book of Mormon peoples were, the Mound Builder Indians. He said so. Sadly for Mormon theory, during Smith's lifetime archaeology progressed enough to know that the Mound Builder peoples were centuries too late in time to be the Book of Mormon peoples. So the church looked elsewhere. It is still looking and will look til time stops, but it will not find.
Here ends my book report on the book the Mormons call "The World's Most Perfect Book."
laconicsax
(14,860 posts)That the stories in the Bible involve real groups and place has no bearing on the veracity of those stories. Neither book can reasonably claim to contain factual accounts.
Karmasue
(95 posts)the archeology that might relate to the BoM is relevant to the article how? Is that what you believe is promulgating the fear of Mormons? I can't see how whether the BoM is true or not would promote fear.
dimbear
(6,271 posts)As I've mentioned before, in the one and only war the United States fought against a religion, the Utah War or Mormon War, the Mormons gave up without a fight. They're not frightening.
The Mormons have a book which they consider to be the revealed word of God. To me it is an obvious fiction. Archaeologists and genetic scientists agree. The Book of Mormon takes place in a fictitious setting, just like "The Hobbit." The Bible is more like "Gone With the Wind," historical fiction with some fantasy thrown in. I don't approve of using either (or any of these) to beat people up and deprive them of basic civil rights, but the Book of Mormon is an easier target.
Karmasue
(95 posts)"I don't approve of using either (or any of these) to beat people up and deprive them of basic civil rights, but the Book of Mormon is an easier target."
beat people up - deprive them of basic civil rights?
Sorry, I'm not normally dense but what do you mean?
dimbear
(6,271 posts)This outraged the Mormons, because if there is one thing the Mormon church cannot abide, it is a nontraditional marriage. They used their supposedly divinely revealed wisdom and their actual loads of money to invade California with misleading ads and outrageous claims which led to the passage of Proposition Hate. Proposition Hate took away that civil right.
When Mormons attack the civil rights of gays with their magic book they are attacking my family, the people I love, and since I'm not a Christian I'm not forgiving that in this lifetime.
Mormon families continue to have gay children. Those gay children grow up and leave Utah and Idaho and Arizona and come here, where they're welcome. Tracking them down to persecute them more is just flat out evil.
Clear enough?
Karmasue
(95 posts)I am truly sorry that you and your family have been adversely affected by the prop H(8) issue. I was devastated by it myself, and incensed that any religion would take such an intolerant stance like they did in California. Or like the national stance taken by Catholics against a women's sovereignty over her body that has adversely affected me and my family, and other religion's stances and fights that impact other people's rights.
I was simply saying that no one religion seems more unique in the desire to inject themselves into anything that furthers their own agenda, than others. I only meant it as a statement of perspective.
dimbear
(6,271 posts)
Skinner
(63,645 posts)Thank you for the informational post. I know some things posted here can be frustrating, but most DUers are very tolerant. Stick around, you'll meet all kinds of people here.
muriel_volestrangler
(101,322 posts)They're happy proselyting to all other Christians, and to atheists, for instance. You describe this attitude as 'brotherly'; why are they more brotherly to Muslims than to those other groups? Do they see their faith as close to Islam than to Christianity?
ashcroftgm
(13 posts)We generally refrain from proselyting to Muslims out of two concerns:
1. Many Muslims (not all) find the idea of conversion to Christianity deeply offensive (more so than other Christians and atheists). In respect for this sentiment, we refrain from proselyting to them.
2. Some Muslims (particularly immigrants) may be from countries where hudud punishments (the punishments entailed in ultra-strict interpretations of sharia) are still practiced. If they convert, and have to repatriate to their native nations, they could face the possibility of execution. To avoid this possibility, we generally avoid proselyting to these people.
jberryhill
(62,444 posts)Then why did it take a revelation to reverse it:
"He has heard our prayers, and by revelation has confirmed that the long-promised day has come when every faithful, worthy man in the Church may receive the holy priesthood"
Assuming that President Kimball's hearing was intact, the revelation states that prior to having received it, there was a divine sanction against full admission of blacks.
If it was simply an institutional thing, why would it require a revelation to change it?
spin
(17,493 posts)My mother and step dad converted to Mormonism and attempted to get me to do the same.
