[mikeh]

PassedOut, on 2012-November-01, 12:40, said:

To me, one of the interesting features of Mormonism is its adaptability. Unlike many religions, their church has a built-in mechanism for discarding old principles to conform to the requirements of society. That mechanism allowed them to drop polygamy and to drop their restrictions on blacks.

Perhaps other religions should take note of the success that the Mormons have had with that approach. And, quite possibly, that very adaptability has helped guide Mitt Romney in his political career.

Mormonism is hardly unique. The RC church, for one, has for many years demonstrated a degree of flexibility. Oftentimes this has been tardy but, as one example, the church is now reconciled to an accepting of the principles of evolution mediated by the process of natural selection. The church can't go all the way to the logical conclusion of the theory, since to do so obviates their central premise. But the church, unlike most American Xians, accepts the animal part of a human has evolved from distant ancestors. Their god, for reasons inexplicable to rational minds, began choosing, at some point, to 'ensoul' humans. One wonders when: given that the transition from pre-homo sapiens to homo sapiens was likely gradual and spread over centuries if not millenia, one has to ask when and how god decided that this particular fertilized egg would be ensouled, when neither parent possessed a soul. And don't get me started on the wonderfully twisted rationalizations the church has for dealing with the problem of identical twins!

But being willing to modify doctrine to accommodate social realities is hardly a novel proposition for religious organizations. If I recall my readings of history correctly, the Romans had, for example, little difficulty incorporating the gods of conquered peoples into their belief structure.

[PassedOut]

mikeh, on 2012-November-02, 16:51, said:

But being willing to modify doctrine to accommodate social realities is hardly a novel proposition for religious organizations.

Of course religions must adapt to survive. What interests me about the Mormons is the built-in nature of their mechanism and how abruptly they can change.

[hrothgar]

FWIW, The Washington Post has a breakdown of the timeline

http://www.washingto...8d93_story.html

[PassedOut]

luke warm, on 2012-November-01, 15:23, said:

yeah, it's interesting alright... any religion that can't make up its mind as to its core belief is interesting, i guess... anyway, i don't vote (or not) according to religion, and i don't know anyone who is *not* voting for romney based on his beliefs

Maybe John Farmer: Who is Mitt Romney? The answer is not so simple

Quote

Smith’s “translation,” The Book of Mormon, purported to renew the saga of the Latter-Day Saints in the Promised Land. The election of a Latter-Day Saint to the presidency will bring the saga that much closer to fulfillment.

What will this mean? It is difficult to say. Like its favorite son, the Mormon Church has been difficult to pin down on central teachings: Originally opposed to the separation of church and state, the LDS now embraces the concept.

Originally in favor of communal living, the LDS has embraced capitalism in its most radical form (oh that 47%).

Once ardent polygamists (is there any other kind?), the LDS is now committed to monogamy.

Once opposed to shaving facial hair, LDS members are now the embodiment of clean-cut.

Opposed until long after the Civil Rights movement to the admission of African-Americans because the color of their skin was an affliction bestowed by God, as of 1978 African-Americans are allowed join the church.

Once virulently opposed to mainstream Christianity, which to this day considers Mormanism a cult (the Book of Mormon describes the Roman Catholic church as “most abominable above all other churches,” “the mother of harlots,” “the mother of abominations, whose founder is the devil”), LDS now supports websites which highlight its similarities to other Christian beliefs.

Remind you of anyone?

There is a psychology at work, in both the LDS and its favorite son. No belief is so central that it cannot discarded in the service of the larger agenda. But what is that agenda?

That is my point. Because it has become politically incorrect to ask such questions, no one is quite sure.

Looks to me like Mr. Farmer won't be voting for a Mormon president.

[mike777]

Egypt court sentences eight to death over 'Innocence of Muslims'

by Associated Press




An Egyptian court has convicted in absentia seven Egyptian Coptic Christians and a Florida-based American pastor and sentenced them to death on charges linked to an anti-Islam film that had sparked riots in parts of the Muslim world.

