The Story of Mormonism [Archive]

RSLancastr

5th September 2006, 05:37 PM

As I understand it: Some of the video is true, some is what Mormons would consider misinterpretation of their beliefs. Some of it is based not on Mormon doctrine, but on commentaries of early Mormons.

As I understand it, it is true that Mormons believe that the god of this universe was once a human elsewhere, and that, through adherence to Mromon doctrine, a Mormon man can become a god of his own universe, and populate his with multiple wives.

They also believe that Jesus taught in pre-Columbian America, and that the native Americans were the "lost tribe" of Israel.

There are also secret rites, such as "Eternal Marriage" (also known as being "sealed") and "Baptism For the Dead" (in which people who died as non-Mormons are baptised by proxy as Mormons).

I am unclear on the whole "Lucifer and Jesus being spirit brothers" thing. My guess is that it is someone's interpretation of something which is not official church doctrine.

Gotta love the cheesy animation, though. I kept expecting the Superfriends to arrive!

c4ts

5th September 2006, 06:57 PM

I can't find anything about "Elohim" in the Book of Mormon, or the many gods that once were human, but it does say something about indians turning white, and plenty about Jesus in America during the pre-Columbian era. I do love those scenes where the souls twirl down to Earth, complete with 1970s era sound effects.

Marquis de Carabas

5th September 2006, 07:10 PM

Jesus F:Dk. I've seen that video before. They showed it to us at church when I was 15 or so. Having watched it again now, I can testify that it's better if you're stoned. (Kids! Don't Do Drugs!)

ETA: To clarify, i was stoned the first time, not this time.

Foster Zygote

5th September 2006, 07:26 PM

South Park's version was much funnier.

Steven

RSLancastr

5th September 2006, 11:55 PM

I can't find anything about "Elohim" in the Book of Mormon, or the many gods that once were human,There are two other books of Mormon doctrine: The Pearl of Great Price and Doctrine and Covenants.

Happy reading.

RandFan

6th September 2006, 12:34 AM

RandFan

6th September 2006, 12:40 AM

Beerina

6th September 2006, 07:16 AM

Mormonism, to me, is as far fetched as any religion. It's easier to debunk in many ways. Some of it makes more sense. If we are going to live forever why not become gods? If the universe is infinite why not keep repeating the process? I don't get God living forever and then one day deciding to create people. Just once. After that we all live forever. Kinda boring.

With an infinite amount of time, all functionally different events will repeat themselves, though it may take quite some time. Hence the concept of what to do for eternity becomes a serious problem. Of course, boredom itself is an emotion one could do away with, but then one might end up staring at a wall for ever and ever.

What made God decide to create humans when he did? If the plan was eternal and God knew for an eternity before he created humans at whigh point in time he was going to create humans then what did he use to gauge when it was the right time? How do you measure any point in time against no beginning and no end?

My choice? Coke...er, atheism.

Spawn off a universe, put yourself in it to live (after a temporary mind wipe) and have a ball. Of course, on retrospect creating a universe where people can torture and murder each other probably wasn't the wisest or most ethical choice. Unless God is being each human being, one after the other (or even all at the same time), in which case after I die I'm gonna punch myself in the puss for doing this to myself. Which I will have already done an infinite number of times already to no effect.

c4ts

6th September 2006, 08:22 AM

What I understand the least was the debate between Jesus and Lucifer. It was less than polarizing.

RSLancastr

6th September 2006, 09:13 AM

What I understand the least was the debate between Jesus and Lucifer. It was less than polarizing.You don't think that "give them free will" and "don't give them free will" are polar opposites?

RSLancastr

6th September 2006, 09:15 AM

Jesus and Lucifer are brothers, yes. Everything else you got right.So, what is that:B, maybe a B+?

Also, Jesus had 3 wives? No.I'll ask my Mormon buddy if he knows what the basis for that one is.

