Why are people so against the Mormons?

[-0+]

Is it be bigotry to consider a cargo cult's beliefs to be nonsensical? Or are we simply aware that the beliefs are nonsensical.

How can anyone be aware that the beliefs are nonsensical?

Mary can be aware that the beliefs don't make sense to her, that she doesn't agree with them, or that they don't appeal to her. This can be reason enough for her not to accept them. But what does it mean for her to declare that they are nonsensical?

How can awareness take her from "they don't make sense to me" to "they are nonsensical"? Perhaps something other than awareness is needed?

Anything that doesn't appear to have meaning could have hidden meaning that she isn't aware of. She has no way of knowing, even if she made up the beliefs herself.

Nonsense is generally harmless. People may not accept it but what reason is there to be so against it?

What is needed to go from simply not accepting beliefs to ridiculing or being so against people who do accept them?

[Eduk]

Mary can be aware that the beliefs don't make sense to her, that she doesn't agree with them, or that they don't appeal to her. This can be reason enough for her not to accept them. But what does it mean for her to declare that they are nonsensical?

She can use logic, critical thinking and the scientific method.
For example I have a theory that if I cut my hand off with a power saw then I will bleed. I also have another theory that butterflies will instead come out. One of those theories, using critical thinking and the scientific method, is nonsense, the other isn't.
Not all beliefs are equal. If you accept that then some must be more reasonable and some less reasonable? If all beliefs are equal then you presumably wouldn't have a problem with me cutting your hand off because I want to see the pretty butterflies.

Nonsense is generally harmless. People may not accept it but what reason is there to be so against it?

In my experience people aren't 'so' against harmless nonsense. They are against harmful nonsense. Exactly what is harmful and what isn't harmful is hard to quantify exactly, there are no doubt extremes we could both agree on and minutia which we couldn't. I would say in general that the further you are from reason the less harmless the nonsense the likely to be, both to yourself and others.

[Dark Matter]

I've said it before and I'll say it again: there are no true beliefs.

Are some beliefs more true than others though? There is of course the obvious question of asking is it true that there are no true beliefs (how would you prove it). For example do you believe that it's true that there are no true beliefs?

Dark Matter

Also you are mis-defining bigot. Simply disagreeing with a social group is not in and of itself bigotry. To be bigoted your own beliefs causing the disagreement need to be themselves narrow, superstitious or hypocritical etc. Basically if you disagree with someone and your own beliefs are unreasonable then you could be said to be bigoted. If you disagree with someone but your beliefs are reasonable then you aren't bigoted. Bigoted is a negative term, by your definition you could say every single human on the planet is a bigot.
Also the level of disagreement and the resultant actions must be taken into account. For example if I say I don't agree with Mormon beliefs but we live in a secular society and I will protect their rights to have freedom of belief (while those beliefs in turn allow other people freedom of belief, ie secularism works both ways) then that isn't bigoted. If I said I don't believe in Mormon beliefs therefore I will make Mormonism illegal and imprison anyone I catch practicing Mormonism, then that would be bigoted.

I thought I did say every single human on the planet is a bigot, at least to some extent. I said it is part of the human condition. I suggest you read the excerpt from Evelyn Underhill.

Who's to say your beliefs are more "reasonable"? Simple disagreement does not include ridicule or imposing one's own values (or lack thereof).

[Eduk]

Who's to say your beliefs are more "reasonable"? Simple disagreement does not include ridicule or imposing one's own values (or lack thereof).

Well you don't own the word bigot. I was just explaining the consensus agreed upon definition of the word. That is after all how words work. Of course if enough people redefine the meaning of a word then that changes the meaning of a word but I don't think this has been done in the case of bigot.

Also I don't remember ridiculing you? I'm sorry if I gave that impression? Certainly not my intent.

Imposing one's values is more or less impossible not to do, we don't live in a vacuum of inconsequentialism. Almost everything you do has some effect, even if only small. For example you probably wear trousers when you go outside which reinforces everyone else to wear trousers too. Before you know it not wearing trousers in public is suddenly a big deal.

If you feel you yourself are a bigot then what is your purpose in contributing to the forum? Surely a bigoted opinion is worth little to nothing?

