Joe Rogan and Richard Dawkins talk about Mormonism

In this video, our Hero defends that bible for the sake of the broader conversation and the greater good. Joe Rogan and Richard Dawkins Talk about Mormonism and we are along for the ride.
#exmormon #joerogan #leavingreligion #atheist #skeptic #lds

[@BlakePizzey]

Ohh man this hits home way too hard. Loved your conversation early on. I am fully aware of falling into the same trap I was in while in the church, meaning "join me, its the best over here" but I'm still in this phase. I'm finding it so frustrating and challenging with TBM family. I find myself not wanting to put in the extra effort to maintain those relationships...

[@ubermormon9611]

I remember being in that phase for a long time. There is nothing wrong with walking through it and letting time take it’s natural course.

[@seandonahue8464]

I can empathize with you. I was raised Catholic, served as an alter boy, Uncle was a Jesuit Priest, my wife is Filipina the Catholic part. I feel out there too but better to be honest

[@joshuakelly9788]

Hey, thank you so much for your content. You actually have a comforting radio voice of such. I just want you to know that you are not alone in the struggle of feeling betrayed/lied to. You are right to say that we don't owe anyone an explanation as to why we take steps back from the LDS Church. When it comes to Family; telling them any doubts has ruined my relationship. They quietly judge you. You should consider doing a call in show of sorts. I think it would be great to be able to talk with someone like you over the phone just to vent of all the topics that just frustrate all of us and there are a lot of frustrated inactive members... Any thoughts? Like I said you have a great voice for impromptu dialogue. Take care my friend.

[@ubermormon9611]

Thats a great idea! i've also been told i have a great face for radio:) Dealing with families is hard. I am working on a video should be helpful!

[@Mustardmanor]

High demand religions work on controlling thought patterns and reactions to outside influences. Think about how youd react as a faithful Mormon? Would you have believed a former member who came to tell you about xyz or would you believe the person was tricked by Satan? A sinner? Some sort of apostate? Those narratives are controlled as a means of keeping people from studying a true narrative or sourced history. For how long did the church trash fawn Brodie only to admit later that she was accurate? Richard bushman's rough stone rolling is in every LDS home but no one has read all of it but it contains most of what fawn said. But in an apologist viewpoint. Carefully controlled narratives are a sign of high demand religions. I'm sorry you've faced rejection.

[@thelastgoonie6555]

I remember listening to that JRE episode as a believing member...EQ President actually and it stuck in my head...not a Dawkins fan, but I have legit respect for him.

[@jc1619]

I think it's great that you ask for likes and subscribes at the beginning of your video. I've been watching your videos for a while and you have a lot to add regarding these topics that I think resonates in ways that others don't. Appreciate your content!

[@ubermormon9611]

Haha you could almost say i'm famously bad at self promotion, but i'm not famous enough to say that. Thank you for the kind words! I aim to at least be a new perspective even if i'm wrong.

[@ggrace1133]

I feel for those who struggle with family after they leave the church. Just go forward on your new path, but give them the grace to stay on theirs. Those who stay in the church love it and believe it’s true, so it hurts when family members walk away. They’re grieving…some desperately like they need to rescue you. Tell them you appreciate how much they care but you need to walk the path you’re on for now and you would appreciate their letting you do that. And for those still all-in in the church-let them walk their path. Neither “side” should give the other grief or contention. Neither should try to convince the other they’re wrong. Remember, we all follow what we believe in, and avoid what we don’t. Being respectful of that is so important, including trying not to be condescending, snarky, sarcastic, cynical and mocking of what others believe or don’t believe. That’s disrespectful. It isn’t grace. Rise above for family and friends.

[@danvan2683]

We assume lots of things when criticizing culture and morality, my thoughts are derived by my struggle with appetites, depravity and expectations personally, I'm a pretty contradictory soul when I think about it, then I assume others are similar. We inherit cultural norms that are shaped in a mysterious way but it's pretty scary how some of these norms are being dispensed with (without understanding them) and the results could wreck generations due to our fascination with sexuality and gender, what will birth rates look like in twenty years? And why does questions like these seem wrong like I should be whispering?

[@ubermormon9611]

It does feel like we should be whispering. It’s strange how the culture we are living in now make these things feel off limits. I left one religion that made me feel like certain questions are off limits. I don’t want to be in another one.