While I never followed their path, I have been impressed by many of the Mormons that I have met.
freshwest
(53,661 posts)I don't know any rich Mormons myself, and the ones I do know are Democrats and although they are self-sufficient in some ways, their children go to public schools and they support the social safety net.
They are about as secular and tolerant of other people as I am, and have a good way of living, and don't disparage anyone else. They don't mix the two, and don't want a theocracy, which some are accusing Mitt of planning to do in the USA. Some sort of prophecy.
I don't suspect Mormons of being any more likely to force a theocracy on this country than any other religion. We do have some ex-Mormons here, too. That being said, welcome to DU and I hope you will find yourself less embattled.
I hope you will explain how you see the Mormonism of Romney versus your own Democratic leanings.
ashcroftgm
(13 posts)To me, Mormonism serves as a call to moderation in all things. There is a passage in our scripture, the Book of Mormon, which states that "it is not requisite that a man should run faster than he has strength." I have made this plea for moderation one of the guiding principles in my life, while it seems that Romney has ignored it while catering to the extremes of the conservative base. His advocacy of "self-deportation" of illegal immigrants is but one example of such uncaring, un-Christian behavior. In that matter, Romney actually seems to be contradicting the public stance of the Mormon Church, which has been very supportive of legislation for pragmatic, practical solutions to immigration problems (see http://www.sltrib.com/sltrib/home/51439173-76/bills-burton-church-immigration.html.csp. Romney also seems to contravene Mormon teaching in the anti-Muslim company he keeps (http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2011/10/12/mitt-romney-s-new-adviser-sparks-islamic-uproar.html)As someone who has lived in the Middle East and has many Muslim friends, I find it hard to respect anyone who would have such an anti-Muslim bigot in an advisory capacity. I also believe that God loves everyone, regardless of sexuality, something that Romney seems to have overlooked when he left his gay national security spokesman, Richard Grenell, out to dry when he faced attacks from Christian fundamentalists. In sum, I think Romney has been more concerned about opportunistically catering to a Tea Party base than he has about living the tenets of his faith.
Karmasue
(95 posts)I cannot imagine why anyone would fear you.
I am taken aback by the fear of Mormonism that some people here have expressed. I have yet to meet a Mormon who would generate that kind of fear in others. They are not all perfect, but then who is?
I think, as the article says, that Romney's run has simply engendered a new opportunity for the political fear-mongers. It is quite successful when utilizing issues that have a natural affinity for vulnerability. Like religion. Or gender. Or values.
daaron
(763 posts)There are a number of different emotions being expressed. To categorize this thread as "fear-based" assumes all emotions can be reduced to fear and desire, or some other such dualistic worldview. That kind of lumping dismisses the expressed meaning of other people's words, and in the context of the thread, stand out like a sore thumb. Let's all try to encourage nuance by showing that we understand it, ourselves. Perhaps from that place of mutual understanding, we can establish mutual respect.
darkstar3
(8,763 posts)Ashcroft, after all, scared us more than a dead guy...
ashcroftgm
(13 posts)Karmasue
(95 posts)I have always found them to be more open to expansive religious thinking than most, and have never found the Mormons to be anything but respectful. But then I have always been respectful of their beliefs as well. And I also recognize that they are all human beings like everyone else.
Unfortunately when a person who belongs to a hated or feared group displays a human failing of any kind, for no one is perfect, it is immediately associated as a failing of the group as well. That is true with blacks, gays, Hispanics, priests, women, and even rightwing christians today. So groups are condemned based on the actions of most radical of their members. Sad, but true. We cannot seem to separate the actions of some from the values of the many.
But then, we are all only human.
_ed_
(1,734 posts)or any other religion. Religion is a set of ideas the same as Keynesian economics, anarchism, single-payer healthcare, or the theory of evolution. It is not an innate characteristic like race or gender. Religion is a choice. You choose every day to continue to be Mormon and espouse Mormon beliefs.
If criticizing Mormonism is bigotry, then so is criticizing single-payer healthcare or any other set of ideas. You don't get to wall off certain ideas from criticism and call them "religion." Especially when your religion spends so much money trying to keep my brother from getting married to his partner.
humblebum
(5,881 posts)not be considered "inate" in all cases, then why is religion protected by law just like race and gender. And why then should atheists be respected or shown anything but indifference. Is atheism "inate?"
