« The GOP's Jesse Jackson Moment? | Main | Mitt Romney's Long March »

What Is It About Mormonism?

07 Jan 2008 04:22 pm

Writing on Mormonism in this Sunday's Times Magazine, Noah Feldman becomes about the eighteen thousandth writer to explain that non-Mormon Christians only find the LDS faith weird and implausible because its revelation is so recent. Even though "there is nothing inherently less plausible about God’s revealing himself to an upstate New York farmer in the early years of the Republic than to the pharaoh’s changeling grandson in ancient Egypt," Feldman writes, for most people "antiquity breeds authenticity," because "events in the distant past, we tend to think, occurred in sacred, mythic time."

To which Alan Jacobs retorts:

But this only makes sense under the assumption that the only reason people disbelieve Mormonism is its recency. It seems not to occur to Feldman to ask whether all propositions of all religions are equally plausible or implausible. Is “antiquity” really the only factor at work here? If only a handful were attracted to the teachings of David Koresh, is the recency of those teachings a sufficient explanation? Such an assumption is simplistic at best. Let me be clear: I do not mean to say that Mormon beliefs are anything like the crackpot tenets of Koresh; I am just claiming that if you want to understand why certain beliefs are not widely respected or admired, you might want to know something besides how old they are. You might want to inquire into the actual content of those beliefs.

Moreover, if the Average Joe takes Judaism seriously than Mormonism — a proposition that may or may not be true — “antiquity” isn’t the reason. If that were the case, then the Average Joe would find the worship of Ashteroth, Baal, and Isis and Osiris as plausible as that of Yahweh. Insofar as people-in-general concede respect to Judaism, that’s not because of Judaism’s “antiquity” but because of its continuity. If we ever have Mormons who have been saying the same prayers to the same God for three thousand years or so, then those Mormons will almost certainly get a hell of a lot more respect than today’s Latter-Day Saints do.

Well said. I don't want to dismiss the "antiquity equals plausibility" argument, since it obviously contains an element of truth, but it tends to function as a conversation-stopper in intellectual discourse these days - as an easy out for secular writers who assume that all religions are equally implausible, or at least equally beyond rational examination, and who don't want to wade into the weeds of history, archaeology and comparative theology to see whether it might be otherwise. In reality, though, the major plausibility issue facing Mormonism isn't when and where and how long ago the events crucial to the religion are supposed to have taken place, but whether the Mormon account of those events feels persuasive as a historical narrative. This is an issue that faces every major religion that claims God intervenes in history; Mormonism's problem - and a major reason why its tenets are often "dismissed as ridiculous" (as Feldman puts it) by mainstream Christians - is that the Book of Mormon doesn't seem to stack up nearly as well in this regard as, say, the Gospel According to Saint Matthew.

Obviously, this historical-plausibility question doesn't matter to every believer, but it does matter (as it should) to an awful lot of people, which is why so much ink has been spilled by foes of Christian orthodoxy, from Elaine Pagels to Dan Brown, arguing from the historical record (as they see it) that the events of the Gospels didn't happen the way the Gospels said they did. The idea that it should be otherwise - that it's "indefensible," as Feldman puts it, to suggest that Roman Catholicism is more likely to be true than Mormonism because Saint Peter really existed whereas the Nephites probably didn't - only makes sense if you assume the premises of a materialistic (or fideistic) worldview. Which seems like a bad way to set about analyzing the beliefs of people who don't assume that worldview, which is what Feldman's essay is supposed to be doing.

TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://rossdouthat.theatlantic.com/mt/mt-tb.cgi/24242

Comments (133)

three points

1) as feldman notes, part of the problem is the perception by many evangelicals that mormonism is a heresy, not that it is a made up religion. specifically, it asserts it is authentically christian while contradicting some of the axioms which evangelical (and other) christians assert serve as boundary conditions of what christianity is (e.g., nicene creed & athanasian formula).

2) as you note, the "problem" for some secularists (e.g., me) is that not only does mormonism make an assertion about god which we reject, its ancillary details in the scriptures are totally implausible to us (the historical narrative part). the hebrew bibles are imperfect historical documents, as all texts are, but they reflect reality. the book of mormon seems a forgery to me. that being said, i actually find the mormon concept of god to be less incoherent and implausible than the standard mainstream christian view. so perhaps i should reexamine the weight i assign various parameters.

3) some secularists seem to like the antiquity argument because they're taking the montaigne position that the irrationalities of our society are simply something we accept, but deviant irrationalities are something we should reject. the only problem i have with this is that secularists tend to give a pass at non-western religions, some of which are also relatively recent in origin(though make less grand supernatural claims, e.g., sikhism and the bahai religion). so i think a bizarre form of cultural relativism is at work here: mormons are "WASPs" with weird religious beliefs so they should be mocked. if they were brown-skinned people with weird religious beliefs they'd probably have "different ways of knowing" or some other crap. their combination of exoticism and familiarity is simply hard to slot into the appropriate mental schema most americans are equipped with.

so feldman has a point.

Mr. Felmans article seem like a condensed version of the disscussion at the pew forum on religion

http://pewforum.org/events/?EventID=148
Mormonism and Politics: Are They Compatible?

Have a read. Would it smack of plagerism, if not for the injection of clever biased opinion, a standard for the Alantic?
Vis-a-vis does my zeitgeist predispose me to be hypersensitve as a young mormon?

The idea that it should be otherwise - that it's "indefensible," as Feldman puts it, to suggest that Roman Catholicism is more likely to be true than Mormonism because Saint Peter really existed whereas the Nephites probably didn't - only makes sense if you assume the premises of a materialistic (or fideistic) worldview. Which seems like a bad way to set about analyzing the beliefs of people who don't assume that worldview, which is what Feldman's essay is supposed to be doing.

But if you don't accept materialism then what does "plausibility" have to do with anything?
If you're not willing to be limitted by our understanding of the physical world and its laws, then can anything be implausible?

I mean once people start rising from the dead three days after they died from crucifiction and stab to the gutt, isn't just about anything else fair game?