[@danvan2683]

@@ubermormon9611 I'm not convinced we get to choose our beliefs, we can be ignorant or curious but what is compelling and our acceptance of things I think depends on integrity and courage, the argument over atheism or denominational issues seem like surface chatter, I don't think we are that transparent to ourselves. I have noticed athiest types seem more interesting to interact with cause they usually have thought about religious themes more than the average believer, it's the interaction that I enjoy.

[@carllundberg7073]

Book of Abraham was not a translation from a physical document. It was a revelation. It was revealed to him. Would be more like John writing down the Book of Revelation than a direct translation like the Book of Mormon.

[@ubermormon9611]

Then why did Joseph spend $2,400 ($70,000 after inflation) on the papyrus? Also when did the word Translation change meaning in the English language?

[@Mustardmanor]

In regards to the kinderhook plates, I think the "official" ruling by the church is they never considered it a translation nor is it considered doctrine. I've never even seen what the supposed translation was about. Because he abandoned the translation process, it is easy for apologetics to say "See? He knew it was a fraud!" even if he never said so. As far as the church being medicine---I think it is true. I think all religions are up to a point. They provide a framework for one's life. And I know plenty of LDS church members who are very happy. If you look at Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs, I can see how the church fits into it... it helps fulfill several layers of that pyramid for church members. So it is logical why it is such a thing to cling to. I don't think the church is bad. I'm not even against people being active in the church. I just would like them to be active with full transparency. If after people know about the Book of Abraham, they still say "I love the church. It gives me purpose. I think its a great aspect to my life." I think thats fine. Transparency first though. Full honesty. And send missionaries out with full knowledge. (I think I scared the missionaries who asked to visit me a few months ago... they probably think I'm a big evil apostate. They had never heard of anything in the Gospel Topics Essays. Knew nothing of the Book of Abraham, Kinderhook plates, translating with a hat, the treasure seeking, etc. Poor missionaries. Super unprepared lambs being sent to slaughter.)

[@ubermormon9611]

Maslows hierarchy is a great point. I totally see how that fits in. There are people in my life who I think should remain active for sure. It seems like it might be the best thing for them.

[@Mustardmanor]

@@ubermormon9611 I agree. And when someone's needs are met by an organization and they're happy, they probably do need to remain active. However, I still argue for transparency. If someone has all the evidence in front of them and knows all the history and still says "the church makes.me happy and fulfilled" then I'm all for it. When I discuss things like the church's history of LGBT issues, many members don't see the side of gay members and how much psychological damage and turmoil they've been through. If people learn about those issues and still believe all these hateful comments are inspired, groovy. But I think people should know.

[@tripleraze321]

@@Mustardmanor just like math, it works until it doesn’t. Often people don’t realize math is just a man made model to represent our living experience. They view 1+1 as an absolute truth when it it simply a model representing objects. For example, getting 2 apples out of the fridge. It has worked 100% of the time with our living experience and therefore we have never had a need to reject or alter it. The mistake is when we give this same level of experienced “certainty” to more complex math. Or more complex living experiences. If such were the case we would never need a new math textbook. However it doesn’t work this way and we get an updated one every year because not all the math is correct or discovered. The textbook and formulas work until they don’t, at which point you get the updated textbook. Religions work for people until they don’t. The reason doesn’t matter because from the individuals understanding it is either working or not working. The moment their perspective or understanding shifts they may decide to get a new textbook. Or they might attempt to force their new understanding to fit between the lines of their current textbook. Whether this is healthy is speculative because there is nothing to compare any of these individuals to. We can’t compare them to other people since nobody is the same. One could never know if there was anything better for themselves than mormonism without every trying something else. As to this discussion about not being a hypocrite, I think it is very important and shows great introspection. Using my already established analogy, it is the equivalent of claiming our new textbook as the final one. Doing so would damn our own learning in the literal sense of what damned means. And absolutely would be hypocritical. We should always be seeking the updated textbook of our ideals and beliefs.

