[...] The Controversial Big Love Episode at Mormon Mentality   [...]

Yawn.

This was a boring topic before it started. It to me that it is all a desperate attempt of a mediocre soap opera on the verge of being canceled to drum up some cheap publicity.

(Your post was not boring of course DKL…)

Haven’t watched the episode yet (Tivo is keeping it safe for me though) but it really bugs me how the Big Love producers can get some Mormon Fundamentalist vs. LDS nuances spot on, and then they go and completely blow it with talk of Barb getting her own endowment. Oh well. Thanks, DKL, now I can watch this tomorrow with my wife and be prepared for what is shown. I was debating not watching this episode.

Good question Clark. I noticed the blue apron in the TV guide photo as well, and I was looking for that in the show.

I saw it in HD, and the color appeared to me to be a deep green. I could see how on an NTSC rendering, it could turn out blue.

I think that they definitely got their money’s worth with the consultant. The inaccuracies in the plot seemed to simplify the story and make it move along without undo complication. This, however, underscores their duplicity. Apparently, shortcuts regarding the non-sacred particulars of temple access are OK when they move the story along, but it’s absolutely necessary to provide a verbatim performance of the penultimate elements of the temple ceremony, because nothing else will do. It’s a load of crap if you ask me.

Yeah, but DKL, they could have got that aspect from doing a quick google.

“A voice/choir version of Samuel Barber’s Adagio for Strings plays in the background, and we watch a run through of the exchange at the veil….”—DKL

A version [of Barber's Adagio for Strings reworked for chior] on YouTube: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fzQZAk5kA50

Well at least we know now that HBO stands for Hateful Bigotry Onscreen.

Clearly this would fall into the category of “trifling with sacred things”…not that Hanks & co have read the D&C, though those who facilitated the depiction certainly will be held accountable. That said, I think it is unproductive for LDSers to get hung up on small deviations from actuality in the depiction. Much more important is how we respond.

Obviously the wrong response is to be vociferous / vengeful as in the case of the Hamas and the Jyllands-Posted cartoons. I’ll admit however to feeling wronged and angry. In today’s lessons we reviewed D&C 121, in which JS explicitly asks the Lord to strike against his enemies while in Liberty Jail. (Similar sentiments in 109, at the dedication of Kirtland temple.) The Lord’s response is instructive, reminding JS that he is not yet like Job. Neither are we. As saddened as many of us are by this event, I’d say there’s a fair chance that it backfires on the protagonists, creating more interest in the church.

Where I grew up, some anti group took out a full-page ad called “Mormons: Christian or Counterfeit?” in which they ridiculed the church from a number of angles. Shortly thereafter (and clearly as a consequence) there was an outpouring of interest and many convert baptisms. Non-Mormons who have seen a variety of ritual dress used by other faiths will probably not think temple robes are such a big deal, so if we all relax a bit and handle questions calmly, everyone will be better off.

A good summary, but I don’t think you can dismiss this as non-essential to the plot. Not only did the temple scene show very dramatically the turmoil Barb is going through, it also featured one of the most beautiful blessings that we, as Mormons, hope for – eternity with our families. The scene in the temple contrasted dramatically with the disciplinary proceeding that Barb faced at the end, and the use of specific terms about her posterity tied in directly with the promised blessings that she wants.

Sure, the producers of Big Love could have done something else, but this gave them a beautiful scene, packaged up to move the story line, and controversy to bump the ratings. I don’t see them choosing any other way.

And, as others have said here and elsewhere, the scene was quite beautiful. It was the disciplinary council that made us look bad.

Thanks for this DKL.

I watched a few minutes of a single episode of Big Love during its first season and pretty quickly decided that: 1) it’s not a very good show; and 2) it doesn’t have a very close relationship with the real word, or even care about accuracy much. Now, I understand that this was a pretty rushed judgment, but it doesn’t bother me that much either.

If the Church can’t withstand a moderately rated HBO melodrama, then it’s not on a very solid foundation. The entire endowment ceremony has been on the internet for years. I don’t think HBO’s broadcast changes much (other than to create some false assumptions about Mormonism for its audience).

Rory, I believe that’s an arguable point of view. When you admit that the producers of Big Love could have done something else, you basically admit that they chose to portray the temple for sheer entertainment value.

Why is this surprising? HBO is about entertainment. That’s why people get HBO.

I’m at the point where I’m kind of sick of the senseless secretive nature of the church anymore anyways. Why can’t the kingdom of God work in the light of day.

I don’t buy the “artistic integrity” argument. Shakespeare wrote plays that illiterate people paid pennies to get into. Dickens wrote novels to sell dime novels, and he came out of retirement to write Great Expectations (arguably the greatest English language novel) to cash-in and solve his financial problems. Nowadays, self-aggrandizing idiots like Steven Spielberg sue people for editing foul language out of their films. Name one director who applies the same scruples to genuine artistic geniuses like Shakespeare or Dickens. The bottom line: “artistic integrity” is a self-serving nonsense notion introduced by ignorant, self-aggrandizing, self-styled artists who have no background in genuine aesthetic reasoning, and I don’t have a lot of patience for it.

Matt and Rory, you don’t say anything in your argument in favor of the scenes that I don’t say in my analysis. And you emphasize that you don’t feel any anger. Good for you. I don’t either. The difference is that I don’t confuse my own lack of anger with the more general question of whether it was offensive or in poor taste.

Who on earth calls a disciplinary council a “love court?”

I mean, what’s up with that? Sounds like a bad soap opera idea, or something.

DKL, I guess we differ on what we deem offensive and poor taste. I’d agree that disparaging, ridiculing, satirizing, etc. religious symbolism and ceremony is offensive and bad taste, but mere depicition? Tough to say. By such a standard many FLDS no doubt find Big Love offensive week in and week out. By such a standard, we’ve offended countless native or aboriginal cultures in South America, Africa, Southeast Asia, and Australia, many simply by taking their picture.

Big-Love-gate is but another chapter in the larger debate surrounding religion in general: How much free space do you give Religion? How much is on- and off-limits to the prying eyes of secular Scientists, Historians, Politicians, and yes, Artists? Fawn Brodie, one of your heroes, was maligned with similar cries of “offensive,” and “poor taste.” You mock “artisitic integrity” as only you can, but isn’t that like “historical integrity”? Isn’t that what we hope for from our artists, to at least depict sacred religious ceremony and ritual as Believers themselves experience it?

As we’ve seen with Mormon History, we can’t control how non-LDS (and even some LDS) Historians depict our past, but we can control our reaction to it. Seems we’ve learned something since our hyper-sensitive over-reaction to Brodie and Brooks in the 1940s-60s. Will our response to artistic interpretation of Mormonism follow a similar arc? Or will we over-react like the Muslims to Salman Rushdie (Satanic Verses) and the Danish newspaper (The Jutland Post), or be hyper-litigious like the Scientologists?

Senseless? Seems a little extreme. For the most part, the kingdom of God does work in the light of day. The parts that are not disclosed to the public are generally undisclosed because of what we know the public would do with them. If you read some of what’s been written by non-members about this episode, you know what I’m talking about.

I guess I’ll write the church and ask for their latest public financial statement, after all they work in the light of day. I’ll have to ask for the minutes of the last meeting of the Q12, after all they work in the light of day. I’ll also while I’m at I’ll have to ask why the Brigham Young manual didn’t mention polygamy hardly at all. One of Brother Brigham’s defining teachings. After all the manual was the “Teachings of Brigham Young”. After reading the manual you would have had the impression that he was a monogamist.

In regards with the temple endowment. Why should it be kept secret? Making covenants with God would in almost all cases seem to be something that should be sharable with the world. Why did half of my family have to sit outside while my wife got married?

I do agree with some privacy. I don’t think individual contributions should be public. Obviously any personal counseling should be kept private as well.

Let’s be honest here. Part of the reason that people make comments about the ceremony is that parts of it are quite strange. (In particular the pre-1990 version.)

Matt Thurston: …hyper-sensitive over-reaction to Brodie and Brooks in the 1940s-60s.

As you know, Brodie and Brooks have no bigger fan than me. And I think that it’s fair to say that Mormons reacted defensively and with lasting rhetorical hostility to Brodie and Brooks. I even think it’s fair to say that they over-reacted. But your phrase “hyper-sensitive over-reaction” is, itself, an overreaction to the Mormon reaction to them. Especially given the other examples you provide of Islam’s hyper-sensitive over-reactions or Scientologists litigiousness.

Matt Thurston: Fawn Brodie, one of your heroes, was maligned with similar cries of “offensive,” and “poor taste.”

Because Brodie was accused of poor taste for her scholarship, that renders all Mormon accusations of poor taste in entertainment ineffectual?

Matt Thurston: You mock “artisitic integrity” as only you can, but isn’t that like “historical integrity”?

I’m flattered you think that only I can mock it that way. Truth be told, my opinion is largely derived from famed Harvard philosopher and logician Nelson Goodman, whose foray into aesthetics actually revived an arm of philosophy that had fallen into intellectual disrepute among other philosophers.

If you can explain to me how “artistic integrity” is anything but a fiction, I’ll listen. But you can’t just throw around the terms “historical integrity” and “artistic integrity” as though they have something in common besides the word “integrity.”

Matt Thurston: Isn’t that what we hope for from our artists, to at least depict sacred religious ceremony and ritual as Believers themselves experience it?

Absolutely not. That trivializes art. That’s why no great artist wants to create art that depicts what its like to experience the Mona Lisa. They want to create the Mona Lisa.

Matt Thurston: As we’ve seen with Mormon History, we can’t control how non-LDS (and even some LDS) Historians depict our past, but we can control our reaction to it.

Before you begin to preach to me about this kind of crap, you should read my post about the Church’s reaction to the news that the episode would be aired. What about that post or this post makes you presume to advise me in the moderation of my reaction? Who here tried to “control” how non-LDS portrayed the ceremony?

Matt Thurston: By such a standard, we’ve offended countless native or aboriginal cultures in South America, Africa, Southeast Asia, and Australia, many simply by taking their picture.

You keep wanting to use the requirements of scholarship as a measure of the tastefulness and appropriateness of art. This brand of “everything is just like everything else” argument is the refuge of feeble minds.

You want to pretend that you’re able to see some bigger picture that frees you of the petty hangups that others have, but you’re not making cogent arguments here, Matt, and that leaves you with a position that is all pretense and no substance.

Slamsmith,
So you’re admitting some level of privacy is important. Great. Now it’s not a question of transparency but of what level of transparency. The Church (as do I) thinks covenants with God isn’t anyone else’s business. You think it is. We disagree.

But I would like you to please share with us your loveletters to your wife. After all, there’s nothing in there that we haven’t heard before. Also some pictures of you guys making love would also help us out in determining the level of your relationship with your wife. I mean, it’s not like we don’t know what a naked body looks like. Transparency, remember is a good thing.

# 30 slamsmith,

That’s the kind of ridiculous nothing-is-sacred thinking that spurred slavery and colonialism-for-exploitation tragedies in history.

