Bigotry: Yes or No? Dawkins and Voting for a Mormon

[Bismillah]

Yes, America STILL manages to reach Mars, despite half the country preparing to elect a man who believes he'll get a planet when he dies. It is all the more to the credit of the sane, rational half of America that it manages to achieve so much despite being positively held back by the other half, the half that believes the universe is 6000 years old, the half that seriously contemplates voting for a Mormon.

The connotations of this reads like he's associating Mormons with a variety of ills. A false dichotomy of either reaching the moon or "believing you get a planet when you die" (which even if inaccurate as far as Mormon theology goes is a place holder for Mormon theology itself). So it's either exploring the heavens as we see them or reading the heavens as they are written in scripture.

You are either the rational half or the half that "votes for a Mormon".

The truth of the matter is voters were not voting for a Mormon, well I admit some probably were, they were voting for Mitt Romney and the collections of policies and ideas he displayed during his time spent as Governor.

If we're going to play this game of reducing people to one word labels and then associating evils to them based on misrepresenting that label then I'm going to go ahead and call out what you are doing as oversimplified juvenile bigotry.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Well, at least Mormons can count to three, so in that respect, you've got a leg up on the Trinitarian Christians.

 

[Ingledsva]

I'm not hostile. I just find discussions with you to be beyond pointless. You admit in your signature how you intend to debate. I did nothing but call you out on it.

...

This is a STRAIGHT OUT LIE and DEFAMATION OF CHARACTER!


I found the quote and thought it quite funny in it's accurate portrayal of many posts on this site!


*

 

[Ingledsva]

...

No, obviously YOU missed the sources. I don't know how I can dumb it down and further for you: Your sources are 35-year-old, obsolute student manuals. They are not part of the "Standard Works." What part of that do you not understand? Furthermore, neither of your sources say anything to the effect that "when we die, we each get our own planet." I didn't see that in either of your quotes. Are you going to tell me I missed that, too?

Actually you did miss the sources - they are from DOCTRINE and COVENANTS, and thus put into Mormon teaching manuals.


Also -


Encyclopedia of Mormonism by Brigham Young University - 1992


Godhood - The Encyclopedia of Mormonism


Read the article all the way to the bottom.

"... The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints teaches that all resurrected and perfected mortals become gods (cf. Gen. 3:22; Matt. 5:48). They will dwell again with God the Father, and live and act like him in endless worlds of happiness, power, love, glory, and knowledge; above all, they will have the power of procreating endless lives. Latter-day Saints believe that Jesus Christ attained godhood (see Christology) and that he marked the path and led the way for others likewise to become exalted divine beings by following him (cf. John 14:3).


"Joseph Smith also wrote, "... Moreover, Latter-day Saints believe that those who become gods will have the opportunity to participate even more fully in God's work of bringing eternal life to other beings. God is referred to as "Father in Heaven" because he is the father of all human spirits (Heb. 12:9; cf. Acts 17:29), imbuing them with divine potentials. Those who become like him will likewise contribute to this eternal process by adding further spirit offspring to the eternal family."


*

 

[Ingledsva]

Fair points.

Still, I maintain what I just said.

If Mormons or anyone else value common sense and being reasonable over the letter of the scripture (correctly interpreted or otherwise), I say welcome and more power to them.

Life is much too short for me to complain that people should be fundamentalists yet they refuse to be.

True enough.


I just wish they would stop calling people liars, for bringing up stuff the church actually taught, - and instead acknowledge it, and add that they no longer believe this to be true. Unless of course they do.


*

 

[Badran]

***Mod post***

Please keep rule 11 in mind while posting:

11. Subverting/Undermining the forum Mission
The purpose of the forum is to provide a civil, informative, respectful and welcoming environment where people of diverse beliefs can discuss, compare and debate. Posts while debating and discussing different beliefs must be done in the spirit of productivity. If a person's main goal is to undermine a set of beliefs by creating unproductive posts/threads/responses to others, etc, then they will be edited or removed and subject to moderation.

 

[DeepShadow]

I like Dawkins personally. But you know what? I have decided that he jumped the gun this time.

