I like the turn this conversation has taken. It seems as though you are more interested in talking now instead of debating or flinging thoughts at each other. I much prefer this path.

As for being totally unprepared to meet me on an “intellectual” front, I’ll take that as a compliment but I don’t think that is entirely true. If you are willing to really delve into some of these issues I think we can have some really good conversations - advanced educational degrees aren’t required for that.

Thank you for recognizing that I’m not trying to be antagonistic - at least, not anymore (and not on this blog; I occasionally blog elsewhere and can be more antagonistic, but I try not to be too much these days). The blog where you posted is my personal blog and it is pretty sanitized when it comes to religion. I occasionally mention things that some people might find offensive, but then, people can take offense to just about anything these days ;)

As for what I believe, you kind of hit on it. I believe in what science offers as explanations - the big bang is the best theory yet with the most evidence. I believe in evolution (and know it has occurred - the evidence for it is overwhelming; I’ll happily recommend some books on this if you’d like though you’re post seems to indicate you recognize this as a possibility). I believe we humans evolved from single-celled organisms and are animals. But, most importantly, I believe in the value and importance of life. This is the point where most of the Mormons I talk to get bogged down and find my position… odd. First, when I tell people I’m an atheist they think that I must be absolutely immoral (meaning, I don’t have morals), because I don’t derive them from some divine being. Then they think that I have no purpose in life and that I can’t find something to believe in without a supernatural entity. On both fronts they are absolutely wrong, though I don’t blame for thinking this way as it seems hard to understand for someone coming from that perspective that there is another way. I said I believe in life but I didn’t explain why. I believe in life and the importance of life because it is what makes it possible for me to even consider the question of what life is all about. In other words, without life I can’t ponder the meaning of life. Thus, in a rather paradoxical way, for me, the meaning of life is life itself! I value life and humanity above all else. This makes me something of a pacifist - I despise wars of aggression (though not defensive wars). I despise senseless violence. Both of these are moral positions that I derive from my primary axiom about life - that life is more important than anything else. This is also where I derive all of my morals, for I am a very moral person. I believe in being honest, true, etc. But the reason I believe in being those things is not because some supernatural entity dictates that I should and that I’ll be punished if I don’t live that way. I believe those things because they are good for life. They result in a better quality of life for the greater number of people. Thus, when I am faced with a moral predicament I ask myself not, “What would god want me to do?” but rather, “How does this relate to life and keeping people alive and making life better for people?” In short, I am a skeptical scientist who has found a purpose in life - life itself. I have other purposes I add to that, like adding to the body of scientific knowledge (in my case, sociology), and sharing my life with my wonderful wife. But, fundamentally, life is what it is all about for me. And from that axiom I derive all of my other moral positions and values.

As for not being clear in your writing, well, I think I understood your question. So, no worries. If I didn’t, let me know and I’ll clarify. I have a tendency to go off on tangents as well, so don’t feel bad that you do - that’s how our minds work.

Your second post raises a good question and it is one I have been asked by several people - If you’re out of Mormonism, why still mess with it? And I remember the quote from Joseph Smith, that people who leave the religion will never be able to leave it alone. When I was Mormon I used to think the same thing about the people I thought were “anti-Mormons.” Rather than answer this question directly, let me direct you toward something else on my website. I was contacted by a “travel” company back a few years ago that made me all sorts of promises about a great trip to Florida. I bought into it and had a pretty terrible experience. Before I even made it back home I had posted about the whole thing on my blog:
http://genesoc.com/blog1/?p=322

I felt like I had been deceived by the company who set it all up and set out to help other people avoid the experience I had. It is 4 years later and I am still fighting that company and its dishonest business practices:
http://genesoc.com/blog1/?page_id=817

Similarly, I was invited to a sales pitch for a group purchasing club that I exposed as a scam and wrote that up on my blog. I was even interviewed by the local television station as a result of my blog write-up about that company:
http://genesoc.com/blog1/?p=793

Why am I telling you about all of this? Well, Benny, here’s why: I am the type of person that, when I think I have been deceived, I try to prevent other people from experiencing that same deception. As you can see by my other activity, I don’t like things that I think are frauds. I do everything in my power to show people that they are frauds. When it comes to Mormonism, I believe it is a fraud. I don’t say that to insult you or to offend you, I really don’t. That just happens to be my perspective on the religion. And, unlike the Florida Travel scam that cost me $500 and about 4 days of my life, Mormonism cost me thousands and thousands of dollars (well over $20,000 in tithing and other lost revenue) plus 25 years of my life. The religion set me back years in terms of education and scientific understanding. What’s more, it continues to exist and most of my family still belong to it. Now, the reasons why I think Mormonism are a fraud are a different issue, one we can talk about at length. But when it boils down to it, the reason I still think about and take issue with Mormonism is the same reason I take issue with Travel Universal - I think it is deceiving people and now that I have that opinion, I am trying to do something about it. Keep in mind, though, that I’m not actively proselytizing any Mormons. I don’t go door-to-door in Utah trying to convince people to leave. I post my thoughts about Mormonism and religion online and welcome discussion, especially from people like you who want to understand. I consider what I do passive secular proselytizing.

