It is currently Sat Aug 24, 2019 8:07 am

All times are UTC - 7 hours [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 168 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8  Next
Author Message
 Post subject: Re: New Interpreter Article a flop: Don't bother reading it
PostPosted: Wed Apr 03, 2019 3:46 pm 
God
User avatar

Joined: Mon Feb 25, 2013 4:32 pm
Posts: 1305
Location: Parowan, Utah
Kishkumen wrote:
If the question is "which of the two religions--Scientology or Mormonism--is the least plausible on its face" within the context of American religions as perceived from an American perspective (most of us on the board are probably American), then the fact that anti-cult ministries are pouring so much effort into distinguishing Mormonism from Christianity tells me that Mormonism looks a lot closer to the Christian tradition than, say, Scientology.

I don't think anti-cult ministries tell us much of anything about how close Mormonism is or is not to Christianity (such is a question is indeed subject to a wider perspective, though perhaps I should not have introduced it). In fact, they do go after Muslims as well. I was just at a Christian bookshop the other day and they had much more about Islam in their "cult" section than about Mormons, of which they had only old material. They go after whatever they perceive to be a threat, however they define threat, at any given time. It's probably more of business decision than a theological one. That is not to say that it is not sincere theological revulsion on some level, only that that is not a sufficient explanation.

Quote:
Perhaps because we atheists view all religion as equally nonsensical as none can forward the meagerest of evidence to further its plausibility. Yes their is a tradition of Christianity in our setting, it is no more supported by evidence than mighty Xenu and his interstellar dc10s.

But even atheists have passive cultural knowledge about Jesus and the Bible and so on. One has to be taught about Xenu or actively seek out the information.

_________________
"As to any slivers of light or any particles of darkness of the past, we forget about them."

—B. Redd McConkie


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: New Interpreter Article a flop: Don't bother reading it
PostPosted: Wed Apr 03, 2019 4:00 pm 
God

Joined: Sun Apr 05, 2015 1:25 pm
Posts: 8730
Kishkumen wrote:
Lemmie wrote:
Not for those who don't consider judea-christian tradition to be a positive.

Um, yes. True. But I am thinking of the big numbers.

There are roughly 2.2 billion Christians and 1.6 billion Muslims in the world, out of over 6 billion people in the world. Between the two, that's nearly 2/3 of the world's population.

Good point. I am thinking by generation though, where every generation attaches less and less importance to religion, and each has a lower percentage who believe on god than the previous generation.

https://www.pewforum.org/religious-land ... illennial/

To those younger groups, I would argue the distinction of woo being based on judea-christian traditions as opposed to scifi-based woo is less impactful.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: New Interpreter Article a flop: Don't bother reading it
PostPosted: Wed Apr 03, 2019 4:32 pm 
God
User avatar

Joined: Mon Feb 25, 2013 4:32 pm
Posts: 1305
Location: Parowan, Utah
Lemmie wrote:
Good point. I am thinking by generation though, where every generation attaches less and less importance to religion, and each has a lower percentage who believe on god than the previous generation.

https://www.pewforum.org/religious-land ... illennial/

To those younger groups, I would argue the distinction of woo being based on judea-christian traditions as opposed to scifi-based woo is less impactful.

That is an interesting angle. It makes me think about the many op-eds and lifestyle articles in NYTimes and so on that that look at how certain Protestant preachers try to fill their flocks with younger Christians by emphasizing how their Christianity can be used for self-realization, empowerment, and so on—not unlike the Scientology spiel I've got more than a few times in some crowded train stations in the northeast. The cultural background is on the face of it a big leap for the Scientology, but "millennial" Christianity mutes the gospels stories and the miraculous as well in favor of self-actualization stuff, if these articles are accurate (I await MSJack's expert knowledge of contemporary Christianity for confirmation).

If that is so, then Mormonism not only has a weird story for a lot of older traditional Christians but it also lacks the kind of narcissism that apparently some younger Christians find attractive.