[-0+]

She can use logic, critical thinking and the scientific method.

Yes she can, but they may only be useful on things that already have some meaning. Applying logic and critical thinking to nonsense will result in more nonsense unless some sense can be extracted from it (eg, if encoded text can be decoded). How can she logically conclude that something is nonsensical?

Scientific method method can be applied to nature. Beliefs regarding supernature (eg, belief that God exists, belief that God doesn't exist) are beyond the scope of nature.

Not all beliefs are equal. If you accept that then some must be more reasonable and some less reasonable? If all beliefs are equal then you presumably wouldn't have a problem with me cutting your hand off because I want to see the pretty butterflies.

Some beliefs may fit with Mary's model of reality more than others. The more a belief fits with her model, the more reasonable it will seem to her. If John has the same model of reality then he is likely to agree. If his model is different then they may disagree. They can test cutting off a hand to see whose model best supports what they observe, but some beliefs are harder to test than others.

In my experience people aren't 'so' against harmless nonsense. They are against harmful nonsense. Exactly what is harmful and what isn't harmful is hard to quantify exactly, there are no doubt extremes we could both agree on and minutia which we couldn't. I would say in general that the further you are from reason the less harmless the nonsense the likely to be, both to yourself and others.

What sense does "harmful nonsense" make? If it is harmful then some sense has been added to it. Some kind of sense (eg, fear) may be read into it that isn't really there. If it is really there then how can it still be nonsense?

[Eduk]

Let us just say that when I think of reason and sense and logic I think of critical thinking and the scientific method. In the scientific method all theories must be testable and predictive. My example of cutting off hands is testable. In this regard it is a good theory.
So, to me, your theory of truth outside of measurement is nonsense. If this thinking leads you into a suicide cult then it is harmful nonsense.
Of course you are free to define words as you wish and come to separate conclusions. Although in real life I very much doubt you would be prepared to test my hand theory you can pretend that you are being intellectually honest. Even though the evidence of your actions constantly contradicts you.
But this is the experience of my life. From your own words I'm sure you agree my methods are reasonable to me so I'm sure that I cause no offense. Which is not my intent by the way. I just hope to explain a position which I believe in.

-- Updated February 3rd, 2017, 4:50 pm to add the following --

By the way I would rather hear from lark_truth about his experiences. For example I don't see a lot of anti Mormonism. But I'm not a Mormon. I don't live in that world. So it would be inlightening to hear direct experiences of such hatred.
I think we can go round and round forever saying x belief is reasonable or not in theory. I would much rather hear stories about x action. That actually happened.

[-0+]

Let us just say that when I think of reason and sense and logic I think of critical thinking and the scientific method. In the scientific method all theories must be testable and predictive. My example of cutting off hands is testable. In this regard it is a good theory [...] Although in real life I very much doubt you would be prepared to test my hand theory you can pretend that you are being intellectually honest.

Theories about what will happen if one cuts one's hand off with a power saw can be tested. Many people may believe they will bleed. Most of these people have never actually tested this. There may be many reasons for believing this, but scientific method is not genuinely one of them unless they have scientifically tested this. They have faith that they will bleed.

It is conceivable that butterflies may come out instead. However, not many people are claiming they believe this. The belief that one will bleed is not widely disputed or challenged. There is not much pressure to test this theory, so it is not commonly tested. However, if some pressure is applied ...

If Mary believes she will bleed and John believes she won't, he may challenge her to prove it. She can test this by cutting off her hand with a power saw. However, she may also have other beliefs that make it difficult for her to test, including: this will cause her a lot of pain; and losing her hand will make life more difficult for her. She may decide that she values keeping her hand more than being intellectually honest.

If she decides to cut her left hand off and she happens to bleed, John may acknowledge that she was correct on this occasion, but maybe she was just lucky. What if she was to test this again?

Mary may think that if she bleeds when she cuts off her left hand then she has more reason to believe she will also bleed if she cuts off her right hand. However, not much can be scientifically concluded from a single test. To illustrate this. John tosses a coin with his left hand. It comes up heads. He tosses a coin with his right hand. It comes up tails.

If Mary cuts off her right hand, how certain can anyone be that she will bleed again?