Cut from another page:

The essay is just pitiful, the author apparently lacking any of awareness of the history and beliefs which make it so fascinating.Part of the problem with the essay is that it doesn't hit any of the slow moving targets. There are some magnificent whoppers in Mormon history which--amazingly--do not appear in the essay. Among them are the known fabrications of fraudulent texts by Joseph Smith, which were later proven to be Egyptian funerary papyri. (Smith called this the "Book of Abraham"). The list goes on and on. Here's another: my personal favorite is the Kinderhook hoax (I may have misspelled that) in which Joseph Smith was presented a meaningless Egyptian "text" scribbled by some scheming anti-Mormons. Smith declared it a part of the restored Word of God until the hoax was exposed. Then there are the unlovely facts of Joseph Smith's life involving the many teenage girls he pressured for sex on pain of damnation. And, like I said, it keeps going and going. There are many more stories like the ones above. See Richard Ostling's magnificent work "Mormon America" for all the history.

This book, a collection of all sorts of colorful historical data, is relied upon by most professional scholars, despite its non-professional standing and anti-Mormon animus. It is quite a read. Enjoy.

http://www.utlm.org/onlinebooks/changecontents.htm

I mostly agree with Razib, but with the following exceptions:

1) I'm no expert, but in my experience the Nicene Creed is as foreign to many evangelicals as the Kama Sutra. The Evangelical opposition to the LDS Church seems to be more of a visceral assessment of heresy than a theological one.

2) For me, it's not so much a matter of whether the Hebrew Bible and the Gospel reflect reality (not so much) but that they reflect authenticity. These are the actual, earnest beliefs of a primitive society that have been handed down for so many generations as to become an inextricable part of the heritage of our modern world. One can be skeptical about their factual nature while still believing that they contain historical and cultural value. Whereas the Book of Mormon, to me, gives off an exceptionally strong whiff of bad snake oil.

3) The lack of exoticism associated with upstate New York surely contributes to the particularly rough treatment that Mormons get from Secularists. But is this really an irrational response? I'm not a creature of faith, but it certainly seems to require an element of mystery. It's easier for me to comprehend faith in miraculous events that took place in antiquity or in little-known foreign lands. It's much harder to comprehend faith in a highly suspicious set of "miracles" that took place in a country we all know from firsthand experience to be full of con men and dodgy salesmen.

But if you don't accept materialism then what does "plausibility" have to do with anything?
If you're not willing to be limitted by our understanding of the physical world and its laws, then can anything be implausible?

I mean once people start rising from the dead three days after they died from crucifiction and stab to the gutt, isn't just about anything else fair game?
Posted by WillieStyle

Not an unfair point, but it seems to me a religion gains plausibility if parts of its narrative can be corraborated with objective archaeological evidence. Archaeologists are continually amazed to discover the depth of historical accuracy in the Bible in its mention of obscure communities and rulers later determined to have existed when new archaeolgical evidence is unearthed. On the other hand, I don't even know many Mormons who believe that archaelogists will one day uncover evidence of a vast 2,000-year-old Jewish classical civilization in North America. That doesn't mean any Christian can prove the Resurrection or the Virgin Birth, but it does strengthen the claims of the faith to know there really is a Bethlehem, or that there are records independent of scripture that corraborate that there really was a young Jewish rabbi who went by the name of Jesus Christ living in Judea in the first century.

One other thing I would add, I believe the LDS church is missing an opportunity here. Rather than decry that Governor Romney must justify how his religion impacts his public policy actions -- something Catholic candidates have to do pretty much every time they run for office (and frankly something Romney himself has invited with his public piety) -- it's a shame we aren't seeing more articles that actually explain LDS theology so that they are not so mysterious and so we can have a dialogue based on better understanding of everyone's beliefs.

Is it fair to ask Romney:

When you become a god, what kind of universe will you create?

The truth is in some ways the opposite of what Feldman and others write. It is not the recentness of Mormonism that makes most regard it as obviously inauthentic, but the claims it makes about antiquity. As Ross notes and as Razib notes in his point #2 above, the Book of Mormon puts forth the existence of peoples and nations that almost certainly did not exist. In contrast, while secularly-minded scholars would question many of the specific historical claims made by the Bible, no one disputes that there really was a people called the Israelites/Hebrews/Jews or that in the time of Christ, there really was a Roman Empire that ruled Judea, Samaria, and Galilee and that used crucifixion as a method of execution. It is Smith's claims about antiquity, not his claims about the nineteenth century, that fatally undermine his overall assertions.

I slightly disagree with James.

There is zero immediate evidence that anything in the Old Testament happened. We have a lot more "evidence" so to speak for the events narrated in the New Testament, except that all its primary documents are written by believers.

So the problems do include ridiculous historical claims made by the Book of Mormon.

But even more rationally indefensible are the actual DOCTRINES promulgated by Mormons. Take just one example: the idea that the gods are exalted human beings; that the gods were once human in a past life and that we too will become gods and procreate whole universes. These are claims that must be theologically stated in a coherent way. Yet they cannot. Polytheism is completely unreasonable.

Scott, I'm not sure you're wrong, but isn't part of that archeology finding an obscure town or region and slapping a Biblical name on it because it kinda sorta fits the location. Also, there was never even in Christianity's version of itself a young Jewish rabbi who went by the name of Jesus Christ. Christ, or Chrestos is a Greek title that nobody thinks Jesus actually used. There MAY have been a Yeshua or something like that wandering around Galilee saying some very odd things, but its not clear what he actually preached, and those "contemporary" records always turn out to be not so contemporary. I actually suspect that you are right that Christianity is more plausible in its surrounding details, but you're getting distracted by some mythical history.

How exactly is polytheism "completely unreasonable," or do you mean just within a Mormon framework?

Half the reason it seems weird is because people keep misrepresenting and distorting the facts about Mormonism.

Take the little "Kinderhook" example from Rob above. Most of his assertions rely on the accounts of one William Clayton. Clayton's account is full of exaggerations and outright mistakes in retelling the events. Clayton has been pretty-much discredited as a reliable source of the facts in this situation.

The Kinderhook plates were shown to be forgeries, presented to Joseph Smith as a trap. Unfortunately for the conspirators, Joseph never took them up on it. Note that people waited until ten years after Joseph's death to start yelling about how Joe had been duped. Convenient that Joseph was no longer around to offer a contradiction. Why the wait?