When another person’s culture, including religious practices, are not respected as sacred, that’s when you’re imposing yourself into the lives of others in an amazingly disrespectful way.

The Church has no need to entertain yours or HBO’s trivial, tactless challenges.

Many thanks for your excellent coverage, DKL, well done. It makes it pretty apparent what the writers were trying to accomplish. It’s hard to ascribe motives to people, but the ham-fisted way this episode was glumped together gives us a pretty good idea about how important “accuracy” really was.

Matt,
The point isn’t the sex, the point is the private, personal experience in which others think it’s their business to witness and express opinion. On those grounds it is a very fair comparison.

Matt: Your question about line drawing is well taken. HBO drew the line in the wrong place. Here is the essential aspect of context: within the context of the privacy of one’s own bedroom and covenants of faithfulness to protect the procreative potential for human intimacies, human sex is just the best that it gets in this life (in most cases). Precisely because it has such value, the problem with pornography (and out of wedlock sex for that matter) is not that too much is given, but that not enough is given. The value of the intimacy and context is profaned by trading it for something that is not merely of less value, but even dismissive of the value that could be realized.

The context of privacy is one aspect; the context of the entire covenant-making-setting with the complete reverence for the capacity to be instructed and learn from personal revelation is the entire point. That entire point is missed — necessarily missed and mucked up — by what HBO did. The temple ceremony was mocked by taking it out of context and using it as a dramatic counterpoint to tell a story that has no meaning to non-Mormons. The rituals can only look confusing and silly from outside of the covenant relationship, just as your sexual acts with your wife are pornographic outside of the interpersonal context in which they have such sacred, even divine, meaning.

Thus, the comparison to pornography is apropos. It profanes the sacred, takes out of context the holy and makes the interpersonal level of ritual performances into befuddled nonsense. Rituals have their meaning only within a context. Those outside the context, like anthropologists, are keenly aware of their limitations in entering into the world-view that gives meaning to the performances and rites. What HBO did was sheer peeping-Tom voyerism. You can defend it if you wish — my point is that you’re missing the point.

Artistic cop out?

HBO is an “entertainment” channel that primarily appeals to peoples prurient interest and similar morbid curiosity in other societal matters (crime, war, politics, now religion, etc) – emphasis on the morbid curiosity as it’s not a positive curiosity. Perhaps there could be something positive on HBO. But this example, and plenty of other shows on HBO and similar networks, exist to satisfy this morbid curiosity. Showing the Temple ceremony fits perfectly within this context of HBO’s unstated mission. What is actually surprising is that it hasn’t happened sooner. Actually, it probably happened exactly now because of (not in retaliation though) the interest in Mormons with Romney, FDLS/Texas, and Prop 8.

The market was ready for it, so it was delivered. This doesn’t mean that people in the production didn’t necessarily have an axe to grind against the church, but there have always been people with axes to grind against the church, they could now do it publicly because of the heightened interest, or at least awareness of the church. It’s weird because I specifically remember several years back at what point we would begin to see literal coverage of the Temple or other sacred Mormon acts on TV as the church grew and grew. I figured it wouldn’t come for 100 years until there were 50 million or more members or something as the church crossed the chasm from niche to mainstream. Funny that even though we’re still a small minority we get such a huge amount of attention. I suppose I was incorrect in assuming the increased scrutiny would come with much larger grown in membership — it actually came with the growth of our influence.

The point isn’t the sex, the point is the private, personal experience in which others think it’s their business to witness and express opinion. On those grounds it is a very fair comparison.

The problem is that our culture is informed by a Protestantism that rejected most forms of ritual. The idea of ritual being private and sacred in the way we view the temple is simply alien within our culture. So it’s almost impossible to explain to others simply because it is not part of most people’s cultural horizon. Sex is the closest analogy there is.

The fact is that the reason why we as a culture make sex private and frankly secret is a cultural choice. There’s no objective reason “out there” to say why this is. And not everyone agrees with that view. But it is part and parcel of our culture. So people would object to their private sexual acts being witnessed by others in a way most don’t object to religious acts being witnessed. The problem is that the later (religious acts not being private in the way sex is for our culture) is itself a cultural choice. The problem is that those criticizing Mormons for seeing the ceremony as private are merely saying, “my culture is best and I don’t need to respect you.”

Oddly many of the people saying this suggest Mormons don’t respect other cultures. Yet while I’m sure there are individual examples of this by and large I see Mormons doing the opposite. On KSL, the Church’s radio station, the discussion about Big Love last week was about how, if this offends us, might we be offending others unbeknownst. And most Mormons I know are open to say Islam taking the circling of Mecca as sacred.

People seem to want this to be overly simple. One can, for instance, decry the response of many in Islam to the Dutch cartoons while simultaneously thinking the cartoonist was offensive and buffoonish. Lots of things can be offensive but permitted. I find the use of the N word towards African Americans to be offensive. But I think people ought to have the right to say it.

It startles me how many people looking at the Mormon response can’t see why it might be offensive. But once again, it’s that cultural remnant of Protestantism even amongst people who aren’t religious.

Where I live in the S. Pacific, I won’t have an opportunity to watch the HBO production, nor would I particularly want to. However, possibly as spin-off from the show, or reaction to it, two days ago I received a YouTube presentation by a Mormon group, focused on non-Mormons (of which I am one) dealing with the role of the Temple in Mormon life.

I am very sensitive to deceit, or a lack of truth (I have a firm scientific training), and in this temple presentation a Harvard theologian, wearing a clerical collar, now said to be deceased, goes on about how great the idea of the Temple is and further agrees with the Mormon doctrine of baptism for the dead. Now, of course this video is for Christian non-Mormons, so the inference that the practice is approved by Christianity, as witnessed by a cleric, is deceitful – nothing more nor less. Mainstream Christianity doesn’t hold with this practice, it was recently castigated by the Vatican, in fact. The biblical case against this central practice in Mormonism is quite strong, but distortion of the truth continues.

To me, exposure, if done truthfully, is good. I would hold that any service in God’s name or for purposes of godly practice should not be in secret. A relative will soon be married, presumably in the Temple, and I won’t be permitted to view this as it is “secret”. Somewhat similar to what is exposed in the HBO production, isn’t it?

Lawrence: If you have such a great scientific training, then how come you can’t distinguish between the notion that a theologian at Harvard says that baptism for the dead is biblical and an accepted practice in early Christianity and the notion that the Vatican says it? There is no biblical case against baptism for the dead — it only mentions the practice once as proof of the resurrection of Christ.

You can see the ceremony. Just join the church and get a recommend.

Blake,

The Vatican came out against it, and not in the context of trying to convert a Christian (such as I am) to the Mormon Church. What they objected to, of course, is the re-baptism into the Mormon faith of Catholics who had already been baptized into the Church. It is very easy to discern the purpose of the Temple video. I have no quarrel with what Mormons do, what rituals they are involved in, so long as they are honest in what they present to me.

If you are questioning the firmness of my scientific background, I would suggest that you not bother, it is only peripherally related to what I have said. The central issue is of deceit.

The question was asked above as to why there is so much focus on Mormon beliefs, so much antagonism against them, and I think some of it has to do with the great irritation felt by those not connected to the faith who see deceitfulness in it. It as as if a burr was placed under our saddle and we try to eradicate the burr, particularly since it goes so much against our basic belief system, yet tries to give the impression that the two are related through the Bible and through Christ. And the more Mormon missionaries come into the picture with their proselytizing, the more the antagonism is likely to come out. The LDS Church has a purpose of trying to bring Christians, especially, into their fold (I understand they have over 180,000 missionaries out in the field at any one time). Where I live, Mormons hold the highest proportion of the population of any country in the world (about fifty percent), so that, of course I am exposed to Mormonism every day almost and of course it impinges on me and bothers me, just as the lad mentioned above, that Protestantism bothers him. We must get along, co-exist together, so let’s keep our discourse honest, alright? Let’s not disseminate misleading videos, like the Mormon Temple video for example.

And to the extent that it was deceptive, I guess this goes for the HBO production as well, though I cannot judge, not having seen it.

Lawrence, the reason why your scientific skills seem doubtful is this: You compare two “expert” witnesses on the topic of baptism for the dead, and one has a vested interest in the issue and another does not. And you immediately believe the source that has a vested interested (viz., the Vatican) to the exclusion of the source that does not have a vested interest (the Harvard Divinity School scholar). Reason would dictate that if you were unwilling to investigate the matter yourself, you would take the testimony of the disinterested more seriously.

Furthermore, you expect the Mormons to provide you with information that disparages Mormon beliefs, and when they don’t you call it deceptive. That’s just strange.

Lastly, you conclude that Mormons are deceitful based primarily on a single video tape that you’ve seen. That’s like my concluding that Catholics are deceitful for the way that the Vatican mishandled the priest-pedophile problem — only it’s evil for a church to defend the child-molesting officers in its ranks, and there really isn’t anything wrong with a church producing a video that is biased towards that church’s point of view.

It worries me that such palpably muddled-headed thinking comes from a scientist.

The reason you see deceit is because you don’t like Mormonism — not vice versa.

It as as if a burr was placed under our saddle and we try to eradicate the burr, particularly since it goes so much against our basic belief system, yet tries to give the impression that the two are related through the Bible and through Christ.

So, it sounds like either you have a belief system that is opposed to burrs (especially ones that give the impression that burrs and saddles are related through the Bible?) or that you consider Mormonism to be a burr that you would like to eradicate. I’m a bit confused by this metaphor.

By the way, I’m willing to accept the argument that the Mormon context trumps the HBO/Artistic context, at least in this particular case.

Blake,DKL, You are in error here in that I’m not agreeing with the Vatican and disagreeing with the Harvard minister. The question of baptism for the dead is a separate issue and goes very deep into both the Bible and the cultures of biblical time – far beyond what we can discuss in this thread.

The difference is this – the Vatican expressed mainstream sentiment within the Christian Church, that the doctrine itself is not part of the Christian world, yet the video in question clearly attempts to represent it as such by trotting out this Harvard minister. That is where the deceit lies. The Temple video is implying that baptism for the dead is acceptable to Christians (including those aimed at by this video) I only mentioned the Vatican as representing the Christian Church in this, I didn’t comment on whether baptism for the dead is efficacious. In fact, if you read between the lines, the Pope seems to be saying they are objecting to the practice of Mormons being baptized for the Catholic dead because it is valid (though I don’t happen to believe it is biblical based on the reading done). Otherwise, why would the Pope object? I believe there is papal objection also to Mormons going through Church baptismal and birth documents and putting them into your genealogical system.

This is just one aspect of deceit used by the Mormon Church, and I suppose deceit is also much in evidence in Christian belief. It irritates both sides of the isle.

There is one major difference, however, and that has to do with the utter simplicity of Christ’s teaching versus the complexity imbued into religions, by Joseph Smith on the one hand, and the many Popes and theologians on the other. They all make a simple matter very complex and I tend to resent both sides of this, try to stick to what is written in my well-worn Bible, and not be swayed by every wind or current of doctrine.