I should also point out, as I noted above, that the blog you posted on is my personal blog. I basically consider it a sanitized, public version of my personal diary. Most of what I post on there relates to travel and other relatively innocuous events in my daily life, stuff that I later add to my personal journal. I seldom talk about religion on there anymore as my family members who read the blog are easily offended by just about anything I say about religion, especially Mormonism. The person who commented on my review of the Tanner’s book before you is probably my brother-in-law; he occasionally comments on my blog but does so anonymously. I don’t mind - I understand his concern. As you can see, he took offense to what I said. I don’t like offending family, so I try to keep this blog pretty free from religious commentary, though occasionally stuff slips in. I’m not going to hide my atheism from them, but I won’t post intentionally antagonistic comments about Mormonism on this blog. I do, however, post my more caustic comments on religion on a different blog. It’s a group blog where I post anonymously. It’s a good venue for me to express my anger and frustration at the things I see happening in religions. Keep in mind, I still harbor some anger toward the religion that I feel deceived me for 25 years.
Let me give you a comparison to see if it makes sense. I don’t know if you are married or not, but let’s say you are. If you suddenly found out that your wife of 25 years had been taking some of your hard-earned money to spend on drugs (or some other nefarious purpose), wouldn’t you be angry? Would you do anything about it or would you just forget about it and move on with your life? I know that isn’t the best comparison, but it kind of illustrates my thinking. I’m guessing it is hard for you to understand that someone would feel like they had been deceived by the Mormon religion, but please try. Once you understand that you’ll begin to understand why so many of the people who leave the religion remain angry and continue to think, write, and comment about it. It’s not, in my mind, because Joseph Smith was right (we’re all minions of the devil trying to pull people away from the truth); it’s because we found out some stuff about Joseph Smith (e.g., child-brides, marrying other men’s wives, manipulations, deceit, etc.) and are steaming mad! We were told over and over again that he was a great person. No one ever told me that he was caught sleeping around in Kirtland, OH and that is part of the reason why he was tarred and feathered. People just don’t mention those things. No one told me that Joseph Smith used a rock in a hat to “translate” the Book of Mormon; people just don’t talk about those things. So, when I really started studying things, I felt deceived. I felt like I had been lied to for 25 years. I was mad. And sometimes I’m still mad. And when I read things like Russell M. Nelson signing a petition advocating a Constitutional Amendment mandating that marriage be only between (1) husband and (1) wife but learn he married his second “eternal” wife just weeks before it, I get mad. That is hypocrisy. That is dishonesty. That really bugs me.

Like I said, this may not make sense to you, but do try to understand. I’m not being controlled by some divine, evil being to attack Mormonism. Not at all. I’m doing what I think is moral, just like I am doing with the travel company and the group factory direct buying company - I’m trying to raise awareness about something I think is a fraud. If my actions in that regard are misguided, I fail to see why.

Anyway, I hope this clarifies. I’d love to hear what you think about this. I always invite dialog over these issues. Also, I’m completely open to questions you might have about, well, pretty much anything. I wish you the best.

P.S. My website documents IP addresses - that’s how I knew you were writing from Hill Air Force Base. I grew up around there, up in Morgan. I was just there a few weeks ago in fact. I hope the weather’s nice - that is a great place to live when it isn’t too hot or too cold out! Take care and I hope to hear from you soon.

Best,

Ryan

I’m going to email you a response. I think this is a discussion better suited for email. I’ll email you shortly.

Best,

Ryan

I just finished reading some of your acedemic achievements and feel I am totally unprepared to meet you on the intellectual front. Nor would I be ready for years to come. I apologize for being hasty and assuming that you were trying to be antogonistic. I am curious though. I hope I will not bore you as I can see that your time is very valuable. Iwas wondering what you believe. Scientifically what are your views of the world and how it came to be? Big Bang? I love science or at least what I understand of it. I don’t understand all but I feel I have a good grasp on how things work in the world. I said before that my faith provides answers to my deepest questions. When ever I learn something new about the way things work, whether it be atoms, the universe, gravity, rocks and fossils and pretty much all knowledge, I think to myself “how does this fit into my religion.” I can say that my religion can provide answers to these questions. For example many christians still hold strong to the belief that the world was created in 6 days. Well after studying many different books and resources both scientific and secular I found that there was room to believe that the earth is in fact millions of years old. There is imperical proof to support this. Well back to my question. What do you believe or support? What do you value as truth? Maybe a conversation about this will be less provoke and more open. I am not interested in arguing points on theology alone but more so on how you came to the conclusions you have about religion. You nor anyone else will be able to convince me that my religion is a fallacy as it was I who convinced myself that it wasn’t. Yes my feelings did guide me in my decisions. Kind of like how my feelings and intelect steered me toward this approach to discussion. I also appologize if my writing is not so organized. My mind is logical but it has always been my weakness in getting that logic on paper the same way that it appears in my mind. If you have any questions on some of the deadends in my thoughts please ask. Thanks.

