[irrelig]Wherein we engage active LDS member former LDS, current atheist Palmer in a debate about the Mormon “plan of salvation,” the church’s involvement in Proposition 8, and the “translation” of the Book of Abraham. Palmer wanted to come on the show to make up for Sean’s poor performance, which I believe is still a blight on the LDS Church.
For my part, I sound pretty tired. I don’t think I woke up until about halfway through the debate.
24 Responses to “67: (Fake) Mormon Debate”
This podcast rocked! Chuck’s brain rules. And Leighton’s passion and honesty is so admirable and courageous. More like this please!
Wow, wow and wow.
Firstly, Palmer has the biggest balls on the planet for engaging in “debate” with you guys. I admire him for coming on.
However, It has been a very long time since I have felt this degree of visceral anger in response to words. I found myself groaning aloud and clenching my fists. I think I almost broke a tooth I was clenching my jaw so hard…a very confronting reaction for me.
I also can’t count the number of times I said “special pleading!!” to myself while rolling my eyes and shaking my head.
Even though I found this episode really difficult to listen to, it was fantastic. I haven’t felt this challenged for ages.
Guest month continues to be a ripper.
Good on Palmer for coming on and being honest about what he believes.
However, it’s hard to have a truly honest discussion with anyone that chains themselves to a logically immovable object. Not to say that he was being dishonest (I don’t think he said anything he himself does not think true), but within the confines of what he believes it was hard to find any logical chain that didn’t either break or loop around on itself.
Palmer was awesome. Honest, straightforward and more-or-less consistent without getting offended just because he was wrong. I was expecting C & L to pull punches somewhat–and maybe you did to some degree–but you weren’t sycophantic at all. Way to say what needed to be said! Unbelievably refreshing and helpful to the overall discussion and that goes for both sides. Thank you guys and especially thank you, Palmer. Your’s was a tough row to hoe.
May I plead for a follow-up episode in which the blacks/priesthood issue is broken down? Yes, I may.
Great Podcast. Palmer gave some of the best apologetics I’ve ever heard.
How come I never here the following argument for Gay marriage?
A lot of the legal marriages were performed by clergy. If even one church is ready and willing to accept and perform gay marriage then does this not become a freedom of religion issue?
Prop 8 and laws like it are one group of churches way of preventing others from performing a sacrament they don’t agree with using the power of the state.
This violates the first amendment and most other constitutional rights regarding freedom of religion.
It’s like if the Mormons told the Catholics they couldn’t hold communion. Then used their money and majority in Utah to get the state to pass a constitutional amendment outlawing communion.
It’s hard to argue that’s access to same sex marriage is a human right but as a freedom of religion issue it’s slam dunk.
Holy Flying Spaghetti Monster! This guy is willing to go to any length to delude himself. That’s right guys, don’t throw out all of science just the stuff that discredits god.
Palmer- I believe you are an idiot, but thanks for coming onto the show.
A great guest episode. The discussion was entertaining and enlightening all around. Leighton, pressing him on the issue of gay rights and posing tin a hardline no-nonsense fashion was excellent.
You should have him on again to discuss more aspects of LDS beliefs and especially blacks in the priesthood.
I was rather disappointed with all but the end of the debate, when you finally got to Mormon history, which you both know so well. It is hard to catch Mormons on the problem of evil without talking about the incoherence of the libertarian (as opposed to the compatiblist) notion of free will. Also, I’m sorry to say I think Palmer won the argument on prop 8. The Mormons worked within the law to advocate for the policy that they thought was best. At THAT level of abstraction, there was nothing wrong with what they did. That is not to say that they are not to BLAME for advocating prop 8, as they are to blame generally for discriminating against homosexuals (and non-whites, and women). The root moral problem with Mormons is their socially irresponsible, selfish and dishonest epistemology. I would have asked Palmer if there is anything that people shouldn’t believe if they get a warm fuzzy feeling about it. What if I get a burning in my bosom when I read Mein Kampf? Why does he and every other Mormon with a ‘testimony’ think that he is a reliable creator-of-the-world detector? What makes him think it isn’t, say, Q from Star Trek the Next Generation screwing with him even if it weren’t just a natural reaction to a religion that one wants to believe in?
Anyway, criticisms aside, I really enjoy and appreciate your podcast, thanks so much for contributing to the atheist community in this way! As a fellow ex-Mormon I especially enjoy your merciless treatment of this particular religion. They should be ashamed of themselves, as most other religionists should.
I would also like to say how refreshing it was to have a Mormon apologist on the show willing to give a straight answer. I learned a lot, particularly just how pleasant the weather is in whatever planet Mr Palmer is currently habitating.
And Michael, no. Just no. The sole requirement for a religion to have a tax exempt status is keeping out of the political process. What they did was fear-mongering (of course, much has to be said about the idiots who seriously think that if gays marry, their own marriages are in jeopardy and, given the demographics that tipped the balance, getting advice from a religion that had them as “tainted” up until the 70s)
I thought that Palmer was great to show up and speak with you guys, but the way he distanced himself from forming an actual opinion about the appropriateness of the LDS participating in Proposition 8 showed that he really doesn’t want to publicly agree with it either because of the controversial position it advocates.
All that crap about ‘people can change laws… blah blah blah’ is bullshit stating that it is acceptable that they did do it on the grounds that they could do it. Just as full of Bullshit is the spiritual aspect for promoting prop 8.
How does allowing homosexual people to marry affect a Mormon’s ‘becoming like god’ and ‘properly’ marrying man and women only? It’s not like Prop 8 saved countless Mormons from being forced to marry other members of their own gender. (Just maybe it prevented them from being taught that gay people are okay by common sense, if not by religious dogma.)