Thank you, Luis. It's statements like this that keep me coming back to RF, even after years of absence.

Simple as that. And it is no big deal, come to think of it. He should be allowed to say nonsense from time to time, and we all should be allowed to call him on that when need be.

Indeed he should, and we should. Science runs on careful criticism, and Dawkins knows that.

I'm a bit ashamed when I see that I failed to consider that before defending Dawkin's speech. Therefore, I can see no fair choice for me to take other than asking for your forgiveness and thanking your both for your ever so needed good will and fairness. I will do my best to deserve it in the future.

You have it, and my thanks for your kind and insightful words.

 

[DeepShadow]

You folks need to get together and as a Church Group tell the world these are no longer believed by the church.

Katzpur pointed out the most recent such statement:

"Not every statement made by a Church leader, past or present, necessarily constitutes doctrine. A single statement made by a single leader on a single occasion often represents a personal, though well-considered, opinion, but is not meant to be officially binding for the whole Church. With divine inspiration, the First Presidency and the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles counsel together to establish doctrine that is consistently proclaimed in official Church publications. This doctrine resides in the four “standard works” of scripture (the Holy Bible, the Book of Mormon, the Doctrine and Covenants and the Pearl of Great Price), official declarations and proclamations, and the Articles of Faith. Isolated statements are often taken out of context, leaving their original meaning distorted."

"Some doctrines are more important than others and might be considered core doctrines. For example, the precise location of the Garden of Eden is far less important than doctrine about Jesus Christ and His atoning sacrifice. The mistake that public commentators often make is taking an obscure teaching that is peripheral to the Church’s purpose and placing it at the very center. This is especially common among reporters or researchers who rely on how other Christians interpret Latter-day Saint doctrine."

What about this statement is insufficient?

This would bring these threads to a quick end.

Apparently not. The statement has already been released, and ignored.

They are still in the Doctrines and covenants. If they are false teachings to the modern church, they should be removed.

A statement in the institute teaching manual for the D&C is not necessarily in the D&C. The teaching manuals are college textbooks for studying Mormonism in a cultural as well as a doctrinal standpoint, and they contain the non-canonical opinions of many church leaders as context and possible interpretation of certain scriptures. Like the ones you found.

I have a 1981 D&C teaching manual next to me, and I've tried to find these quotes. It appears they have been removed (Do you have a page number?). So it appears we have done as you said--removed them from our manuals, and released a statement saying they are non-canonical.

Have we met your terms?

 

[Katzpur]

Apparently not. The statement has already been released, and ignored.

As one of my favorite posters once pointed out, "Debating some people is like playing chess with a pigeon. No matter how good at playing chess you are, the pigeon is just going to knock down all the pieces, poop on the board, and walk around all triumphant." This thread is proof of that.

 

[DeepShadow]

I just wish they would stop calling people liars, for bringing up stuff the church actually taught, - and instead acknowledge it, and add that they no longer believe this to be true. Unless of course they do.

Be careful with your plurals--I have not called you a liar. It's exactly this kind of lumping people together that the OP was trying to call attention to.

As for me, I don't know whether I agree with the statements you provided, or not. I ponder them when I read them, but God has not revealed the truth of them to me. I'm trying to keep an open mind. Many LDS do agree with these things, which may explain why some of them told you they were LDS beliefs. But the point is, one does not have to believe them to be LDS.

And that's really what this is about: how there is a large amount of variety in LDS beliefs. We have a few central doctrines that hold us together, but beyond that, there is a lot of variety. Even on those central doctrines, there is quite a bit of interpretation allowed. Do people really think that Glenn Beck and Harry Reid believe all the same things? Get them both in a room with Richard Lyman Bushman and Gladys Knight. Assuming all four survive, you'll eventually find that they agree on a very short list, including:

1. They have faith in and a testimony of the Godhead, including a testimony of the Atonement of Christ and of His role as Savior and Redeemer
2. They have a testimony of the restoration of the gospel in these the latter days--though they may disagree as to some historical details. (IIRC, RLB has said he's okay if a large part of the BoM is metaphor. I picked him for that reason, so if I'm wrong, replace him with one of the many LDS scholars who believes that.)
3. They sustain the President of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints as the Prophet, Seer, and Revelator--though they may disagree as to what statements of which prophet are inspired.
4. They live the law of chastity, pay their tithing, and keep the Word of Wisdom--though they are free to interpret these commandments differently. Some Mormons consider caffeinated soft drinks against the WoW, while others do not. I'm guessing Glenn pays tithing on his gross, while any of the others might pay on their net.