Once again you have employed two tools from the apologist’s toolbox. First, you claim that my perspective is just opinion, just like yours, and since they are both opinion neither is worth more than the other. As a result, you believe your position is just as valid (though, you imply it is more so). Second, you cut off the discussion, basically saying, “I got the last word in and I’m above debating, so there!”

That’s fine. No one is going to make you do otherwise. Even so, I feel obligated to point out some of the errors in your thinking. As regards the first position, that is basically a postmodernist approach that says, “Well, everything is relative so, whatever I think is just as valid as whatever you think.” The problems with that line of reasoning are many. The biggest, of course, is that it simply isn’t true. If you woke up tomorrow morning and the sun was blue but the first person you asked said it was yellow, would that make it yellow? No. The way knowledge is developed is through empiricism and confirmation - we ask questions, develop methods of testing them, and then have other people confirm them. Empiricism is what makes it possible for the F-16s at Hill Air Force Base to fly, not some guy’s opinion. It is hours and years of experimentation and confirmation and improvement on that. You’re basically saying that your opinion on aerodynamics is just as valid as all of the engineers who design fighter planes because, well, you have an opinion. Unless you happen to be one of those engineers, I think you would agree that your opinion is not as valid. Yet you are making the same argument concerning religion. You are claiming that, because we don’t have perfect knowledge about something that your speculation is just as good as mine. In fact, it is not. You see, your speculation involves supernatural claims, like Jesus rising from the dead, healing the sick, raising the dead, walking on water, etc. The problem with that claim, Benny, is that, to paraphrase Hume, “extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.” I deny that those things ever happened precisely because they do not happen today. I would believe them if they happened today or, if thousands of independent, non-biased observers witnessed them and all testified to that fact (that did not happen either). That would be extraordinary evidence. You have none. In short, your position on this point is not as strong as my position is. You’re welcome to make extraordinary claims, but the burden of proof is on you.

As for your second point, cutting off the conversation, that’s just childish. I’m not going to go into it.

I will, however, comment on some of the other stuff you say. First, you seem to be arguing with someone else, perhaps an evangelical Christian or Catholic or someone else who believes in god. I don’t. Your argument about the trinity is moot when it comes to me. I say the god you believe in doesn’t exist. You say he does. I say prove it. You can’t.

You also say that you don’t need proof that Jesus lived and that he is the Savior of mankind - you have faith. That’s fine. Just so long as you recognize that you don’t have any proof. You’re welcome to believe that some Jewish dude who may have lived roughly 2,000 years ago is your Savior, but you have no proof. You can put your faith in anything you want. I prefer to put my faith in things that are reliable - like science and empiricism.

As for Mormonism being logical… I beg to differ. Here’s a logic puzzle for you: How come Elohim’s children need bodies to become gods when Jehovah (a.k.a. Jesus) became a god (the god of the Old Testament) without one? Or, how about this one: If god is all-knowing, how come you need a secret handshake to get into heaven? Wouldn’t he know who you are?

Don’t worry, Benny, I’m not trying to get you to leave Mormonism. Seriously. I’m fine with you being Mormon. You’re welcome to believe whatever you want - the secular constitution of the U.S. grants you that inalienable right (not god, you’re god would take that away from me with the threat of eternal damnation). I do, however, think you should be logical and reasonable in your faith. You shouldn’t deny that there is no evidence supporting the idea that the Book of Mormon is a translation and that the evidence all favors the idea that it is a 19th century work of fiction. You shouldn’t deny that Joseph Smith slept with other men’s wives. You shouldn’t deny that Brigham Young believed Adam was God incarnate. You shouldn’t deny that the leadership of the religion have intentionally manipulated the history of the religion to cover up some of the more egregious abuses of the early leaders. You should know the facts about your religion. That’s all. Know the facts! If you know them and decide to stay - great.

