Hey Kevin. Being the friend in question, I'll try and clarify for you. I'll first remind you that I am not a "practicing" Mormon, nor do I believe literally in the claims of Mormonism. You're right that I didn't care much for your question, but only because it's so simplistic as to miss the point. Here too you seem to think I "believe" in the book, but I was merely being critical of your line of reasoning which saw the Book of Mormon as somehow a special case as far as religious texts go.

All religion, in my humble opinion, is an irrational choice. That's what makes it religion. How "old" something is is not relevant to this point, as you seem to believe. Can you prove to me that any given religious text was inspired by some divine being, or super-terrestrial power? Take your pick. Then explain why you find this particular instance particularly "absolutely illogical", in contrast with that. By your reasoning, it'll make much more sense to believe in the Book of Mormon's claim of origins 1000 years from now. Because then, with the passage of time, it'll be more esoteric, etc. That makes a lot of sense: the harder it becomes to validate something, the more likely it is to be true?

There are many (most?) people, myself included, who see value in religion in spite of not taking it at face value. It's pretty absolutist to claim that something has no value if its origin can't be proven, don't you think? That would discredit all kinds of religious and nonreligious texts, philosophies, art and artifacts that do, in fact, have much value.

Your idea that no "logical" person could believe in something you find ridiculous makes all kinds of assumptions about what "belief" is, not to mention what a "logical" person is supposed to be. It's also saying that either a) you don't really believe it, or b) you are an illogical person (again, not sure what that would mean, as logic is not personal). But those are not exclusive, because religion is not logical. To just say that you believe in X thing religiously is to say that you know it is not necessarily rational. Isn't that why it's religion, and we use the word "believe" to begin with?

So to me, nor is opining on the relative degrees of illogic in various belief systems which are, at their core, irrational by definition, when you yourself subscribe to one such set of arguably irrational beliefs. That's all. When it comes to religion, one religious person saying "how could you possibly believe XYZ?" is just silly to me, and it was your original question posed to me.

P. S. That's one of the funniest South Park clips.

Hey Dan,

Actually, I don't think I said you believe in the book. I was speaking in a generality of people who do believe in the book. I only said that you didn't like the question. The question is simplistic, and completely valid. If you don't believe where the "facts" come from, how could you believe the "facts" at all? Pretty valid question, I think.

I think, in a sense, the Book of Mormon is a special case. It was written in 1830. Not 2000 BC, 70 AD, pre-ink, or when word of mouth was the main form of communication. The age of the text, or how the text came to be, does matter. Things in certain times were written for people of those times. Stories were passed on via word, not writing (isn't the story of the Passion based on people telling others the story?). Where the story comes from when finally written can be taken with a grain of salt in knowing some of it has been the "telephone game", and has changed, may not be completely true or to be taken as "fact". For example, stories say that Buddha, as soon as he was born, walked and spoke. Do I think that happened? No. Does any Buddhist I have met think that actually happened? No. I always thought that was saying how advanced he was, and special he was. Not that he literally walked and talked seconds after childbirth. I also realize that that story likely evolved and changed over time, and may have been told by his family of nobles to those of the lower classes. I also don't think Jesus walked on water or turned water to wine. But, do think some events happened which prompted those metaphors. I think in most religions, people don't believe these things to be literal, aside the fringes of those religions. I've never met a Jew who actually thinks Lot's wife turned into a pillar of salt. That's an old story, and it's still no more likely to be true. In fact, it's more unlikely. The great flood is more unlikely, as well, since we have better science to disprove it.

Back to the Book of Mormon. 177 years ago, a guy said an angel gave him golden plates, and he translated them via some divine bablefish. I'm sorry, but that really does some like some snake oil. In fact, I'll call it bullshit. So, yes, it makes no sense to me how someone could be a Mormon without believing in the origin of it's main text, and it makes no sense to me how someone could believe the claim by Joe Smith.