_________________
"As to any slivers of light or any particles of darkness of the past, we forget about them."

—B. Redd McConkie


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: New Interpreter Article a flop: Don't bother reading it
PostPosted: Wed Apr 03, 2019 4:48 pm 
Seedy Academician
User avatar

Joined: Sat Dec 13, 2008 4:00 pm
Posts: 20001
Location: The Brutus Memorial Rectory at Cassius University
Symmachus wrote:
I don't think anti-cult ministries tell us much of anything about how close Mormonism is or is not to Christianity (such is a question is indeed subject to a wider perspective, though perhaps I should not have introduced it). In fact, they do go after Muslims as well. I was just at a Christian bookshop the other day and they had much more about Islam in their "cult" section than about Mormons, of which they had only old material. They go after whatever they perceive to be a threat, however they define threat, at any given time. It's probably more of business decision than a theological one. That is not to say that it is not sincere theological revulsion on some level, only that that is not a sufficient explanation.

You disagree. Fair enough. I disagree with you. Yes, Islam is a bigger threat right now. I am not saying that anti-cult ministries only ever respond in one way, to one thing, and for one reason. I don't think that the glut of anti-Islam material contradicts the point I was making in the least. The response to Islam is driven by different concerns, perhaps. Islam is still closer to to Christianity than Scientology, although I doubt that relative closeness is the predominant concern in this case. Here racism/xenophobia play a bigger role.

Converts to Mormonism are predominantly Christians who do not understand the theological niceties of the difference between Mormonism and traditional Christianity. Anti-cult ministries attack Mormonism partly for that reason. Period.

I doubt anti-cult ministries attack Scientology for that reason, to the extent that they even bother with Scientology.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: New Interpreter Article a flop: Don't bother reading it
PostPosted: Wed Apr 03, 2019 4:53 pm 
Seedy Academician
User avatar

Joined: Sat Dec 13, 2008 4:00 pm
Posts: 20001
Location: The Brutus Memorial Rectory at Cassius University
Lemmie wrote:
To those younger groups, I would argue the distinction of woo being based on judea-christian traditions as opposed to scifi-based woo is less impactful.

It would be both interesting and salient if, in fact, that speculation were backed up by a large upsurge in conversions to Scientology. Instead we see the same old injection of New Thought into watered-down Christianity. This suggests to me that people still look for a church that is at least nominally Christian, however updated or retread.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: New Interpreter Article a flop: Don't bother reading it
PostPosted: Wed Apr 03, 2019 5:20 pm 
God
User avatar

Joined: Thu Sep 18, 2014 11:38 am
Posts: 1267
Kishkumen wrote:
Hey, fetchface. I am not trying to prove objectively anything about Physic Guy's subjective impression. I intend to be engaging in an argument based on opinions, impressions, and perhaps, as much as possible, degrees of plausibility.

But I don't think that we have nothing here other than differing personal opinions. I do think there are factors weighing against the plausibility of Scientology among a larger group of people in comparison with Mormonism regardless of our own subjective views.

One is its lack of an explicit relationship with an ancient tradition. There is a strong western bias for traditionalism in religion. That bias weighs against both Mormonism and Scientology in different ways, but I would argue that it weighs more heavily against Scientology.

I refer back to my earlier posts that have raised other issues that make Scientology appear, on its surface, more made up and less in touch with the historical tradition of religions of the West.

Okay, carry on. I don't disagree with your points, just your statement that the goalposts moved. Physics Guy established no goalposts by stating his and his brother's subjective opinion.

Nobody wins at the expense of the other in these discussions of subjective impressions. Everybody wins when we are successful at understanding others better in the end.

_________________
Ubi Dubium Ibi Libertas
My Blog: http://untanglingmybrain.blogspot.com/


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: New Interpreter Article a flop: Don't bother reading it
PostPosted: Wed Apr 03, 2019 6:56 pm 
God

Joined: Sun Apr 05, 2015 1:25 pm
Posts: 8730
Kishkumen wrote:
Lemmie wrote:
To those younger groups, I would argue the distinction of woo being based on judea-christian traditions as opposed to scifi-based woo is less impactful.

It would be both interesting and salient if, in fact, that speculation were backed up by a large upsurge in conversions to Scientology. Instead we see the same old injection of New Thought into watered-down Christianity. This suggests to me that people still look for a church that is at least nominally Christian, however updated or retread.

