Let's discuss Mormonism.

[John Dibble]

One thing I will ask, however. Please do not dismiss my faith as "impossible"

Ok. It's implausible.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

You can't ask people to discuss your faith and then restrict the mention of facts that are in contradiction with the claims of that faith. Real discussion of an idea involves potential criticism.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I can't speak for anyone else, but I will promise to treat your ideas on the same basis as I treat any other ideas - based on their merits.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

If someone has legitimate historical evidence for that claim then you have no basis on which to report them. In regards to the Mormon faith however it has little relevance as it doesn't reflect on the truth of the claims he made, so using it to demonstrate that the Mormon faith is false is merely an ad hominem fallacy. At worst such a claim just shows he had a poor moral character, though considering that the marriageable age for girls was much younger during his era it may be more of a reflection of the ethics of that time than on one man.

[John Dibble]

There is no evidence; none, zip, nada that Native Americans contain 'tell-tale' genetic markers from the Levant or anywhere in the Middle East. I understand that the LDS had a whole industry of pseudo-science dedicated to trying to fight this or provide other explanations but it's a deliberate fudge.

This is exactly why I declared the DNA thing off-limits; it distracts from the point of this thread, and it just makes the one Mormon (i.e. myself) willing to talk to you all about other controversial issues in Mormonism very annoyed, because you are directly insulting my faith. Look, I'll literally discuss any other topic having to do with Mormonism except for those two issues I mentioned in the OP. Will that not satisfy you all?

If you want to discuss something in an ideologically diverse open forum you can't really expect people to adhere to your requests for certain portions of a topic to be off limits - if anything calling out one particular topic as off limits is going to mean people will target that issue because it's saying "this is my weak point in debate".

Also, please keep in mind that atheists such as myself and afleitch have a rather particular kind of view on issues like this. The way our minds work doesn't let us gloss over contradictions so easily. If your religious claims contradict what facts have been observed about reality we don't view it as an insult to point it out, rather we view it as recognizing reality for what it is in our pursuit of truth. That you might feel insulted when we do so is unfortunate and is not our goal, but is just not particularly important to what our goals are. We care about truth, fact, and reality, and honestly we hope others do as well which is why we are inclined to press people on things like this.

[John Dibble]

If God used to be a regular person, how could the world have been created?

My understanding of Mormon theology is that God would have been a regular person on a different planet, and being an ideal worthy follower of the deity on that planet ascended to godhood after death and afterwards would have created this world.

[John Dibble]

It's been said already, so moving on...

I've read a number of Mormon deconversion stories in the last few years. One common thread is that when the person in question talked to their spiritual advisor in the church about reading things written by the opposition they were discouraged from doing so. Do you have any such experiences or if there is any official church policy in regards to this?

[John Dibble]

You mention your father is an ex-Mormon - is your mother still in the church? I ask because one deconversion story I read involved a woman whose husband deconverted before she had lost her faith as well, and it was mentioned the other women would gossip behind her back about how her place in heaven was threatened due to this. My current understanding of this is that she would be unable to go to the Celestial kingdom of heaven, and would instead would only get the Terrestrial or Telestial kingdom, ultimately based on where her husband ends up - is this an accurate understanding of the theology?

[John Dibble]

You mention your father is an ex-Mormon - is your mother still in the church? I ask because one deconversion story I read involved a woman whose husband deconverted before she had lost her faith as well, and it was mentioned the other women would gossip behind her back about how her place in heaven was threatened due to this. My current understanding of this is that she would be unable to go to the Celestial kingdom of heaven, and would instead would only get the Terrestrial or Telestial kingdom, ultimately based on where her husband ends up - is this an accurate understanding of the theology?

My mom's still in the church, yes. More devout than I am, actually (though I'm definitely not inactive or non-believing. I still believe, and strongly believe. I'm just not particular devout about it.) As for the "place in heaven threatened" not my mother in particular, since my dad has not taken his name out of church records, thank goodness. The Celestial Kingdom has more than one "level", however, so no, my mom would not go to the Terrestrial or Telestial Kingdom, unless she was selfish and negative, which she is not, or committed particularly cruel acts, which she has not.