I also believe there is considerable deceit on both sides – the Christian and the Mormon. Deceit is not of God, in my book. And by deceit I simply mean trying to pass something off as other than what it really represents. For example, JS’s impressive Book of Mormon has many problems of, shall we say, validity, which I can’t, with my background of understanding, accept. As a spiritual guidebook, it undoubtedly has a great deal of merit, but as a valid historical document it does not. It is the attempt to pass it off as more factual than it is that causes a lot of the irritation. JS claimed it as a history of the people who came to America as its original population. The events portrayed, however, must, according to all the information we have available, taken place long after the two continents of the Americas and Central America were populated. I believe that Mormon leadership – the President and his Apostles – are well aware of this, but the deceit continues. I believe it will all come to a head very soon and there will occur truth along with reconciliation with the original Church.

The other side of the coin is that Protestantism and Catholicism both have fallen far in various interpretations of scripture, that is the Bible. This is particularly seen in the evangelical church where a sort of mass hysteria reigns.

Yet, again, Christ’s words are so basic and simple. Why don’t we stick to them?

However, I see that this appears to be a Mormon forum for expressing the views of the Mormon community, so my views probably don’t fit in here. I’ll do something else with my time.

I think the above indicates what I feel the burr to be – to me it equals deceit – but what I see as deceit could be viewed otherwise.

Lawrence could you post a link to the video in question? Not having seen it I find it hard to tell whether you are misrepresenting it or not. Heaven knows there are some videos out there apologetic in nature that I find highly problematic. Groups like FAIR often criticize such “defenses.” Whether there is such a video seems to be somewhat beside the point. I certainly wouldn’t want to defend all apologetics.

That said it seems undeniable that many scholars see baptism for the dead as something once practiced. I don’t see how that would be deceptive to point out. Not seeing the video in question it’s hard to say whether it is trying to make it seem like mainstream Christian belief (which would be silly) or simply point out that there is a basis for it historically in the Biblical tradition.

Lawrence, you’re still all wet. The Harvard Divinity Scholar in the video is clear about the fact that nobody but Mormons practice baptism or the dead. That’s why he talks in terms of “holy envy” — we don’t envy what we already have. Furthermore, since the video is distributed in Christian communities, and since you agree that mainstream Christianity does not practice baptism for the dead, you can’t argue that it’s unfair for the LDS church to take it for granted that people are aware of the fact that mainstream Christianity does not practice it.

That scholar also the Lutheran Bishop of Stockholm. According to your logic, he was trying to imply that Lutherans practice baptism for the dead. Your assertion that the LDS church is trying to pull the wool over people’s eyes is simply dishonest — as though they took the scholar out of context, and if he actually knew how they’d used his words he’d object.

Again, I conclude that you find Mormons deceitful because you hate them, and not vice versa.

Lawrence: Yet, again, Christ’s words are so basic and simple. Why don’t we stick to them?

You’re kidding, right? Most of the misery in the past 2,000 years has been caused by people trying to stick to Christ’s words or other parts of the scriptures — including anti-Semitism, the inquisition, and the holy wars. One could make a pretty good case (and some actually have made such a case) that the world would be a better place if Christ had just kept his trap shut.

You should read the thread that grew out of my post from last week on “The Not-so-bitter Fruits of Apostasy,” where I explain that Jesus’s teachings contain moral flaws, and where the range of responses demonstrates that there’s really no way to agree on what he meant figuratively, what he meant literally, and what was hyperbolic.

Clark, Lawrence is talking about something that Krister Stendahl said in a video that the Mormon church distributes in communities where the church is planning to build temples. He’s a Mormophobe who is misrepresenting its context and purpose of the video in order to feed the flames of his Mormophobia.

Lawrence Read: One final comment — if scientific findings are correct — at least ten percent of any population is gay. So maybe you should high five each other

Actually, whatever the percentage it is, it is only going to apply to unbiased samples of the population. Mormons may well be less gay than the population at large, simply because gays are less likely to join the LDS church and more likely to leave. In any case, you’d have to show that Mormons constitute an unbiased sample before you could validly extend your generalization to them. (It’s statements like this on your part that make it surprising to hear that you do science for a living.)

Lawrence Read: Also there seems to be evidence for a genetic basis for homosexuality — how do you handle that?

It doesn’t bother me at all. Some of the finest people I know are gay. I don’t have strong opinions about homosexuality being sinful, though I’m perfectly aware of the position of my church and I have no strong objections to it. If what gays do is sinful, then I consider their sins to be their business. Aren’t we all just poor failing sinners?

On a scientific level, it’s worth noting that “free will” is just a framework invented by humans for doling out credit and blame. Locating a genetic cause for homosexuality simply removes the plausible basis for discussing it within this framework. All behavior has some genetic basis, and as we figure out more of these, we’ll remove more behaviors from the framework of free will. Big deal.

DKL,

Actually, Mormons might be more Gay (have a greater percentage of gays in their population), because 1) the secretive processes they take part in (there demonstrated tendency toward keeping things secret – probably a lot of closet gays, I should think), 2) their generally strong homophobia, including financial support to the opposition to gay marriage, indicating a deeper level of denial. Normal reaction to gays would be like yours , while such strong opposition might indicate internal doubts about their own sexuality. If I am secure in my sexuality, I don’t need to lash out against others of differing ideals. It could be that fewer in your church are gay, but I would doubt that, because most would be of Mormon families, I should think, and have little choice in whether they join or not. Certainly, though, it would be a stifling environment to be in. The same I believe would be true of being black.

You keep trying to put down my scientific background as I guess, a demonstration of the faultiness of my suppositions. I am currently not a practicing scientist, but am likely one of the more highly read of the breed. My background includes early studies at Stanford, a doctorate from the Univ. of Wash. and a Postdoc at Brown, plus years as a university professor, CEO of a research center, VP of a commercial biochemical company. If you google my full name (with a J. in the middle), you may come up with some of my scientific publications(they used to be there but I haven’t checked lately). However, when we talk about things of an religious nature, only my reading, no formal study, comes to bear. I did grow up at the feet of a very fine Congregational minister who was my grandfather. Though old, he was quite liberal in his views. Have we got that out of the way? Can we proceed?

(this is highly off topic, so anyone reading that should realize that I have only responded to criticism)
DKL,
Yet if you watch the video the minister is agreeing with I Corinthians and, in a way, placing his stamp of approval on the practice. If he was such a great scholar of the Bible, he must have known that there was considerable question about this particular practice, yet he tries to pass it off as something that was normal in the Church at that time and maybe something to be envied. That is what the video makers tried to accomplish, having it sort of normalized as a practice to Christians. If you think about it, even having Christians in the mix in this video is out of context. They are trying to explain why Mormons build temples, using these token Christians as a bridge to the Christian community. Why didn’t they let the title of the video take precedence and concentrate on the theme?
Clearly, most Christians in authority don’t consider the LDS Church as being Christian or biblical. I doubt even whether the LDS Church considers itself to be Christian – it is the product largely of Joseph Smith and Brigham Young with others adding to the doctrine.

A true Christian, one well grounded in the Bible, would have difficulty in transforming his belief system over to what the Mormons believe – a shallow Christian, maybe.

As to my hating Mormons – I guess that means I hate my wife and two of my children? Pretty presumptuous, aren’t you? I make a few fairly neutral comments and you extend it to hatred? I throw out a few ideas and you attack my science? I’m just throwing out a few more ideas which you can take for what they are worth, possibly nothing at all!

What I do very much hate is the way your leadership attempts to foist the Book of Mormon off as being a true translation of certain golden and lead plates found conveniently near JS’s home in Northern N.Y. In fact, I had one of your elder (older) elders ask me in to discuss Mormonism with him and although I said nothing in the least bit offensive, only responding to his comments, he got extremely hot under the collar. I think he was mad because I couldn’t, wouldn’t, agree with him. He is the person who sent me the link to the Temple video, in fact. others have come to me and asked me why I don’t become a Mormon and when I say a few things they dash off like they have to go potty. What I am forced to take this as is that many of the Mormons can’t defend their faith.

And, believe me when I say I have not read very much from people who try to trash Mormonism. What I read was your Book of Mormon and was totally appalled that anyone could believe it is other than a complete hoax. I immediately picked up on many of its scientific absurdities- the herds of elephants, people riding around in chariots with horses and killing each other with weapons made of steel and iron. And just last night, after receiving the Temple video, and thus delving more into Mormon beliefs (which is why I am writing this today), I see that one of your former bishops, a scientist like me, with the same Ph.D. has concluded that there is no evidence of widespread people from Israel being present in any part of ancient America, just exactly what archeologists and other scientists have said for years. He goes by mitochondrial DNA, a well accepted technique in tracing the origins of peoples. So now, because of this and other findings, your own church-supported scholars and apologists try to alter what JS said and say that it was only a small localized group,and that there formerly existed a large, earlier hemispheric population, completely contradicting the B of M. Yet your leadership refuses to acknowledge what has been found, conveniently sweeping all the science under the rug while attempting to keep the average member in the dark, meanwhile, I presume, paying a bunch of rather stupid pseudo scientists to cover their tracks.

My friend, this is exactly what I mean by deceit. I notice that in recent years your leaders have attempted to distance the Church (Mormon) from any factual content in the B of M, saying that it is a spiritual book. The evidence is all right in front of them if they care to look, they need to come clean and get on with what they do best, leading a very fine group of people in what is a very finely constructed set of practices.

Problem is, of course, that the big lie has gone on so long they can’t bring themselves to reform.

Mormons – ha – some of my best friends…

Lawrence Read: Mormons might be more Gay.

As I said, In any case, you have to show it’s an unbiased sample to justify the applying generalization.

Lawrence Read: You keep trying to put down my scientific background as I guess, a demonstration of the faultiness of my suppositions

You’ve got it the wrong way around. I keep putting down your suppositions and reasoning as faulty, and use this as a basis to disparage your scientific background. You’re not going to impress me with your resume when your reasoning is so sloppy and presumptuous.

Lawrence Read: As to my hating Mormons – I guess that means I hate my wife and two of my children?

It’s not like you’ve made any attempt to conceal your contempt for Mormonism. So now I know you’re like a Bible-thumper who professes to love his gay kid while running down homosexuals.

Lawrence Read: Pretty presumptuous, aren’t you?

No more than you with your presuming that I’m unaware of the current state of science with regard to DNA and the Book of Mormon. You’re impressed by Bishop Murphy? I run circles around Bishop Murphy.

It figures that the BL producers would choose my favorite part of the endowment session to broadcast on national television. I guess the adversary just has a knack for these kinds of things. And I was disappointed to see the NY Post also include it in their online article. Apparently the ethics class I was required to take in college as a Communication major now has no part of any current journalism requirement.

“As to my hating Mormons—I guess that means I hate my wife and two of my children? Pretty presumptuous, aren’t you?”—Lawrence Read

Why wouldn’t you hate your wife and children? Christ’s basic and simple words were that he came to bring a sword that would set family members at variance with one another.

Lawrence Read: now you are also attacking his science I suppose?

