How has Mormonism survived modern scrutiny?

[Der_Trihs]

@ITR_champion

I use the correct definition: “having or exercising reason, sound judgment, or good sense”. By that definition, many rational people are Christians. Therefore your statement is incorrect.

No, it’s incorrect; buying such a ridiculous mythology demonstrates a lack of all three of those qualities. Its claims are impossible, it contradicts known facts, it has no evidence, it’s logically inconsistent, and it’s nothing but a collection of stories written by ignorant primitives. Few things are farther from examples of “reason, sound judgment, or good sense” than buying the utter stupidity that is Christianity.

As far as the OP goes, as others have said people don’t apply rational thought to religion so it doesn’t matter how silly or provably wrong or outright impossible it is.

[Knorf]

@ITR_champion

Christianity is neither implausible nor foolish to a great many people with rational minds.

A statement with no meaningful content.

[Erdosain]

While thinking about this a bit more, I do think there is a difference between Mormons ignoring obvious facts and the general “Christianity is wacky too” feeling. Mormonism makes specific, testable assertions of historical fact. Christianity does too, but these are fairly limited and so far in the past as to be virtually untestable.

To be a Christian, you have to believe a magical man came back from the dead 2,000 years ago. Weird and not physically possible, but a very popular belief. However, to be a Mormon, you have a much more robust set of belief requirements, including, but not limited to:

[ul]
[li]A group of Jews sailed across the ocean and colonized America in 600 BC[/li][li]They had horses[/li][li]They had steel weapons and armor[/li][li]Their skin color changed depending on their righteousness[/li][li]They spoke a variant of Hebrew[/li][li]They are the ancestors of the Native Americans[/li][li]A man from the 1800s could find buried treasure by looking in a stone[/li][li]He could also translate ancient languages by putting this stone in his hat and looking at it[/li][li]That his “translations” happened to deal with then current religious controversies is a coincidence[/li][li]A mummy purchased in Illinois in the 1840s just happened to have a papyrus written by the hand of the prophet Abraham in it[/li][li]The fact that the “translation” of this papyrus has been shown to be completely wrong by modern Egyptology is just a misunderstanding[/li][/ul]

And this is just the tip of the iceberg. As you can see, there is a great deal of quantifiable, testable claims in there that educated people SHOULD be able to analyze.

An important variable in this equation is the restriction of information. Mormons stigmatize any outside information about Mormonism, its beliefs, and its founding as potentially “anti-Mormon propaganda.” If you want to read about the history of Catholicism or Lutheranism, you read a general history book written by a (fairly) impartial academic. There are precious few of these books on Mormonism because it’s just not as popular or interesting a topic. (Also, primary sources are surprisingly scarce.) A Mormon in good standing has had it drilled into him that you simply don’t need any outside sources or books to study Mormonism. The church provides it all. In fact, non-Mormon sources are dangerous to your soul and probably all half-lies concocted by the devil to lead you astray.

It doesn’t help that most academics find Mormonisms claims not worthy of serious study. Why should they bother when 99.99% of people don’t care?

The result is that Mormonism and its founding is a rather murky corner of history, (not least because the Mormon church buys up all the primary documents it can and then controls access to them) and the membership of the church are incurious–or even scared to be curious. It’s easier to just go with the flow.

[asian_riff]

@peledre

Yes, but the difference is all of the events leading to its creation occured in the modern era, that’s the whole point of titling the thread, “How has Mormonism survived modern scrutiny.”

Are absurdities that ostensibly happened in ancient times any easier to believe than absurdities that ostensibly happened in modern times? I don’t see why that would be the case.

The idea that Christianity is more plausible than Mormonism because the events allegedly happened “a long time ago” is just silly. Plenty of events depicted in the Bible can quite easily be disproven. This all boils down to the fact that religion is not about logic or reason; it is about faith. I have to say, though, it never ceases to amuse me when one group seems to feel their set of magic beliefs makes sense, but that another group’s set of magic beliefs is foolish.

[asian_riff]

@Erdosain

While thinking about this a bit more, I do think there is a difference between Mormons ignoring obvious facts and the general “Christianity is wacky too” feeling. Mormonism makes specific, testable assertions of historical fact. Christianity does too, but these are fairly limited and so far in the past as to be virtually untestable.

