And a fan of the fray, I am happy to see what fraysters really think about the LDS church.

I don't think there are simple rules that will always apply when picking a president. There are so many exceptions that the rules are mostly useless. If it is just too hard to do a little research into the candidates that you need litmus tests to guide your vote then so be it. I don't think it is particularly difficult to choose the best applicant for the job given that there are so few candidates. If voters want to disqualify a candidate for their religion or sex or race or preference of tie color; That is certainly their choice.

I am not going to vote for Mitt, because I am a democrat. If I were voting in the republican primary I would vote for McCain most likely. If Romney is nominated I will still most likely vote democrat. I have met Romney and he is my third cousin, but I just don't agree with most of his policies (when he says he wants to double Guantanamo Bay, Is he referring to the body of water?). In my judgment he is intelligent and a very capable politician. If he is elected I really don't think his religion will have any real outward policy directive. His presidency would be similar to all the protestant presidencies that have gone before (maybe we should have disqualified Nixon because he was a quaker)

Mormonism, I think, has much in common with other religions. I think it is funny that religious people are so terrified of electing a fellow religious person. I think a mormon presidency is really not a big deal. I would be much more intrigued to see an atheist nominated for president. Now that would be fun.

cridge:

And a fan of the fray, I am happy to see what fraysters really think about the LDS church.

Mormonism, I think, has much in common with other religions. I think it is funny that religious people are so terrified of electing a fellow religious person.

To the extent "religious people" are "terrified of electing a fellow religious person", I believe it depends on which religion we are talking about. For me, anyway, the Mormon issue is not the Two Masters problem. Comparisons here with JFK, Al Smith and Catholics are well-taken, and no Mormon candidate should be feared on these grounds.

Where basic rationality is concerned, however, the Mormon question warrants careful scrutiny. If Romney or other Mormon politicos are observant primarily in a social sense, again it's easy to move on. If, on the other hand, they are "fundamentalist", so to speak, not on polygamy but on the history and origins of the Church, then Houston, we have problem. Educated and orthodox Mormons have a big problem. And if they don't think they do, that's an even bigger problem.

"Rationality"-based censure in the world of faith? Oxymoronic, with emphasis on the moronic? Not so fast, my friend. Here's what I mean. Take Joshua and Jericho, for instance---certainly it's a leap of faith for anyone to believe God imbued Joshua's trumpet with the power to knock down citadel walls. However, few will dispute, religious sorts or not, that there actually was a walled citadel, Jericho, to begin with, and that it was taken by the Israelites around a reliable timeline. Similarly, while opinions may vary on whether Muhammad took a dream journey to the Dome of the Rock, he nonetheless existed as a matter of historical certainty, as did his stomping grounds of Mecca, Medina, and Jerusalem.

Now to the Mormon texts---we may forgive the leap of faith which brings Jesus to Nauvoo, Illinois---but what of the North and Central American complex of walled cities populated by white pre-Columbians, speaking, writing, and recording in Old World languages, driving chariots, herding horses and cattle, and constructing tools and weapons of brass, steel, and iron? Even if a cataclysmic war against barbarians ended that civilization's run, there would needs be an abundance of concrete evidence corroborating at least the infrastructure of Joseph Smith's translated history. Instead, there's not a jot. Nada. The Mayans, Toltecs etc. simply don't meet the Book of Mormon's highly specific criteria. By the time we get to Joseph Smith's own history as an occultist and charlatan prior to his discovery of the golden tablets; the Planet Kolob; and the planet-ruling Godhood awaiting exemplary Mormons, one wonders if in electing an orthodox Mormon we aren't a good deal closer to electing a Scientologist or a LaRoucheite than a Catholic, Jew, or Muslim.

"Rationality"-based censure in the world of faith?

Hey, very good post. At least you are able to joke about the use of rationality when comparing faiths!

As an agnostic I often laugh when one faith calls the beliefs of another faith 'crazy' because they lack reason and logic. Oh, but their own voodoo is just a-OK and not crazy at all!!!

In the article i posted earlier about Mitt and Mormonism, the author made the correct distinction between things America should care about Mormonism in regards to politics (authority, relationships between the church and the state, etc) and things that don't matter (Garments and sex before marriage). Your argument that rational people simply CAN'T believe these things certainly falls into the second category for me.

However, i guess i will bite. Weisberg made similar arguments last year and i find both of them terribly insulting.