There are valid places to criticize Mormonism. But this ain't one of them. And we Mormons are continually bombarded with - pardon my french - little chickensh*t issues like this that have dubious historic merit, and contribute little to the conversation other than to introduce a sneering tone.

Apparently the internet is not lacking in people who think that "your mother wears army boots" is a valid form of debate.
And that's really all I get from half the anti-Mormon material I encounter on the internet - a sneering tone.

1) I'm no expert, but in my experience the Nicene Creed is as foreign to many evangelicals as the Kama Sutra. The Evangelical opposition to the LDS Church seems to be more of a visceral assessment of heresy than a theological one.

agreed. i've experienced baptist friends mocking the hindu idea that gods became incarnated into human flesh ;-)

There is zero immediate evidence that anything in the Old Testament happened.

? this is obviously false, right? i mean, there was a cyrus? the maccabees were real, right? the assyrians?

These are claims that must be theologically stated in a coherent way. Yet they cannot. Polytheism is completely unreasonable.

hm. that's strange, i think mormon views are much more coherent because they're grounded in common sense! (of a sort) the greek garb of traditional christian theology seems to render it totally insulated from genuine analysis.

Polybius, razib,

Rob, in the polytheism remark, is simply outing himself as another religious zealot who thinks his brand of myth-telling is better than everyone else's.

Don't get me wrong, I happen to think the same thing about my religion. I just have the sense not to use such arguments in a manifestly secular forum.

"Most of his assertions rely on the accounts of one William Clayton. Clayton's account is full of exaggerations and outright mistakes in retelling the events. Clayton has been pretty-much discredited as a reliable source of the facts in this situation."

Whether or not Clayton got some small details wrong doesn't discount the most important part of his journal entry:

"I have seen 6 brass plates... covered with ancient characters of language containing from 30 to 40 on each side of the plates. Prest J. has translated a portion and says they contain the history of the person with whom they were found and he was a descendant of Ham through the loins of Pharaoh king of Egypt, and that he received his kingdom from the ruler of heaven and earth." (William Clayton's Journal, May 1, 1843, as cited in Trials of Discipleship - The Story of William Clayton, a Mormon, page 117)

It'd be unwise to overlook the fact that Clayton was:

* Smith's private secretary
* perhaps Smith's most trusted confidant
* officiator for Smith's secret plural wedding at Smith's residence in the morning
* at Smith's residence for much of the day
* in Smith's company for much of the day
* house sitting for Smith later that day while Joseph was on a date with Flora Woodworth
* at Smith's residence when he examined the fake ancient artifacts
* at Smith's residence when he wrote his journal entry

On this issue Don Bradley writes:

"William Clayton did not acquire his information about Joseph and the Kinderhook plates from the rumor mill. Clayton was Joseph's personal secretary, and a man as much in his confidence as any at the time. He dined with Joseph at the Mansion House, examined the plates while there, and traced one of them on the reverse of the page where he recorded his journal entry for the day, including this regarding the plates, 'Brother Joseph has translated a portion of them, and says they contain....'"

I invite you to look at the sources I have compiled here on this issue. The truth is that the Kinderhook plates issue continues to be a part of a much larger package of things that historically call into question the integrity of Joseph Smith.

So where's the translation then Aaron? The evidence points to an attempted frontier practical joke that never came to fruition because Joseph never played along. I'm not sure what you think the Clayton quote actually establishes. If you want to read more on the subject, here you go

But like I said these are silly little issues that have only marginal relevance to Mormonism's supposed value or legitimacy.

I thought Mr. Douthat had sworn off making ignorant assertions about the historical plausibility of Mormonism's truth claims? Ah, well.

The fact that Mitt Romney's candidacy has all of us sitting around arguing about the plausibility of Mormonism seems like evidence that the implausibility of Mormonism is a problem for his campaign.

Also, where do you get off placing Elaine Pagels in the same category as Dan Brown? Ms. Pagels is a bloody good historian (or are you going to now claim that the Nag Hammadi scrolls don't exist?) who has done excellent scholarly work as to the beginnings of Christianity. Dan Brown is just a hack writer.

Ack, I meant that nothing in the story of Exodus has been proven. My fault.

In time, the Book of Mormon will come to be recognized by Mormon believers as a book of spiritual insight and uplift. This is mostly fine; and the most that can be hoped for by LDS believers. I hope they come to avail themselves of this option. I hope this so that they might move into the ambit of Christianity and make real contributions to it. But Mormons have a good deal of spiritual anguish ahead of them if they keep insisting that it is a record of actual events.

From a Christian point of view, Richard Newhaus' well-known essay, "Is Mormonism Christian" stands as the most thoughtful and insightful things on the issue. It is required reading on the subject.

http://www.firstthings.com/article.php3?id_article=2550#mormonism

It isn't so much that polytheism per se is unreasonable. I don't agree with the beliefs of polytheistic Hindus, Buddhists, Animists or whoever else, but I don't go around trying to poke fun at their beliefs.
The specific thing that strikes me as silly about Mormonism is that they hold that their god is material, that he occupies a specific abode in space (Kolab) and that man can become a god. The idea that God is material is one that is so absurd that as far as I know no one has ever claimed it before- not the Hindus, not the Zoroastrians, not the Buddhists, not the Animists, not the heretic Christians. It violates the terms of the cosmological proof of the existence of God, for one thing. The cosmological proof shows that the creator of the world could have been many things- God, the Devil, a demon, an angel, a team of angels are all reasonable ideas- but the one thing the creator could _not_ have been is a material being, since that gets us into the problem of infinite regress. Who created that material being? The cosmological argument demands a cause of the material universe which is not himself material, which Mormonism signally fails to provide.

One simply cannot compare the Christian miracles (the Virgin Birth, the Resurrection, the healing of the lepers) with Mormon "miracles" like the angel giving Joseph Smith the magic sunglasses. None of the Apostle's contemporaries denied the fact that Jesus was not the biological son of Joseph. It would have been easy for the Jewish authorities in the first century to consult Roman trial records and dig up the body of Jesus, or to obtain testimony concerning Joseph and Mary having intercourse, or to debunk the stories of Jesus curing lepers and blind people, etc. The fact that mysteriously, none of these records that would have disproven the myth of Jesus ever turned up, indicates that Jesus is actually the myth made fact, and that the miracles surrounding His life actually happened.