Except that I am not speculating that scientology has replaced traditional religion, I am suggesting only that the distinction between the two is less in the minds of members of that group, as a way to explain the data I linked to that shows a decrease in traditional religious belief among that group.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: New Interpreter Article a flop: Don't bother reading it
PostPosted: Wed Apr 03, 2019 7:32 pm 
Seedy Academician
User avatar

Joined: Sat Dec 13, 2008 4:00 pm
Posts: 20001
Location: The Brutus Memorial Rectory at Cassius University
Lemmie wrote:
Except that I am not speculating that scientology has replaced traditional religion, I am suggesting only that the distinction between the two is less in the minds of members of that group, as a way to explain the data I linked to that shows a decrease in traditional religious belief among that group.


Who said you were speculating that? Red herring.

Still, show me the increased interest in Scientology. I mean, sure, I suppose it’s possible that the data you linked could be taken to show that young people increasingly find Mormonism’s bizarreness to be indistinguishable from Scientology’s. I think that’s a stretch, but I guess that could be the case.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: New Interpreter Article a flop: Don't bother reading it
PostPosted: Wed Apr 03, 2019 7:41 pm 
God

Joined: Sun Apr 05, 2015 1:25 pm
Posts: 8730
Kishkumen wrote:
Lemmie wrote:
Except that I am not speculating that scientology has replaced traditional religion, I am suggesting only that the distinction between the two is less in the minds of members of that group, as a way to explain the data I linked to that shows a decrease in traditional religious belief among that group.


Who said you were speculating that? Red herring.

Are you serious?
kishkumen wrote:
It would be both interesting and salient if, in fact, that speculation were backed up by a large upsurge in conversions to Scientology.

I only used the word because you did.
Quote:
Still, show me the increased interest in Scientology. I mean, sure, I suppose it’s possible that the data you linked could be taken to show that young people increasingly find Mormonism’s bizarreness to be indistinguishable from Scientology’s. I think that’s a stretch, but I guess that could be the case.

I'm not suggesting an increase in scientology interest. I'm using data that shows a decrease in traditional religion interest, and I am suggesting that a reason for that data is a decrease in willingness to believe in traditional woo, a decrease that puts traditional woo on the same level as scientology woo.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: New Interpreter Article a flop: Don't bother reading it
PostPosted: Wed Apr 03, 2019 7:45 pm 
Seedy Academician
User avatar

Joined: Sat Dec 13, 2008 4:00 pm
Posts: 20001
Location: The Brutus Memorial Rectory at Cassius University
fetchface wrote:
Okay, carry on. I don't disagree with your points, just your statement that the goalposts moved. Physics Guy established no goalposts by stating his and his brother's subjective opinion.

Nobody wins at the expense of the other in these discussions of subjective impressions. Everybody wins when we are successful at understanding others better in the end.


Sometimes it’s fun to have a friendly disagreement. I was trying to stick to the comparison between Scientology and Mormonism in terms of plausibility. Referring to moving the goalposts was my way of trying to rein in the tendency to wander off to other topics.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: New Interpreter Article a flop: Don't bother reading it
PostPosted: Wed Apr 03, 2019 7:50 pm 
Seedy Academician
User avatar

Joined: Sat Dec 13, 2008 4:00 pm
Posts: 20001
Location: The Brutus Memorial Rectory at Cassius University
Lemmie wrote:
Are you serious?


I never said anything about Scientology replacing anything, nor did I attribute that to you. Where did you come up with that?

Quote:
I'm not suggesting an increase in scientology interest. I'm using data that shows a decrease in traditional religion interest, and I am suggesting that a reason for that data is a decrease in willingness to believe in traditional woo, a decrease that puts traditional woo on the same level as scientology woo.


Yep, and I said it was possible that this would impact the numbers. I doubt it would flip them, making Physics Guy correct. I don’t see what the problem is here. I did concede the possibility. I’m just not convinced that the change is so dramatic that now Scientology would actually look a lot more plausible than Mormonism.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: New Interpreter Article a flop: Don't bother reading it
PostPosted: Wed Apr 03, 2019 8:08 pm 
God

Joined: Sun Apr 05, 2015 1:25 pm
Posts: 8730
Kishkumen wrote:
. I’m just not convinced that the change is so dramatic that now Scientology would actually look a lot more plausible than Mormonism.

I must have missed something, as I didn't argue that. Maybe someone else did, which would explain why I am not understanding your red herring comment.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: New Interpreter Article a flop: Don't bother reading it
PostPosted: Wed Apr 03, 2019 8:22 pm 
God
User avatar

Joined: Mon Feb 25, 2013 4:32 pm
Posts: 1305
Location: Parowan, Utah
Kishkumen wrote:

Converts to Mormonism are predominantly Christians who do not understand the theological niceties of the difference between Mormonism and traditional Christianity. Anti-cult ministries attack Mormonism partly for that reason. Period.