However, if he took his name out of the church records officially, she would not be sealed for all eternity to my dad, and she would "only" get the second best level of the best afterlife possible (keep in mind that all the kingdoms are described as being much, much better than mortal life).

Theologically speaking, where does your dad end up given the current state of affairs? I would think it kind of strange that he'd get the reward that's for the true believers when he actually speaks badly of the church just because he's on an earthly church register and hasn't removed himself.

[John Dibble]

Where exactly do non-Mormons who there's nothing else actually wrong with ostensibly end up, and if it depends on other factors what might those be?

The Terrestrial or Telestial kingdom of heaven, with which one depending on what extent they have received the gospel of Christ and how much they have accepted it or rejected. This gets more complicated as you can apparently receive it and accept it after death. At least that's what Wikipedia says:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Degrees_of_glory

[John Dibble]

So me and Nathan would be higher than you but lower than any Mormons basically?

Possibly, but it gets fuzzy since I could accept the gospel after death. According to the wiki article if my life meets the criterion for being respectable and I am just "blinded by the craftiness of men" I might be given the opportunity to accept the gospel after death and if I did so would get to go to the middle kingdom. If not, there's the possibility I'd also go to Spirit Prison (which is different from Hell, or the Outer Darkness as it's apparently known in Mormon theology) for 1000 years before being let in the Telestial kingdom. Either is quite a bit better than what Christianity would have in store for me, I suppose.


Interesting factoid you'll like - South Park got this wrong in the episode they said that Mormonism is the right religion and everyone other than Mormons went to Hell. Here's the clip - http://www.southparkstudios.com/clips/152270/abandon-all-hope

Though in fairness they weren't particularly targeting LDS theology in that one, so they probably just didn't do the research that time.

[John Dibble]

Either is quite a bit better than what Christianity would have in store for me, I suppose.

Actually I believe at worse that you actually will get you what you expect after death. You simply won't be resurrected when God's Kingdom comes down and Heaven and Earth reunite.

I'm aware that there are Christians who cherry pick the Bible and ignore the stuff said about eternal punishment, but I would say that's still worse than eternal awesomeness. As long as these heavens have some mechanism to stave off endless ennui I think I would prefer any of them to ending.

[John Dibble]

...and atheists wonder why people don't like them.

Yeah, caring about facts has never been a popular position to hold.

[John Dibble]

Since you mentioned personal reasons for believing, what are they? What to you makes the claims of the Mormon religion superior to the claims of other religions?

[John Dibble]

Since you mentioned personal reasons for believing, what are they? What to you makes the claims of the Mormon religion superior to the claims of other religions?

I have several reasons, so I'll put them in a list.

1) It feels good. Basically, when I follow church doctrines (like praying and silently calling upon God for help) I feel calm, collected, and compassionate, and I like that feeling.
2) I've tried being agnostic (though secretly so) when I was about 12-14. Didn't work; I felt bitter and unhappy all the time, and I felt inadequate. Skip to about 16 with a new outlook on my faith and I feel great and self-confident.
3) The afterlife doctrine; I feel that the afterlife system of the mainstream LDS Church is incredibly fair; everybody gets something better than they have now (unless they literally defy God after they have clearly seen or felt his influence), and the level you get to is a spiritual meritocracy.
4) Mormon culture is what I've been raised in and the only culture I've ever known, so I feel that I should stay in it, despite its flaws.
5) Spite: If I can remain a believing Mormon in good standing with my politics, then I spite the religious right, and I spite Glenn Beck by my faith. They'll never know, but I get to feel satisfied in defying their (and others) expectations. Similarly, my aggressively atheist dad (who curses at and mocks religion, especially the LDS Church whenever he can) seems to be made bitter by his dislike of the Church, so I stay within the Church to prove him wrong.
6) Even though the LDS community tends to be close-minded politically, it's very loving and would give the shirt off its back to me in an instant. Fellow Mormons help each other, and I love that fact about the church.
7) With the rise of alternative LDS thought on the net, I can discuss any doubts or alternative interpretations I have with no judgment or mockery from my fellow Mormons. I can explore the diversity of thought and enjoy the interesting viewpoints people have.
8 ) I want to be a part of LDS history in my own way. I want to be my individual story in the larger narrative of Mormonism.
9) Whether the details are right or not, whether the circumstances in the Book of Mormon could ever happen or not, I do like the narrative it builds, and the stories it weaves. And the lessons it teaches are good ones; stuff like Mosiah chapter 4 goes on and on about helping the poor and not being judgmental of them, for example.
10) Because Mormon history is interesting, and being a member of the church makes me feel like I have a stake in the conflicts throughout it. Kind of like how Catholics can feel connected to the early struggles of Catholic leaders.