And if you are wondering where I got this list from, I paraphrased it from the questions that are asked of practicing LDS as part of temple prep. Agreeing to all of these, plus some stuff about honesty, is what it means to be a practicing Mormon. Anything beyond that is optional.

So getting back on track, for Dawkins to insist that it's absurd to vote for a Mormon is in itself absurd, when the beliefs of an individual Mormon can vary so much.

 

[Ingledsva]

*

I just wish they would stop calling people liars, for bringing up stuff the church actually taught, - and instead acknowledge it, and add that they no longer believe this to be true. Unless of course they do.

Be careful with your plurals--I have not called you a liar. It's exactly this kind of lumping people together that the OP was trying to call attention to.

As for me, I don't know whether I agree with the statements you provided, or not. I ponder them when I read them, but God has not revealed the truth of them to me. I'm trying to keep an open mind. Many LDS do agree with these things, which may explain why some of them told you they were LDS beliefs. But the point is, one does not have to believe them to be LDS.

And that's really what this is about: how there is a large amount of variety in LDS beliefs. We have a few central doctrines that hold us together, but beyond that, there is a lot of variety. Even on those central doctrines, there is quite a bit of interpretation allowed. Do people really think that Glenn Beck and Harry Reid believe all the same things? Get them both in a room with Richard Lyman Bushman and Gladys Knight. Assuming all four survive, you'll eventually find that they agree on a very short list, including:

1. They have faith in and a testimony of the Godhead, including a testimony of the Atonement of Christ and of His role as Savior and Redeemer
2. They have a testimony of the restoration of the gospel in these the latter days--though they may disagree as to some historical details. (IIRC, RLB has said he's okay if a large part of the BoM is metaphor. I picked him for that reason, so if I'm wrong, replace him with one of the many LDS scholars who believes that.)
3. They sustain the President of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints as the Prophet, Seer, and Revelator--though they may disagree as to what statements of which prophet are inspired.
4. They live the law of chastity, pay their tithing, and keep the Word of Wisdom--though they are free to interpret these commandments differently. Some Mormons consider caffeinated soft drinks against the WoW, while others do not. I'm guessing Glenn pays tithing on his gross, while any of the others might pay on their net.

And if you are wondering where I got this list from, I paraphrased it from the questions that are asked of practicing LDS as part of temple prep. Agreeing to all of these, plus some stuff about honesty, is what it means to be a practicing Mormon. Anything beyond that is optional.

So getting back on track, for Dawkins to insist that it's absurd to vote for a Mormon is in itself absurd, when the beliefs of an individual Mormon can vary so much.

I wasn't referring to you. Someone else earlier in the thread was also called a liar for bringing those things up.


Thank you for stating those sentences in red. Acknowledgement that they did teach these things is all these threads need. Followed by the info that the church no longer teaches them. If it is so, of course.


*

 

[LuisDantas]

For those willing to accept a bit of bluntness and nasty language (that nonetheless has a very relevant point to present), here is the final scene of the South Park episode that I mentioned earlier.

I do not completely agree with it, but it sure reminds me of my priorities (warning - not really safe for work):

[youtube]dsmyzC4AkFQ[/youtube]
Gary's Vindication - YouTube

 

[ChristineES]

I'm wondering how this topic got into debating what is Mormon Doctrine and what isn't. I still maintain that not voting for someone just because of his faith, personal beliefs, lack of faith in any god, and so on and so forth isn't fair to the candidate. It is just as bad as not voting for someone because of ethnic group or sexual orientation. As I said earlier, it's how you agree with the person on various issues that matters.

 

[LuisDantas]

Don't you think that what someone believes may relate to how the person thinks, though?