I fail to see the difference between your 'little leap of faith' for things like Jerico, or the Dome of the Rock, or the 'big leap of faith' for things like the Book of Mormon. They're both matters of faith.

Rational educated Mormons point to evidence that supports their faith. I understand if you don't accept it, but i fail to see how it is any more irrational than transubstantiation, Hanuka, or the ascension of Mohamed.

I don't understand how someone can accept that Jesus appeared to Paul on the road to Damascus, but can't accept that Jesus may have appeared to Joseph Smith in Navuoo.

I don't understand how someone can accept that the Jews wandered 40 years in the wilderness without leaving any trace, but will say positively, metal could not have existed in America 2000 years ago. Is it rational to think that you know everything about ancient America? The Bible certainly has two big geographic historical advantages: people have lived there for 4000 years, and things last forever there. Egypt is still Egypt, Jerusalem is still Jerusalem. It's dry and hot. The jungle is another story. I challenge you to leave a car in the Guatemalan jungle and try and find it 200, let alone 2000 years. My guess is it might be hard to find.

I don't understand why people get so bent out of shape about golden tablets when more and more writing on ancient metal plates is being found. Again, i'm not saying this proves that golden plates existed just as joseph smith said, but the fact that there are several other types of witting on in ancient languages on metal plates is on par with 'three is a city actually called Jericho.'

I don't understand how you can ask to see evidence of old world influences and walled cities on the one hand, but on the other you dismiss the Maya and Toltecs as not meeting the 'specific' criteria. Don't you think a rational person finds it interesting that in a place where no one knew there were pyramids and cities 200 years ago now they now now find and continue to find them? I have not seen incontrovertible evidence of a city from the Book of Mormon, but as a Mormon, i find it very interesting that there were civilizations in and around the areas where and when the Book of Mormon said they were there. The Book of Mormon does not claim to be a complete record of the American continent. Just because the what we understand about the areas that have been found so far don't meet what you call your criteria doesn't mean that Book of Mormon cities could not have existed. (or maybe i'm not being rational about that).

If you really need one jot of one concrete place that from the Book of Mormon to visit, take a trip to Nahom in Yemen. It is right where it should be on the trail from Jerusalem south to the sea, and no one had heard of it except in the book of mormon until a few years ago.

I would continue, but your mention of Joseph's history as an occultist kills your last shred of credibility with me.

Mormonism is a cult which was founded on lies and fantasy and exists today in a cloud of secrecy and delusion.

Mormons, while holding to strong values, abstinance for instance, service to their church and felloew Mormons, and close family ties, as well as solid, honest, business practices remain a mystery because the religion to which they adhere was formed in the very bowels of hell.

Mormonism bears very little resemblence to Christianity and to the doctrines of Christ. Mormonism, not necessarily Mormons themselves, is one of the most dangerous cults which exists today. Reason being that it masks legitimacy, and does it very well.

Feel free to open discussion.

Jack

Thanks for the replies. I think Mormonism is rather harmless, but i guess I'm not familiar with 'orthodox' Mormonism. As a cult born in the bowels of hell it surely disappoints. We have had very good presidents who have believed in creationism and other crazy crap. I just don't care what politicians believe, I care about what they do in their job. I may be wrong, but I doubt a mormon president would be different then any other president.

I am certainly not saying that there are no differences between various religions, but I am unconvinced that, from an outside perspective, that there is more difference then similarity. Fanaticism is what we are really afraid of. Hitchens thinks all religious people are basically on the road to fanaticism (if not already fanatics). Maybe he is right, If you think Mitt is a fanatic then that seems like a good reason to vote for someone else.

Very entertaining!

Hitchens is an idiot and i do not believe that Romney is a fanatic. If Romney receives the Republican nomination for president then I will vote for him.

I place more importance on his being a Republican than I fear his being a Mormon. But Mormonism itself is outside the mainstream of Christian doctrine.

Jack

between

1. Walled citadel Jericho taken by the Israelites (fact) + Joshua's trumpet (faith), and

2. Walled Old World-equipped North American citadels (fiction) + garments and plates (faith).

Yes, they are specific criteria, outlined as historical events in your sacred texts, of which Joseph Smith was merely the discoverer and translator. Do you actually believe these cities existed? And that no trace whatsoever is available of the smelter operations, horse and cattle herds, and written records outlined therein? Outside of the plates, that is, which for some reason or another are not extant....

As to Smith's history in Masonry, water-witching, and treasure-seeking using magic objects as guides, I'd direct you to sources outside LDS hagiographies.