I doubt anti-cult ministries attack Scientology for that reason, to the extent that they even bother with Scientology.


Anti-cult ministries are sensationalists and entrepreneurs, so they will attack whatever religious group arouses enough curiosity and a great enough sense of difference to sell books and fill seats at their presentations.

That Mormonism is somewhat historically closer to traditional Christianity than, say the Nation of Islam (which gets a chapter in Martin's book as meaty as that on Mormonism, as I remember) only means that the nature of the arguments deployed by anti-cult ministries against Mormonism are different, not that people find Mormonism more plausible than any other group deemed a cult by these ministries. Whether the anti-cult people believe Mormonism is a bigger threat because of points of similarity to their version of Christianity in comparison to other groups is irrelevant if the question is whether potential converts find one religious claim more plausible than another. You'd have to ask the people converting to know that, not the anti-cult people who perceive a threat but primarily a market that is made up people who already accept their message, share a lot of their views, and purchase their materials and pay for their lectures.

It's self-evidently true that Mormonism is more intelligible to people of a Protestant Christian background, but plausibility and intelligibility are not the same thing. And then people don't necessarily convert to something because it is intelligible. Often perceived difference matters. Or the possibility of getting an American sponsor for a visa. Sometimes that increases perceived plausibility of a religious claim. It is my understanding, in fact, that most converts to Mormonism are in the global south, where the cultural background, even when it is Christian, makes Mormonism something of an exotic American religion.

_________________
"As to any slivers of light or any particles of darkness of the past, we forget about them."

—B. Redd McConkie


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: New Interpreter Article a flop: Don't bother reading it
PostPosted: Wed Apr 03, 2019 8:42 pm 
B.H. Roberts Chair of Mopologetic Studies
User avatar

Joined: Sat Apr 18, 2009 10:44 am
Posts: 7353
Location: Cassius University
Gadianton wrote:
IHAQ wrote:
If Oaks believes "research is not the answer", why does he still fund the Foundation for Apologetic Information and Research (FAIRMormon)?


Because he has to. As Doctor Scratch has recently published, Oaks would pull the plug on all of it if he could. I agree.

Doctor Scratch's profound scientific discovery has alarming implications for the apologists. The apologists are only allowed to do their thing because anything seems like it's better than nothing in the face of critics having a heyday with Mormon history.

Suppose for whatever reason, every present critic just stopped and retracted their work. Oaks would pull the recent essays and then forbid the study of Mormon history. There's absolutely nothing to be gained from it.


You know, it's funny: not very long ago, the Mopologists were gloating pretty much non-stop over what they felt was a "rebuke" delivered to the Maxwell Institute by Elder Holland. And yet now here's Elder Oaks, publicly slamming their alleged enterprise! If Elder Holland's talk was a "spanking," then what do you call what Oaks delivered to the Mopologists? I can't help but wonder if Oaks views DCP's essay as an act of insubordination (provided, of course, that Oaks has the time to piss away reading the stupid thing). Regardless, this may very well be a watershed moment insofar as it represents the biggest public smackdown of the Mopologists by the Brethren.

_________________
"[I]f, while hoping that everybody else will be honest and so forth, I can personally prosper through unethical and immoral acts without being detected and without risk, why should I not?." --Daniel Peterson, 6/4/14


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: New Interpreter Article a flop: Don't bother reading it
PostPosted: Wed Apr 03, 2019 9:14 pm 
God
User avatar

Joined: Thu Sep 18, 2014 11:38 am
Posts: 1267
Kishkumen wrote:
Sometimes it’s fun to have a friendly disagreement. I was trying to stick to the comparison between Scientology and Mormonism in terms of plausibility. Referring to moving the goalposts was my way of trying to rein in the tendency to wander off to other topics.

Ok. Sorry, I was just genuinely puzzled by your comment.

Do you think that someone from a very non-Christian background, say a non-theist in Japan for example, would be more likely to view Mormonism or Scientology as more fraudulent? I kind of think the "scientific" approach might have more appeal with someone completely divorced from any Abrahamic tradition.