Ok, I have one more question that I find pertinent especially in light of your answer for #9 - do you care whether or not your beliefs are actually true?

[John Dibble]

Moving past that discussion, here's something of note; caffinated soda is a-okay for Mormons now.

I don't like the taste of Coke or Pepsi myself, but I suppose it's nice not having to bother to figure out if Dr. Pepper is okay or not.

Reading the article it seems rather odd that this is a 'health code'. Why ban tea? Drinking tea in moderation is mildly good for you given the antioxidants, but soda is just an empty calorie sugar drink with no known health benefits whatsoever.

[John Dibble]

Moving past that discussion, here's something of note; caffinated soda is a-okay for Mormons now.

I don't like the taste of Coke or Pepsi myself, but I suppose it's nice not having to bother to figure out if Dr. Pepper is okay or not.

Reading the article it seems rather odd that this is a 'health code'. Why ban tea? Drinking tea in moderation is mildly good for you given the antioxidants, but soda is just an empty calorie sugar drink with no known health benefits whatsoever.

Because tea and coffee is what Joseph Smith and his councilors said was not allowed when he first mentioned the Word of Wisdom, and that's what the LDS Church is sticking by.

Plus, they point out that even though caffeinated soda is now fine, addiction of any kind is bad and should be avoided.

I understand the avoidance of additions - it's why I don't drink coffee. Too much caffeine will definitely get you addicted to the stuff. The occasional cup of tea on a sleepy morning or iced tea with a meal isn't enough to get you addicted though.

And I get that Joseph Smith said it, but what's the actual logic behind it? "Because I said so" isn't really a valid reason to do what someone says.

[John Dibble]

Well, according to LDS teachings, you'll have good health, a better memory/ability to learn, and will be less susceptible to disease. Googling a bit, I found this study, which talks about the lower cancer and cardiovascular disease rate in Mormon communities. And if this Washington Post article (with a link to another study) is correct, the once-a-month full day of fasting that many Mormons (not myself, incidentally) do, it's also good for your health.

Of course, I have to point out that active Mormons love replacing alcoholic and other restricted substances with sugar and a metric ton of meat. Having too much meat is also against the Word of Wisdom, but I literally don't know a single fellow Mormon (including myself) who follows that advice. Polynesian Mormons especially love having meat.

And regarding the caffeinated soda; most Mormon youth didn't even follow that rule anyway, so I figure the Church simply realized it was fighting a losing battle. Many of my LDS friends have Red Bull and Monster energy drinks, and even I love my Dr. Pepper (and this personal anecdote isn't even mentioning Romney and his Diet Coke).

So I figure that the Church leadership finally gave up on enforcing that rule.

I get that it's part of a health guide, but the health benefits from following that guide probably come more from not smoking, not drinking (a glass of wine a day is supposedly healthy, but total abstinence in a community will probably reflect a significant difference from one that has people who drink in excess), and eating more vegetables than meat. Again, there's no evidence to suggest drinking tea has any known health drawbacks. (unless you drink a lot of it, which few people do, and most things are bad in excess anyways) I just find it odd that it would even be included on the list in the first place as even in Joseph Smith's day tea wasn't regarded as bad for you.