Originally Posted By ecdc One quick comment. All faiths - yes even yours Doug - relies heavily on faulty internal circular logic to maintain its current belief system. (How else could evangelicals possibly call the Bible consistent, let alone infallible.) Mormons are no different. But to call out Mormonism as if it alone were guilty of bad reasoning is absurd and just sheer bigotry.
Originally Posted By DlandDug >>This is a surprisingly ignorant and pedestrian post for someone of your intellect Doug.<< As stated before, this is hardly the forum for this discussion. I am sorry that some here find honest and considered disagreement "ignorant and pedestrian." My readings include Christian apologists like Walter Martin (who wrote a great deal more than the only book of which you seem to be aware),others who you would doubtless find equally distasteful (Decker, the Tanners, etc.), Mormon apologists (LeGrand Richards, Orson Pratt, etc.), as well as dispassionate historians. I even have a few nineteenth century books written by contemporaries. Oh, and I am well acquainted with the standard Mormon texts themselves, both in their original and present forms. >>And it's downright laughable to hear anyone who believes in the Bible call Mormon beliefs contradictory.<< Whether one believes in the veracity of the Bible has nothing to do with the fact that Mormons must hold a series of contradictory beliefs, if they sincerely believe in the truth of their canon of sacred texts. I would not for a moment assume that the Mormon belief that the Holy Ghost is simultaneously a Spirit and a physical God would ever become a campaign issue. Nor would I assume that any other than pendants would be interested in Book of Mormon passages that clearly state there is but one God (Alma 11:27-29, 2 Nephi 31:21), in direct contradiction with present Mormon theology that there is a multitude of Gods. Or that Mormon standard texts originally held the orthodox Christian view that God is eternal and unchanging (Mormon 9:9, D&C 20:17), in direct contradiction with the present Mormon belief in Eternal Progression. But the dichotomy that could well rear its ugly head is that old bugbear, polygamy. (Or plural marriage, in the language I prefer to use.) The Book of Mormon states clearly and unambiguously that marriage is intended solely for one man and one woman (Jacob 2:24, 3:5). The Doctrines and Covenants (49:16) originally held the same. But, Doctrines and Covenants 132 clearly states that Plural Marriage is a "new and everlasting covenant" (verse 4). Then the standard texts wind up with the Manifesto, which states, "We are not teaching polygamy or plural marriage, nor permitting any person to enter into its practice... There is nothing in my teachings to the Church or in those of my associates, during the time specified, which can be reasonably construed to inculcate or encourage polygamy..." >>The comical thing is the only ones worried about Brigham Young's statements are Evangelicals hell bent on discrediting Mormonism.<< The point here was not to engage in some sort of theological shouting match, but rather to look at what effect Mitt Romney's faith may have on his election chances. If this reaction to a mild assessment of those effects is any indication, the problem may, indeed, be a major one.
Originally Posted By DlandDug >>But to call out Mormonism as if it alone were guilty of bad reasoning is absurd and just sheer bigotry.<< If I had done so, this point would make sense. That the topic at hand is Mitt Romney's faith, which is Mormonism, my comments were entirely within reason, and not merely absurd bigotry.
Originally Posted By ecdc Yet you have barely addressed Romney at all. You continue to quote Mormon scriptures to "prove" Mormonism is untenable, then lamely attepmt to tie it to Romney. Ironically when your faith no doubt suffers from the same flaws. It's very telling that the Mormon apologists you quote have been dead for 100 years. It's abundantly clear that your limited studies of Mormonism were not to learn about it, but to respond to it. Mormons themselves are quite happy and content with their beliefs and faith. Apparently evangelical anti-Mormons like Martin and Decker can't say the same thing since the tenets of their faith are based on attacking others. And there's little honesty in your post, just more of the same nonsense I've heard my whole life that naively assumes that Evangelical Christianity is the right belief system and then views Mormonism through that narrow lens. You clearly have no idea how absurd you sound to Mormons - you know, the ones who actually live the faith and are a part of it? Try learning from them instead of Evangelical Christians who are hardly Christlike at all.