[@IIIJT]

Just started Your video. I think we have evolved to be religious. What I think Dawkins sometimes misses out on is the majority of us have a natural reflex to be semi-religious. Being religious is an innate reflex. I think a very large part of The existential Crisis is a symptom of losing tribal and ritualistic group practices and identity. Because we tell stories we are inherently religious whether it's a supernatural belief system or not. "The capitalist and consumerist ethics are two sides of the same coin, a merger of two commandments. The supreme commandment of the rich is ‘Invest!’ The supreme commandment of the rest of us is ‘Buy!’ The capitalist-consumerist ethic is revolutionary in another respect. Most previous ethical systems presented people with a pretty tough deal. They were promised paradise, but only if they cultivated compassion and tolerance, overcame craving and anger, and restrained their selfish interests. This was too tough for most. The history of ethics is a sad tale of wonderful ideals that nobody can live up to. Most Christians did not imitate Christ, most Buddhists failed to follow Buddha, and most Confucians would have caused Confucius a temper tantrum. In contrast, most people today successfully live up to the capitalist-consumerist ideal. The new ethic promises paradise on condition that the rich remain greedy and spend their time making more money and that the masses give free reign to their cravings and passions and buy more and more. This is the first religion in history whose followers actually do what they are asked to do. How though do we know that we'll really get paradise in return? We've seen it on television." Yuval Noah Harari

[@hackerj23]

I think you misunderstood the kinderhook plates story. Our best evidence is that we don’t know if Joseph smith ever tried to translate it. You would probably expect to have seen a full “translation” of it if Joseph actually tried to translate it. The fact we don’t have it strongly suggests he didn’t. Instead, the part you quoted appears strangely similar to what William Clayton wrote. Not Joseph Smith.

[@thuggie1]

i think Terry Pratchett phrased it well in his book The Hogfather "Humans need fantasy to be human. To be the place where the falling angel meets the rising ape." the problem with many in the academic world they have lost their wonder many do, in the end we are an ape that tells stories we derive collective ideas and morality from it you can learn more from a parable than you can just watching the news we are set up to be story tellers. morality is the realm of philosophy and theologians also man create and evolves and sometime devolves its as fluid and as changing over time as the very form of man.

[@ubermormon9611]

Just added Terry to people I need to research. Thanks!

[@thuggie1]

@Ubermormon He wrote satire in the form of fantasy he's very relatable two books. It's a very interesting storyline is Night Watch, pyramids and the hogfarther. He deals with comlex subjects. I must warn you there are no chapters in his books

[@mercedesbabel1496]

Where does morality come from? A very good question. I suggest that you refer to Christopher Hitchens who made the assertion that the sense of right and wrong is within us. Just like we have a survival instinct , we have a sense of right and wrong. Not that culture, upbringing, surroundings and education do not play a role. Our sense of right and wrong has been undergoing some fine tuning over the ages (your example of Abraham Lincoln illustrates that). Also, you can observe acts of kindness and love among animals. There you cannot say that religion plays a role. We are evolving as a species and hopefully in the right direction.

[@GuyRegular]

Your criticism of Dawkens view of the Bible I think is somewhat off base. This book is sold as the word of god, so if God said an Exodus 22:18 you should kill witches or in Leviticus 25. That you can buy slaves from the heathens around you and they become your property and you can pass them onto your children when you die or an Exodus 21 where it says you can beat your slaves to with an inch of their life as long as they don't die in a couple days everything is fine. And nowhere in the New testament, does it ever say that it's immoral to own another human beings property? In fact, it says slaves obey you masters.

[@krisfisher8274]

🌟⭐️🌟⭐️🌟❤

[@Mustardmanor]

Church leaders have known about the Book of Abraham for 100+ years. There are so many apologetics' explanations for it... that it wasn't ever meant to be a literal Translation (Joseph Smith and the church has always said it was...) Now it is just an inspiration from the book. (In which case, why couldn't a prophet get inspiration from a pack of chewing gum? Why would he need them at all? Joseph Smith's translation with the explanation of all the symbols was published online with the Joseph Smith papers. He certainly felt it was a translation. That's for sure. Also, there's an idea that only part of the book survives and he translated another portion which is missing. HOWEVER, Joseph Smith's notes were published which shows the characters. When compared, there is no missing portion from the papyrus to the translated symbols in his notes which were published. By. The church. In its entirety. So... 1) The church knew about this. And has tried finding translators in the past who'd agree. 2) The expert on the Book of Abraham at BYU has evidently changed his mind on whether it is an actual translation. There's another interview online about him. 3) There's no missing portion 4) Joseph Smith always said it was a translation 5) The church always said it was a translation 6) Only now that information showing it was not a translation (nor historically accurate either, as shown in archaelogy and the explanation for the discovery of Egypt and such...) has the church published the essay explaining it all away like its no big deal and its not a translation but an inspiration. And then they hid the article on its website to be transparent... sort of. And then they never mention the articles because they know people are leaving the church over the articles. BUT some people will be like "Oh, I didn't know about this stuff... but the church published it..." while the majority of people will feel they've been duped. The church is hoping no one finds the articles or if they do, they'll be in the category of people who will brush it aside and not study it further.