I don't think that one religious or spiritual person asking "how could you possibly believe in XYZ?" to another is silly at all. I could ask "How could you possibly believe gays are sinners?" or "How could you possibly believe all Jews go to hell?" or "How could you possibly believe stoning a person to death is Gods will?" or "How could you possibly believe women are second class?" These aren't valid questions? I think they are, and they are the same question as "How could you possibly believe the Book of Mormon was written as Joe Smith says it was?"

That reminds me of when I used to live next door to some Jehovah's Witnesses. One night I was over next to the fire with the father and his kids. The boy (I don't recall why) mentioned aliens. The dad said "Well, we know aliens don't exist." Then, a few minutes later, the daughter mentioned demons. And the father said "We need to avoid demons, since they will drag you to hell." Huh?? Would a valid question not be "How could you believe in demons, let alone hell, and not aliens? When have you seen either to discount the other?"

I think the question isn't silly. How can some people believe what they do? Do they simply because they are told to? Do they have some rational thought behind it? Do they really believe it and not just say they do? Do they not really believe it at face value but believe there is some truth to it? Sorry you see that type of question silly, but maybe you just don't like it because it questions the religion you were raised in. Just like a Born Again doesn't like the "Show me a timeline of Adam and Eve and dinosaurs" question (which then leads to various questions on how they discount various science, geology and anthropology).

Anyways, we don't seem to get anywhere when we talk about these things, so we won't. Bottom line is that I think the Book of Mormon was written under questionable circumstances and it's origin isn't what it's believed to be or as the author himself says it was. And, because of that, I don't understand why people live by that book, or prescribe to the label of that book.

Explain to me what the elapsing of time has to do with why some beliefs are strange and others not. Pick the belief of your choosing: Jesus being resurrected, Joseph Smith having angels appear to him, or something like reincarnation. How is a choice to belief in any one of them any less of a stretch than the others? What word of mouth or the passage of time has to do with the relative plausibility of said belief escapes me. Unless you're not really talking about actual belief in something, but rather just anecdotal fables that people take lessons from (which I would argue doesn't quite pass as religion anyway).

To answer your question (the "how could anybody believe X?" question) more directly, however, what you find unbelievable about the story of Joseph Smith is exactly the thing that Mormons find attractive. That is, the idea that prophets still exist, are not a thing relegated to history past, angels appear to modern people, and so on. This idea of a "living" church that has its most important events occurring in very recent history is a big part of what people like about mormonism, and sets it way apart from other Christian religions, enough so that most Christians don't readily accept Mormons as Christians at all.

So I notice that you've opted to narrow the question I mark as silly to this: "If you don't believe where the 'facts' come from, how could you believe the 'facts' at all? Pretty valid question, I think." Well, that's pretty much a question of logic now, and it's not what I was calling "silly". It's pretty hard to believe in something if you don't believe the origin of that something. But I don't understand what you're asking. Is this a question you think you posed to me?

> Explain to me what the elapsing of time has to do with why some beliefs are strange and others not. Pick the belief of your choosing: Jesus being resurrected, Joseph Smith having angels appear to him, or something like reincarnation.

Well, reincarnation has nothing to do with time. That's like believing you go to Heaven. It's a belief about the afterlife, which every religion has.

But, the other two thing you mention I think are bullshit. However, I could believe *something* happened to bring the story of the resurrection to what it is. It could have been a wake, a gathering to remember Christ and they felt as if he were alive. I don't know, and I don't take it at its face value since it happened 2000 years ago, and wasn't well recorded. That versus 177 years ago. In 1830 Jedediah Smith and William Sublette rode the first wagon train across Rocky Mountains at South Pass and on to the Upper Wind River. Ironically, in 1830 Mexico imposes sharp limits on immigration (too many Americans in Tejas). Andrew Jackson wrote the veto message on the Maysville Road bill. I could go on and on. No metaphors, no "dumbing it down" for the people of it's time. So, in 2000 years it's still be the story of a guy in 1830 who had an angel show him golden plates in upstate NY. Not because it wasn't, and people passed on the tale by spinning a yarn with it slightly changing but being just as magical and impressive over the eons. No.. just as the guy himself said it happened. And, I haven't said time makes something believable. That's why we go nowhere.. you don't seem to read what I say. I said stories change over time since they happened when cultures were (somewhat) primitive in passing this knowledge. So, I can believe that *something* happened to prompt it, although I don't necessarily believe the story itself as being literal. Do I think *something* happened to make Moses realize his divine calling? Sure. Do I think it was done via a burning bush (but not a bush really burning)? No. So, I believe there was an event, but not the story. In the case of Joe.. the story is his story. No changes. And, I think that story is bullshit.