What is it with you? You’ve supposed wrong again. I agree with Murphy’s scientific evaluation 100%. If I were to nitpick, I’d say that there are at least a half-dozen other scholars that are a bit more thorough than Murphy, but Murphy does great.

Please excuse me if I seem abrasive, but Mormons on the internet talk about these things ad nauseam, and if we had a dime for every non-Mormon who came here trying to teach us something about our own religion, we’d all be rich — and think of all the money our church would get from the tithes!

So I don’t mind that you suppose that most Mormons are gay-bashing ignoramuses. I get that a lot, and I realize how much it must put you off to meet a Mormon like me who’s smarter than you. I forgive you.

Lawrence Read: You attacked my science…

I attacked your reasoning. For example, you misapplied a generalization to a sample that is very likely biased. And your reasoning considering Lutheran Bishop of Stockholm Krister Stendahl’s statement is flat-out bizarre.

And here’s another mistake you’ve made: You think that appealing to a resume actually answers problems identified in your reasoning.

So quit saying I’m attacking your science, when what I’m doing is drawing inferences about your science from your demonstrably poor reasoning.

Hard to argue with people like DKL and MCQ who keep changing the playing field. Because of my interest with truth, and because you both seem very knowledgeable and smart, why don’t you tell me how my anaylsis of the Temple video and Stenhardt’s part in it (as a shill) is”bizarre”. So far all you have done is make reckless, unsupported outbursts with very little to back them up.Are you permitted to make unsupported statements while I’m not? I guess my IQ isn’t high enough to understand what you are getting at, or aren’t you saying anything?

As to my being sophomoric, yes, perhaps you are right – this is the first day I have tuned in here (and no doubt my last). One question though – if you know all this anti mormon clap-trap, do you think it to be true or is it just garbage? If it is garbage, where is your evidence. I have a lot of evidence that the B of M was a hoax, but all you do is fire off personal attacks. Is there somewhere in the archives that will show me the evidence needed to believe that an angel presented the plates to Smith and he translated them, the B of M being the result as he has said? Or doesn’t it matter? Or do I just pray about it and if I get a warm feeling in mey heart I will know the truth of it all.

Your church sends 180,000 missionaries around the world at any one time who go through intensive training, yet when I ask a few simple (simplistic? sophomoric?) questions, they immediately get a stunned look on their faces and go directly into their testimony.

You all claim to be so bright, knowledgeable and intelligent, but you all fail to give straight answers too – just personal attacks. Is that what they teach you in Seminary? If you don’t have a good answer, attack? Or is my search beneath your intelligence?

Much ado about nothing!!! -Big love episode not the play!y.

Lawrance “Where I live in the S. Pacific, I won’t have an opportunity to watch the HBO production” ; you can download all three seasons from mininova org; you’ll need something like azaurus or similar P2P. (By the way it’s usually pointless arguing with DLK since he likes to argue for arguments sake and soon spits out insults)

-”the blue apron”…lots of colourblind mormons here! Or maybe its something to do with US TV

DKL:
“Essential to the plot? Not by a long shot” You clearly don’t get the story line or just don’t want to. It actually fits in perfectly with the plot: shows how confused Barbara is and the challenge she faces in choosing between the church she loves (as shown in the Temple scene) and the family she loves. Plus the psycho sister fesses up inside the celestial room as a sign of the love she feels there which is portrayed to the viewer -they see that its a room of love and worship. Although it clearly has minor errors mostly with two major ones (how she got a recommend when both are there and the ‘my endowments’) it was well done and I quite enjoyed it. The scene were they do the disciplinary council though is way off, far from reality, but still the message is close enough. For a show that regularly gets things about the main mormon church wrong its rather ironic that they got the Temple scene so close to reality and did so respectfully. I’d congratulate the writers for this episode (9 of season 3).

#29 Blake, “Now let’s have you post pictures of you and your wife (or your parents) having sex on this site”

Would a picture of me slapping my salami do? I say since my parents are both in their 80′s so a picture of them having sex is difficult to take -there’s a lot of waiting and standing around plus the pills are expensive

Lawrence: “while such strong opposition might indicate internal doubts about their own sexuality”

I oppose gaynessness, maybe I’m unsure of my sexuality, so if I do end up changing it and become gay, will you be my bitch??? I think I’d really be attracted to a PhD professor…

Talk of gays, of pedophiles, of Catholic priests in this connection.

Question: is there anything to the historical account of Joseph Smith attempting to molest Sydney Rigdon’s young daughter?

I won’t say anything further about the Temple video as it is a complete waste of time and energy. If you read all that I have said above you will see my point, that is all I care to do.

I think my lack of respect for the Mormon outlook is its basic dishonesty. Everything dishonest is there right in front of you and, as pointed out,it is boring to you having Christians like myself come to your forum making waves. I came to this forum not aware that it is made up of Mormons, but had already made a posting and then questions and comments were fired at me. If this is normal Mormon reaction, then my respect for you goes down another notch.

Sorry, but to me the key is intellectual honesty, and frankly I haven’t seen much of it in the Mormon psyche. Maybe it has been programmed out. DKL, for example, starts right in questioning my science over an off the cuff remark made. then DKLs partner MOQ, comes on to complete the putting down process. Apparently my spirituality and scientific ability is below their contempt, yet I have no reason to trust theirs.

You say I have a poor opinion of Mormons – I would call it a realistic opinion.

Sam,

You posted the above while I was writing mine, and I can say that finally a forum member here has had something worthwhile to say. I see your point clearly and envy your ability to follow the church’s higher authority and revelation. Where I am stuck with it, and have been for many years now (frustrated by it also I would add) is whether the Book of Mormon is true or a hoax. As Bishop Murphy mentioned in his testimony, he too prayed fervently for an assurance about this very thing from God and it never came. Finally he was able to convince himself that maybe it had, based partly on his good performance, I guess. The latest genetic evidence I only read last night because generally I am too busy to keep up with Mormon doctrine and findings. This sort of puts the nail in the coffin. It totally conflicts with JSs ‘translation’.

There are other conflicts also, as someone pointed out have been shoved at you by Christians too much. I won’t go into them here, but the bulk of it clearly shows the the B of M was a very well planned out hoax. I had known this from my reading of it, and it now becomes very clear.

But the Bible, which I know very well. I have also studied the Community of Christ’s criticism of Christ’s teaching and feel I know what He actually said, and what was later ascribed to him.

You depend on your church for the completion of biblical text, I feel it is complete enough in itself and where it lacks, that is in showing me exactly what I should do, I depend on the inner voice of the Holy Spirit which comes out loud and clear.

But look at what you say above, you believe that the Book of Mormon is another testament of the Lord Jesus Christ. It claims to be that on the title page. What if it was contrived and is not a true testament after all? Where does that leave you? Now you can say that even if — JS was in tune with God and got the information directly. My only thought is that someone who would do something like that is not a true prophet, and I think that is what it is rapidly coming down to. Bishop Murphy, mentioned above with regard to the genetic finding, clearly felt that he could no longer be in the church and he resigned. He wasn’t just an ordinary church member, he had been a missionary and then a young men’s group leader and finally a councellor. He knew the doctrine as well as anyone, and finally, and regretfully, he found he had to reject it.

There is a group within your church, maybe connected with BYU but leading in scientific apologetics. What they are having to do is a quick shuffle to try to bring science and the B of M into conformity, but there is very little hope that they can succeed. They are beginning to seemingly patch together new ideas to try to stifle legitimate scientific findings. Apparently your top leadership knows about this also.

What I believe is that you have a very fine church based on a very weak foundation which is cracking more daily. I came to this forum today hoping against hope that I was wrong in my evaluation, but all I got was abuse, so I have to take this as final truth about Mormon beliefs and behavior. There is little intellectual honesty here. If you do believe, as you say you do, then I can only hope that your belief is able to stay firm.

I spoke with my wife this morning and told her what I was finding. She told me that she believes in God, in Christ and in the Bible so she is ok with it all. She has that wonderful, simple yet effective belief. I envy her that. She will remain in fellowship in the local stake, but it will mainly be for the fellowship. If this is dishonest, I don’t see how she can do other.

Lawrence,

“but all I got was abuse, so I have to take this as final truth about Mormon beliefs and behavior. There is little intellectual honesty here”

I hope, sincerely, that this isn’t the case. The mormon blogs have traditionally being the home to whining mormons plus many who have really left the faith but kept the culture. It was all hush hush until an apostle gave a talk, one talk, about the ‘new media’ like the blogs; since then there has being a mini explosion in the amount of mormon blogs. But then you find all sorts there, people who come to complain others who come to tell the world the church is false, others who are sarcastic and have fun in annoying commentators(DKL), gay mormons, anti-gay mormons, bitter mormons, good and the ex’d mormon, ie all sorts. I hope that you don’t consider DKL/MCQ as examples of a typical mormon, they aren’t, nor am I since I’ve unleshed the tongue too on occations (according to how frustrating my day was) Note also that they don’t use their full names nor is “Carlos” my name!!!!! A true honest mormon would clarify and use their correct name; so you see, we really come here to clear out our frustrations mostly; if you want examples of a good and typical mormon you’d need to see the active people in church on sundays, its very likely that most of those who comment here aren’t very active in church at all.

PS I also don’t agree with the notion that the religion is based on lies or that gay marriage is OK, I think its a sin period. But today I didn’t want to argue. Cheers!

“I’m sorry. Your 15 minutes are up.”

True, there’s no such time limit in the Celestial room.

I think this subtle Andy Warhol reference (“In the future, everyone will be famous for 15 minutes”) was a way for the show’s writers to give a wink to the controversy created by their depiction of the endowment ceremony and the Celestial room.

President Packer: If one is honest one just spells it out for those who don’t know

Actually, honesty requires that the information is available to those who want to know, which it is.

As usual, Carlos, you’re simply ill-informed. You’re not going to win this argument, Carlos. You should be used to this by now.

“This week: Ronan and Steve are joined by a guest so foul, so hated, that his name cannot be mentioned in mixed company, but can be had below the fold.”

I off to listen to this, talk to you later dear friend. Consider yourself cyberstalked!!!!!!

Ah, no, not embarrassed here!

But hey, if they did stalk you….umm….you wouldn’t know about it, if you did it means that they are crap stalkers, maybe Mormon stalkers? (How’s that for Faustian logic???hey??)

“commit adultery” to overcome porn? dude u need to repent, seriously!!

“Sorry, but to me the key is intellectual honesty, and frankly I haven’t seen much of it in the Mormon psyche….

You say I have a poor opinion of Mormons – I would call it a realistic opinion.”

I just loooooove being lectured to on the virtues of intellectual honesty by someone who can make such sweeping, gross generalizations, and who cannot discern a difference between offering one’s opinions/beliefs and engaging in deceit.

And those two items merely top the list of egregious violations of intellectual honesty on display.