On the contrary, the story about the magic sunglasses has NO reason to back it up.

Mormon teaching declares that indigenous Americans are descended from two Jewish groups who arrived prior to the time of Christ. Church founder Joseph Smith wrote: 'He [Moroni] told me of a sacred record which was written on plates of gold, I saw in the vision the place where they were deposited, he said the Indians were the literal descendants of Abraham.' (Personal Writings of Joseph Smith, Diary 1835-1836, pg. 76). This claim has continuously been taught in various LDS scriptures and taught from the pulpit by church leaders. Please note, this is a claim of historical fact, not faith.

If Romney accepts his church’s teaching; he must reject all the empirical evidence accumulated by respected scholars who study ancient America from the disciplines of archeology, anthropology, linguistics, DNA, etc. and who firmly declare Asia is the source of indigenous American origins. There is no evidence supporting the claim of Jewish ancestry of any Native American individual or group and voluminous evidence debunking it. Charles Mann in his book 1491 gives an excellent overview of current scholarship regarding ancient American people and cultures. He discusses ‘lost tribe’ theories and dismisses the proponents of such as the “blind leading the blind”.

“It came as no surprise to most scientists to learn that the DNA of living indigenous Americans was most homologous with the DNA of Asians. Well before the structure of DNA had been determined, the Asian source had been accepted through the steady accumulation of over a century's worth of research from many disciplines. It was, and still is, widely accepted that the first waves of colonization occurred around or before 14,000 years ago from Siberia by way of the Bering Strait.” (Losing a Lost Tribe, p. 73).


Maintaining willful ignorance by rejecting relevant evidence from credible sources because it contradicts already held conclusions is legitimate cause for concern and has already led to the deaths of too many soldiers as well as the loss of respect for American leadership.

This is not about true or false faith. Faith by it’s nature is not provable or unprovable. Faith can do many positive things such as provide comfort in difficult times or guidance during moral dilemmas. Faith, however, cannot alter facts.

The cosmological argument demands a cause of the material universe which is not himself material, which Mormonism signally fails to provide.

speaking as an atheist, i find it refreshing that mormons don't fixate on such philosophical conceits. the 'cosmological proof' to an unbeliever is so much platonic word-play, much about nothing (i don't pretend to have ultimate answers, but i am frank about my ignorance instead of obscuring it with fancy terminology). i've seen mormons, unsophisticated as some of them are, make these same sorts of assertions about mainstream christian philosophy which draws deeply from greek concepts, and i share the concerns and perspectives. granted, i do agree as an empirical matter that mormonism does not provide the philosophical depth that older religious traditions have had time to develop, but most humans are too stupid to understand systematic philosophy anyway. the oxygen that mormonism provides, a personal god, community, ritual and ethical guidance, is certainly sustenance enough for the vast majority of humans who would never make pretense to plumbing the ultimate questions. IOW, some mormons would probably assert that 'it's not a bug, it's a feature.'

In time, the Book of Mormon will come to be recognized by Mormon believers as a book of spiritual insight and uplift.

the reorganized church of latter day saints has pretty much gone that way. they now call themselves the community of christ and have converged upon mainline protestantism.

caedmon,

I've said it before, and I'll say it again.

The Book of Mormon people are not Jewish.

Lehi was from Ephraim and Ishamael's family was from Manasseh. Not Judah. So announcing that there isn't any "Jewish" DNA in Native Americans is really beside the point.

Hector, why exactly is infinite regress so impossible?

No more impossible than some beginning out of nothing, like the rest of Christianity claims.

caedmon, the last time i brought up these issues the more intelligent mormons who showed up on these boards engaged in a lot of exegesis to make it hard to falsify the BOM claims. to be short it about, it seems that they tended to assume that terms like 'wheat' should not be taken too literally, and also cranked down the jewish migration quantitatively so much that it would be genetically undetected. the main issue is that i do think that epidemiology puts an upper cap on how many eurasians can appear with massive changes in the genetic defenses of native americans from occurring.

Whether it's historical fiction or science fiction, it's still fiction.

Giving religious truth claims credibility simply because this or that holy book bears some resemblance to reality is rather generous. Actually, it's unbelievably stupid.

Lehi was from Ephraim and Ishamael's family was from Manasseh. Not Judah. So announcing that there isn't any "Jewish" DNA in Native Americans is really beside the point.

well, new world genetic lineages are pretty distinctive. any old world lineages will show up pretty quickly as a 'long branch' on a phylogeny. so though you're technically correct, the thrust of the criticism is real. if you're going to preserve the idea of settlement/migration from the middle east 2-3 thousand years BP the most parsimonious avenue from a genetic perspective is to reduce the numbers A LOT. the main issue is that eurasian pathogens and eurasian disease genes would have likely exploded way more than a simple ancestral quanta. to give a specific example malaria defenses have been spreading into indigenous peoples in the guyanas from africans and others with recent settlement and small amounts of intermarriage.

Hector, why exactly is infinite regress so impossible?

No more impossible than some beginning out of nothing, like the rest of Christianity claims.

but of course these objection to philosophical arguments get us nowhere. like a lot of fluffy verbal 'logic' your acceptance or rejection of the premises and chain of propositions is strongly conditioned by your priors.

Ross writes: "(T)he major plausibility issue facing Mormonism isn't when and where and how long ago the events crucial to the religion are supposed to have taken place, but whether the Mormon account of those events feels persuasive as a historical narrative. This is an issue that faces every major religion that claims God intervenes in history; Mormonism's problem - and a major reason why its tenets are often "dismissed as ridiculous" (as Feldman puts it) by mainstream Christians - is that the Book of Mormon doesn't seem to stack up nearly as well in this regard as, say, the Gospel According to Saint Matthew."

If you read Matthew 27:51-53, you'll find a zombie invasion of Jerusalem taking place after Jesus's death. There is nothing particularly plausible about this, which is why zombie movies are categorized as fiction rather than documentaries.

Ross is, of course, Christian, and so of course he views his own religion as plausible. If the Book of Mormon featured Indian zombies having a picnic at the Grand Canyon he'd say it was implausible, but the Indian zombie Canyon picnic is no more implausible than any number of things he believes.