To be a Christian, you have to believe a magical man came back from the dead 2,000 years ago. Weird and not physically possible, but a very popular belief.

That’s it? That’s all you came up with? I seem to remember some other things:

A burning bush that talks

A single man building a ship out of wood that is somehow big enough to hold 2 of every species of animal in existence

Parting the sea

Walking on water

Turning water into wine

Bringing the dead back to life

Then there’s the matter of the Egyptians, who were fastidious record-keepers, making no mention whatsoever of ever having Hebrew slaves

Lots more - should I go on?

[Nava]

asian_riff, none of the things you mention are dogma in the RCC. Not a single one.

[Kobal2]

@Nava

asian_riff, none of the things you mention are dogma in the RCC. Not a single one.

Well, the RCC at least throws its full support behind the notion of Jesus Haploid Christ’s birth from a virgin woman. So there’s that.

[Simplicio]

@Kobal2

Well, the RCC at least throws its full support behind the notion of Jesus Haploid Christ’s birth from a virgin woman. So there’s that.

But Erdosin’s claim wasn’t that non-mormon Christians don’t subscribe to miracles, but that the story around those miracles is a lot harder to falsify then the Mormon equivalent.

Jesus may never have walked on water, or turned water into wine, or been a virgin birth but the world described in the New Testement agrees with reality in at least the broad strokes. There really was a place called Roman controlled Judea, it really was under the control of Pilate and Herod, there was a real temple in Jeruslem, the Pharisees were a real sect, etc. All these things have been established by independent records and archeology.

But the world in the Book of Mormon never existed at all. There was no group of pre-Colombian Jews in the New World, no iron age civilization here with Old World technologies and domesticated animals and plants, No Jaredites, no such language as “reformed Egyptian”, etc And if these things did exist, its pretty inconceivable that they wouldn’t have left evidence if they did.

Of course the beginning of the Old Testement is pretty anti-factual as well, but in that case most modern Christians have written Genesis off as “metaphorical”. But for Mormons to do the same they’d have to basically throw out the whole Book of Mormon.

[Kobal2]

@Simplicio

But Erdosin’s claim wasn’t that non-mormon Christians don’t subscribe to miracles, but that the story around those miracles is a lot harder to falsify then the Mormon equivalent.

Jesus may never have walked on water, or turned water into wine, or been a virgin birth but the world described in the New Testement agrees with reality in at least the broad strokes. There really was a place called Roman controlled Judea, it really was under the control of Pilate and Herod, there was a real temple in Jeruslem, the Pharisees were a real sect, etc. All these things have been established by independent records and archeology.

Err, I suppose so - then again, the religion’s not based on those verifiable facts. The worship centers specifically around the more absurd notions : Jesus was born from a virgin. He was 50% man, 50% god, 100% savior. He died, but he got better. He was bodily whisked up into Heaven.
All these things are no less or no more “silly” than Joseph Smith’s hat stones and mummies.

Besides, suppose I write an account of, say, the Hundred Year War. I get all the names right, all the little details, who’s a liege of whom, who lead which battle and so forth.
I also write than Joan of Arc had a giant mecha that shot beams of pure hellfire, and that’s how she beat the English at Orleans - would you say “Oh, well, he got the broad strokes right, it’s mostly verifiable fact” ? What do the facts I got right matter, when the meat of the story’s made up ? Does it make Mecha-Joan more authentic somehow ?

[Revtim]

@Cheshire_Human

Try looking into Scientology, which was founded in the lifetime of many of the people alive today. That’s some serious crazy, but they keep getting new members.

The seriously crazy stuff about aliens and DC-9s and all that bullshit isn’t sprung on member until they are heavily invested emotionally and financially. I think the crazy Mormon stuff is open knowledge to all.

[Love_Rhombus]

Nitpick: I believe the Bible says that Noah had a lot of other people helping him build the Ark. Not that I personally believe this, but you know what I meant.
And I find the OP’s optimism in humanity refreshing. Most people wouldn’t care about Mormonism unless some rich and famous Mormon ran down Sunset Blvd. dressed in a wetsuit made of baby sealskin screaming that his Holy Instrument must be carnally blessed by Miley Cyrus or the world would end. Then they’d be interested for about a week. Then not care again.