_________________
Ubi Dubium Ibi Libertas
My Blog: http://untanglingmybrain.blogspot.com/


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: New Interpreter Article a flop: Don't bother reading it
PostPosted: Thu Apr 04, 2019 9:28 am 
Seedy Academician
User avatar

Joined: Sat Dec 13, 2008 4:00 pm
Posts: 20001
Location: The Brutus Memorial Rectory at Cassius University
Symmachus wrote:
Anti-cult ministries are sensationalists and entrepreneurs, so they will attack whatever religious group arouses enough curiosity and a great enough sense of difference to sell books and fill seats at their presentations.


Oh yes, no doubt. And yet they will also select targets that seem worthwhile and address perceived problems, because, well, that sells too.

Symmachus wrote:
That Mormonism is somewhat historically closer to traditional Christianity than, say the Nation of Islam (which gets a chapter in Martin's book as meaty as that on Mormonism, as I remember) only means that the nature of the arguments deployed by anti-cult ministries against Mormonism are different, not that people find Mormonism more plausible than any other group deemed a cult by these ministries. Whether the anti-cult people believe Mormonism is a bigger threat because of points of similarity to their version of Christianity in comparison to other groups is irrelevant if the question is whether potential converts find one religious claim more plausible than another. You'd have to ask the people converting to know that, not the anti-cult people who perceive a threat but primarily a market that is made up people who already accept their message, share a lot of their views, and purchase their materials and pay for their lectures.


First of all, cherry-picking the fact about relative chapter lengths in a single book is unpersuasive. Secondly, it is the fact that Mormonism claims to be Christian, highlights its use of the name Jesus Christ at every turn, and aggressively proselytizes that makes it a steady target of anti-cult ministries, polemicists, and the anxieties of pastors who have lost parishioners to the LDS faith. The movement of people from Christianity to Mormonism is facilitated by the nearness of the two, and its plausibility as a faith choice over say, a UFO cult or Scientology.

Symmachus wrote:
It's self-evidently true that Mormonism is more intelligible to people of a Protestant Christian background, but plausibility and intelligibility are not the same thing. And then people don't necessarily convert to something because it is intelligible. Often perceived difference matters. Or the possibility of getting an American sponsor for a visa. Sometimes that increases perceived plausibility of a religious claim. It is my understanding, in fact, that most converts to Mormonism are in the global south, where the cultural background, even when it is Christian, makes Mormonism something of an exotic American religion.


Plausibility and intelligibility are certainly related things, even if they are not the same thing. We can spend a lot of time arguing over the reason why millions of Christians converted to Mormonism, beginning in 1830, and including my own ancestors, but the simple fact is that they did, and they did so partly because Mormonism claimed to fulfill a lot of the promises of Christianity and the yearning for early Christianity with its charisma. There is also among some the desire for a Christian church that is more conservative, demanding, and one that aligns better with some people's biases and prejudices.

My take on this conversation is that we spend so much time obsessing over how weird and bogus Mormonism seems to us that we have pretty thoroughly lost touch with why it has appealed to numerous people over nearly two centuries. My guess is that the appeal of Mormonism as it was presented had a lot to do with its overlap with other Christian organizations, with the addition of certain appealing claims to continuing charisma in the presence of prophets, "just like they had in the Bible," etc. There is a reason why the discussions were pitched the way they were. Mormonism was presented as much like Christianity, but more old-timey in some ways (living prophets), and a bit softer in others (no hell).

I am not of a mind to continue arguing this point. It does not appear that we will make any headway.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: New Interpreter Article a flop: Don't bother reading it
PostPosted: Thu Apr 04, 2019 9:35 am 
Seedy Academician
User avatar

Joined: Sat Dec 13, 2008 4:00 pm
Posts: 20001
Location: The Brutus Memorial Rectory at Cassius University
fetchface wrote:
Ok. Sorry, I was just genuinely puzzled by your comment.


No worries. I am not offended in the least.

fetchface wrote:
Do you think that someone from a very non-Christian background, say a non-theist in Japan for example, would be more likely to view Mormonism or Scientology as more fraudulent? I kind of think the "scientific" approach might have more appeal with someone completely divorced from any Abrahamic tradition.


That's a great question. I have no idea. I kind of wonder whether the growth of Christianity in Asia helps Mormonism out. I think, however, on the whole, that both Scientology and Mormonism will seem really weird to the Japanese.