Christianity when new was converting a rapidly growing fraction of the Roman Empire away from the "shrouded in antiquity" classical pagan gods at the moment when Constantine saw which way the wind was blowing and jumped on the bandwagon. Why? Because Christianity was, all things considered, a better religion.

Seth,

I'm not sure if I can convince you why infinite regress is impossible. Suffice it to say that it seems, intuitively, to me to be logically impossible. Infinite regress does not yield the resolution that thought demands. That very logical impossibility is part of why I believe in God in the first place (although I have other reasons as well grounded in experience and not in reason).

Let me turn the question around- how is believing in a material God different than believing in no God at all? How is the Mormon god different from Francis Crick's absurd hypothesis that we were put here on earth by intelligent alien species. For me, being an immaterial and wholly spiritual intelligence is part of the very definition of God.

Mormonism, as I understand it, also preaches that God was once a man who became a god because he lived a good life. But the whole difference between us and God is that we can choose to be good, but God is good by nature. It is impossible to imagine a world in which God is not perfectly good. Therefore, to speak of God choosing to be good and becoming a god, is illogical. Either God was always God, or He never shall be. This violates not only the cosmological, but also the ontological proof of God which states that He is a necessarily existing being (i.e. that He could never 'come into' existence had He not been there from the beginning.)

I hope these have helped convince you why I think that Mormonisms is illogical.

Moe,

Do you not understand the difference between a zombie and a resurrected body? A zombie, in the traditional Haitian definition, is a resurrected being with a deformed and mutilated soul. Those who were resurrected on Good Friday, had their souls back complete and whole, in the same way as Lazarus did. Anyway, why is it that nobody seriously challenged the 'zombie invasion of Jerusalem' until over a millennium later? The miracles were widely accepted at the time even by those who were not orthodox Christians.

razib quotes and writes: "There is zero immediate evidence that anything in the Old Testament happened.

? this is obviously false, right? i mean, there was a cyrus? the maccabees were real, right? the assyrians?"

New York City is real, and so are New Yorkers, but the fact that both appear constantly in Marvel comic books does not indicate that Spider-man or the Fantastic Four ever "happened."

I'm constantly surprised I have to point this sort of thing out to people who are old enough to read and write.

Hector, there isn't a single sentence in your comment above that isn't dependent on your wholly unprovable truth claims about your god. It's a house of cards, and you know it, but as always you simply take it as the one and only true fact in the universe. It reminds me of Andrew Sullivan taking on Sam Harris and simply stating that god is by definition the creator of the universe, ergo god created the universe. Brilliant.

To answer your question, the difference between believing in god and not believing in god is that the former is a total waste of time whereas the latter wastes no time at all.

Hector replies: "Do you not understand the difference between a zombie and a resurrected body? A zombie, in the traditional Haitian definition, is a resurrected being with a deformed and mutilated soul. Those who were resurrected on Good Friday, had their souls back complete and whole, in the same way as Lazarus did. Anyway, why is it that nobody seriously challenged the 'zombie invasion of Jerusalem' until over a millennium later? The miracles were widely accepted at the time even by those who were not orthodox Christians."

Apparently they weren't accepted by the Jews who remained Jews, Hec. And who exactly would bother "challenging" this crap, anyway? There's nothing to "challenge," since they're just magical claims. People challenged them by not believing them. The process hasn't changed any.

As for zombies, you need to update your definition and allow for some more serene, stylish zombies. We're also told that Jesus had a big, gaping, horrific wound after his resurrection, so I guess someone screwed up somehow, because that sure seems zombie-like to me.

Actually, Tinisoli, I believe I made it clear that I am not trying to prove to anyone's satisfaction that God created the universe, or whatever. hell, maybe He delegated it to a team of angels and they bungled the job. I personally believe that the heavens and the earth were created through the power of God, but I believe that as a matter of faith, not trying to prove it to you. what I am arguing is that SOMEBODY created the universe, and that Being was perforce not material.

My argument is with the Mormons who appear to hold a vision of God that is indistinguishable from Francis Crick's tall tale about the aliens in spaceship who created life on earth.

Your presumptive belief in freedom and tolerance is as much a matter of faith as my belief that Jesus Christ was the son of God. And no, I don't think that my belief in Christ wastes any time at all. Who was it who said, "I believe in Christ as I believe in the morning sun, not just because I can see Him but because by His light I can see everything else."

Moe,

The Jews who denied Christ claimed that His miracles were done by the power of the devil. They didn't deny that the miracles happened.

Anyway, you haven't answered my question. No one for over a thousand years- orthodox Christians, Christian heretics, Gnostics, Jews, pagan Romans, Zoroastrians, or Muslims- seriously challenged the idea that Jesus was not the biological son of Joseph. Sure, they made up silly claims like He was the illegitimate son of a Roman soldier or whatever, but _no one_ said He was the son of Joseph. Why not, Moe? Between believing that He was the son of God by a virgin Mother, and believing that He was the illegitimate child of a Roman, I know which seems more convincing.

what I am arguing is that SOMEBODY created the universe, and that Being was perforce not material.

And your evidence for this is what, exactly? Oh wait... You can't get something from nothing? Is that it?

My argument is with the Mormons who appear to hold a vision of God that is indistinguishable from Francis Crick's tall tale about the aliens in spaceship who created life on earth.

It's also indistinguishable from your own beliefs about the resurrection, except in the particulars of the zombies and the other fictional characters. They all rely on magic and there's no evidence that any of them actually occurred. Different details, but otherwise the same magic tale, kind of like Santa Claus or the tooth fairy. That you take your magic story more seriously than you take the Mormons' is simply your choice. But it's no more valid than the LDS nonsense just because your fairy tale has been around longer and people therefore have had more time to cobble together explanations for all the inconsistencies and historical inaccuracies.

Your presumptive belief in freedom and tolerance is as much a matter of faith as my belief that Jesus Christ was the son of God.

No, it's not. I understand that my appreciation of freedom and tolerance comes from natural, cultural, and logical origins, all of which emerged over time and ended up in me almost entirely by sheer luck. There's actually something logical about the golden rule, but instead of realizing that and considering how such a rule could evolve (long before primates), you simply credit your magic man and that's that. Your faith is based on the absence of evidence; my faiths are based on the presence of a growing abundance of evidence.