> Unless you're not really talking about actual belief in something, but rather just anecdotal fables that people take lessons from (which I would argue doesn't quite pass as religion anyway).

No, I'm not. But, those are a part of any religion (a religion is a system of beliefs, and those parables are a part of that system).

> ...the story of Joseph Smith is exactly the thing that Mormons find attractive. That is, the idea that prophets still exist...

That doesn't make the story of the Book any less bullshit. Isn't one of these living prophets alive and on trial right now? That polygamy guy? Why is what he says God told him any more bullshit than the Joe Smith bullshit? Marshall Applewhite has some bullshit as well. Plenty of prophets, plenty of bullshit through the years.

> It's pretty hard to believe in something if you don't believe the origin of that something. But I don't understand what you're asking. Is this a question you think you posed to me?

Yes. I'm pretty sure the question I asked was "If you don't believe where the Book of Mormon came from, how can you believe/follow the Mormon religion?" It started off talking about the PBS show, me asking if you believed the story from Joe Smith, and asking that question. I don't have the chat log, so I can't quote it exactly. But, the question I asked did follow the "If you don't believe where the 'facts' come from, how could you believe the 'facts' at all?" model. Then you got bent out of shape.

OK, basically your question just presumes that I'm a hypocrite. You *know* I don't believe in the Mormon religion, so why on earth would your question make any sense as posed to me? Do I consider myself Mormon? Sure. This is as much a question of heritage as anything else; I'm descended from Mormon pioneers, etc. I explained this to you the first time you asked the question. A "Jew" doesn't always subscribe to the Jewish tenants and doctrines. So your point really makes no sense at face value.

I do read what you say. And calling something "bullshit" no less than 7 times in just the above comment ain't gonna get a rise out of me. Your point was and remains silly, though. The reality of me getting bent out of shape has a lot more to be with the fact that you're just an asshole. I couldn't care less what you think about a religion I don't believe in. Carry on.

By the way, I should have included a ";-)" next to "asshole". I only think you're an asshole about 1/3 of the time, but not permanently.

> You *know* I don't believe in the Mormon religion, so why on earth would your question make any sense as posed to me?

I did? Don't think so. I don't recall us ever talking about your devoutness to the Mormon religion. I don't recall ever asking you "So, you really buy this Mormon stuff?" or you offering up that you didn't. Only that you looked at other religions in some academic sense.

> So your point really makes no sense at face value.

Sure it does. How could someone believe in the Mormon religion when they don't believe in the story of the origin of the Book? That's face value, and an open question which pretty much makes sense.

> And calling something "bullshit" no less than 7 times in just the above comment ain't gonna get a rise out of me.

Not trying to. That's just an acceptable "in between" of "Joe Smith was a motherfucking liar and people who believe his story are fucking idiots" and "Joe Smith sold some snake oil, and people bought it". "Bullshit" is shorter, and encompasses both sentiments.

> The reality of me getting bent out of shape has a lot more to be with the fact that you're just an asshole.

Ahhh.. spoken like a true Christian. You're right, you're not a practicing Mormon. I believe a Mormon would just excommunicate me, a Christian would throw stones. I remember sitting at your table in prayer before a meal, now I'm an "asshole" in a global forum. All I did is ask a question you don't want to answer. Next time missionaries come to my door with answers to questions I didn't ask, I'll tell them of the irony (then ask them the same question).

> I couldn't care less what you think about a religion I don't believe in.

Sure you do. If you didn't, you wouldn't be tearing down my question instead of answering it.
It's not as much the religion, as the practitioners which my question is, well, questioning.