[@ubermormon9611]

Every time you comment I imagine somebody coming across this information for the first time in my comments section and I am happy you are so thorough. Do you have the name of the person you mention in #2?

[@Mustardmanor]

@@ubermormon9611 well, I hope my comments get people to think. And question. Whether they stick with the church or not, they should know the accurate history and science behind it. I'm even okay with people believing in the church and that the book of Mormon is non-literal and it's just a book to learn messages from. Totally okay with that. But people need to know it's history.

[@Mustardmanor]

@@ubermormon9611 Brian hauglid. There's an article on his journey as an apologist... Basically saying we have all the papyrii and Joseph Smith wasn't a translator. Google Brian hauglid transformative journey. It's partially an apologist viewpoint but it still supports what I said. I believe he's retired now and has done some other interviews. It was ages ago I read his stuff.

[@jonathanschroeder9]

I know you don’t believe the church and you’re not going to be swayed by me at all. But many faithful members have found faithful answers to the questions of the BoA. Such as this video and many others m.kzbin.info/www/bejne/roGzeWV9a5KUfac For us your arguments against the BoA are hardly a slam dunk

[@Mustardmanor]

@@jonathanschroeder9 if people know the history of the translation of the Book of Abraham and all the experts who have looked and also translated the papyrus... And still believe the church. That is fine. But they should know all the information. I am not against the church. I am against the church misleading members with false information. Joseph Smith believed he was translating the book of Abraham. Modern scholars have shown it is not a translation. Perhaps he was merely inspired. But that is not what Joseph Smith said and his actions dictate otherwise. There was no missing scroll either. I outlined all the issues. If people still believe after investigating, that is fine. I only seek transparency, honesty and a full truth explanation. I watched part of the video you sent but it really didn't address the core issues. However, if you have found comfort in it, I am glad.

[@quacks2much]

Is religion more closely analogized to a placebo? Religion feels good, but doesn't really do anything? It is the mind causing the feelings.

[@ubermormon9611]

I think that is a great analogy!

[@reasonablebb1724]

D&C10: 12 And, on this wise, the devil has sought to lay a cunning plan, that he may destroy this work; 13 For he hath put into their hearts to do this, that by lying they may say they have caught you in the words which you have pretended to translate. 23 And thus he has laid a cunning plan, thinking to destroy the work of God; but I will require this at their hands, and it shall turn to their shame and condemnation in the day of judgment. 25 Yea, he saith unto them: Deceive and lie in wait to catch, that ye may destroy; behold, this is no harm. And thus he flattereth them, and telleth them that it is no sin to lie that they may catch a man in a lie, that they may destroy him. 26 And thus he flattereth them, and leadeth them along until he draggeth their souls down to hell; and thus he causeth them to catch themselves in their own snare. 27 And thus he goeth up and down, to and fro in the earth, seeking to destroy the souls of men. 43 I will not suffer that they shall destroy my work; yea, I will show unto them that my wisdom is greater than the cunning of the devil. 55 Therefore, whosoever belongeth to my church need not fear, for such shall inherit the kingdom of heaven. 57 Behold, I am Jesus Christ, the Son of God. I came unto mine own, and mine own received me not. 58 I am the light which shineth in darkness, and the darkness comprehendeth it not.

[@leebennett1821]

Mormonisum is just a load of old God nonsense just with the words in difference place some people just seem to need God Ultimately many People Believe in God maybe they are not strong enough to stand by themselves as Mr Dawkins say the Universe is Cold pittyless and indifferent

[@tripleraze321]

It’s interesting to hear Richard say that mormonism success was depressing. As a scientist he understands success is more often viewed from the perspective of vast amounts of time and data. Today the Mormon church is experiencing net negative growth. In 200 years it may not even exist, and most certainly won’t exist in this form. There are religions of the past that reached levels of “success” far greater than mormonism and are now extinct. And what is success? Membership? Money? Assets? And if success is a viable way of living this becomes subjective and holds no more weight than any other religion.