#86, nice comment. I think you articulate what a good percentage of the country currently thinks about Mormons. Another percentage made up of your former Evangelical friends probably agrees with the Mormon position on Prop 8, but thinks we’re crazy/misguided nonetheless. Mormons have always walked a tightrope when it comes to mainstream acceptance, but currently both Secularists and Religionists seem to have problems with Mormons, for different reasons. It’s been awhile since the stars have lined up like that.

“It’s been awhile since the stars have lined up like that.”

Got me thinking… “when was that?”

Back in the polygamy days it would seem…someone ironic.

Blake: the comparison to pornography is apropos.

Blake, I think that you underestimate the artistic value of porn. There is a lot of porn that has great profound beauty and artistic integrity. There’s this scene in “Debbie Does Dallas” where a pizza delivery guy cuts the pockets out of his jeans, and when he has his hands full with pizza, he asks a girl to help him by getting his car keys out of his pocket. This scene is essential to the plot of the movie. When you see a scene like this, you have to wonder where the heck the guy’s keys are.

No, Sam, I came here with an honest desire to find out one important issue – the legitimacy of the Book of Mormon. This I explained very clearly. I wanted to get others’ take on the question, especially with the new genetic information which I learned about just two days ago. I really don’t care what most of you believe, that is surely your business, but living in a place where fifty percent of the population is Mormon, yes it is related to my life here and I have felt a need to satisfy myself on that one single issue. I think it is clearer now and I can go on from here. You all have taken my words as more than what they are,honest inquiry. I wanted to see the Mormon perspective on the issue. The Mormon life style is so strongly embedded that it probably won’t make much difference, and I guess it isn’t intellectual dishonesty if there is no intellectual effort given to the subject, if people just float along with it as though it isn’t there. In that respect, I guess I am different in that everything is of interest to me, unfortunately my honest inquiry being taken as Mormon bashing. I come from a tradition where every single thing can be discussed openly and largely without rancor.

I have no doubt the the LDS Church is very well run and it shows here with tremendous amounts of money and effort poured in. It shows. And the Mormons I have had contact with are generally very fine people – no complaint at all there. My family, that is my wife and two children, were heavily influenced by one elderly couple who came here and by having a whole slew of Mormon relatives – they are newbies when it comes to your faith, and intelligent enough to wend there way through it, taking with them the important things, the relationships with friends and relatives. The rest they are able to let slide, just as I suspect people on this forum are able to do.

I have appreciated the responses of yourself, Sam, and Clark, in particular. I’m sorry not to have been understood (my motivation especially) but there you have it.

Carlos has said some interesting things, bringing to my mind the idea that there may be a sub-culture at work here. Don’t know and really not my business.

The cracks I made about Mormons being gay, I feel, were in a sort of joking mode – I don’t live there, haven’t followed Prop 8, I know a little, very little, about the gays having lived in San Francisco, and to me it is a little repulsive, but it is their life and I have had little to do with the whole gay scene. There is a gay scene where I live and it is part of the old traditions here, people sometimes joke about it as they joke about everything, but gays are very well accepted and liked. That is the way it should be IMO. Prop 8 wasn’t a good thing. There has been a strong biblical interpretation taken, but, on the other hand, I don’t think the admonishments against it are all that strong. Some of Paul’s comments stand out.

Lawrence Read: I came here with an honest desire to find out one important issue — the legitimacy of the Book of Mormon

First of all, John Mansfield makes an excellent point, which makes me wonder if you’re for real.

Second, why didn’t you just say so? Really, it’s a very simple question to answer.

In sum: Some Mormons think that the book is an ancient record. Some Mormons do not. And some Mormons think that it’s an ancient record with 19th century additions.

Those who believe that The Book of Mormon is an ancient record believe first and foremost in their own spiritual witness of the book. Many of those who are informed on the controversies surrounding it utilize various apologetic arguments to support the rational plausibility of their witness.

Among those who don’t think it’s an ancient record, but believe that it is still scripture, you get the following kind of reasoning: There was no exodus as described in the Bible and biblical characters like Adam, Noah, Abraham, and Jacob never really existed. Even so there’s no more basis to reject the Pentateuch based on this than there is the Book of Mormon. Both books introduce narratives and traditions of profound spiritual import, and can legitimately be considered scripture.

There are various positions in between, which hold that the Book of Mormon is an ancient record with interpretive additions and emendations by Joseph Smith.

In short, the formula “The Book of Mormon is either a legitimate ancient record or a sham” is a false dichotomy, even if some LDS church leaders still tend to frame the issue that way.

Lawrence Read: The Book of Mormon is unique, if, as I and many others apparently suspect, it originated largely from the mind and other resources of Joseph Smith in that he was able to come up with a full blown mythology of his own which is quite ingenious. If this is so, and it likely is, then it represents, clearly and simply, a hoax.

This is yet another flawed attempt to reason your own way through this.

You can find scriptures of all kinds of origins. If you think that the Pentateuch is a bad analogy, then use the Book of Daniel which was written in 2nd century Alexandria. Or use any number of New Testament books that are not written by who they claim to be written by, like the pastoral epistles that purport to be from Paul.

Once you allow for the spiritual import of myths, you can’t really object to the myth’s origin.

Good point DKL – maybe it is not so unique after all. I don’t know that I object to a myth’s origin, only, if information exists, that it be understood for what it is.

Laziness MCQ? I have read the suggestions in the B of M to pray about it and described what I found above. I’m not at all lazy, particularly mentally, but do have some limitations on time. In the early 1980′s I even went into a fast over it, one lasting several days as I recall, but nothing.

What I feel though is that I previously studied the book and other readings enough in the past to have a fairly clear impression, then this has now been topped off by the genetic findings and finally by a very satisfactory answer by DKL (above) as to the way Mormons view the Book. This, for me, has been a very long road, one covering at least from 1960 when, for a time, I had a Mormon roommate.

From what you have written in the past, you are possibly of the first category (true believer in ancient sources), and I have no opinion on that (your beliefs that is), that is for you to decide.

Please don’t feel that when I use the word hoax it is totally derogatory. He may well have had good intentions of wanting to guide his neighbors into a better life style, which the Mormon’s is, in many way. So, shall we say it was a well-intentioned hoax, and many who knew Smith would attest that he was a very fine person. But by hoax, I mean he intentionally mislead, as many who study the subject would agree. I don’t think, in any case, God would purposely deceive in this manner, so I can’t really conclude anything more about His part in it. I myself would accept it as coming from Smith along with whatever resources, others, etc. he utilized.

No, I don’t feel I need or want to go further with this, being satisfied with all that I have done already – too many other duties and projects. To you gentlemen, my input here has been boring and obnoxious, and I am sorry for that, but, overall, for me it has been a worthwhile dialog. Sometimes difficult, but then, aren’t all mental exercises?

For me it represents an end of a long road. I guess I should have a glass of wine to celebrate, if I had one!

Jeff, I tried to include a summary of every part of the plot that included the temple ceremony to provide the overall context. There were 4 other plots being explored during the episode that I completely left out, so that the parts I describe are scattered through full 1-hour episode (no commercials on HBO, so these programs are a full third longer than network programs). Thus, the only part you’re likely to find on the internet is the actual portion of the temple ceremony.

You’re right, however, and you’ve hit on something that has escaped every commenter thus far: The reference to the penalties was clearly a low-blow, and it betrays that the producers were after more than simply a respectful portrayal of the ceremony.

Your point brings to mind another issue: The episode also shows active Mormons denigrating the ceremony by lending their temple recommends to an unworthy member. Seriously, how many really faithful Mormons (as Barb’s family is shown to be) would lend their recommend to someone they know is unworthy under any circumstances?

“The episode also shows active Mormons denigrating the ceremony by lending their temple recommends to an unworthy member. Seriously, how many really faithful Mormons (as Barb’s family is shown to be) would lend their recommend to someone they know is unworthy under any circumstances?”

This is a recurring theme in Big Love and one of my biggest issues with the show. There are seemingly no mainstream Mormon characters in the script who appear to make any attempt to follow their beliefs.

This is not an issue with showing Mormons who make mistakes. That would be fine. Mormons are human and should be shown that way, but the show seems to portray intentional deviation from beliefs as the rule, rather than the exception, and there appears to be little or no agonizing over these decisions on the part of the characters. It’s just taken for granted. There also seems to be an intention to depict Mormons as somewhat vindictive. They go out of their way to make life difficult for the polygamists, and seem bent on treating them poorly in whatever way they can. In short, they are the enemy, they are hyocritical and they are not true to their beliefs. Nice.

Lawrence Read: But I don’t see that any of [The New Testament] is other than what it is purported to be.

Oh, please. The Pastoral Epistles pretend to be from Paul, but are pretty obviously forgeries.

The author of John’s revelation and John’s Gospel are not the same man.

Earliest sources identify Cerinthus the heretic as the author of “The Revelation of St. John”, and no church besides the Church of Alexandria accepted it as scripture before 600 AD.

The authors of the gospels appear ill-acquainted with Israel, and the geographic and botanical errors that they make are exact correlates to the problems with animals and technology related by the Book of Mormon. For example, the mustard plant, which is a strawberry-live vine, is described as a tree. There is no lake near Gadarenes. The trip from Harod’s temple to Pilot’s temple was longer than a full day, so the back-and-forth related in the Gospels was impossible. I could go on and on.

Furthermore, there’s a very compelling case to be made that Jesus never even existed. There’s an historical black hole when it comes to accounts from contemporary sources, and no biographical tradition arises until the end of the 1st century AD (at the very earliest). Where does that leave the New Testament if there’s no Jesus?

Lawrence Read: I have read deeply into biblical criticism…

Evidently not!

DKL you said: “In the real world, few people fault Mormons for trying to “strip people of their civil rights.” If you recall, prop8 passed and your side lost, and laws like it have passed everywhere they’ve been on the ballot. And only the extremists adopt the “strip people of their civil rights” formula.”

You’re wrong wrong wrong wrong wrong. In California, Gay couples were issued marriage licences by the state. It was their civil (governmental) right to get married. The Mormon church (and members thereof) tried mightily, worked mightily, donated mightily and succeded in getting this actual right revoked. ‘Cause before that, they actually were able to be married.

Own up to it. Be proud, be loud. You stripped a defined group of people of an actual civil right that they had for a few months. But a real, actual right nonetheless. Congrats. High fives all around.

djinn, DKL can speak for himself, but to me the point he was making is a valid one, and that is that though people may try to blame (or credit, depending on your viewpoint) the Church with the passage of Prop 8, in reality the Church could not possibly have enough power to engineer such a thing. The Church clearly campaigned very hard (without any help from me, BTW) but in the end, it was just a political campaign. The Church didn’t ram anything down the throats of the citizens of California. They voted and a majority of them voted for Prop 8. That’s called democracy. It’s a good thing, remember?

“some of the words attributed to Christ and some of the earlier prophesy were in the added portions you describe above, that is, no doubt taken (in King James English even) from the Bible, and fraudulently placed in the B of M. They represent further evidence of the deception that took place.”

There’s words from the Bible in the Book of Mormon, Lawrence? You must be kidding!? Please tell us, how oh how did you ferret out this horrible fraud perpetrated on the world? Thank you so much for bringing this to our attention!!!