Originally Posted By DlandDug Again, this is hardly the forum to go into all this. >>Yet you have barely addressed Romney at all.<< My post #20 was exclusively focused on Romney, with specific reference to the unique doctrine that conceivably would lead to doubts among the electorate. I would note that I was careful to state that it is unknown whether Romney himself adhered to the doctrine, merely that it was a legitimate issue. That this then became a tangent into any variety of other topics was not my desire, but rather my response. Indeed, the whole issue of other religions, and other writings is completely beside the point. >>It's very telling that the Mormon apologists you quote have been dead for 100 years.<< I mentioned two only, although I have books by and have studied the work of others. I chose Pratt and Richards specifically because they are unassailable, and one is old (Pratt), the other more contemporary (Richards, who died in 1983). >>It's abundantly clear that your limited studies of Mormonism were not to learn about it, but to respond to it.<< This statement makes it very clear that someone here is, indeed, interested only in reponse and not in learning. >>Mormons themselves are quite happy and content with their beliefs and faith.<< Of course they are. I don't believe that I, or anyone else here as suggested otherwise. >>Apparently evangelical anti-Mormons like Martin and Decker can't say the same thing since the tenets of their faith are based on attacking others.<< Again, this statement and its tone show more a combative attempt at response, rather than a considered desire to learn anything. I know little about Ed Decker (I have only his "Handbook," given to me by a friend. I have not read it, but have consulted entries.) To dismiss Walter Martin as an "evangelical anti-Mormon," on the other hand, is the height of ignorance. I suggest you read this Wikipedia entry to at least acquaint yourself with some basic facts about the life of this scholar, mentor, and broadcaster. <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Walter_Martin" target="_blank">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/W alter_Martin</a> >>And there's little honesty in your post...<< While you have repeatedly accused me of dishonesty, you have yet to cite any actual examples. I understand that it is unpleasant to find that others may disagree with cherished beliefs. Simply taunting them with unsupported charges does not in any way mitigate this. >>You clearly have no idea how absurd you sound to Mormons...<< Oh, I have a general notion. >>Try learning from them instead of Evangelical Christians who are hardly Christlike at all.<< And what makes you assume that I have not consulted Mormons in the course of my study of this most fascinating sect? Is it possible that you believe that anyone who disagrees simply must be dismissed as an infidel? There is only One Person to look for when seeking Christlike behavior. (Hint: He doesn't post on the boards.)
Originally Posted By DlandDug Again, back on topic, if exchanges like the above are an example of what Mitt Romney faces, this will be either the most fascinating or boring campaign in history.
Originally Posted By ecdc C'mon Doug. You raise specific issues with Mormon beliefs then keep pointing to my response to what you specifically said and say this isn't on topic. Then you throw out another token "this isn't the forum" thn post another lengthy response, complete with Mormon scripture and all. And you can spare me the lecture on cherished beliefs - most of them are beliefs I let go long ago. I have no problem with legitimate examination of Mormon history and beliefs (the polygamous past, the opposition gay marriage and the ERA, etc.; I'm criticized by Mormons who read my historical writing for not being Mormon enough - I publish with a secular publisher that takes a "warts and all" approach. But Evangelical examination of Mormonism is almost always small-minded and loaded with hypocrisy - with Walter Martin as a prime example. As I already noted, it has no interest in studying Mormonism on its own terms, but through the lens of "Well we have the truth, but lets see how others match up." It's an insular world that lionizes pseudo-thinkers like Martin and and calls fellow evanelicals who get degrees at theology schools "Biblical scholars" when they are no such thing.
Originally Posted By tiggertoo <<It's abundantly clear that your limited studies of Mormonism were not to learn about it, but to respond to it…You clearly have no idea how absurd you sound to Mormons - you know, the ones who actually live the faith and are a part of it? >> Indeed. It distinctly sounds like the ranting of someone in opposition rather than “casual observations.†I’ve always believed that the only thing that would prevent a Mormon from ascending to the oval office is good, old-fashioned American bigotry and ignorance. And sadly the evangelical right full of both with regards to Mormonism. It is THEY who would bring up any and all supposedly contradictory belief (as if they actually matter in politics). Yet at the same time give a pass to their own supposed contradictions (which there are also many) because somehow, evangelicalism is accepted as “normal.†Anyhow, quotes like that of Brigham Young must be understood (as ElderP alluded to) in the framework of a post-apocalyptic or â€second coming†version of the world—and all Christian religions have…interesting…accounts of what this time will have in store. Believe me, Mormons has no desire to take over America and turn it into a theocracy. Pull out as many obscure quotes and contextually warped interpretation as you wish—Mormons are ardent patriots and will fight for this nations Constitution to the end. A cursory knowledge of the writing of LDS leaders would be indicative of this fact. Check this site: <a href="http://www.latterdayconservative.com/modules/wfsection/article.php?articleid=61" target="_blank">http://www.latterdayconservati ve.com/modules/wfsection/article.php?articleid=61</a> BTW, I too was born into the church although I do not practice much anymore; my extended family is extremely active though.