Christianity when new was converting a rapidly growing fraction of the Roman Empire away from the "shrouded in antiquity" classical pagan gods at the moment when Constantine saw which way the wind was blowing and jumped on the bandwagon.

i think this is wrong. as a point of point the aristocracy was overwhelmingly pagan until the late 4th century. the 'intellgensia' was also overwhelmingly pagan (philosophers at constantine's court were embarrassed by his association with the de classe mystery religion). the military was also disproportionately pagan, in part because so many barbarians were brought into it (germans) during the 4th century (in the early 5th century a ban on pagans in office had to be revoked because generals and centurions wouldn't renounce their religion). until the 380s there were subsides to pagan temples, and the emperor retained pagan religious titles (though only symbolically) until gratian's reign in the late 4th century. books like The Making of a Christian Aristocracy: Social and Religious Change in the Western Roman Empire document the favoritism that the christian emperors from constantine on employed so as to increase the proportion of their co-religionists in high offices until they attained majority in the last decades of the 4th century.

there are two extreme narratives about the rise of christianity. a) that was a bottom up tsunami which swallowed the empire, or b) that imperial fiat was the sole reason for the victory of the religion. both are way too simplistic.

Hector,
You claim that nobody has "seriously" challenged the idea that Jesus wasn't Joseph's biological son...
I suppose the people who get to determine what "serious" means are the people who are most invested in the idea of Jesus not being Joseph's son, right? Or is it just you, Hector? What must someone do in order to be "serious"?
But even if this were true, it doesn't amount to evidence that Jesus was borne of a virgin. I could say that there haven't been serious challenges to the idea that the Sun is the god Helios, but that wouldn't mean that the Sun is a god.

I'm constantly surprised I have to point this sort of thing out to people who are old enough to read and write.

you should take some reading comprehension courses yourself. since i stated i was an secularist in the first comment i don't really believe in all the supernatural stuff. unless you are stupid enough imply that cyrus and that maccabees are only attested in the hewbrew bible.

My argument is with the Mormons who appear to hold a vision of God that is indistinguishable from Francis Crick's tall tale about the aliens in spaceship who created life on earth.

well, at least mormons have something to be indistinguishable about. i can't make sense of the whereof you speak.


Tinisoli,


What is your explanations of the visions of St. Joan of Arc? There are only four possible explanations- mania, mendacity, malice, or mystical vision. Your problem is that psychologists have done a psychological analysis of St. Joan based on trial records from the 15th century, and have concluded that she suffered from no known mental disease, and showed none of the symptoms of mental illness. Moreover, one merely needs to look at the trial records to know that she lacked the psychological sophistication to lie. To me, the conclusion seems clear that she was inspired either by God or by the Devil. Her personal morality seems to militate against diabolic inspiration. How do you explain it?

Hector writes: "The Jews who denied Christ claimed that His miracles were done by the power of the devil. They didn't deny that the miracles happened."

Who says they didn't, Hector? And who says they were "done by the power of the devil"? Your problem is that you believe what your propagandists tell you, and they've been at it for a very long time.

"Anyway, you haven't answered my question. No one for over a thousand years- orthodox Christians, Christian heretics, Gnostics, Jews, pagan Romans, Zoroastrians, or Muslims- seriously challenged the idea that Jesus was not the biological son of Joseph. Sure, they made up silly claims like He was the illegitimate son of a Roman soldier or whatever, but _no one_ said He was the son of Joseph. Why not, Moe? Between believing that He was the son of God by a virgin Mother, and believing that He was the illegitimate child of a Roman, I know which seems more convincing."

Yes. So do I. And there are a whole lot of bastards in history, Hector.

Tacitus wrote about the Phoenix, Hector, the magical bird that appears in the Harry Potter books. No one back then was challenging his account, either. Does that mean the bird was real?

There are only four possible explanations- mania, mendacity, malice, or mystical vision.

no there aren't. this is an old problem. your premises allow you prove your conclusion pretty easily, but we don't share your premises.

tinisoli writes: "That you take your magic story more seriously than you take the Mormons' is simply your choice. But it's no more valid than the LDS nonsense just because your fairy tale has been around longer and people therefore have had more time to cobble together explanations for all the inconsistencies and historical inaccuracies."

Of course. The Mormon story was invented during a more reasonable age, and an age of historical record, and so it was questioned immediately. How would someone in Rome in 75 CE question dubious crap that supposedly occurred in Judea 40-50 years previously? They weren't questioning Mithras, either. What was one more god in a marketplace full of them?

as i said earlier, when premises aren't shared and we're talking "logic" there really isn't going to be much movement in discussing religion. that being said, the important area where mormons are vulnerable are cases where some of them (i would say most still today) hold naive views of new world settlement and what not. those are pretty falsifiable in commonly held forms. mormons can get out of this by employing the 'miracle' get out of jail card, or the 'god hid evidence' card. but they don't do that, so we're back to either reworking (through interpretation) how the mormon narratives aren't false when compared to the data, or just denying the data (as creationists do with the age of the earth).

Ross Douthat's comparison isn't defensible, which isn't surprising since I assume he hasn't "waded into the weeds of history, archaeology and comparative theology" any more than Feldman has.

Scientific proof of the existence of the Romans, or of Peter, in no way proves the Gospel accounts or demonstrates Christianity, any more than proving the existence of upstate New York and Joseph Smith proves Mormonism. As it turns out, the historical existence of Joseph Smith is much, much better attested than the historical existence Peter or James and John. But no one cares, nor should they, because the mere existence of any of these figures proves nothing.

What would really prove something is hard proof of the Resurrection or the existence of the Nephites or other Book of Mormon peoples or places. There is some evidence of both, but not enough.

razib quotes and replies: "I'm constantly surprised I have to point this sort of thing out to people who are old enough to read and write.

you should take some reading comprehension courses yourself. since i stated i was an secularist in the first comment i don't really believe in all the supernatural stuff. unless you are stupid enough imply that cyrus and that maccabees are only attested in the hewbrew bible."