I’m with your outrage on this Leighton. It pisses me off just as much when people apply that other justification for opposing gay marriage ie – it isn’t a natural unit for family as it’s incapable of producing children. By that same criteria the same people should oppose people who either choose not to, or by medical reason are incapable of, having children. (Actually, he does hint along with that reason with his explanation of possible secular reasons why the state may have an interest in marriage for ‘stable families’)
Great show guys, and I can only hope that it’s given Palmer and a few listeners who may agree with his expressed and implied values some food for thought.
I would scorecard the debate like this:
1) Problem of evil: tie. Leighton changed the subject before I could finish my arguments. I think I am going to disallow his participation in these debates in the future based on the fact that he is an idiot.
2) Legal aspect of Prop 8: Palmer. The fact that Palmer is an attorney means that this part of the debate shouldn’t have even been close. Back to the drawing board for us.
3) Spiritual aspect of Prop 8: Irreligiosophy. The “one man one woman to teach us to be like god” argument was patently ridiculous. If the purpose of marriage was to be more like God, the Mormons should never have surrendered polygamy in 1890 (and again in 1904). Over and over again early leaders of the church said that God was a polygamist, starting at least with Brigham Young (JD 1:49-50). Palmer’s argument was a poor post-hoc rationalization for discriminatory behavior.
4) Book of Abraham: Irreligiosophy. This really wasn’t even close, but Palmer did give the best arguments available to him. There just aren’t any good arguments to support that the BoA was divinely inspired and not a fraud. Palmer did the best he could with limited resources.
So I’d say that the debate was a squeaker for us, and I’m glad that we ended with the Book of Abraham rather than the legal aspects of Prop 8.
Michael said: The Mormons worked within the law to advocate for the policy that they thought was best. At THAT level of abstraction, there was nothing wrong with what they did.
Not correct. The Mormon Church was recently found guilty of 13 counts of fraudulent and late campaign reporting with regards to its involvement in Prop 8:
Mormon Church Guilty on 13 Counts
I just wish we had access to that information a month ago, when the podcast was recorded.
Chuck Wrote:
“The Mormon Church was recently found guilty of 13 counts of fraudulent and late campaign reporting with regards to its involvement in Prop 8”
I stand corrected.
“The Mormon Church was fined $5538 in an agreement worked out ending the 19 month long investigation.”
That’ll teach ’em. 😉
Yeah. Way to go, California Ethics Commission. I doubt that even covered the cost of the investigation.
LDS Church: “Here, I found that in between the couch cushions in the Celestial Room. You got change for $10k?”
Chuck and Leighton, when I found Irreligiosophy a few months ago, I listened to each one of your podcasts as quickly as I could. Beyond enjoyable.
But, I might as well have tapped my face to my hand for this episode. Being an Ex-Mormon myself, I hate to say this but each of you presented yourself in, what I thought to be, more of an “anti-Mormon” sort of way. That is, you displayed the “emotionally charged” attitude that many Mormons accuse ex-Mormons of.
Palmer, despite being wrong, seemed much more level-headed. Each of you seemed to cut him off, and change subjects quickly… which Palmer just accepted and never mentioned.
You should bring him back and give a more focused approach. Bring an actual proposition to the table. Be prepared to accept that his position may be internally consistent, and possible, but this doesn’t not lend positive support for his position. Point out that his position is unfalsifiable, and pretty much worthless unless you support it’s premise, or basic truth claim. It is useless to debate Theology within the systems of Theology, especially Mormon Theology. Call him out on his truth claims, not his claims to have a perfect theological plan of all of humanity.
Call him out on his truth claims, not his claims to have a perfect theological plan of all of humanity.
IIRC, I did call him out on his truth claims. He replied that God essentially hides himself from normally-accepted methods of truth detection, instead preferring to rely on the “burning sensation within the chest” method. I responded that if God dropped one method of truth-detection, he should adopt a method that is more reliable, and not less. Palmer didn’t respond to that (perhaps we changed the subject, I can’t recall).
Palmer did a great job with apologetics, and had a thick skin to boot. It’s a nice combination.
I agree with Chuck. Palmer did a great job with apologetics – and you can certainly tell he has the gift of the gab. Trouble is, his answers seemed a little too planned out to me. Which is often the feeling I get when I watch other religious debates. There is always an element of restriction on the side of religion. Which probably comes from the restrictions of obtaining all your answers from one source. But still, kudos to Palmer for actually stating what he believes in and having the skills to dance around questions with great word play.
P.S – More interviews should be done face-to-face so I can hear Chuck physically restraining Leighton – not just verbally.
instead preferring to rely on the “burning sensation within the chest” method
I hear H2-receptor antagonists and PPIs are very effective.
“I hear H2-receptor antagonists and PPIs are very effective”
Oh GORD….
Cimetidine leads to gynecomastia, thats funny.
You need to keep “abreast” of evidence based practice
You updated your title to “(Fake” Mormon Debate
Palmer is NOT a Mormon?
Palmer is an atheist?
I am going to the next post, “Breaking News” between #67 and #68 to read what has happened.
OR, are you guys so unprofessional that you don’t check on your guests credentials?
Full points for modifying the title of the episode in a responsible manner. I did think your guest argued well for the case of Mormonism for what it’s worth and didn’t act to provide a false debate.
As for the complaint from Denis… credentials? As the guest never claimed to be an official representitive of the church I don’t see what he could have provided? Perhaps his secret decoder ring?
Yeah, they should have checked my Temple Recommend! 🙂 I did enjoy the debate though.
-Palmer
Funny thing is that there are even doubters/atheists with temple recommends. I was one long ago.