Let's discuss Mormonism.

[後援会]

I've never understood the hostility and hatred that some on the left have for religion. I mean, I grew up in an atheist household, and I'd consider myself a liberal, but I thought we were about things like pluralism, tolerance, and multiculturalism.

[fezzyfestoon]

All of which are perfectly acceptable things to believe, for reasons that do have something to do with their potential truth-value but are not controlled by it.

How so? They're either simply not true or so far-fetched it's ridiculous to assert as an absolute truth.

I've never understood the hostility and hatred that some on the left have for religion. I mean, I grew up in an atheist household, and I'd consider myself a liberal, but I thought we were about things like pluralism, tolerance, and multiculturalism.

Excuse me? I couldn't care less if people want to believe what I know for myself to be absolute nonsense, but I'm not gonna pretend I don't think that. Besides that, I'm not really a liberal and my views on religion have nothing to do with politics anyway. Though they are definitely exacerbated by the role of religion in politics. Religion nestles itself far too often into the role of untouchable protagonist, particularly in this country. As long as someone says their batshet crazy views are because of their religion, they're instantly beyond criticism? I understand there is a lot of nonsense to defend and that can be difficult, but get over yourselves. That's really what I hate. I'll talk all day long with a religious person if they're grounded and honest, but I have no patience for victim mentalities or fragile beliefs. If someone wants to discuss something, I'm gonna really discuss it, not pussyfoot around something "sacred" just because a bunch of people believe it.

[World politics is up Schmitt creek]

All of which are perfectly acceptable things to believe, for reasons that do have something to do with their potential truth-value but are not controlled by it.

How so? They're either simply not true or so far-fetched it's ridiculous to assert as an absolute truth.

That doesn't necessarily mean one should do otherwise than believing them.

[fezzyfestoon]

All of which are perfectly acceptable things to believe, for reasons that do have something to do with their potential truth-value but are not controlled by it.

How so? They're either simply not true or so far-fetched it's ridiculous to assert as an absolute truth.

That doesn't necessarily mean one should do otherwise than believing them.

Of course not, but it's hardly something that can actually be argued is truth. Anyone can believe what they want, but I find it silly not to acknowledge that it's extremely unlikely. Pretending as though it's an undeniable truth that makes perfect sense just doesn't work for me. Not that it has to, of course. Just sayin'...

[World politics is up Schmitt creek]

All of which are perfectly acceptable things to believe, for reasons that do have something to do with their potential truth-value but are not controlled by it.

How so? They're either simply not true or so far-fetched it's ridiculous to assert as an absolute truth.

That doesn't necessarily mean one should do otherwise than believing them.

Of course not, but it's hardly something that can actually be argued is truth. Anyone can believe what they want, but I find it silly not to acknowledge that it's extremely unlikely. Pretending as though it's an undeniable truth that makes perfect sense just doesn't work for me. Not that it has to, of course. Just sayin'...

Oh, I entirely agree with you and I'm religious. I believe these things as truth but it's distinctly an act of faith and I'm smart enough to understand the implications of that as a basis for believing. I wish more religious people were because I think that if this distinction were better articulated and argued more intelligent people would feel comfortable being or identifying as religious, which I would hope would make religion a more intelligent space.

[fezzyfestoon]

All of which are perfectly acceptable things to believe, for reasons that do have something to do with their potential truth-value but are not controlled by it.

How so? They're either simply not true or so far-fetched it's ridiculous to assert as an absolute truth.

That doesn't necessarily mean one should do otherwise than believing them.

Of course not, but it's hardly something that can actually be argued is truth. Anyone can believe what they want, but I find it silly not to acknowledge that it's extremely unlikely. Pretending as though it's an undeniable truth that makes perfect sense just doesn't work for me. Not that it has to, of course. Just sayin'...

Oh, I entirely agree with you and I'm religious. I believe these things as truth but it's distinctly an act of faith and I'm smart enough to understand the implications of that as a basis for believing. I wish more religious people were because I think that if this distinction were better articulated and argued more intelligent people would feel comfortable being or identifying as religious, which I would hope would make religion a more intelligent space.

Well, here's to hoping that never happens

[World politics is up Schmitt creek]

All of which are perfectly acceptable things to believe, for reasons that do have something to do with their potential truth-value but are not controlled by it.

How so? They're either simply not true or so far-fetched it's ridiculous to assert as an absolute truth.

That doesn't necessarily mean one should do otherwise than believing them.

Of course not, but it's hardly something that can actually be argued is truth. Anyone can believe what they want, but I find it silly not to acknowledge that it's extremely unlikely. Pretending as though it's an undeniable truth that makes perfect sense just doesn't work for me. Not that it has to, of course. Just sayin'...

Oh, I entirely agree with you and I'm religious. I believe these things as truth but it's distinctly an act of faith and I'm smart enough to understand the implications of that as a basis for believing. I wish more religious people were because I think that if this distinction were better articulated and argued more intelligent people would feel comfortable being or identifying as religious, which I would hope would make religion a more intelligent space.

Well, here's to hoping that never happens

Dude, it or something like it is going to retain its psychological and emotive power. Making it more intelligent is in everybody's best interests.

[fezzyfestoon]

Dude, it or something like it is going to retain its psychological and emotive power. Making it more intelligent is in everybody's best interests.