> By the way, I should have included a ";-)" next to "asshole". I only think you're an asshole about 1/3 of the time, but not permanently.

I could be a permanent asshole, but I'd answer a question instead of asking 100 others to avoid it. I still don't know how someone could be a Mormon and not believe the story of the Book *or* how they could believe the story and believe it more than the others? My knee-jerk reaction answer would be a word, well, a sound... "baaaaaaaa"... but there must be something more.

We're done here. You won't answer it, so no need to respond again to the "silly" question asked by the "asshole".

I've answered it twice, Kevin.

And here's the 5/10/2007 chat log excerpt in question, by the way:

Kevin Meltzer: I watched a show on Mormons on PBS

Kevin Meltzer: Very interesting

Dan Brian: yeah, that was pretty good.

Kevin Meltzer: Once I learned about the whole golden plate thing, I really wondered how any logical person could be LDS (no offense)

Dan Brian: pff

Dan Brian: yeah, as opposed to those more rationale theologies ...

Dan Brian: I don't believe any of it, if that's where you're going, so no offense taken

Kevin Meltzer: But, you call yourself Mormon?

Dan Brian: but it's no more absurd than most religious beliefs

Dan Brian: yeah, I do

Dan Brian: my heritage, etc.

Kevin Meltzer: Yeah, I'm a Jew by heritage, but left the temple (and don't say I'm a Jew) because I didn't believe the stuff being taught.

Dan Brian: you'll forgive me, but it's kinda silly to me for any religious person to be critical of another

...

And that last bit is the second issue we're discussing. Or discussed, since you say we're done. Sorry that "not a practicing mormon" wasn't enough, but I was pretty sure you were clear on where I stood, since I'd explained it several times. You can scarce blame me for wondering what the hell you're talking about.

I'm sorry, but I don't know the twice you answered.

> Kevin Meltzer: Once I learned about the whole golden plate thing, I really wondered how any logical person could be LDS (no offense)

Not really a question, yet.

> Dan Brian: pff

Certainly not an answer.

> Dan Brian: yeah, as opposed to those more rationale theologies ...

Deflecting...

> Dan Brian: I don't believe any of it, if that's where you're going, so no offense taken

Well, I wasn't really... but ended up there.

> Kevin Meltzer: But, you call yourself Mormon?

There was the question. You don't believe it, but call yourself a Mormon. That's why I questioned it, and it's a valid question.

> Dan Brian: but it's no more absurd than most religious beliefs

Deflecting...

> Dan Brian: yeah, I do
> Dan Brian: my heritage, etc.

Ok, you don't consider yourself a Mormon, aside your bloodlines. So, there was your answer. And, I don't recall asking you again about you since. No issue there, since...

> Kevin Meltzer: Yeah, I'm a Jew by heritage, but left the temple (and don't say I'm a Jew) because I didn't believe the stuff being taught.

But..

> Dan Brian: you'll forgive me, but it's kinda silly to me for any religious person to be critical of another

Not sure where the being critical was. I see where I was being inquisitive was, but not critical. But, I don't think it's silly to be critical either. "Jews go to hell"... I can be critical of that, no? I can be critical of Operation Rescue. I think I can even be critical of the Muslims I see preaching hate, stoning people, beheading eachother and all in the name of their religion. It's one thing to be critical of the "path" and another to be critical of the way the path is being walked.

> And that last bit is the second issue we're discussing. Or discussed, since you say we're done. Sorry that "not a practicing mormon" wasn't enough, but I was pretty sure you were clear on where I stood, since I'd explained it several times. You can scarce blame me for wondering what the hell you're talking about.

Ahhh... so I couldn't ask my question before not knowing you only considered yourself Mormon based on heritage. Unless you posted the chat log out of order, I asked my question THEN you gave your stance on being Mormon. Your "not a practicing mormon" comment came to my original post, which had nothing to do with you personally, and there was no question there being posed to you. Maybe you recall some earlier religious talk between us which I certainly don't. Maybe a bit on generalities, but I certainly don't remember any "where do you stand on your personal religion" ones where you would have given me any "I'm not a Mormon by practice" impression which stuck. My standard joke to that would have been "So, you're Catholic?"