Originally Posted By Kar2oonMan I know little about the practices and teachings of the LDS church, so maybe I'm getting in over my head asking the following question. But that never stops me. lol Historical accuracy and such evidence of God -- at some point, aren't those less important than faith (which is belief/trust in spite of the absence of proof) in any religion?
Originally Posted By DlandDug >>C'mon Doug.<< That depends. Where are we going? >>You raise specific issues with Mormon beliefs...<< No, you do. I brought up a specific tenet of Mormon theology that was relevant to the topic at hand. It was you who then felt led to introduce side issues. >>...then keep pointing to my response to what you specifically said and say this isn't on topic.<< Which I will say yet again. This really isn't the forum for this. >>Then you throw out another token "this isn't the forum" thn post another lengthy response, complete with Mormon scripture and all.<< Yes, how dastardly of me to cite the actual writings of the religion in question. But I somehow cannot bring myself to simply dismiss the issue by calling someone an ignorant bigot. >>It distinctly sounds like the ranting of someone in opposition rather than “casual observations.â€<< I am truly sorry if you perceive any of this as a rant on my part. But I will stoutly deny that any of these observations are casual. They are carefully studied and well considered. >>I’ve always believed that the only thing that would prevent a Mormon from ascending to the oval office is good, old-fashioned American bigotry and ignorance.<< I am inclined to agree with that. >>And sadly the evangelical right full of both with regards to Mormonism.<< I sadly agree. >>Anyhow, quotes like that of Brigham Young must be understood...<< Of course they must. Perhaps Mitt Romney's candidacy will be the vehicle that will bring an understanding of this to the general population.
Originally Posted By DlandDug >>Historical accuracy and such evidence of God -- at some point, aren't those less important than faith (which is belief/trust in spite of the absence of proof) in any religion?<< Of course. But faith does not include believing something that cannot possibly be true. That is self delusion.
Originally Posted By RoadTrip This one is pretty much impossible according to scientific fact: <<1 In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. 2 Now the earth was [a] formless and empty, darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God was hovering over the waters. 3 And God said, "Let there be light," and there was light. 4 God saw that the light was good, and He separated the light from the darkness. 5 God called the light "day," and the darkness he called "night." And there was evening, and there was morning—the first day. 6 And God said, "Let there be an expanse between the waters to separate water from water." 7 So God made the expanse and separated the water under the expanse from the water above it. And it was so. 8 God called the expanse "sky." And there was evening, and there was morning—the second day. 9 And God said, "Let the water under the sky be gathered to one place, and let dry ground appear." And it was so. 10 God called the dry ground "land," and the gathered waters he called "seas." And God saw that it was good. 11 Then God said, "Let the land produce vegetation: seed-bearing plants and trees on the land that bear fruit with seed in it, according to their various kinds." And it was so. 12 The land produced vegetation: plants bearing seed according to their kinds and trees bearing fruit with seed in it according to their kinds. And God saw that it was good. 13 And there was evening, and there was morning—the third day. 14 And God said, "Let there be lights in the expanse of the sky to separate the day from the night, and let them serve as signs to mark seasons and days and years, 15 and let them be lights in the expanse of the sky to give light on the earth." And it was so. 16 God made two great lights—the greater light to govern the day and the lesser light to govern the night. He also made the stars. 17 God set them in the expanse of the sky to give light on the earth, 18 to govern the day and the night, and to separate light from darkness. And God saw that it was good. 19 And there was evening, and there was morning—the fourth day. 20 And God said, "Let the water teem with living creatures, and let birds fly above the earth across the expanse of the sky." 21 So God created the great creatures of the sea and every living and moving thing with which the water teems, according to their kinds, and every winged bird according to its kind. And God saw that it was good. 22 God blessed them and said, "Be fruitful and increase in number and fill the water in the seas, and let the birds increase on the earth." 23 And there was evening, and there was morning—the fifth day. 24 And God said, "Let the land produce living creatures according to their kinds: livestock, creatures that move along the ground, and wild animals, each according to its kind." And it was so. 25 God made the wild animals according to their kinds, the livestock according to their kinds, and all the creatures that move along the ground according to their kinds. And God saw that it was good. 26 Then God said, "Let us make man in our image, in our likeness, and let them rule over the fish of the sea and the birds of the air, over the livestock, over all the earth, and over all the creatures that move along the ground." 27 So God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them. 28 God blessed them and said to them, "Be fruitful and increase in number; fill the earth and subdue it. Rule over the fish of the sea and the birds of the air and over every living creature that moves on the ground." 29 Then God said, "I give you every seed-bearing plant on the face of the whole earth and every tree that has fruit with seed in it. They will be yours for food. 30 And to all the beasts of the earth and all the birds of the air and all the creatures that move on the ground—everything that has the breath of life in it—I give every green plant for food." And it was so. 31 God saw all that he had made, and it was very good. And there was evening, and there was morning—the sixth day.>>
Originally Posted By Kar2oonMan >>But faith does not include believing something that cannot possibly be true.<< But what of miracles, heaven, hell, resurrection, virgin birth? All are true in the hearts and minds of people of Christian faith, despite evidence. As I said, I know little of the Mormon faith. But I always thought part of being faithful in any religion required the belief that God has the ability to make the impossible possible.