Shades is more qualified to speak to that issue. I am mostly talking about North America.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: New Interpreter Article a flop: Don't bother reading it
PostPosted: Thu Apr 04, 2019 10:05 am 
God

Joined: Sun Apr 05, 2015 1:25 pm
Posts: 8730
kish wrote:
My take on this conversation is that we spend so much time obsessing over how weird and bogus Mormonism seems to us that we have pretty thoroughly lost touch with why it has appealed to numerous people over nearly two centuries. My guess is that the appeal of Mormonism as it was presented had a lot to do with its overlap with other Christian organizations, with the addition of certain appealing claims to continuing charisma in the presence of prophets, "just like they had in the Bible," etc. There is a reason why the discussions were pitched the way they were. Mormonism was presented as much like Christianity....

That is what I think is changing. It was presented as much like Christianity, I agree, but it has many unusual aspects that now are much easier to find. The surface appeal that led to converts in the past (dishonestly, in my opinion), is much harder to maintain now, and in my opinion fewer people go into baptism without doing some research.

Symmachus wrote:
It's self-evidently true that Mormonism is more intelligible to people of a Protestant Christian background, but plausibility and intelligibility are not the same thing. And then people don't necessarily convert to something because it is intelligible. Often perceived difference matters. Or the possibility of getting an American sponsor for a visa. Sometimes that increases perceived plausibility of a religious claim.

:lol: 'sponsor for a visa.'

But yes, I agree that the perceived difference matters. In spite of the surface similarities, the underlying differences are now easily accessible and learnable. The fact that those underlying differences contain a great deal of recent fraud and purposefully hidden or dishonest material IMO drives the conclusion that Mormonism is closer to scientology than to the typical christian church.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: New Interpreter Article a flop: Don't bother reading it
PostPosted: Thu Apr 04, 2019 10:31 am 
God
User avatar

Joined: Mon Feb 25, 2013 4:32 pm
Posts: 1305
Location: Parowan, Utah
Kishkumen wrote:
My take on this conversation is that we spend so much time obsessing over how weird and bogus Mormonism seems to us that we have pretty thoroughly lost touch with why it has appealed to numerous people over nearly two centuries. My guess is that the appeal of Mormonism as it was presented had a lot to do with its overlap with other Christian organizations, with the addition of certain appealing claims to continuing charisma in the presence of prophets, "just like they had in the Bible," etc. There is a reason why the discussions were pitched the way they were. Mormonism was presented as much like Christianity, but more old-timey in some ways (living prophets), and a bit softer in others (no hell).

I don't think I'm focusing on how weird or bogus or Mormonism is. I agree that Mormonism has had appeal to for the reasons you outline, but the conversation I thought was originally about nowadays, not why people found Mormonism appealing 100 years ago and more. Few people have today have anywhere near the background in Christianity that your ancestors and mine did. Whatever advantage Mormonism had vis-à-vis some non Christian religion in the past, it doesn't command that anymore, except in certain parts of the country. It is hard to know, then, how people in general view Mormonism as compared to Scientology in terms of plausibility, and Physics Guy's views, as someone has never been Mormon, offers us a glimpse that should count for something in filling that gap.

In general, not very many people, even Christians, have ever found Mormonism plausible, despite a 200 year advantage over Scientology and a familiar religious idiom.

Quote:
I am not of a mind to continue arguing this point. It does not appear that we will make any headway.

Obviously we don't agree on the value of Christian counter-cultists as a metric for how plausible Mormonism is. But I do have to defend myself against the charge of cherry picking you leveled, which is actually what I think you're doing: in fact, Mormonism also only has one chapter in Martin's book, and in general Roman Catholicism, Jehovah's Witnesses, Hinduism, and Islam, which you discounted arbitrarily, are as much of a target as Mormonism. They have real problems also with yoga and Harry Potter, and countless other market-driven obsessions and fears. Mormonism is different from the others, but that's because they are different severally. I think it is an ex/post/NOMish fantasy, carried over from their believing selves, that Mormonism inhabits some special category that makes it uniquely threatening because of its own inherent qualities. What makes Mormonism unique is that Mormons care at all what these people say enough to invent the category "anti-Mormon" to describe them, as if they are primarily or largely interested in Mormons. Except for some hucksters who sell themselves as experts in Mormonism, I don't think that's accurate.