Having witnessed that Mary bled the first time, and not convinced she will bleed if she tests this again, John now believes she may or may not bleed - there's a chance she will bleed again and there's a chance she won't - perhaps depending on a variety of factors. He tells Mary if she is so sure that she will bleed again, he is willing to make a bet with her. If she cuts off her right hand and bleeds again, he will pay for best medical treatment to reattach both her hands, and give her $100million. If she doesn't bleed again then he keeps her right hand.

Is this a good bet for Mary?

Let's say Mary decides to accept the bet, she bleeds again, and John honours their bet. While she is recovering from hand reattachment surgery, John visits her and acknowledges that she was correct both times, but wonders if anything can be scientifically concluded from these two tests with regards to whether he will bleed if he cuts off his hand with a power saw. He doubts he will bleed. He is willing to test this and asks if she is willing to bet double or nothing regarding the $100million she won off him.

Is this a good bet for Mary?

At this point it may be worth asking: How well do we know John? Have we assumed anything about him that may not be true?

Any robots reading this may be thinking they have less reason to believe they will bleed if they cut their hands off.

By the way I would rather hear from lark_truth about his experiences. For example I don't see a lot of anti Mormonism.

Has there not been a fair amount of anti Mormonism expressed in this discussion?

This does help to suggest the first questions that can be asked in response to the topic question: Are people really so against the Mormons? Are they really against Mormons, or just Mormonism? Is the opening question assuming anything that isn't true?

[WhereIwant2b]

Discussing the reality of religious belief misses the true issue of why "so many" dislike Mormons. The reason religious communities have a following (and are disliked by those outside of the community) is that they offer community, not that they offer rational explanations of reality. Religion is an expression of human desires, not a science quiz.

Some humans find that community is very important. They thrive inside the structure, feel comforted in life's struggle with the group's control, find the rules, that are so offensive and nonsensical to some, offer them a framework for their lives that gives them what they want and that they can rely on in times of difficulty. In a world where others do not protect and help, community will. And a community that is successful, and no one can say Mormonism is not successful, offers success by membership. In exchange for being willing to support other members, a Mormon can exoect to recieve support. That they give up some freedoms they value less to get the membership in this community is a good exchange for them. Mormonism is popular because it is successful in providing what people want- surety and structure. And community.

On the other hand, those who value their personal independence most, who chafe at anyone telling them what to do or think, are never ever going to find a community that maintains itself by exercising control worth the sacrifice of personal initiative. . If a person believes that the community is actually more dangerous to their comfort and person than it is a help, they are going to despise it and those who are members. They actually fear being dragged into such community be having their own natures and wants used to drag them in. They might even feel a need to repel the slightest contact of such a community lest they find themselves dragged in against their will.

No religion is 'resonable' in terms of being a scientifically provable belief. Religion speaks to desires and needs of humans. Science seeks to eliminate as much of human as possible in its pronouncements. Not that it succeeds well but it tries.

Science - with a capital "s"- can be and often is treared as faith by humans too. Few people are honest and selfless enough not to attach their fears and wants to scientific findings, just as others do to a religion. These people will often say things like "science proves otherwise" when countering a despised idea when they themselves are pretty clueless about the limits of science and what it can never resolve. They seek the same surety from their high priests with a string of academic degrees behind their name as others do from religioys leaders. They will refuse, even more sharply than people of religion, that their science can be inaccurate and riddled with flaws. To say it has limits is their heresy.

Me? I could never be a Mormon because the idea of being locked in eternity with all my relatives makes me shudder. But I would never hate those who find that a comfort.

[Sy Borg]

They seek the same surety from their high priests with a string of academic degrees behind their name as others do from religioys leaders. They will refuse, even more sharply than people of religion, that their science can be inaccurate and riddled with flaws. To say it has limits is their heresy.

I keep reading people saying this but I think it's just our desire for symmetry. While too many secularists believe too much, it's not even close to equivalent to the dogma of religion, not least because it changes with new evidence. The rough equivalence amongst moderates of all stripes, however, becomes a gulf at the fringes; extreme/fringe theists are far more numerous, dangerous and prone to even more ungrounded beliefs than the secularist fringe.

