LDS leader has died. Next oldest guy takes power.

You pretty much move to the leader spot of the LDS by being the oldest person there. Now, there's another opening as Gordon B. Hinckley had died.

Yeah, you don't care. Neither do I.

Lawrence O'Donnell on Mormonism... right with bad arguments.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not a fan of Mormonism. I am a fan of Mormons though, having never met one I didn't like. Same goes for Wiccans, they all seem pretty nice... though outside of fundamentalism it's hard to find unlikable people. In any event, Lawrence O'Donnell goes on an interesting rant about Mormonism, he has, for the most part, facts on his side. He's right Mormonism is a racist pro-slavery religion founded by a criminal in the most absurd manner. However, there are a couple problems with attacking the religion. First, you aren't establishing they are wrong. Second, Tu Quoque.

The fact that Mormonism is inherently racist, or was until push came to shove and the Church leaders suddenly got a new vision, is not a logical mark against it. Did Mr. O'Donnell consider the possibility that blacks actually did have their skin color changed to reflect their evil nature prior to the creation of Earth, just as the Lamanites had their skin color adjusted to match their wickedness? It is an ad hominem as stated: that has nothing to do with how truth or falseness of a religion. However, the Book of Mormon contends that it was written in 600 BC (it says that, this book is being written 600 years before Christ, it calls it a prediction) and at that time, there wasn't any racism. In fact, racism wasn't invented until the 17th century. Moreover, it was very common place in the time and place that Joseph Smith lived. Racism can and does contribute to an argument of anachronism. If a religion was formed in 600BC Israel it should not be racist. If a religion was formed in the 1800s America it should be.

Secondly, as Pat Robertson notes (I have before been impressed with his commentary, he's a blowhard when it comes to religion, but with commentary he's sometimes on the mark) that Christianity brought slavery to America. Slavery is permitted in the Bible. It specifically says in Leviticus 25:44-46:

Both thy bondmen, and thy bondmaids, which thou shalt have, shall be of the heathen that are round about you; of them shall ye buy bondmen and bondmaids. Moreover of the children of the strangers that do sojourn among you, of them shall ye buy, and of their families that are with you, which they begat in your land: and they shall be your possession. And ye shall take them as an inheritance for your children after you, to inherit them for a possession; they shall be your bondmen for ever.

And the holiest of holies the Ten Commandments drops the nice little line at number ten (Exodus 20:17):

Thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's house, thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's wife, nor his manservant, nor his maidservant, nor his ox, nor his ass, nor any thing that is thy neighbour's.

Listing off slaves as another bit of property.

The dumbest line was "I am not comfortable dissing an entire religion. We are a pluralistic nation." -- Who cares what you are comfortable with! I'm comfortable with dissing all religions. Pluralism is just a silly way to say that there are many many one and only one Gods.

A rather devastating non-argument against Mormonism gets matched up with a crowd which notes that Christianity sucks too (Pat Robertson) and a we should just declare and embargo on discussing any religions in specific language.

Comment on Study.

One favorite blog of mine, which I should probably add to the blog roll and remove Eight Hour Lunch for not posting in a gazillion years. Is Yann Klimentidis' blog, who, though he lacks the ability to make science understanding and fun (much of science is already like that but it helps to make it relevant) makes up for it by putting out a lot more peer reviewed papers etc.

Well a recent peer reviewed study on the population genetics of Native Americans supports the standard "evidence-filled" claims that the Native Americans cam


My response:

Please remove that scientific peer reviewed study. It fails to conform to Mormon theology. You are obviously a racist bigot who hates people of faith judging by how that genetic analysis of individuals most closely provides evidence for the theory that Native Americans traveled across the land bridge of the Bering Strait from Siberia rather than the Mormon view that they took a boat from Israel when God flooded the world.

You are entitled to your opinion, but you shouldn't be go around undermining other people's world views just because the evidence doesn't support it.

Thanks.

Not that it's an entertaining problem, but disproving Mormonism is like shooting fish in a barrel. Frankly, in the 1800s make such predictions about the history of Native Americans and Native American culture, had they been right Mormonism would probably be pretty undeniable right now, because they were out there. That said, they were very very wrong. Again we have an attempt at falsifiabillity and again we have religion proving itself false.

Oh, and the study itself is pretty good. Confirms what we already knew or at the very least already suspected. Native Americans came across from Siberia and spread south.

Book of Mormon suffers the same problem as Hamlet.

2 Nephi 1:14 Awake! and arise from the dust, and hear the words of a trembling parent, whose limbs ye must soon lay down in the cold and silent grave, from whence no traveler can return; a few more days and I go the way of all the earth.

"No traveler returns"... is from Hamlet's "to be, or not to be" soliloquy.

It is problematic in Hamlet as the play opens with Hamlet speaking to his ghost of a father and being told in no uncertain terms, 'avenge me'. Well apparently there's a traveler returning. Though Amanda Mabillard opinion (which was the first I saw of the theory) seems pretty good in that the speech is suppose to be before the rest of the play.

However, Joseph's Smiths use of Shakespeare is more problematic than even Shakespeare's use of Shakespeare. First, Smith is, in effect, saying that Jesus isn't going to rise from the dead as predicted. Nobody can return from "whence" -- and secondly he closes the door Shakespeare left open. Smith's version reads "from whence no traveler can return" -- he is outright denying the resurrection is even possible.

Mormonism is awesome...

At the end when they mention how it sounds really odd and a lot like Battlestar Galactica they aren't whistling dixie... BSG is actually written after Mormonism. To Kolob and godhood within the celestial kingdom... at least you'll be God of the planet rather than intergalactic overlord like fracking Xenu.

The Christian Science Monitor

Oddly enough when I first heard the name Christian Science Monitor, I took it with a grain of salt. After looking a bit more, it became quickly apparent that they were real news. Seems a bit odd for something that Monitors Science by 'Christians', usually the only time Christians distinguish themselves from science is to undermine it as, *gasp*, unchristian. Although there were some science articles, it seemed by and large just run of the mill news.

Later, I actually learned a bit about it. I had it all wrong! It wasn't the Christian "Science Monitor" -- it was the "Christian Science" Monitor. Oddly enough it's founded by that "prayer rather than medicine" group. And later distinguished itself as a real news place and didn't change the name.

Weird. The group so odd Mark Twain wrote an entire book about it, runs (or at the least founded) a good news organization. Likewise he dedicated a chapter to Mormonism and now they own Utah.