“I am well aware of the Bible’s limitations, even questions of authorship, but believe that most of it was written at about the time of Christ’s death, or within a hundred years of it, much more direct than a complete work of fiction, though possibly with fictitious elements, it may be true (according to some scholars at least).”

Well if you believe it, Lawrence, then it must certainly be true!!! Thank you for coming down from on high to benefit us with your weighty thoughts and beliefs!!! We’ve never ever considered such things before!

[strangle-gag-barf]

DKL: you need to learn to count to three (the labels are 1,2,3 not a,b). Got it?

Seems to me you’re the anti-Mormon. I’m not anti anything, just responded to what you have said. I was fully prepared to drop the argument long ago but you keep piling it on and I won’t let your obvious lack of scholarship go unchallenged. Let’s stick to the information and quit the personal stuff, agreed? If you can’t win an argument with tact, then you are lost before you begin.

As close as the prop 8 referendum was, the Mormon Church played the decisive role. What is scary to me is what will happen as your church continues to gain economic leverage. I believe it is already quite overwhelming right now. Certainly the general opinion here is that you Mormons like to throw money around then use the power it gives you. Everything here is run from Utah. Now you throw it around in California? I think that was seen as the problem you had way way back, the reason you were chucked out of Missouri and later Nauvoo. Resentment over the gross manipulation of economic factors in each place, or is my scholarship faulty?

It all amounts to beating up on gays. And where is your church authority in all this if you don’t believe in your own scripture nor in the Bible, which is the main point of the evangelicals?
Aren’t you even making a case for the non existence of Christ?

MCQ: Suggest you read DKLs points before you chastise me – he is the originator of all the points of this debate. He is the master debater. His unsupported nonsense almost makes me want to gag as well, but please put credit where it is due.

More empty words.

More and more, I’m starting to admire the way Evans handles trolls [sighs longingly].

Sorry if this is tiresome for many in this forum, but I think Lawrence might be interested in what is available on lds.org regarding DNA and the Book of Mormon. Here’s the link:

http://newsroom.lds.org/ldsnewsroom/eng/commentary/dna-and-the-book-of-mormon

Thanks Mbogo, I’ll read through that.

hey guys (and I mean you DKL and you MCQ, do your ever read your own stuff? Read DKLs above and see if that isn’t bigotry against gays (and me too I guess, though it doesn’t bother me).

MCQ: you have twisted my words – I didn’t say anything about throwing money around in those earlier days, what my understanding is, from a lot more reading than pamphlets, BTW, is that Mormons put a strangle hold on the economic life of those places – controlling where people bought their goods, who owned what and everything else, thus muscling out the other guys. This was apparently (your church literature I’m afraid), continued in Utah with the LDS getting into politics to the extent that they controlled the ballot box. I think this is pertinent. When a church or churches begin to involve themselves in state politics, I get concerned.

All the above gay bashing etc doesn’t use logic, it is just a sort of snideness, that is intended to irritate. Are you guys grown up? Isn’t there a moderator with the forum who can toss out words like “moron”? The title of this website is Mormon mentality -should it be Mormon lack of mentality?

Throwing money around, I have seen a bit of that including what would be considered bribery by LDS officials from Utah, I guess (palefaces or palangis as they are called here). They spent a bundle aimed specifically at getting a lease through. That has to do with throwing money around, which you should acknowldege, puts your church in great position as being so economically wealthy. So of course when I see them buying an election there, it is a bit disturbing. Will they be thrown out of California?, doubt it – but it is a big turnoff to see church bigotry in this day and age. I think Obama is working on some of this.

It is sort of like Brad Pitt refusing to get married to Angela until Calif comes to its senses. I would feel that way too.I have a gay relative who has been in relationship with the same person for over twenty years. I think the problem in not allowing states to marry them is that they lose economic position that a normal straight couple would have. They can have some sort of ceremony, but in Calif. at least, it requires proper licensing to have legal rights. The LDS Church has effectively denied gays that right by becoming a mojor player in the election. I doubt if the straight side would have won otherwise. So it sort of, to my way of thinking, becomes mixing of religion and state. I believe it is being handled in the supreme court there on an appeal, but don’t know of any outcme yet. heard they were leaning toward the gay position, but haven’t followed up.

So you behave like a moron and lose the argument. Then you try to use the fact that we point out that you’ve behaved like a moron as some kind of perverse evidence that you’re somehow not a moron.

Yeah, we’re losing alright!

It’s all in our exchange, right here on the page. Every time I pointed out an error in your reasoning, I brought attention to it. And I know full well that you know, because you erroneously referred to it as disparaging your science. At this point, the game is over, and it’s too late for you to pretend that you’re not a moron.

Your only hope is to repent and join the Mormon church!

“Read DKLs above and see if that isn’t bigotry against gays (and me too I guess, though it doesn’t bother me).”

No, it’s not, Lawrence. As usual, you are misreading it. He said that many of the gay-marriage advocates were behaving like bigots. And he’s right.

“Mormons put a strangle hold on the economic life of those places – controlling where people bought their goods, who owned what and everything else, thus muscling out the other guys.”

It’s impossible to tell what you’re talking about here. Missouri? Nauvoo? Far West? Kirtland? You seem to be saying that the mobs that drove the Mormons from their homes and killed or tortured some of the saints and stole their property in some or all of these places were somehow justified because the Mormons were engaging in some kind of economic oppression. If that’s what you’re saying, it’s in appallingly bad taste and it’s just flat wrong.

Though it’s unlikely that many would suggest that the Mormons were 100% innocent in the conflicts in Missouri and elsewhere, there was no justification for what happened to the early Mormons. None whatever. And the states of Illinois and Missouri have apologized for the actions of their citizens:

Here is a reference for the Illinois apology:

http://pewforum.org/news/display.php?NewsID=3261

The Missouri apology was issued on June 25, 1976 by then Governor Christopher Bond who issued an executive order rescinding the Extermination Order (issued by former Governor Boggs), recognizing its legal invalidity and formally apologizing in behalf of the state of Missouri for the suffering it had caused the Latter-day Saints.

Perhaps now you should apologize too.

“When a church or churches begin to involve themselves in state politics, I get concerned.”

Get ready to be concerned 24/7 Lawrence. All churches are involved in state politics, and local politics, and (gasp) national politics. It’s called free speech and all churches have just as much right to practice it as you or I or any other citizen or organization, and they use that right regularly. And thank God for that. You’ll probably want to run screaming into the street now.

The remainder of you comment above is just gibberish, but let me point out a couple of things:

“So of course when I see them buying an election there, it is a bit disturbing. Will they be thrown out of California?, doubt it – but it is a big turnoff to see church bigotry in this day and age.”

The Church’s opposition to same-sex marriage is not bigotry, but politics. If it were bigotry, the Church would be against all rights for same sex couples. It’s not, but of course that distinction is lost on someone like you.

Obama is not “working on this.” He is not for gay marriage. He is not about to get involved in the state politics of California and try to overturn the will of the majority in a state election.

If you want to know what the California State Supreme Court is doing on the case filed by the opponents of prop 8 (not an appeal, BTW) see here:

http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-prop8-supreme-court6-2009mar06,0,798075.story

Looks like you’re wrong again. But you’re probably used to that by now.

Lawrence, since every pretense that you advanced for being here was an out-and-out lie, and since you’re among the least intelligent commenters we’ve had in years, I’m happy to see you go.

djinn,

DKL got to it before I could, but your defining marriage as a democratically producable and destroyable right actually eases my conscience quite a bit for supporting 8. It’s just a civil right- a priveledge, if we take your definition. Thanks for that.

“and since you’re among the least intelligent commenters we’ve had in years”

Outright lies I tell you!

Remember that anti-Mormon “Helen” gal from Nauvoo we had over here a while back? I don’t think anyone has managed to lower the bar further than she did.

Thanks DKL for the Big Love info. I’m not sure I know anyone who watches the show, but I did want to know what exactly was depicted, as this could lead to questions from others.

Also wanted to say thanks to those who posted links to outside information that has been helpful for me. My son is 14 now and he also faces people questioning his faith.

Love the line about not being able to watch your favorite medium a porn channel without being reminded to attend the temple.

Speaking of that I too need to make another trip.

Okay I spell checked and everything to try and avoid getting on “the least intelligent commenters” list… crossing my fingers as I type.

Thanks again,

Madeline

Dagnabit! I missed all of those great artistic scenes in Debbie Does Dallas. I was too busy reading the Bros. Karmozov and I could have been asking the big question in life: where are those darn keys and why is she looking there when the pockets have already been cut out? Beats the heck out of the Great Inquisitor!

Blake, ROTFLMAO!

President Packer wrote about DKL,

“Lucky, though, you don’t handle investigators on sunday.”

Actually, I think a lot of us agree with this statement.

John #147: I was endowed before they changed the ceremony in 1990, so I’m, sadly, a bit past my teenage years.

To the larger point, I wonder if the “Hinckley years” where the Church enjoyed such good press wasn’t an aberration. When, after all, has truth been well-received? We should be more nervous and suspicious when the Church isn’t being persecuted than when it is. Or is that too fatalistic?

President Packer,

“must be why you are Elders only!!)”

That’s low class now. Maybe you should stop this nonsense.

Blake: Besides, DKL can make anyone look stupid and he doesn’t even have his own Facebook fan club.

Thank you, Blake. I take that as a huge compliment coming from you.

John o, if you want to come here to lecture us on how stupid we are, you might want to avoid writing sentences like this little gem from your 1st paragraph:

The area that exposes Mormonism for its fakeness is such a huge way that Mormons will not be able to wrap their inbred minds around it.

It undermines your position. A lot.

John o,

I’m glad that huked-on-fonix werked fer you.

Good luck fighting off those “crazy Arabs.”

Watch out for them “sneaky Chinese” too. And make sure your daughter isn’t dating any of them “dirty Mexicans.” You wouldn’t want your pure bloodline contaminated with any “stupid genes” after all.

“If Smith had really had a convo with Moroni, the angle would have spoken in the vernacular of the day, and thus, Smith would have translated the Book O Mormon into a language that the then current day people would have easily understood”

Doesn’t it really depend on whether or not the angle is obtuse?

Seth R: I was wondering however, why we are entertaining refugees from the Salt Lake Tribune comments section here.

LOL. At this point, I think that they’re entertaining us. (especially with comments as funny as yours and Left Field’s)

After my last, and I figured final, post, I knew there might be some cleaning up to do, and sure enough, DKL and MCQ are right in there, slinging it. MCQ, I said nothing about whether the Mormons got what they deserved, but you may have implied that from what I did say. Violence is rarely if ever “justified,”, and that wasn’t the point I was making. However, now that you bring up the subject of apologies needed (and they were overdue in the case of Missouri and Nauvoo, weren’t they?) I have wondered about the damage caused over the years with the continuing revelation that has occurred in your church. Just to take one example, and there are a number, blacks were finally allowed in your temple in 1978 with a simple statement made in the D & C, yet the color bar was there for years (in some respects still is), I guess since the very start. Don’t you feel that the blacks were owed an apology? Or was there one?I won’t go into the polygamy issues and young girls forced to marry (a direct link and parallel to the Jeff’s group in modern days), but here again, maybe apologies were given. One can correct on’s mistakes, but our beliefs, both being th same in this case, require both contrition, apology, and where possible, putting the situation right.