[Eduk]

No religion is 'resonable' in terms of being a scientifically provable belief. Religion speaks to desires and needs of humans. Science seeks to eliminate as much of human as possible in its pronouncements. Not that it succeeds well but it tries.

Science - with a capital "s"- can be and often is treared as faith by humans too. Few people are honest and selfless enough not to attach their fears and wants to scientific findings, just as others do to a religion. These people will often say things like "science proves otherwise" when countering a despised idea when they themselves are pretty clueless about the limits of science and what it can never resolve. They seek the same surety from their high priests with a string of academic degrees behind their name as others do from religioys leaders. They will refuse, even more sharply than people of religion, that their science can be inaccurate and riddled with flaws. To say it has limits is their heresy.

Either science doesn't speak to desires and needs or it does. You can't have it both ways.
Science has a theory called motivated reasoning. It is very very hard to avoid bias, basically impossible. Hence scientific experiments are double blinded. Google 'P hacking' for an example of how easy it is for anyone (trained professional scientists included) to fool themselves into believing whatever it is they want to believe in. For example you believe all sorts of things about what can science and can't do and what it does and doesn't do. This fits your narrative but unless you show me double blinded independent studies which support your claims then how can you be reasonably sure that you aren't just fooling yourself?

[LuckyR]

Who's the bigot: the bakery that refused to make a cake for a “gay” wedding or the people that put it out of business? Is profiling that has measurable success or “extreme vetting” bigotry or common sense? Is calling someone's religion “iron age superstition” bigotry or a simple expression of disagreement? Is opposition to illegal immigration bigotry or a desire to protect the state? Is my calling your beliefs narrow-minded bigotry, or simply being aware of your nonsensical beliefs that stretch credulity and beyond?

1- A business in the public arena withholding services based on sexual orientation, is treating different customers who are behaving identically to the businessperson, differently. Not a bad example of bigotry. OTOH private citizens who have no obligation to patronize one baker or another, or any baker at all, who choose to spend their money how they see fit. I am not seeing bigotry. I see discrimination (perhaps that is what you were after) but not bigotry.

2- You are correct that the fact that you might increase your arrest percentages by profiling IS common sense. However, many common sense solutions are illegal. This is one of them.

3- What part of Iron Age Superstition bothers you? My guess it is the superstition part, since anyone with a calendar knows when the leading current religions were invented. There are two common definitions of superstition, one describes belief in the supernatural the other describes an unreasonable belief in the supernatural. The is a situation ripe for misinterpretation and unintended (as well as intended) insults.

4- No, opposition to illegal immigration is NOT bigotry on it's face. Though it's supporters are overly represented by bigots, since it plays into their worldview, no surprise there.

5- The term "narrow minded" in relation to belief systems is an attempt at an insult, but is not bigotry without additional qualifiers.

[Lark_Truth]

Guys, I think that it's wonderful that you love to argue about philosophy and all with me, but please stick to the subject. This post is about anti-Mormon sentiment, not bigots. If you are going to have drawn out discussions about bigots, then do it in another discussion post.

By the way I would rather hear from lark_truth about his experiences. For example I don't see a lot of anti Mormonism. But I'm not a Mormon. I don't live in that world. So it would be enlightening to hear direct experiences of such hatred.

I'm glad you see it that way, Eduk. To tell the truth, I haven't seen a lot of anti-Mormon sentiment, but I did get to witness an anti-Mormon rally a few years back when I attended the Mormon Miracle Pageant at the LDS Manti, Utah Temple (beautiful place, built in the mid-1800's). While preparations for the day's performance were going on, there was a crowd of people, some carrying big wooden crosses and preaching against the LDS Church and our doctrine, some were holding up "Joseph lied!" signs (in reference to Joseph Smith Jr. who founded the LDS church), and others were handing out anti-Mormon pamphlets and bits of scripture from the Book of Mormon that they said meant something else than what it actually meant. I don't remember the exact scripture, but it did seem right. I assumed that they held those protests every time the pageant performed.

Has there not been a fair amount of anti Mormonism expressed in this discussion?

Maybe. If there is, it hasn't caught my eye. What I have seen is a lot of discussion on bigots though.

This does help to suggest the first questions that can be asked in response to the topic question: Are people really so against the Mormons? Are they really against Mormons, or just Mormonism? Is the opening question assuming anything that isn't true?