Kevin, breaking down a chat log (or presuming that I have somehow reordered it?) is not useful here. The fact is that I we have talked several times about this issue. Here is 12/12/2006. I'm not making this up.

Dan Brian: what Buddhist tradition do you subscribe to ?

Dan Brian: i.e. the tibetan, etc

Kevin Meltzer: Tibetan, but used to spend time with Nippon Zen monks

Dan Brian: so Vajrayana ?

Dan Brian: I want to be Buddhist.

Kevin Meltzer: ???

Kevin Meltzer: I don't think Mormons would approve!

Dan Brian: heh

Kevin Meltzer: There are a few temples in SLC

Dan Brian: I'll have to check one out.

Dan Brian: I want a nontheistic religion.

Kevin Meltzer: You don't need any religion

Dan Brian: yeah, I know

Dan Brian: but I want to take my kids around

Kevin Meltzer: I do, however, know it's easier to keep a path when around others walking it

Dan Brian: I took them to the Krishna temple last week

Kevin Meltzer: How'd that go?

Dan Brian: fun

This was a very long conversation in which I not only denounce Christianity at large, but tell you that I'm mostly an atheist at heart. Now, I really am willing to believe that you just have an atrocious memory. But barring that, I'm left to assume that you're either an idiot who doesn't really know who he is talking to, or an asshole hellbent on having a point here. Being that I know you're intelligent, I'm left with asshole. See, my options are rather limited. I have, in this very thread, reminded you that I am neither a believing or a practicing mormon. And you have continued to insist that I am avoiding your question, which is, "why would you practice it if you don't believe it?"

I really have no idea how to help you understand that your question, posed to me, makes no sense. So instead, I'll just answer it: "Beats me, Kevin." That's my last word. I'll let you have yours.

Oh.. my.. god, how could I have forgotten an IM conversation from 12/12/06?! I mean, I've only had about 10,000 since then, and had about a million more important things to remember than your current religious explorations (I have my own ever-evolving ones to remember). I do remember we had a conversation where you were "looking around", but the details of any IM from 10 months ago, not a chance.

> Being that I know you're intelligent, I'm left with asshole.

I'm an intelligent asshole. I've never claimed to be anything different.

> See, my options are rather limited. I have, in this very thread, reminded you that I am neither a believing or a practicing mormon. And you have continued to insist that I am avoiding your question, which is, "why would you practice it if you don't believe it?"

Unfortunately, I hear Carley Simon in my head right now singing "I bet you think this post was about *you*... you're so vain..." This post wasn't about *you*, and I didn't ask you anything in it. I posed, and had to keep repeating, a general question, NOT BEING ASKED TO YOU. But, instead of answering the question I wasn't asking you, you just tear on the question and myself.

> I really have no idea how to help you understand that your question, posed to me, makes no sense.

I didn't fucking ask you the fucking question, since apparently last May, and certainly not when I was posting a South Park video. I re-read it, since my memory is so atrocious since I can't remember an IM conversation from 12/06, and I didn't see me posing you any questions. You sure asked a lot of standard "What about saying the same about X, Y and Z? How about them?" Well, I wasn't talking about X, Y or Z but still touched on the questions.

> I'll just answer it: "Beats me, Kevin."

If I had indeed asked the question to you, that would have been fine. If that's what you had said last May, I would have been happy with that as well.

> That's my last word. I'll let you have yours.

Well, at least on my journal I let people aside myself have *any* word. It seems that either a) You somehow think I've asked you something in my original post, or was in any way soliciting any sort of comment from you Or, b) you're hung up on something from last May where you remembered something from the previous December from an IM which I apparently did not at the time. If in last May's conversation you said "Dude, remember.. I'm not a Mormon anymore", I would have said "Ahhhh! Ok!". But, you had to say I was being critical, when I wasn't meaning to be, and don't think I was at all.

So, the last word... "whatever".