Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

defacto7

(13,485 posts)
Mon Nov 12, 2012, 11:37 PM Nov 2012

Not meaning to beat a dead Mormon horse,

..but now that Mitt is out of the way, I have no real desire or motive to discuss the Mormon issue any further. But if there are those of you who would like to read or discuss an excellent article that fills in a host of blanks concerning the Mormon religion, I will post this link. It brings out very well documented points and lesser details that are relevant to this subject and I will admit, there are a couple of items about science and linguistics concerning Mormonism that I didn't know. The comments that follow are just as full of interesting information as the article itself, so read the comments as well.

It's an excellent read that for me, rounds the subject out to a degree that I feel I'm ready to let it drift into the recesses of my long term memory.

One note: I am not, I repeat not advocating atheism or Richard Dawkins in sharing this link. I have no intention in that regard as that would probably be off topic for this group I would suppose. What is interesting to me is the information this article and the comments that follow introduce about the Mormon religion. No more, mo less.

http://richarddawkins.net/foundation_articles/2012/10/23/mormonism-in-the-mainstream

6 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Not meaning to beat a dead Mormon horse, (Original Post) defacto7 Nov 2012 OP
With the demise of the Willard, Wellstone ruled Nov 2012 #1
What does "People finally figured this group out for what they are" mean? cleanhippie Nov 2012 #2
Pretty good. You might want to note that it is written by Lawrence Krauss, who cbayer Nov 2012 #3
Thank you... defacto7 Nov 2012 #4
He is much less of a lightning rod than Dawkins, imo. cbayer Nov 2012 #5
Could you give an example of Dawkins' "hostility towards religionists"... trotsky Nov 2012 #6
 

Wellstone ruled

(34,661 posts)
1. With the demise of the Willard,
Tue Nov 13, 2012, 01:08 AM
Nov 2012

our nation will not see this type of candidate again. People finally figured this group out for what they are. Good riddance!

cbayer

(146,218 posts)
3. Pretty good. You might want to note that it is written by Lawrence Krauss, who
Tue Nov 13, 2012, 12:52 PM
Nov 2012

is less likely to trigger a negative knee jerk reaction in some.

defacto7

(13,485 posts)
4. Thank you...
Tue Nov 13, 2012, 07:46 PM
Nov 2012

I'm not all that familiar with Mr. Krauss. Maybe I should do a little catch up. In a nutshell, why do you think he would create less of a stir?

cbayer

(146,218 posts)
5. He is much less of a lightning rod than Dawkins, imo.
Tue Nov 13, 2012, 07:51 PM
Nov 2012

Primarily because he really hasn't exhibited any hostility towards religionists, that I am aware of.

trotsky

(49,533 posts)
6. Could you give an example of Dawkins' "hostility towards religionists"...
Tue Nov 13, 2012, 09:15 PM
Nov 2012

followed by how you think he could have communicated the same idea without being so "hostile"?

Latest Discussions»Issue Forums»Religion»Not meaning to beat a dea...