Well, objectively, yeah...but I'm selfishly holding out for religion to just fade away completely

[World politics is up Schmitt creek]

Dude, it or something like it is going to retain its psychological and emotive power. Making it more intelligent is in everybody's best interests.

Well, objectively, yeah...but I'm selfishly holding out for religion to just fade away completely

I'm selfishly holding out for a culture completely suffused with ritually traditionalist, politically radical liturgical Christianity, but it's not an eventuality I'm bothering to prepare for.

[afleitch]

To touch upon what fezzy outlined for me what is concerning about philosophical discussion is that it can never be brutally honest if certain subsets of philosophy with a god-head are given specialised treatment either in discourse or in many cases, through law. I could be a follower of Socrates; a 'Socratist' but am afforded no protection in my beliefs (and rightly so) other than the right to express them. But if I follow Buddha then there is somehow a distinction. Now I could be smart and start a 'church' and appeal to Socrates prophetic nature (his appeals to the 'oracle') and then I may have a chance of getting a reverance and a protection that was otherwise not afforded to me. Why? Because I have made that transition from the philosophic to the dogmatic. I have transformed thought into something material because now I can say 'I believe this and this is our place to assemble to share it.'

That is why it can be frustrating. I don't believe in gods, any gods. But I am willing to discuss thoughts, arguments and ideas. But I cannot do that honestly if I have to make a concession to the god-head or 'god-arm', to Jesus or Buddha or Mohammed as something 'greater' than Socrates or Marx. Nothing Jesus said or did affords him that concession. Nothing. But at times I am required to give it.

[Zioneer]

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.

[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.

[Zioneer]

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.

[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.

[Zioneer]

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.

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.

[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.

[Zioneer]

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.

I actually have no idea; I guess that if you accept Joseph Smith as a prophet of God, then you can say that God doesn't want Mormons to have tea for whatever reason. If you don't, you can say that Smith just didn't like tea (or his brother Hyrum, who gave the original clarification on "hot drinks", didn't like it).

Herbal tea and some versions of iced tea are okay, however. At my majority-LDS high school, we had herbal tea all the time.

[they don't love you like i love you]

Do Mormons still hold excommunication trials? And how does that work for ex-members who actually want to leave?

[Zioneer]

Do Mormons still hold excommunication trials? And how does that work for ex-members who actually want to leave?

(sorry to respond so late)

I'm not sure on the excommunication trials; I've never been involved in one, and I've never heard of anyone in recent times being involved in one. I don't think either ex-members or the Church itself likes to do those anymore. Too messy, and in this day and age, too likely to become public.

Most members looking to leave the LDS church simply stop coming to church functions, and if they want to go the whole way, email/phone the church to take their name off the records. Most don't go that far though; they usually just leave the Mormon-centric area they live in and move to a different area. If they can't move away, they make it publicly clear that they don't want to be part of the church anymore.

I'll be honest, part of why the LDS Church says it has 14 million members is because a lot of inactive or ex members don't bother to take their names off the membership records, so a lot of people who thought they left the church forever are still in the records. In fact, people like Marco Rubio (who converted to Mormonism at an early age), might still be in the records.

[Zioneer]

Bumping this in case anyone has more questions.

[Oswald Acted Alone, You Kook]

Polygamy? Do you guys have any Biblical justifications or did Smith/Young have their own visions to justifiy it?

[Frodo]

Polygamy? Do you guys have any Biblical justifications or did Smith/Young have their own visions to justifiy it?

Both -if you read the Old Testament you will know that the ancient Hebrew patriarchs from Abraham to Jacob were polygamists (or at least bigamists). 

[Oswald Acted Alone, You Kook]

Polygamy? Do you guys have any Biblical justifications or did Smith/Young have their own visions to justifiy it?

Both -if you read the Old Testament you will know that the ancient Hebrew patriarchs from Abraham to Jacob were polygamists (or at least bigamists). 

True, but why did Smith/Young accept it after monogamy became the norm?

[Frodo]

Polygamy? Do you guys have any Biblical justifications or did Smith/Young have their own visions to justifiy it?

Both -if you read the Old Testament you will know that the ancient Hebrew patriarchs from Abraham to Jacob were polygamists (or at least bigamists). 

True, but why did Smith/Young accept it after monogamy became the norm?

That's a good question.  According to this PBS documentary (which I strongly encourage you all to watch if you haven't already), Joseph Smith supposedly received a vision during the Nauvoo, IL period that told him that polygamy was divinely sanctioned.  He later pressured his lieutenant Brigham Young into (reluctantly) accepting it as well. 

[hawkeye59]

Polygamy? Do you guys have any Biblical justifications or did Smith/Young have their own visions to justifiy it?

Both -if you read the Old Testament you will know that the ancient Hebrew patriarchs from Abraham to Jacob were polygamists (or at least bigamists). 

True, but why did Smith/Young accept it after monogamy became the norm?

That's a good question.  According to this PBS documentary (which I strongly encourage you all to watch if you haven't already), Joseph Smith supposedly received a vision during the Nauvoo, IL period that told him that polygamy was divinely sanctioned.  He later pressured his lieutenant Brigham Young into (reluctantly) accepting it as well. 

Well, reluctantly at first, because he ended up having 55 wives, and having 56 children from 16 of them.