_ed_
(1,734 posts)Religion is not protected the same way as gender and race under the law. Race and gender are not even protected "the same way" under our laws. I don't know why that's relevant to my post.
I'm saying that you don't get to wall off a set of ideas and call it a "religion," which then makes a critic of the set of ideas a "bigot." If I make a reasoned critique that religious superstitions are illogical, that's not bigotry, it's a factual argument. It doesn't make me a bigot any more than criticizing astrology makes me a bigot.
humblebum
(5,881 posts)Certainly you have every right to criticize religion. However, I find serious flaws in your reasoning. In fact, discrimination against religion is illegal and protected just as are gender and race, in many instances.
And as far as your statement "religious superstitions are illogical, that's not bigotry, it's a factual argument." - that only holds true if you are using that very narrow type of logic that utilizes ONLY empirical inquiry.
Also to say that "it's a FACTUAL argument" is purely false. To be factual, it would need to be totally objective and it is your subjective opinion, based upon your subjective ideas and observations that religious beliefs are nothing more than "superstitions."
To say that deity or anything spiritual or religious does not exist is a subjective opinion, as is someone believing in that which is considered to be supernatural.
So to openly declare that religious belief is illogical is only true within your very narrow POV. Is it bigotry? Depends.
If you are stating your personal opinion. No. However, if you are doing so to ridicule religious belief, then it is absolutely bigotry. I find that atheists are often trying to rationalize this form of bigotry, but their opinions about the existence of a supernatural existence are no more provable or disprovable than the opinions of religious believers. To state that something is "factual" requires objective proof, and you have none. The "if I cannot see, hear, smell, taste, or touch something, then it doesn't exist" excuse is extremely limited thinking and I find it quite laughable.
AlbertCat
(17,505 posts)Pointing out the absurdities of religion is not discrimination.
Telling you what you believe is stupid is not bigotry.
You have a legal right to believe any damn fool thing you want. But you are not protected from criticism of your beliefs. Your beliefs do not get a special place free of criticism in law. No one is preventing you from believing what you want.
So you can stop with the special pleading and the assumption that your beliefs are somehow beyond being called out. You can just stop the "poor put upon religionists" ploy. You get no special treatment.
And, unlike your race or sexual orientation, you are free to change your beliefs at will.
humblebum
(5,881 posts)Last edited Mon Jun 11, 2012, 03:25 PM - Edit history (1)
I engage in frequent criticism of religion myself. Openly advocating of ridicule is pure bigotry however. And if you try discriminating against someone on the basis of religion in the workplace, religion is definitely protected and you would suffer the consequences.
No special pleading involved, just fact.
You can criticize religion all you want. I certainly do the same of radical atheism and will continue to do so. BTW, you will get no special treatment either.
_ed_
(1,734 posts)heard the arguments against their position.
You say: "that only holds true if you are using that very narrow type of logic that utilizes ONLY empirical inquiry."
What is the other kind of logic that doesn't use empiricism? Logic is logic. There aren't two kinds. By the way, I bet that you appreciate when your doctor "uses that narrow type of logic that utilizes only empirical inquiry." Or would you be as open to bloodletting if the doctor believed in his heart that it would help you?
Believe in whatever nonsense you wish but don't try to bend the rules of logic to make accounts for your superstition.
What you say about religion I could easily say about astrology. Astronomy, after all, only takes empiricism into account. Why not allow for some astrology with our astronomy? Why not allow a little alchemy into our chemistry?
humblebum
(5,881 posts)The atheist POV generally parallels Logical Empiricism (scientific philosophy), which automatically eliminates anything that cannot be defined by the senses - a priori knowledge, metaphysics, etc. It has absolutely NO mechanism for assessing anything religious or spiritual in nature. And yet many atheists continue to try.