Foster Zygote

6th September 2006, 12:14 PM

With an infinite amount of time, all functionally different events will repeat themselves, though it may take quite some time. Hence the concept of what to do for eternity becomes a serious problem.

Yes, infinity can get tedious after a while. Just ask Wowbagger.

Steven

Kopji

6th September 2006, 12:38 PM

The thing on Jesus's 3 wives is an allusion to something Orson Hyde said that appeared in 'Journal of Discourses'. rummage rummage rummage...

http://www.irr.org/MIT/WDIST/wdist-polygamy.html

I'm not really sure how Mormons view the JD today, but for many years it functioned in a manner similar to Islamic Haddith - a kind of authoritative resource on belief. (Haddith do not have a corollary in Christianity that I know of).

The usefulness of the IRR site is that they understand a quirky Mormon characteristic of needing to see 'proof' of something. Photocopies of the actual texts are provided because they are required if they expect Mormons to believe the quoted texts are authentic.

Disclaimer -
The Institute for Religious Research subscribes to the Lausanne Covenant.
http://www.irr.org/doctrinalstatement.html

c4ts

6th September 2006, 12:54 PM

You don't think that "give them free will" and "don't give them free will" are polar opposites?

When the gods themselves seem to posess free will, how is godhood in the Mormon sense removal of it? The option exists in the first scenario to begin with, the additional choice is an unlikely possibility (given an informed perspective), so the whole thing is inconsequential.

Azure

6th September 2006, 03:25 PM

I have a question?

Who follows the true Mormon teaching? The FLDS, or the LDS?

RSLancastr

6th September 2006, 03:29 PM

I have a question?

Who follows the true Mormon teaching? The FLDS, or the LDS?The answer would depend on which one you ask.

Azure

6th September 2006, 04:08 PM

The answer would depend on which one you ask.

Perhaps RandFan can answer it for me. Or try. :)

Gwyn ap Nudd

6th September 2006, 05:22 PM

I have a question?

Who follows the true Mormon teaching? The FLDS, or the LDS?

The Community Of Christ (formerly known as the Reorganized Church of Jesus Christ and the Latter Day Saints or RLDS), who chose to follow Joseph Smith III rather than Brigham Young, would claim both of them deviated from Joseph Smith's original teachings.

Brainache

6th September 2006, 05:57 PM

I tried to read the book of mormon once. Didn't get very far.
I couldn't stop giggling about the fact that the book I was reading was called MORONi.
Also because I heard that Joeseph Smith had dictated the whole thing from behind a curtain while staring into his hat.(this may or may not be true, but it is what I had heard).

RandFan

6th September 2006, 07:18 PM

Perhaps RandFan can answer it for me. Or try. :) Not without making a "no true Scotsman" fallacy.

If you ask me which church most resembles the church as constituted by Smith then I would have to say that it is a mixed bag. Overtime different sects have changed. Many reject that Smith was a polygamist which is rather difficult to do considering the historical documentation. That being said, the LDS church has given up on polygamy for the time being but contends that it was instituted by Joseph Smith which is what seems likely. The LDS church has gone through many changes that have caused break offs because many members don't understand how a "perfect" church set up by God could change. Seems a fair question.

Azure

6th September 2006, 08:13 PM

Not without making a "no true Scotsman" fallacy.

If you ask me which church most resembles the church as constituted by Smith then I would have to say that it is a mixed bag. Overtime different sects have changed. Many reject that Smith was a polygamist which is rather difficult to do considering the historical documentation. That being said, the LDS church has given up on polygamy for the time being but contends that it was instituted by Joseph Smith which is what seems likely. The LDS church has gone through many changes that have caused break offs because many members don't understand how a "perfect" church set up by God could change. Seems a fair question.

Thanks.