As for me finding peace… Trust me, I have. Life outside of Mormonism is amazing! Really, it’s great. I get to decide what to do with so many aspects of my life. I don’t have to do all of the stupid things some old guys in Salt Lake dream up any more. I think my own thoughts. I don’t have to pretend to believe anymore. I don’t have to participate in the indoctrination of others. I am free! It’s wonderful! I’ve never been more happy nor more at peace! Leaving Mormonism was, hands down, the best thing I ever did - even better than marrying my wife, because it has made my relationship with my wife so much better. If you’re afraid of what life is like outside, you shouldn’t be. Though I will admit that the transition is tough - learning to think for yourself for the first time is challenging, but oh so worth it!

I welcome discussion, Benny, I really do. Just don’t try the apologist games (e.g., I get the last word, so there!). That won’t fly. And, be honest with me. I don’t mind faith, it’s ignorance that bugs me.

Best,

Ryan

I will admit that we cannot know what you are claiming, which is precisely why I have a problem with your claim. You are basically making a non-falsifiable argument, which is the approach often taken by apologists when they have no other recourse. I can’t know if Peter was quoting some unknown and unknowable text and that the prophets in the Book of Mormon were doing the same because that unknown and unknowable text doesn’t exist. So, you win - you can provide a nonfalsifiable explanation for it.

I can too. Let me try my hand - god speaks exactly the same to prophets in different cultures, making the same errors and everything because, as we all know, god is unchanging (oops, not for Mormons…). Well, that’s equally non-falsifiable because we can’t prove a god communicates with man nor that a god ever did.

Here’s another non-falsifiable - a magical wind carried the writings of Peter back in time to Nephi as he was leaving Jerusalem with his family. Et Voila, he has the exact writing of Peter - and they have the same translation errors of the King James Version of the Bible 2600 years in the future. Why? It’s a magical wind! See, anyone can come up with nonfalsifiable explanations. It’s harder to come up with plausible, falsifiable explanations.

Following Occam’s Razor, there is a far more plausible explanation - Joseph Smith didn’t translate anything. Joseph Smith simply made it up and copied some of what he made up straight out of the King James Version of the Bible - errors and all.

The evidence favors my explanation. Your explanation is speculation and non-falsifiable. With all of the other errors in the Book of Mormon (archeaology, history, demography, etc.), this is just one more example of how it doesn’t hold up under scrutiny.

Remember, all of this could be resolved if we just had the gold plates. Conveniently, they’re gone. What better way to make something non-falsifiable then to claim it was taken away by angels? (Remember my magical wind?) The most damning evidence against the Book of Mormon is that the source material is missing!

In short, I appreciate your thoughts, but keep in mind that there are far more plausible and probable explanations. Yours requires substantial leaps of faith and is 100% non-falsifiable. While mine may not be 100% falsifiable, it is far more plausible and logical.

Any other thoughts?

Best,

Ryan

As for insulting those I claim to care about… There is no way around that. All I have to do is open mouth and tell them what I believe and they seem to think that is an insult. When I say I think Joseph Smith is a fraud, they take that as an insult. If I say I think the Book of Mormon was made up by Joseph Smith, they take that as an insult. Hell, sometimes it seems that by becoming an atheist and leaving Mormonism I insult my family. I’ve even had family members say that to me, “You threw away the “truth,” and that is a shame to the family name.” It’s difficult to not insult someone when they hold their beliefs as personally as Mormons seem to. I disagree with the fundamental beliefs of Mormons, many find that offensive. There is very little I can do about that. I intentionally do not bring up Mormon issues around family so it is not an issue - in that regard, I try to respect their beliefs. I’d love to discuss these things with them, but, based on past experience, I don’t believe that will turn out well…

I didn’t mean to demean anyone’s intelligence. I know many Mormons who are far more intelligent than I am. And I mean that sincerely. I don’t think, however, that they have the same understanding of Mormon history and theology that I do. They apply their intelligence to other areas - like biology, the law, or chemistry. If they were to take the time to examine Mormon history as presented in the New Mormon History approaches beginning in the 1960s, I think we would come to an understanding. And, honestly, I wouldn’t mind if they remain Mormon as long as they recognize the problems and don’t deny them. If they can find a way to reconcile their belief and faith with Mormonism’s spotty past - great! I couldn’t, but I know people who can. And, frankly, I highly respect many of the people who do reconcile their knowledge of Mormonism with their faith, even though I disagree with some of their positions.

In short, you’re right to call me out for using the word incompetent in my review - that was not what I meant. I didn’t see your point the first time around, now I do. I apologize. I don’t think I’m smarter than Mormons, au contrair, I think I happened to find out some things that most Mormons don’t know. That has nothing to do with intelligence, it has everything to do with information. For me, that information meant leaving. For others it may mean dealing with issues in other ways. To each their own.  I look forward to hearing how you reconcile your beliefs with your understanding of Mormon history.