No. yours is not the only type of logic, though it obviously is the only one you recognize as valid.
daaron
(763 posts)'Boolean' logic, or first-order logic, is the one we usually think of when we talk about logic -- it has the familiar unary operators (AND, OR, XOR) and familiar statement structure (IF-THEN). This is the logic to which Godel's in/completeness theorems apply, giving us an unending array of sufficiently strong logical systems from which to choose to prove almost anything we might ever want to prove, given the right assumptions. Of course, logic being what it is, the vast majority of the things one may logically prove have no corresponding empirical basis. Assume a spherical chicken... no problem! No connection to that font of facts we call nature, but ... no problem!
There are higher-order logics that are still "classical", as well, as WikiPedia discusses here, but Godel's thms don't apply. Some of these are just awesome to ponder. I like this bit from the Wiki article:
...infinitary logics, which allow for formulas to provide an infinite amount of information, and higher-order logics, which include a portion of set theory directly in their semantics.
The most well studied infinitary logic is L_{\omega_1,\omega}. In this logic, quantifiers may only be nested to finite depths, as in first-order logic, but formulas may have finite or countably infinite conjunctions and disjunctions within them. Thus, for example, it is possible to say that an object is a whole number using a formula of L_{\omega_1,\omega} such as
(x = 0) OR (x = 1) OR (x = 2) OR ... (my edits)
Then there's other ways of constructing logical algebras - for instance, G. Spencer-Brown's Laws of Form, which has a first-order algebra that is isomorphic with the Boolean, and a higher-order algebraic calculus that places some really obscure restrictions on unary operations. LoF are highly compatible with ontology, such as cybernetics and influenced the development of the internets. Whee!
The non-classical logics have interested me for a while, as well. WikiPedia (always a great source for math) has this list of logical systems.
Just wondering - which these types of logic is Logical Empiricism? I'm not sure you got that one right. That's a philosophy (the 'Empiricism' part gives it away), not a type of logic. Logic makes no claims about nature, only about sets. Which type(s) of logic do you consider most valid?
humblebum
(5,881 posts)not what was being discussed. However, you are right when you refer to it as another type. We are dealing with philosophic concepts such as logical positivism v. ontological inquiry.
daaron
(763 posts)with ontological inquiry. In fact, there are some excellent proofs showing that ontological algebraic formulations comprise objects that span multiple orders and even classes of logic. All of these can be achieved by building up from first-order logical systems, however - even such outliers as the first-order algebra of the Laws of Form that purports to support the metaphysical conjecture that something must always come from nothing has been shown to be isomorphic to Boolean algebra.
I'm just trying to understand - philosophy relies on reason, the light that brightens the way, as't'were. I'm just curious about logical systems, being a math guy, and wondered, that's all. If you'd rather debate logical positivism and ontology, I'm down.
Oh, or, was this a private subthread? Am I interrupting something?
Goblinmonger
(22,340 posts)I picked it up from the library because it was in the new acquisitions section. It was very interesting. Doesn't go really into depth into the concepts of logic but does a nice job with many of the people you mention.
daaron
(763 posts)His paradox lit a wildfire under a generation of mathematicians, and hit the jackpot with Cantor and Godel - we wouldn't have set theory and much of higher math if it wasn't for the epic work of these brainiacs.
Plus, I dig graphic novels. Been known to draw, myself, from time to time (not myself, just, me drawing things, not me drawing me drawing). Moosh it together with math - it's a natural fit! I'll be sure to check it out next time I'm in the city (I try to buy from bookstores, these days).
Karmasue
(95 posts)on the surface, dismiss certain translations or interpretations of many different tenets of religious belief. But never an argument that proves, even scientifically, that there is no Creator. Stephen Hawking himself said that there was always room for that possibility.
Proving the existence of the supernatural is kind of like proving the existence of dark matter. We know it's there, but have never seen it directly. Scientists believe that dark matter may account for the unexplained motions of stars within galaxies. Scientists study dark matter by looking at the effects they believe it has on visible objects. So it is with a Creator.