Are people against Mormons, or Mormonism? Good question, very good question, and very debatable. It seems to me like people are against both somewhat. The anti-Mormon rally that I witnessed a few years back, the guys carrying the big wooden crosses weren't really preaching against the members of the LDS church, though they may have been speaking out against our leaders, they were preaching against Mormon doctrine.
And is my original post assuming anything that isn't true? I hope not, which isn't to say that you could be correct in that regard -0+.

And please people, enough with the bigotry discussion!

[Eduk]

Well it makes sense for other Christians and even different sects within Mormonism to be against Mormons in a way. After all to their point of view you are so close and yet so far.
Personally I suspect there are a number of factors as to why someone might be against mormonism.
1. If you were genuinely well intentioned and sincere and you thought someone was making a mistake then you might see it as a duty to your fellow humans to attempt to correct their misapprehensions so they didn't fall foul of bad consequences. For example a Catholic may protest Mormonism so you don't end up in hell, an atheist may try to explain that certain beliefs are without basis so you are free to pursue different objectives. And so on.
2. There is a lot of politics mixed up, where religion is an excuse not a cause and is something to be taken advantage of. Humans are human and will fight other people for the things they want and need in order to survive and rationalise it afterwards. Not just physical resources but thoughts too. Someone might do a lot for respect for example.
For my money people are no more or less against Mormons than they are anyone else. In a way it is an unavoidable, mindless force of nature, the strong will exploit the weak because they can. For example if you were living in the third world you might wonder why the developed world had it in for you so much.

[Iapetus]

Reply to Lark_Truth:

Why are people so against the Mormons?

I have to say that I don’t find this to be a particularly profound question. You could replace ‘Mormons’ by ‘Baptists’, ‘Scientologists’, ‘Wahabi Muslims’, ‘Namdhari Sikhs’, ‘skeptical atheists’ or any one of a thousand other beliefs or non-beliefs and the question would have similar significance. The problem is that the question seems to make unjustified and probably dangerous assumptions. These are that:
• All people within a particular group think the same way. They may decide that they accept the identifying tenets of the group but they are bound to differ in details and in their personal interpretations. Buddhists do not all think alike. Nor do Mormons; there are, in this particular case, many, many subgroups.
• ‘People’ have a problem with Mormons. Some people may do so, but that is the case with any belief, religious or otherwise. To make a generalisation on the basis of what some people think is very dangerous. Furthermore, those ‘people’ may not be at all in agreement about their particular objections.
• The adoption of such simplistic generalisations, in particular the assignment of a common motive, is to make prejudgements without the relevant information. Prejudice.

Sure, they're against homosexual marriage, most cases of abortion, and other stuff that you can also find on Mormon.org which the church has taken a very strong stance against …

There you are; you have answered your own question in the case of people who are not necessarily in agreement with a ‘Mormon position’ and I doubt that a precise ‘Mormon position’ can even be defined.

The Mormons are wonderful people and don't deserve such treatment from their fellow men.

This, again, demonstrates my point. You have made a gross generalisation which I very much doubt you can support. Are they all wonderful? Are there no ‘bad Mormons’? Are they more wonderful than all other peoples? What ‘treatment’ are you complaining about when, elsewhere, you have said, “To tell the truth, I haven't seen a lot of anti-Mormon sentiment”?

There are plenty of aspects of Mormon belief which I, personally, find strange, to put it mildly, and some which are downright unpleasant. But I could say the same about almost any ‘labelled religion’. And I despise dogma. If, however, I assumed that somebody’s personal religion completely determined their character, then I should examine my prejudices. The same thing would apply if I assumed that all people in a particular group thought in exactly the same way.

[Lark_Truth]

Hello, Iapetus, glad to hear from you again.

Reply to Lark_Truth: If, however, I assumed that somebody’s personal religion completely determined their character, then I should examine my prejudices. The same thing would apply if I assumed that all people in a particular group thought in exactly the same way.

Yes, we all have prejudices, after all, we're only human, and so we all do need to examine our own beliefs before we determine our justification as to why we are against a certain group. Not just because of our Faith, but because of our perception. I realize that some might argue that point, but that is what I perceive.