[Ludovic]

@Love_Rhombus

Most people wouldn’t care about Mormonism unless some rich and famous Mormon ran down Sunset Blvd. dressed in a wetsuit made of baby sealskin screaming that his Holy Instrument must be carnally blessed by Miley Cyrus or the world would end.

That’s only happened about three times in the past ten years.

[Simplicio]

@Kobal2

Besides, suppose I write an account of, say, the Hundred Year War. I get all the names right, all the little details, who’s a liege of whom, who lead which battle and so forth.
I also write than Joan of Arc had a giant mecha that shot beams of pure hellfire, and that’s how she beat the English at Orleans - would you say “Oh, well, he got the broad strokes right, it’s mostly verifiable fact” ? What do the facts I got right matter, when the meat of the story’s made up ? Does it make Mecha-Joan more authentic somehow ?

I’d find a fantastic story involving Joan of Arc in France very much more believable then a fantastic story involving, say, Gandalf in Rivendale, for the reasons you mention. Of course, I don’t belive in Mecha-Joan or Gandalf (or the New Testament or Book of Mormon for that matter), so its just matters of degree. But I can see where someone could buy the stuff in the New Testament and still be suprised that Mormons approach their faith so non-critically.

@Revtim

I think the crazy Mormon stuff is open knowledge to all.

Is that true? I seem to vaguely recall that there are teachings that are supposed to be kept within the Church, but had since become public knowledge due to apostates spilling the beans. Maybe I’m thinking of something else, though.

[FoieGrasIsEvil]

Do the golden plates exist, even if they are forgeries? Who possesses them? Who gets to see them?

[Inner_Stickler]

I believe they were taken back by the Angel Moroni. He was pretty freakin’ protective of those things.

[Erdosain]

@Inner_Stickler

I believe they were taken back by the Angel Moroni. He was pretty freakin’ protective of those things.

Yes, this is true. They were hidden buried in the ground in upstate NY for 1200 years, but they’ve since been taken back up to heaven. Yes, I did believe this.

As for whether beliefs are “hidden” from new converts, it’s debatable. The weird stuff is never mentioned but it’s not exactly secret. If you ask about it, they’ll explain it in broad strokes, but if you never bring it up, they’ll be even happier to not say anything.

The idea is that you have to accept the small stuff first, and then you can work your way up to the advanced material.

[gonzomax]

@Kobal2

Err, I suppose so - then again, the religion’s not based on those verifiable facts. The worship centers specifically around the more absurd notions : Jesus was born from a virgin. He was 50% man, 50% god, 100% savior. He died, but he got better. He was bodily whisked up into Heaven.
All these things are no less or no more “silly” than Joseph Smith’s hat stones and mummies.

Besides, suppose I write an account of, say, the Hundred Year War. I get all the names right, all the little details, who’s a liege of whom, who lead which battle and so forth.
I also write than Joan of Arc had a giant mecha that shot beams of pure hellfire, and that’s how she beat the English at Orleans - would you say “Oh, well, he got the broad strokes right, it’s mostly verifiable fact” ? What do the facts I got right matter, when the meat of the story’s made up ? Does it make Mecha-Joan more authentic somehow ?

I think Mormonism is even sillier than Scientology.
That is a high bar.

[Strassia]

I would say that the very few people can think rationally about their own religion.

[Sampiro]

@Erdosain

I’d be interested to know whether they show “Big Love” on television in Latin America. That could very well be the beginning of this modern scrutiny for many people (even though the show focuses on Fundamentalist Mormons, not regular Mormons).

Or South Park.

[Dogzilla]

@ITR_champion

There is certainly a large and growing movement of ex-Mormons who have left because of these issues.

One problem with the church’s claim that it’s the fastest growing or one of the fastest is this. Unless an ex-mormon writes a letter to Salt Lake City and formally resigns, the church still counts that person among its membership. Doesn’t matter if someone got baptized and never stepped foot in church again, that person is counted as a convert and is on the rolls as a fully member. The church also claims not to keep track of the numbers of resignations it receives (if they do track it, they certainly don’t report those numbers publicly), so the conversion rates the church cites do not take into account the resignation rate. IMO, it’s probably one of the fastest shrinking religions in the world, but you’d never get that by talking to anyone in SLC. People are leaving in droves because of the reasons cited in this thread. But not everyone resigns formally. Those members are called “inactives” but are counted among membership lists as faithful mormons.