Originally Posted By DlandJB This one is pretty much impossible according to scientific fact:>>> Is it? Did you know that the Hebrew word used in Genesis for day is "Yom" which has two distinctly different meanings -- one is an actual 24 hour day and the other is "an era of time" Also, belief in how the world began isn't considered to be an absolute tenet of faith. Christians are free to believe that it took more than 7 literal days. Many do. And the "big bang" theory is acceptable both to science and to Christians as an explanation for the beginning of life. But then science gets stuck...because they still can't ever explain how something came from nothing. This has absolutely nothing to do with the thread. But let me tell you what does concern me about the LDS Church -- that is the treatment of women, and specifically the denial of women as leaders in the church and the quick excommunication of women who are considered disobedient. It is pretty much the same reason I parted ways with the RCC.
Originally Posted By RoadTrip <<This has absolutely nothing to do with the thread.>> Sure it does. It shows that religions besides the LDS routinely believe in things that are impossible. Whether or not ALL members of ALL Christian sects believe in the Genesis story or not; the fact remains that to a great majority of Evangelicals it, like everything else in the Bible, is the absolute literal truth.
Originally Posted By tiggertoo <<I am truly sorry if you perceive any of this as a rant on my part.>> Only because it is extremely nit-picky in regard to how Mormonism is being qualified. <<But I will stoutly deny that any of these observations are casual. They are carefully studied and well considered.>> But from what mindset? It is fairly clear to me that your “careful studies and well considered†observations did not arrive from a neutral plain, but from the bias of a preconceived position making the ultimate outcome tainted so to speak. <<>>Anyhow, quotes like that of Brigham Young must be understood...<< Of course they must. Perhaps Mitt Romney's candidacy will be the vehicle that will bring an understanding of this to the general population.>> Perhaps. But do you really think any explanation will quell detractors who insist upon spewing falsehoods whilst spinning out of context any and every obscure comment into negative propaganda? This mindset is akin to that which drives people toward believing that 9/11 was a US government conspiracy. <<But faith does not include believing something that cannot possibly be true.>> Sure it does. Scientifically explain to me how water can instantly be turned to wine. Or how a few fish and loaves of bread can instantly feed a multitude. Religion is most certainly about believing those things which couldn’t possibly be true; that is why they are so awe inspiring. <<But let me tell you what does concern me about the LDS Church -- that is the treatment of women, and specifically the denial of women as leaders in the church and the quick excommunication of women who are considered disobedient. It is pretty much the same reason I parted ways with the RCC.>> While I do understand and agree with you, there are several religions other—including several evangelical Christian sects—who also do not admit their female congregants into their clergy. The LDS position is more the norm, than the exception. Right or wrong, should we then consider most Catholics or Muslims or and several other evangelicals unfit for public office because they too hold religious edict that prohibit women from serving in there clergies?
Originally Posted By ecdc Doug, you've studied Mormonism carefully the same way An Coulter might study Islam. If it involves Evangelical anti-Mormons, that's not study, that's validation of bias. 2oony, you're exactly right about faith vs. evidence. But unfortunately some people (including some Mormons) are actually deluded enough to believe that there faith is somehow evidence or has the evidence when others don't. That's why I called anti-Mormonism small-minded. There's plenty of religion out there, beyond Christianity. To thnk that your faith has the answers and the evidence and others don't is mighty silly. Live your faith, but be mindful that one person's religion is anothers superstition and that it's a two-way street.
Originally Posted By jonvn As you know, I'm not a religious person, and don't like it. I do tolerate, somewhat, people who have faith, mostly because it does me no harm. Mostly. But I do enjoy reading the sorts of things I've seen in this thread just now, as it validates absolutely everything I find wrong with religion: How it separates people, drives wedges between groups over absolutely nothing, and causes anger. Thanks guys for making me, once again, feel completely right in my beliefs.
Originally Posted By TomSawyer I think a Mormon has as much chance of being elected as a Scientologist does. I am a liberal Christian and pretty accepting of other faith traditions, but I can't shake the sense that Mormonism is heretical. I can only imagine how those with a much more absolute, fundamental, literal view of Christianity would feel.