Since you can barely write a coherent English sentence I usually skip your stuff. In any event I wasn't responding to the first comment, I was responding to your absurd notion that the presence of real-world places and people in a book somehow means it might be "true." It's just a simple-minded sort of comment to make. Obviously the poster you were responding to wasn't saying Rome or Judea or the Maccabees did not exist.

Could you write more sentences like this one, though?: "i can't make sense of the whereof you speak." That's just funny stuff, chuckles.

Razib,

I knew about the 'trilemma argument'. I agree it has flaws. Which is why I wasn't talking about Jesus, I was talking about St. Joan, who lived fifteen centuries later, and about whom there is much more contemporary documentation, both from her friends and her enemies. One can avoid the Trilemma Argument by saying that the record is so poor that one can't really know what Jesus said. One can't say the same thing about St. Joan, when there are reams and reams of documents written by her contemporaries.

In a broader sense, how do you deal with the reams and reams of accounts of mystical experiences through the millennia, some of them by men and women of the highest intelligence and personal virtue? I would deal with it by presuming that the Persons and Places that they claimed to see- God, the devil, the angels, Heaven and Hell- actually exist. It seems like the most reasonable explanation to me.

Hector writes: "In a broader sense, how do you deal with the reams and reams of accounts of mystical experiences through the millennia, some of them by men and women of the highest intelligence and personal virtue? I would deal with it by presuming that the Persons and Places that they claimed to see- God, the devil, the angels, Heaven and Hell- actually exist. It seems like the most reasonable explanation to me."

Do you feel the same way about the mystical experiences claimed by members of other religions, Hector? Or do you think they're just deceived by the Debbil, or perhaps that Jesus was playing dress-up on that particular day?

MoeLarryAndJesus strikes again with his fascinating blend of pomposity and desperate cries for help!

"Chuckles," sweetheart, we get it. You don't like conservatives. You don't like religious believers. You think all religion is a waste of time. And yet you continue to post, MORE THAN ANYONE ELSE, on a conservative Catholic's blog. Why is that, Moe, sweetie? Did Daddy beat as a child? Did Mommy not love you enough? Are you too much of pussy in real life to stand up for yourself, so you are forced to incessantly write arrogant and annoying anonymous comments on every blogpost by Ross?

Internet dating is now widely used, you might be able to find someone! I hear women on there are pretty desperate!

Good luck, sweetheart!

Derrick

Hector,

Hallucinations, hopes, lies, dreams, psychosis, schizophrenia, wishful thinking, various gases seeping up from the Earth, drugs, alcohol, cannabis.... These are but a few possible inspirations or sources for the mystical experiences through the ages. And these are things that we KNOW are real. You just don't like them enough. They're inadequate. Just as the human brain and evolution and other things aren't awesome enough to displace your Jesus.

Just a couple of comments from me, a lifetime Mormon (member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints).

(1) A Mormon apostle, Jeffrey R. Holland, recently gave a speech that addresses the question as to whether Mormons are Christian. In my opinion, the speech is well stated, clear and logical. In essence, the speech points out that Mormon beliefs about the Godhead are scriptually based, whereas the trinitarian notion accepted by most Christian religions is based on a crede developed by men long after Christ died (not on the Bible). http://lds.org/conference/talk/display/0,5232,23-1-775-15,00.html;

I point this out not to speak ill of my Christian friends, but to assert that Mormons are indeed Christian!

(2) Within the discussion about the historical validity of the Book of Mormon, I would like to point out that the purpose of the Book of Mormon, as stated on its title page, is to convince "the Jew and Gentile that Jesus is the Christ, the Eternal God". I have noticed that critics of the Book of Mormon tend to focus on why the book cannot be true based on lack of archaeological evidence, or on Joseph Smith's supposed fabrications, etc. Yet those critics are missing the point. The Book of Mormon's main message and purpose is to bring souls to Jesus Christ. Its main purpose is not to teach people about the ancient American civilizations. I have read the Book of Mormon many times. I've also read many commentaries about the Book of Mormon, both for and against the book. The book's strength is of course its teachings about the Atonement of Christ (why it was necessary and how it helps us), the certainty of the resurrection, God's promises that He has made to us, His children and, most importantly the ability of men and women to experience a spiritual rebirth through the power of Jesus Christ. If you haven't yet read the Book of Mormon, I encourage you to get your own copy and read it with a sincere heart, with the intent to come unto Christ. It will make your life better.

Look at the fruits of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. There's a lot of good going on in this growing worldwide movement. There must be something that's right about it!

Derrick posts: "Derrick

Posted by Derrick "

Keep on posting those Derrick posts posted by Derrick, Derrick. They're very Derrick, Derrick.

tinisoli,

Is it easier for certain people to ascribe their mystical experience to something transcendent or is it easier for certain other people to ascribe their experience to purely natural phenomenon? Of course, you have "hopes" and "wishful thinking" listed, which hardly describe purely natural phenomenon. Good luck explaining to the Churchlands why those things should be included on your list. Even Sam Harris, a committed atheist, recognizes some value in mystical experience, although as far as I know he attributes it all to the material. But this shouldn't really come as much of a surprise. Even an atheist, quasi-nihilist like Heidegger was a mystic in some sense. I'm rather agnostic on the whole subject, quite frankly, but it's hard for me not to scoff at a supposed empiricist who then dismisses out of hand mystical experiences. I'll take William James over Daniel Dennett any day, thank you very much.

Paul F writes: "If you haven't yet read the Book of Mormon, I encourage you to get your own copy and read it with a sincere heart, with the intent to come unto Christ."

Just stay at a Marriott and take one home with you. It's how I got mine.

"Look at the fruits of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints."

Shhh! Mitt's trying to pretend those people don't exist until after the election!

Derrick derricks: "Is it easier for certain people to ascribe their mystical experience to something transcendent or is it easier for certain other people to ascribe their experience to purely natural phenomenon? Of course, you have "hopes" and "wishful thinking" listed, which hardly describe purely natural phenomenon."

Is it easier for certain people to try to use big words in order to appear intelligent when they don't know what the plural of "phenomenon" is?