 

[ChristineES]

Don't you think that what someone believes may relate to how the person thinks, though?

Of course. But there are other things that affect a persons stand of issues than just what their religious beliefs are, a lot of other things. I am just saying you shouldn't judge your decision on just one thing and you should focus on the issues.

 

[idav]

Of course. But there are other things that affect a persons stand of issues than just what their religious beliefs are, a lot of other things. I am just saying you shouldn't judge your decision on just one thing and you should focus on the issues.

Voting for a Mormon shouldn't be anymore weird than voting for any Christian that believes in an afterlife with a heaven. America is all for voting Christian so we will end up with people who believe in an afterlife, oh well. In reality I think the hypocrisy might be stemming the other way but I might take it back if we can manage to get more secular representation.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I'm wondering how this topic got into debating what is Mormon Doctrine and what isn't. I still maintain that not voting for someone just because of his faith, personal beliefs, lack of faith in any god, and so on and so forth isn't fair to the candidate. It is just as bad as not voting for someone because of ethnic group or sexual orientation. As I said earlier, it's how you agree with the person on various issues that matters.

I think this depends on the person. If a candidate's faith is a personal thing and they maintain a mental separation between their own personal religious obligations and their stances on public policy, then sure: a person's religion isn't relevant. I can think of a few political leaders like that. I'd probably put Romney in that camp.

However, not all politicians are like that. In many cases, their religious beliefs play a eole in their policy decisions. In those cases, I think it's reasonable to base our voting decisions on their religion as one more element of their platform.

 

[ruffen]

I'm wondering how this topic got into debating what is Mormon Doctrine and what isn't. I still maintain that not voting for someone just because of his faith, personal beliefs, lack of faith in any god, and so on and so forth isn't fair to the candidate. It is just as bad as not voting for someone because of ethnic group or sexual orientation. As I said earlier, it's how you agree with the person on various issues that matters.

Someone's faith says something about their knowledge about the world around them. For example a Young Earth creationist or literalist for president could be very bad if he quoted scripture to show that after the great flood, Earth would no longer be cursed by God, therefore we have nothing to fear from climate change. You may find this example unrealistic or ridiculous, but an actual congress member said this! In a hearing about climate change!! He got his Bible out and quoted it and nobody had him restrained and put in a mental institution!!! Nobody even laughed out loud!!!!

The western world, and especially the U.S.A., is in deep crisis. I'm not talking about the financial one, but the theological one. It is so politically correct to believe in religion, and so politically incorrect to criticize such beliefs. Some beliefs are of course exempt from that political correctness - a presidential candidate claiming to believe in the Prophed Muhammad being God's true prophet, or a candidate admitting he's an atheist, can just forget running for president.

I think that a president actually believing in magical underwear, and that Jesus will run his new kingdom from U.S. mainland, and that they will get a planet when they die, is a major problem!

As long as delusion is defined as "a belief held with strong conviction despite superior evidence to the contrary", then all religious beliefs are, per definition delusions.

And I think that having a delusional president is a big problem, and their delusions should be called out and discussed and ridiculed whenever possible.

 

[ruffen]

Here's the bible-quote incident (warning - on-screen text uses the f-word for the faint hearted of you):

[youtube]U5yNZ1U37sE[/youtube]
What's the harm? Let's ask Congressman John Shimkus - YouTube


A presidential candidate with such beliefs would be horrible! And how can a true believer like this one leave his religion at home and be professional in his job, when he actually truly believes that the Bible is a good source for information on climate change?

People like this deserve to be ridiculed and have their faith exposed as an important part of their fitness to become president or have other high-power important jobs.

 

[Katzpur]

I think that a president actually believing in magical underwear, and that Jesus will run his new kingdom from U.S. mainland, and that they will get a planet when they die, is a major problem!

Yeah, that would be a major problem. To me, though, the ignorance of people who actually buy into these caricatures of Mormon doctrine is every bit as great a problem. One would think that in the 21st century, people would do a little bit better in terms of educating themselves on the subject before running off at the mouth and making themselves appear ignorant to those who are able to distinguish between myth and fact. Apparently not.