Places and events mentioned in the bible are supported by recorded history and archeology. Not one brick or other evidence has ever been found that supports the existence of the 28 or so cities claimed to have been built by the Jaredites, Nephites or other Mormon precursors, on this continent.

Smith should have read Galatians 1:8 which says "Though we or an angel from heaven preach any other gospel to you that the one you have received, let him be accursed." (paraphrased). Then he would have recognized Moroni, as a fake, when Moroni gave him the golden plates.

Jack

JackDallas:

Mormonism is a cult which was founded on lies and fantasy and exists today in a cloud of secrecy and delusion.

Mormons, while holding to strong values, abstinance for instance, service to their church and felloew Mormons, and close family ties, as well as solid, honest, business practices remain a mystery because the religion to which they adhere was formed in the very bowels of hell.

Mormonism bears very little resemblence to Christianity and to the doctrines of Christ. Mormonism, not necessarily Mormons themselves, is one of the most dangerous cults which exists today. Reason being that it masks legitimacy, and does it very well.

Feel free to open discussion.

Jack

So Mormonism came out of the bowels of hell? Which religion invented Hell? Maybe we should find out and blame them for Mormonism.

When you say Mormonism "masks legitimacy" what exactly do you mean?

<g>

JackDallas:

Places and events mentioned in the bible are supported by recorded history and archeology. Not one brick or other evidence has ever been found that supports the existence of the 28 or so cities claimed to have been built by the Jaredites, Nephites or other Mormon precursors, on this continent.

Smith should have read Galatians 1:8 which says "Though we or an angel from heaven preach any other gospel to you that the one you have received, let him be accursed." (paraphrased). Then he would have recognized Moroni, as a fake, when Moroni gave him the golden plates.

Jack

Odds are Smith did indeed read and agree with Gal 1:8. After all, the Galatians received the gospel from Paul. Smith received it from Moroni. Smith probably thought it was the same gospel.

No, history teaches that Smith prayed and asked God which religion was correct and God allegedly told him none of them were correct. God commanded Smith to start a new religion.

Up popped Moroni and the show was on.

Jack

Yup, and when Moroni was through with him, if he'd have read Gal 1:8 he'd say, "of course I'm sticking with the gospel I've received."

and the one which clearly demonstrates its illegitimacy as a Christian church, is the doctrine of Divine Progression.

As man is, God once was. As God is, man will be. Mormons believe that God was once a man who progressed through stages, because of his own goodness, to achieve Godhood.

This is false teaching.

Jack

JackDallas:

and the one which clearly demonstrates its illegitimacy as a Christian church, is the doctrine of Divine Progression.

As man is, God once was. As God is, man will be. Mormons believe that God was once a man who progressed through stages, because of his own goodness, to achieve Godhood.

This is false teaching.

Jack

Now hold on there, Jack. I'm sure by "false teaching" you mean teaching that isn't taught in the Bible. But read your Bible carefully.

First, let's look at "as man is, God once was." Now isn't Jesus God? And wasn't Jesus once a man? A man of like passions as all the rest of us bums? A man who thought it not strange to take the form of a servant? So that first clause is quite Biblical As man is, God most certainly once was, according to orthodox Christian teaching.

Now how about the second? As God is, man will be? Check out what Paul says in 1 Cor 15:

1 Cor 15:42 So will it be with the resurrection of the dead. The body that is sown is perishable, it is raised imperishable; 43 it is sown in dishonor, it is raised in glory; it is sown in weakness, it is raised in power; 44 it is sown a natural body, it is raised a spiritual body.
If there is a natural body, there is also a spiritual body. 45 So it is written: "The first man Adam became a living being"[e]; the last Adam, a life-giving spirit. 46 The spiritual did not come first, but the natural, and after that the spiritual. 47 The first man was of the dust of the earth, the second man from heaven. 48 As was the earthly man, so are those who are of the earth; and as is the man from heaven, so also are those who are of heaven. 49 And just as we have borne the likeness of the earthly man, so shall we[f] bear the likeness of the man from heaven. --NIV

Do you see it? Jesus is the last Adam. Who was the first Adam? The progenitor of humanity. And that's what Jesus is, the progenitor of the future humanity, the Last Adam. You, sir, will one day be like Jesus. Jesus is God. Ergo,
As God is, man will be. Read your Bible. It supports that teaching from Mormonism from passages that are central to the orthodox Christian faith.

Deal with it.

<g>