DKL, You took pride in being abrasive and calling me various things, as well as in your own cleverness – fine – admittedly you are a very clever guy (and perhaps I am a moron?). However, in your genetic analysis which you said you knew thoroughly, did you read the central summary “Origins of the American Indians” by Michael H. Crawford? I didn’t at the time pick up on your Bishop Murphy,mistaking him for Crawford, who I only briefly read, but finally was able to, as I mentioned, read some of the Mormon apologetic, and they gave the Crawford reference but then took an entirely different tack and went into whether genetic evidence would show up or be expected with a very small sample. Well, the sample wasn’t at all small, if we are to take what the B of M says – so my feeling is that they are off base in this. But you said that you agree 100% with the genetic findings- so I guess this would include Crawford’s input? Would you care to state what your position is?

I also took the time to read most of your apostasy thread and was impressed by your erudition (something admittedly I am not known for), but also impressed by the paradigm you and others operate under because of your Seminary training. The knuckling under to even minor authority is quite remarkable, and maybe good, but certainly different than the paradigm I have lived under. People, to my way of thinking, should always immediately be held accountable for what they say, no matter what their position – which allows for more openness of discussion and often will get at the core of any problems of interpretation – but admittedly I was highly involved in academia, and not so highly involved in Sunday school (I suppose our equivalent of Seminary experience). The heavy emphasis on the position of what ever level of leader is involved instead of what is said, is quite startling – and maybe that was your point, that it shouldn’t be. I am able to hold most leaders in a degree of respect even though their ideas obviously aren’t correct, without, I should say, feeling that they are morons or idiots or anything else. Ideas on the one hand, the people who hold them on the other, but generally I choose not to judge the messenger on his or her message (unless it gets to the point of being ridiculous, and then I would bow out).

And, in this regard, some indication from my kids attending BYU is that their professor or professors refuse to consider evolution (as not having occurred?) so that, being naturally polite, my kids keep their mouths closed. Remarkable to me that they found evolution a sort of no no at the university level – though I can’t know whether this attitude is universal at BYU.

I sincerely do wish all members of this forum the very best, remembering that we are “all bozos on this bus”.

BTW, my BYU biology professor taught evolution.

Really Lawrence, do you even talk to you kids at BYU? They most certainly do teach evolution- my BS is in Microbiology and we covered evolution. Or maybe they were teaching something else in my Evolutionary Biology course! (Bio 420)

Lawrence,

I’m sure you’re 100% ignorant of the fact that the issues you bring up are secondary or even tertiary to 1) this post, and 2) many Mormons’ faith.

Whats more, your insistence on trying to bring down the Church in righteous zeal is rather ordinary, as well as rather offensive. You condescendingly paint commenters here, and Mormons in general as ignorant and misguided, even deceitful. Any scolding you’ve received is more than deserved.

You’re wasting your own time offending and pissing people off. Turn your attention to your own life instead of attacking others’ lives.

Lawrence,

Are the wife and two children you mentioned earlier active members of the church?

Warning off topic!!

***Note please don’t critique my grammar or other mistakes. I will be the first to admit I am way out of my league here. I did the best I could, but I’m just a simple kindergarten teacher. LOL ;-)

Hi Lawrence,

Like you I am new here. I just stumbled across the thread because I was curious to know what part of the temple ceremony was portrayed on TV. I have only posted once, but I read the entire thread.

My take as an observer of this conversation is that the reason you got posts directed at you that were negative is because it appeared from the perspective of a member of the church that your intent was to tear down the doctrines of the church with various arguments about why the church isn’t true and why we are all deceived. I get that. I told the missionaries the same thing (with tears in my eyes nonetheless, because I was afraid they were going to hell and I by this time had spent lots of time with them and had grown fond of them). I like you had many questions and was very skeptical. I was wrong.

I would not take the criticism here personally. The response you are getting here as I see it, relates to the deep commitment members have to the church and the frustration that they feel because they hear the same arguments that to them are old news. It is difficult to know on the Internet who has sincere questions. I think… No, I take that back. I know that you can find the answers to all the questions you have about the church. I would suggest reading posts where people have discussed the issues that concern you. If I were you I would just read them and not get involved because that will cause you (and anyone) to get defensive. I wanted answers too and I got them. They are out there.

I wish you best of luck in finding answers to your questions.

Madeline

Keep talking, Lawrence. I mean, it’s not like we need more proofs that you’re a moron. But then again, it won’t hurt.

Madeline: You are certainly more righteous than I am :)

To All Here,
About Lawrence: “….that [his] intent was to tear down the doctrines of the church with various arguments about why the church isn’t true” ….Sure, I’d agree with this assessment but the answers to someone like him are way, way out of line. Although my hobby now is to try and piss off DKL whenever possible it a)rarely works because he is both thick skinned and knows what I’m doing, and b)he is active and will stay so.

But Lawrence here has a member wife and children and sure, he doesn’t believe but with the insults and treatment he got here…well the insults he gets (latest’s nasamomdele) only help to keep him inactive and despising the church and Mormons. Plus it gives him another weapon to try and inactivate his children…He can now go and show them what ‘Mormons’ answer when their names are not known, so it’s what is actually in their hearts. Certainly no one needs to believe what he argues, but there is a right way and the wrong way to answer that. Saying “it’s not like we need more proofs that you’re a moron. But then again, it won’t hurt”(DKL) doesn’t help; well it actually helps his cause of anti-Mormonism.

Anyway, we have people like DKL or Steve Evans here to try insults target practice on so no one needs to insult someone whose questions were sincere and honest although he doesn’t believe. I mean how many members would we have if we answered all critics the way DKL, Blake and others here have answered him?? just a thought.

You are finally quite right, nasa – I wanted to see how Mormons defend themselves in the face of an obviously crumbling foundation, and I have. I think I stated that though. I also just read of Michael Crawford’s findings, though they just confirmed what I had suspected. The mistake I made is in thinking the truth behind it all is more important than the way it plays out. And when one thinks of various religions, one doesn’t seem to need much verifiable truth for its members to stay involved. it all tends to be more social than factual, and I’m not a very social type of person.

But DKL made a good point too and that was that the Christian faith is not a lot more secure in its origins – there does seem to be a difference in that misleading authorship was acceptable at that time. The Gospels and Acts involve history, but how accurate isn’t really known, and there was a historian writing at about that time who confirms some of it, but like most Mormons, most Christians are able to just accept in a faithful sort of way. Emotions play a large role.

I think DKL, vicious as he can be, answered me well, in fact – I had to probe a little to get it out of him, but he makes sense. And in thinking further, it seems to be that way, people just take things on faith and there’s an end to it. I really don’t want to convert them, and think my probing is mistaken for my wanting to do that. And I intend to desist in that from now on. We had an elder couple here, and I was asking the wife some things in my usual intellectual, non-thinking way, and finally she said to me “I’ve been on alcohol and on drugs, if I don’t have the LDS Church, I have nothing at all” – those probably aren’t her exact words, but the sincerity of what she did say rang through very clearly. People have to work out their own salvation.

But nasa, what you call my attacks on the church are going to be seen that way regardless. If I ask a question, it will be seen as an attack. You all think – oh he already knows that – he is just probing to attack the church” – not really, like I said, I thought all Mormons accepted the B of M as facts translated from the plates. Now I know different, but asking that wasn’t really an attack. Now there were some points where I felt like attacking, some of DKL’s attacks on my scientific ability without having read a word, really, of what I have published. One simple little off-the-cuff statement and there he goes, sort of mouthing off. I think that will put anyone on the defensive and they might strike back. Look at his last statement above – nice.

Carlos said some more pertinent things- and you might give him some thought. The comment was made above something like how would i feel as a Christian if a Mormon came blasting away into my website. If you did that in a Christian forum, I don’t think it would get this same type of response. They might like having one come along so as to be able to practice evangelicalism. Sort of like an opportunity. Mormons are more of a closed shop, they may occasionally like to have someone come into the fold, but, except maybe in missionary years, they aren’t going to go out of their way to do so. That is probably why the negative response here.

My kids can ask their own questions, though I did pass Michael Crawford’s reference work onto my daughter yesterday as she wants to be an applied geneticist. She will be moving on in a couple years to either Stanford or Berkeley, and I have no worries of her deciding things for herself. My son is like my wife – he just loves being with people.

Interesting points made Nasa and Carlos – I truly did enjoy the apostasy thread and may finish up on it as it has a lot of good thinking.

Personally I think that general kindness is better than being vicious, cynicism can be vicious as well, as demonstrated above. Madeline is naturally kind and she is ahead of anyone who isn’t in my book.

But what do I know – nada, hey Carlos?

“I wanted to see how Mormons defend themselves in the face of an obviously crumbling foundation, and I have.”

Lawrence, if you want to know what sets people off on you, there it is right there. It’s offensive to say that to someone about their Church. Obviously, you think you know a lot about science and you think you have read up on DNA evidence relating to the BoM, and you have concluded that the Church’s foundation is “obviously crumbling.” How long did it take you to reach that conclusion? An hour? A day?

Some of us have been studying these issues for years now. We have read widely on the subject because, though we are believers and have a firm testimony of the gospel, we are curious about new scientific findings and we want to know everything there is to know about it. After a lot of study, many of us have concluded exactly the opposite: That the DNA evidence hasn’t even begun to prove or disprove anything about the origin of the peoples described in the Book of Mormon. Is that because we’re stupid or deluded? Or is it because you are? No the answer is simply that intelligent people who study these questions end up with different conclusions. That’s true of a lot of scientific questions and it’s certainly true of this one.

“I thought all Mormons accepted the B of M as facts translated from the plates.”

You keep referring to this like it was some sort of revelation from on high, but it’s really obvious if you think about it. There are all sorts of Mormons, of course, just as there are all sorts of people in every religion. However, I think you would be wrong to conclude from DKL’s words that there is a large segment of active Mormons that believe the Book of Mormon to be symbolic, a work of fiction, or the product of Joseph’s mind.

I have been an active Mormon all my life and have yet to meet any active member of the Church who believed any such thing. By far the vast majority of active members believe the Book of Mormon to be exactly what it purports to be: a book of scripture testifying of Jesus Christ that was translated by Joseph Smith through the power of God from gold plates. This is what I firmly believe. Not because I became convinced of it through academic research (although I believe in studying all academic subjects) but because God has revealed it to me through the Holy Spirit.

That is my sincere answer to your questions. Pardon me if I assumed previously that you were not sincere in your inquiries. I still have my doubts, based on some of the things you have said previously, and I think you are at least as guilty as anyone else of stirring up trouble on this thread, but at least you can’t now complain that no one answered your questions sincerely.