That's twice you've got me on syntax, Moe! In a single thread, no less! Whatever am I going to do? I'll probably just abandon all of my beliefs about the world because an internet loser with Mommy and Daddy issues decided to make fun of me!! Yep, that's what I'll do, just like every other person Moe calls a dummy-head on this website will.

Hey, Has anyone here read the Book of Mormon? Does anyone here believe that God answers prayers? Has anyone read the Book of Mormon and asked God if it is true? That's what I want to hear about. God doesn't allow the deductive proof of these concepts but rather requires faith and witness based on the trial of faith. The Holy Ghost is the source of truth. As we develop our sensitivity to the Holy Ghost and progress through steps outlined by Christ we become like him and have knowledge not available by typical academic or logical means. This does not mean that the two are contradictory. I have read and prayed about the Book of Mormon and know that it is true. I am a Mormon. I can think of any number of reasons why any objection to elements of the history of the Church can be easily explained. It all comes down to a spiritual sensitivity. The rest is just spinning your wheels.
This is very important though. The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints makes some huge claims: active modern revelation, priesthood authority, modern scripture, new ancient scripture. It's either the most important religious occurance since Christ's ministry and resurrection or it's a wicked lie. Choose wisely. By their fruits ye shall know them.

This may merely become added noise. But I feel that the absurdities and untenable claims made by Rob, and a few others, throughout this thread, and even the claim in the article that goes

"is that the Book of Mormon doesn't seem to stack up nearly as well in this regard as, say, the Gospel According to Saint Matthew."

All have the bravado of appealing to cleverly made works that only regard the facts they find to be favorable.

The above quote is not demonstrated, and I would defy it to be demonstrated. But this is common fair for the pseudo-intellectual critic.

Now you may say that I'm doing the same thing. But you'd be wrong. I can't answer, and few would pay enough attention to make it worth answering, with the time limitations in my life. But I can put together videos and post them on youtube. They are not fancy fair like you'll find in many major pieces critical of the Mormon faith, but they answer the questions and demonstrate the folly of many of these hollow attempts to allow assertions to pass as proof.

So go to my channel page on YouTube. User name is the same- "HiveRadical" There I do my best to answer things like the Book of Abraham issue, DNA issue and a variety of other issues.

I believe Feldman presented his case as he did because he knows that so many of these hollow assertions that are given as though they were fact are hollow and mere illusions held on to by people who think they've explained 'Mormonism' sufficiently.

Derrick laments: "That's twice you've got me on syntax, Moe! In a single thread, no less!"

That's true. But there is hope. Many communities offer free adult literacy programs. I encourage you to take advantage of your opportunities in your own area.

Moe,

I certainly will. Out of thanks I would like to help you find a psychiatrist to deal with some of those emotional resentments you harbor towards your parents. Perhaps we can find a good psychoanalyst. I also have a few friends that did match.com, and they seemed to have positive experiences. They might offer some sort of buy 1 month get 1 month free or something. Anyways, together we can do this!

Yeah, Derrick, that would be one hell of a way to celebrate my 20th wedding anniversary coming up in a few months.

Your assumptions about me are all wrong. On the other hand your lack of literacy is right there in almost every one of your posts, so please do get some help.

Marriage for 20 years, NO WONDER you're so angry and bitter! Perhaps the woman is a little overbearing and you have to take out some of that built-up rage and frustration on an anonymous blog? Am I right? Am I right?

Anyways, psychoanalysis is good for the soul, Moe, but it's hard when you won't open up to me. I feel like we are making progress, but you really need to just talk to a professional. Remember, they are here to HELP you.

Derrick again: "Marriage for 20 years, NO WONDER you're so angry and bitter! Perhaps the woman is a little overbearing and you have to take out some of that built-up rage and frustration on an anonymous blog? Am I right? Am I right?"

Well, no. You're not. You're just another marginal intellect who gets offended when I make fun of your marginal literacy. It's a common phenomenon.

If I were to play your own silly psych game I might say that it's too bad your parents divorced when you were young, but that it was your fault because you were such a shitty child with so many behavioral issues, but that would be unfair, so I won't do it.

Jim Keane (who posts under the adolescent name of MoeLarryAndJesus) wrote: that would be one hell of a way to celebrate my 20th wedding anniversary coming up in a few months.

It's funny. Jim Keane actually mentioned once to me, for absolutely no good reason, that he was married in 1988 (when I asked why he told me this he got agitated). Now that he brings it up again it seems clear that it must be something he's pretty proud of. If it's true it would indicate that Jim Keane is at least in his early to mid forties. That really is remarkable when you think about some of the things he writes: "Grotesque Old Party", "Douche" for Deuce, "Repiglicans", "chuckles" . . . If a teenage boy were to write this way one would gently chide him and tell him how such language is neither funny nor conducive to civil discourse. But one presumes that a 40-year-old man would know this so what can you do?

In any event, congrats Jim to you and your wife on 20 years. May you have 20 wonderful more.

Jim Keane:Derrick posts: "Derrick

Posted by Derrick "

Keep on posting those Derrick posts posted by Derrick, Derrick. They're very Derrick, Derrick.

Posted by MoeLarryAndJesus | January 8, 2008 12:05 AM

Did you really just try to make fun of someone for typing their own signature in addition to the signature that is automatically generated when you post a comment?

Wow! That really is pitiful Jim. You're an odd mix of sad middle-aged-dad-humor and 13-year-old Beavis and Butthead crudeness.

I think age brings respectability, Mormons is still more respectable than Scientology, but I'm not sure that's exactly bad. If a social system can survive for long periods of time while faced with competition I think that does say something. Lutheranism, for example, is therefore objectively more reasonable than say Heaven's Gate as it did not implode or suicide.

However to say that's the only impact would probably be wrong. The Salvation Army is younger than the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. There are a few other religions younger than LDS that are also deemed "more ordinary."

LDS is plausibly more like the various "Restorationist" forms of Christianity like Adventism, stricter Campbellites, Christadelphians, and a few new-Christian movements in Africa or Southeast Asia. As the Neuhaus article indicates Restorationists often indicate other forms of Christianity are fallen or false. This puts a tension between their religion and Christians right off. I think an Adventist candidate would also have difficulties. (Christadelphians I believe reject politics)

Although for Evangelicals I've known Mormonism is seen as more "out there"