_________________
"As to any slivers of light or any particles of darkness of the past, we forget about them."

—B. Redd McConkie


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: New Interpreter Article a flop: Don't bother reading it
PostPosted: Thu Apr 04, 2019 10:45 am 
God

Joined: Sun Apr 05, 2015 1:25 pm
Posts: 8730
symm wrote:
It is hard to know, then, how people in general view Mormonism as compared to Scientology in terms of plausibility, and Physics Guy's views, as someone has never been Mormon, offers us a glimpse that should count for something in filling that gap.

We actually have a sample of two views of nevermos in this thread. Not that 2 anecdotes are significant statistically, but I found it interesting that 2 nevermos, who as far as I can tell, have different backgrounds, careers, and are from different locations, had essentially the same response.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: New Interpreter Article a flop: Don't bother reading it
PostPosted: Thu Apr 04, 2019 7:42 pm 
Seedy Academician
User avatar

Joined: Sat Dec 13, 2008 4:00 pm
Posts: 20001
Location: The Brutus Memorial Rectory at Cassius University
Symmachus wrote:
I don't think I'm focusing on how weird or bogus or Mormonism is. I agree that Mormonism has had appeal to for the reasons you outline, but the conversation I thought was originally about nowadays, not why people found Mormonism appealing 100 years ago and more. Few people have today have anywhere near the background in Christianity that your ancestors and mine did. Whatever advantage Mormonism had vis-à-vis some non Christian religion in the past, it doesn't command that anymore, except in certain parts of the country. It is hard to know, then, how people in general view Mormonism as compared to Scientology in terms of plausibility, and Physics Guy's views, as someone has never been Mormon, offers us a glimpse that should count for something in filling that gap.


Well, in a sense the weirdness of Mormonism vs. Scientology is what we have been collectively discussing. If that is not what you have been talking about, more power to you.

So, there are still a lot of Christians around, regardless of the perceived background you and I think is there or not. I would say that still lends Mormonism some cultural advantage over thetans and Xenu. But that’s my opinion, and I am not finding the arguments to the contrary on this thread very persuasive.

Quote:
In general, not very many people, even Christians, have ever found Mormonism plausible, despite a 200 year advantage over Scientology and a familiar religious idiom.


Sufficiently to go from no church to millions of adherents, which is a helluva lot better that the 20,000 or so Scientologists.

Quote:
Obviously we don't agree on the value of Christian counter-cultists as a metric for how plausible Mormonism is. But I do have to defend myself against the charge of cherry picking you leveled, which is actually what I think you're doing: in fact, Mormonism also only has one chapter in Martin's book, and in general Roman Catholicism, Jehovah's Witnesses, Hinduism, and Islam, which you discounted arbitrarily, are as much of a target as Mormonism. They have real problems also with yoga and Harry Potter, and countless other market-driven obsessions and fears. Mormonism is different from the others, but that's because they are different severally. I think it is an ex/post/NOMish fantasy, carried over from their believing selves, that Mormonism inhabits some special category that makes it uniquely threatening because of its own inherent qualities. What makes Mormonism unique is that Mormons care at all what these people say enough to invent the category "anti-Mormon" to describe them, as if they are primarily or largely interested in Mormons. Except for some hucksters who sell themselves as experts in Mormonism, I don't think that's accurate.


LOL. Hilarious. I feel as though MormonDiscussions.com must be one of the worst places to conduct anything approaching a functional discussion. Yes, I KNOW that they attack JWs and Catholics. I remember that quite well. In fact, I mentioned the JWs above as being even closer and hence more threatening to Christians than Mormons. But this really supports my point, I think. And I am sorry, but if you take the full panoply of anti-cult ministry outlets, they are spending much more time on Christian-like sects, including Mormonism, than Hinduism and Scientology.

Martin’s book is just one book. To take it as representative of all anti-cult ministry activity is classic cherry picking. I would feel rightly charged with the same had I not already acknowledged mea sponte the JW situation.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 168 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8  Next

All times are UTC - 7 hours [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Analytics, Dr Moore, The Dude and 16 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum

Jump to:  
Revival Theme By Brandon Designs By B.Design-Studio © 2007-2008 Brandon
Revival Theme Based off SubLite By Echo © 2007-2008 Echo
Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group