We believe that our studies someday will reveal dark matter in a manner that will prove it exists the way we think it does.
daaron
(763 posts)Dark matter was and is a thorn in the side of astrophysics because it's existence has been inferred from measurable facts about the universe, but it wasn't predicted by a theory. Scientists like it when theories predict facts - it validates all that brainpower being trained on a problem. Hence the desperate search for the Higgs boson. Most of the time, though, the apple knocks the Newton on the noggin. So it is with dark matter: there it is, but we don't have a satisfying explanation for it. It's a much more enviable position for a scientist than the converse case (which is where string theorists find themselves): here's my theory, now let's find some facts to back it up! Still, it can work either way. If the model fits, wear it in. Maybe even wear it out. ("Bye, aether! You served your purpose!"
The concept of a cosmic creator, OTOH, is a completely different class of problem. It's not a theory in search of facts, like string theory, because it wasn't formulated as a theory - monotheism is a belief system that has existed without rational basis for only a few thousand years, and only in the heads and hearts of human beings. To compare the obviously biased belief in a unary intelligent designer to a scientific theory begs credulity from the listener. Credulity that few astrophysicists will feel inclined to spare; I think I'll follow their lead, as it seems to me they have dedicated more rational thought to the issue than rationalization (ever the mode of the lazy thinking creationist).
Bradical79
(4,490 posts)And as for imagining Mormons as intolerant rubes, well, I'm not sure how to spin mormonism in a positive light. A big part of the religion is the leadership of the Mormon church which is run by people believed to literally be profits. And that church's actions paint those leaders as intolerant rubes.
As for Romney, yeah, it's pretty hypocritical of those Christians to not vote for him because he's Mormon. There are many more convincing reasons not to vote for Romney on both sides of the aisle.
Response to Bradical79 (Reply #76)
ashcroftgm This message was self-deleted by its author.
siligut
(12,272 posts)I lived and worked in Utah and know what the inner circle of Mormonism is. I liked the people in general, but then I met some of them that made my skin crawl. The good people who just want to be positive, religious and community-minded are being used.
The most disturbing part of what I was told while they were trying to convert me was that their methods of manipulating minds was fine, because the mind-controlled people thought they were happy.
Here is part one in a series about Mormon mind-control.
Karmasue
(95 posts)Hate is so deeply visceral and wounding.
If you are an atheist, I sincerely hope you heal. If you are a believer in God, I pray that He will help you. If you have any other source of comfort, I hope you seek it.
siligut
(12,272 posts)And don't feel sad for me, I certainly don't want you to.
_ed_
(1,734 posts)trying to keep gays and lesbians from getting married, but I guess that's just me.
Sad that they did it, sad that it was successful, but mostly sad for the many people who were impacted by it.
I don't fear them, and I don't hate them.
riderinthestorm
(23,272 posts)and fully acceptable. I also deeply dislike their patriarchal shittiness, glbt discrimination, questionable ideas on the separation of church and state, and obvious brainwashing.
Starboard Tack
(11,181 posts)AlbertCat
(17,505 posts)ALL of them? "Nice"?
Starboard Tack
(11,181 posts)Nice, pleasant, friendly, generous, welcoming. But, I find folk in general to be like that. I don't know many Mormons. Met a few, here and there, over the years, including a few missionaries. I never heard one proselytize, even the missionaries. All they did was ask if I was interested in learning about their religion and offer me a free BoM. No mention of heaven and hell or fire and brimstone or the only true way, just a book about Jesus and his trip to America. Sounded like crazy shit and I think it is, but they seem like nice people. They did me as I would do them. I'm sure there are some "nasties" and "meanies" among them. Hell, there are a few of those around here.
Karmasue
(95 posts)--------
I just read the all of the posts.
I am wondering if you believe that your article has been validated by the responses?
Or if it has defied the stereotypes that you note are normally aired?
Not looking for a fight - really want to know what you think. And what others think about that last paragraph as it relates to the responses - after they read all of the posts. A lot of analytical minds here. Maybe I will learn something from an honest analysis.
cbayer
(146,218 posts)And I think this is true of most prejudices that use stereotypes.
Kolesar
(31,182 posts)Full quote, before I tear into this "professor" that I hate:
President Obama's Christianity is about at the same place as that of President Clinton or Ronald Reagan. They have a secular view of the world and church exists at the periphery. What does Fluhman have against the President? He had a youth that moved him from one world to another and led him to deal with religion or "spirituality" as he saw fit. Being young is hard enough, why does Fluhman have to hate on Barack Obama for not growing up like him?