BTW, I was sincere earlier when I suggested that you research the answers to your questions by performing searches on the blogs I pointed out to you. You would have found the answers you were looking for and a lot of good discussion besides. You still haven’t taken me up on that, but you should.

Lawrence Read: You are finally quite right, nasa – I wanted to see how Mormons defend themselves in the face of an obviously crumbling foundation, and I have. I think I stated that though.

This is the 4th pretense that you’ve offered for being here. Every time you engage somebody here, you offer a different pretense for being here.

Commenters here have repeatedly engaged you in a respectful matter, only to have you repeatedly change the subject and do nothing but insult Mormons and then bemoan how disrespectful they’ve been. Re-reading your comments here makes it obvious that you have no interest in having a reasonable discussion, because each time anyone engages you, things quickly devolve into a bunch of idiotic, anti-Mormon cliches.

And there’s nothing unique or unusual about this behavior — even your persistence. All the way back to Ed Enoch’s famous foray into the threads at Times and Seasons, trolls like you have shown up periodically to try to convince Mormons that they just don’t get it. And every one of you behaves the same.

This is ridiculous, and you’ve worn out your welcome here, even if you’re still finding commenters naive enough to continue to engage you.

Lawrence Read: I am not a moron, but do look at things in a different sort of way.

Wrong again, Lawrence.

DKL –

Will the Gentleman be so kind as to address two questions?

How much must it bother Lawrence that his children have chosen to build their houses on a “crumbling foundation?”

What do you think it says about him that after those closest to him have rejected his rehash of tired propaganda, that he thinks he can go on a blog and persuade a bunch of strangers about the errors of their ways, while using the same arguments?

Jota, DKL,

The pretense, as you call it, is obviously a single thought pattern which you choose to distort. Any dialog going on this long is bound to weave around a bit, as most of your, DKL, comments always do. But then from your direct, rather idiotic statements, you are intelligent, smarter than anyone else, and beyond reproach. Looks like you are already almost to godhood. Lucky you.

There hasn’t been any change in my intent throughout, though I did get sidetracked from my original post (which was not my original intention for coming here, as already clearly mentioned), nor has my intent been to put down your religion nor to attack your faith, only to find out more about how you view the genetic evidence and the basic tenant of the origins of the B of M. This has been a puzzling question to me for a long time, but became even more puzzling with Crawford’s information.

Yes, my family has built their religious life on what I would regard as a crumbling foundation (or should I say a foundation that had dubious origins in the first place). If I can accept that they wish to go on like this, why would I care in the least what you all do? Mostly I had hoped to gain information, but, as Madeline has said, there are undoubtedly better places to do that.

Are you going to deny that the origins (foundation)are questionable? No, I think you yourself, DKL have said that. What you said is that Christianity’s biblical origins are questionable and that this is shared with the B of M. I have agreed with that, very clearly. I can’t possibly back down from my view of that as it is so obvious, however, your church has a lot a lot of other things going for it, including a membership which is content with the history it is presented with and clearly has faith in it.

In science, of course, sometimes a paradigm becomes very much like a religion, almost a religious faith, until new evidence comes along and adjustments are made – have to be made if science is to maintain its integrity. Most will shift over to the new paradigm without any mental problem at all. Radical examples come from Newton, Einstein, Darwin and some others, minor examples come along from time to time, such as Dobson’s confirmation of the genetic basis of behavior(not so minor, really), which you have alluded to above.

It seems that religious people can ignore scientific evidence since they aren’t trained to question and analyze information like that. Look at how the Christian Church fought against Darwinism (still fights against it in most cases). Does that make Darwin wrong? No but it does make some look pretty ignorant. That is our problem here, and DKL, you are obviously caught somewhere between.

You ask me direct questions or question my intent and I come back, then you say you don’t want me here, that I’m a moron and a troll.

This website is about “Mormon Mentality” and, I suppose it is intended for Mormon’s only although it is an open forum and anyone can enter it, though outsiders like me aren’t welcome. However it should be obvious that most of what we have discussed has direct bearing on Mormon mentality. Too bad that you are all so defensive that you can’t see that. You yawn, you attack, your barf, but you don’t really want to look at issues central to Mormon Mentality.

Mormon Mentality? Yeah I see it very clearly, count me out!

Lawrence – This website isn’t “about ‘Mormon Mentality’”; that is just the name. It’s a forum of mostly LDS people who are looking for others with whom discuss topics related to our faith, politics, social factors, etc. It is not meant to be a large scientific or intellectual community of Mormons of greater intelligence. But neither is it a place for disputing the basic elements of our faith. That’s where you’ve gone astray. There are plenty of forums out there for that purpose but you’re really looking in the wrong place if you’re hoping for that type of conversation.

You continue to toss out generalizations about Christians and Mormons alike which I think most here find offensive. But since we’ve heard most of these “arguments” before, you’ll also find most are bored. You said that it has not been your intent to “put down your religion nor to attack your faith” and yet you continue to do so. For example, you said “It seems that religious people can ignore scientific evidence since they aren’t trained to question and analyze information like that.” This broad generalization paints all religious people (and most on Mormon Mentality fall into this category) as intellectually inept or poorly educated. It’s insulting and doesn’t foster any honest, open conversation regarding the things you *claim* to want to know.

I guess the word would be “lay”.

Suggest that you place a note at the top of your home page -a statement of purpose which can exclude morons like me, then maybe we won’t stumble into your forum. Normal for a website to do so.

Hey, did you notice that you can take the letter “m” out of mormon and get…

Now turn that against me!

#202 – Did you know that Lawrence Read is an anagram for “cereal warden,” “lace wanderer,” “leeward crane” and, my favorite, “raw eel dancer?”

Lawrence,

Suffice to say, you feel that if us dang Mormons only looked at “the facts” intellectually and objectively we’d come to the same conclusion as you.

This kind of hubris is not only exhibited in various religious dialogues, but in nearly all forms of discourse, from politics to social sciences, poetry, you name it.

Some Mormons look at all the facts they can get their hands on and make objective decisions. Other Mormons rely on a foundation they’ve already established as trust worthy. If I see a sign that says “danger, high voltage” I don’t go searching around for more facts, and have extended discourse about whether or not touching the high voltage equipment could be dangerous. I accept it and move on.

Maybe you’d call this intellectually lazy, but that would be ignorant or intellectual dishonest. We all do this to some extent. We all make decisions and attempt to live our lives in accordance with them.

I have no issues with anything you could point out about the Book of Mormon or Joseph Smith. Not because I’m sticking my head in the sand. But because I’ve already made up my mind on it, and much like (for me) the question of 2+2=4, the question of whether the Book of Mormon is true doesn’t need constant reexamining for me. It does require frequent reaffirmation, and “conditioning” through prayer, scripture study, moral living, etc. But myself and many others are far beyond “constant fact checking” to see if it’s still true for us today like it was yesterday.

No, forgive me Lawrence, but you are an arrogant jackass. How is it that you think you know “the truth” and we don’t? What is it, exactly, that gives you the idea that you have any particular access to “truth?” Please, enlighten us.

Sam and MCQ – Seriously. Don’t bother. Lawrence is very obviously all about insulting anyone “foolish” enough to exhibit faith. His view is myopic and unoriginal. His most recent “argument” about Mormons being “conditioned” from “the cradle to the grave” would have some potential if not for all the adult converts who are not mentally retarded. Otherwise, his arguments are inert and about as deep as his own mental acuity.

Programmed, like I said. You people wouldn’t know the truth if you see it .

And what about the huge (is it 80%) of new converts who leave?

Yeah – programming has to start early on.

Someone said “give me your children to train (brainwash) and I’ll give you a new society” or words to that effect (maybe it was Stalin).

You wouldn’t have this website (Mormon Mentality) if it weren’t for early programming -that’s part of the truth of it all.

But maybe best if this rabid, sleeping dog goes to sleep for now.

Look, Lawrence, there’s nothing about Mormonism that you know that we don’t. That’s why Paroled from the Primary Presidency is correct to point out that everything you say is myopic and unoriginal.

Your latest porn comment is among the most myopic and unoriginal statement yet. Not only were there discussions galore about it in the Mormon blog space, but I participated in a podcast on the topic at By Common Consent, another Mormon blog (link here).

Listen, you’ve been shown repeatedly to be both a liar and an ignoramus. Anyone with an ounce of self-respect would realize the humiliation that is latent in your comments on this post.

But since I like you, I’ll give you a little bit of advice: Don’t point any of your friends to this post, because it’s likely to lower their estimation of your cognitive skills even more.

Sorry, just more programmed response from you two.

Saw something about no outlet in extramarital sex, but can’t download the zeitcast, no facilities to do so. Is that why masterbation is so sinful to you, are they afraid you’ll injure yourselves while rushing off from your porn sites to sin? Or do you do it while watching porn? One of the recent mass murders (nearly 200 women as I recall), was a porn watcher – watch out, Utah!

Do you have a link to blogs on this, I’m dying to see what obtuse logic you use to explain it away.

Glad you like me.

Bottom feeder, top feeder, you give me a lot to feed on, for sure. Better catch up on your porn.

No actually Jota, they asked my permission and I gave it. I’m pretty liberal on things like religion. You see, here it is a thing with relatives. So no, just another misinterpretation by you and your gang here.

To you it would be awful if your family became Christians (I mean your immediate family), because they would go from sainthood and the possibility of a progression to godhood to what, a long wait at the gates or something? Purgatory in the old Catholic sense. It might be a long time before you saw them again, and there are temple vows to consider and the sealing processes and all that. That might be hard for you to take, but, you see, that really does get down to what has been taught to you and how you have been made to react to it. So you seeing me as a sad, sad little man is from your perspective as a Mormon, the programming you have undergone (I like programming better than conditioning as the latter has the connotation of brainwashing, and I wouldn’t want to think that. Programming has to do what you are taught, what you have been made to take as fact, or faith based factas you have been taught.

But I feel a little as though I’m trying to teach you something, and I know you are beyond that.

You have shown in the above post and the previous one, some concern for me and my family as it relates to all this, and I’ve tried to make it clear that it really isn’t a problem with me, though I can see it would be from your paradigm. It is all a matter of how things are looked at, from whose eyes.

Pretty idiotic discussion huh – oh well…

“My wife was head of the Woman’s Relief Society of her stake here until having to go to the U.S. to attend to the kids.”

It would be pretty rough having my wife move away from me to another country.

The separation at first, John, is almost like death, but we have email and skype and see progress with the kid, so it is a sacrifice, but we both feel it has been worth it. She will return in a few months.

In many ways harder for me because I am cut off from all three. We have a nice life here and hope to return to it soon. (website at bayviewtonga.com)

Lawrence, are you going to go through every last gripe the dudes over at exmormon.org are incessantly whining about on this thread?

What is this for you? Therapy?

If so carry on. I wouldn’t want to come between you and your therapy with a real discussion.

I never asked you why you thought you knew the truth and others didn’t.

Nice post,
I learned a lot of information from this post. Thanks for the effort you took to expand upon this topic so thoroughly.
I look forward to future posts.