Egypt’s official news agency said the court found the defendants guilty Wednesday of harming national unity, insulting and publicly attacking Islam, and spreading false information. The charges carry the death sentence in Egypt.

[PassedOut]

mike777, on 2012-November-28, 11:36, said:

An Egyptian court has convicted in absentia seven Egyptian Coptic Christians and a Florida-based American pastor and sentenced them to death on charges linked to an anti-Islam film that had sparked riots in parts of the Muslim world.

So some Egyptian courts are not on strike.

[billw55]

mikeh, on 2012-November-02, 16:51, said:

... And don't get me started on the wonderfully twisted rationalizations the church has for dealing with the problem of identical twins!

Which problem is that?

[hrothgar]

billw55, on 2012-November-28, 13:00, said:

Which problem is that?

Supposedly ensoulment happens at fertilization
Twinning happens further down the pike...

[dwar0123]

hrothgar, on 2012-November-28, 13:10, said:

Supposedly ensoulment happens at fertilization
Twinning happens further down the pike...

I am agnostic and anti-religious, however this problem is still nonsense

I am sure in a Universe with souls and an omniscient Christian God that God could manage to ensoul an embryo with 2 souls and then cause each soul to go its respective twin when the embryo splits.

Of course, two souls can't be in the same body and if you look at the embryo as an atomic unit you may think you have a problem, especially when the embryo is still a single cell. However this is a non problem, the embryo is actually two bodies combined, we know this because it will in fact split into two separate bodies. A single celled embryo is composed of billions of atoms, some of those atoms belong to one twin, some to the other. I am sure the fictional Christian God can keep the two souls associated with the correct atoms.

[PassedOut]

The NY Times has a feature article on Benghazi today: A Deadly Mix in Benghazi

Quote

Months of investigation by The New York Times, centered on extensive interviews with Libyans in Benghazi who had direct knowledge of the attack there and its context, turned up no evidence that Al Qaeda or other international terrorist groups had any role in the assault. The attack was led, instead, by fighters who had benefited directly from NATO’s extensive air power and logistics support during the uprising against Colonel Qaddafi. And contrary to claims by some members of Congress, it was fueled in large part by anger at an American-made video denigrating Islam.

It is surely a mistake to think that providing arms to rebel forces in the Middle East will make lasting friendships for the US. Seems like a lesson that needs to be learned over and over again.

[kenberg]

"It is surely a mistake to think that ................ in the Middle East will make lasting friendships for the US"

My guess is that you can fill in the blanks pretty much however you want. Machiavelli tells us that it is better to be feared than lved, if we cannot be both. He has no advice for those that are neither feared nor loved.

I have read the first three chapters of the article and scanned the last three. It's very discouraging. Early on we see

Quote

Yet as the militiamen snacked on Twinkie-style cakes with their American guests, they also gushed about their gratitude for President Obama's support in their uprising against Col. Muammar el-Qaddafi. They emphasized that they wanted to build a partnership with the United States, especially in the form of more investment. They specifically asked for Benghazi outlets of McDonald's and KFC.

Uh huh. But also, in the paragraph just above it:

Quote

"Since Benghazi isn't safe, it is better for you to leave now," Mohamed al-Gharabi, the leader of the Rafallah al-Sehati Brigade, later recalled telling the Americans. "I specifically told the Americans myself that we hoped that they would leave Benghazi as soon as possible."

But surely leaving Benghazi is a small part of a large issue. We are not wanted. Not in Benghazi, not anywhere in the middle East.

In chapter 2 we find:

Quote

"The enmity between the American government and the peoples of the world is an old case," he said. "Why is the United States always trying to use force to implement its agendas?"
Muslims and Christians, he later argued, were fighting an inexorable war. "The problem is in the nature of religions," he said. "There is always hostility between the religions."

This pretty much sums it up. Conflicting interests are difficult to resolve, conflicting religious imperatives seldom can be resolved at all. To put it another way, "I want ..." can sometimes lead to compromise while "God has told me that..." seldom does.

Maybe there is a solution, I like to think so, but I don't see it.