:)

Kopji

6th September 2006, 10:52 PM

What Randfan said. :D

I was a umpteenth generation RLDS and could not put it much better. The sects can be surprisingly different. Women have been in RLDS priesthood for over a couple decades now and hold positions of equal 'authority'. (A woman Patriarch is generally called an Evangelist instead). RLDS derive from a 'less evolved' version of Mormonism which was Quaker-like. Utah LDS are definitely the descendants of the later period in Nauvoo (and I never seem able to spell that right).

If I may be critical of my own religious heritage, :rolleyes: being RLDS required believing a hagiographic view of Joseph Smith and that he would never practice something like polygamy, etc. Later developments like proxy baptism are not exactly rejected, more like ignored as being as only of historic importance.

There are several tiny sects that appeared after JS was killed. There was one tiny church called the 'Temple Lot Church', and another that followed a guy named Strang who moved to Beaver Island in the great lakes. I am far too full of this kind of useless information...

Kopji

6th September 2006, 11:01 PM

Temple Lot Mormons
http://www.churchofchrist-tl.org/

Strangite Mormons
http://www.strangite.org/Welcome.htm

Another sect was that of Lyman Wight in Texas. He is well spoken of in RLDS as he did not follow Young. I don't think there are any of his followers left but I could be wrong. The others still have a few members around.

Lyman Wight Mormons
http://www.tsha.utexas.edu/handbook/online/articles/WW/fwi5.html

edited to fix links
more than anyone ever wanted to know...

Azure

6th September 2006, 11:25 PM

Thanks again.

Very interesting. Unlike many others here, I actually want to read about a certain religion before condemning them. :)

Kopji

7th September 2006, 12:26 AM

Hey, just one big happy family! :D

...A former member of the Church of Christ (Temple Lot), a small Mormon splinter group, has been charged with burglary and arson in the January 1 fire that destroyed the 88-year-old historic church building in Independence, Missouri (Kansas City Times, Jan. 2, 1990; p. 1). Arrested was 25-year-old Jordan Smith, who had been excommunicated from the Temple Lot Church for joining the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (Mormons).

Smith, who had warned church leaders for months that, "God had ordered him to cleanse the church site," had barricaded himself inside the building and phoned police claiming to have weapons and hand grenades. After about an hour, Smith agreed to surrender provided he first be allowed to perform a dance (Ibid). Police captured Smith while he was performing what officers called "a native American Indian dance" on the front stoop of the burning church. Smith, whose cheek bones were painted with bright-colored stripes like war paint, was reported to have smiled from the back of the patrol car as fire trucks rushed to the already burning building.

http://www.watchman.org/lds/fire.htm

ponderingturtle

7th September 2006, 06:55 AM

Hey, just one big happy family! :D

Hey any family tree is going to have a few nuts

Bradk3

7th September 2006, 07:56 AM

Well, I'm an active Mormon (LDS) from right here in good ol' Utah (Yes, RSLancaster, a Utah_Mormon (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=1663003&postcount=12) ;) ), so I guess I'll have to my two cents in here, although I have absolutely nothing helpful to add...

I tried to read the book of mormon once. Didn't get very far.
I couldn't stop giggling about the fact that the book I was reading was called MORONi.
You know, I've been Mormon for almost 30 years and the humor of that never occured to me until Randi made mention of it in one of his columns. Now I keep chuckling about it at the very worst moments...

Also because I heard that Joeseph Smith had dictated the whole thing from behind a curtain while staring into his hat.(this may or may not be true, but it is what I had heard).
I've heard people claim that as well, but it's certainly not the "official" story (although, whether or not the "official" story is any more believable is certainly up for debate).

Very interesting. Unlike many others here, I actually want to read about a certain religion before condemning them. :)
How very sensible of you! I'd shake your hand except for the obvious difficulties, this being the Intenet and all. I don't mind reading honest criticism from someone who knows what they're talking about. While I may not agree with RandFan and RSLancaster, for instance, they know their stuff, and I respect that.

Azure

7th September 2006, 10:09 AM

How very sensible of you! I'd shake your hand except for the obvious difficulties, this being the Intenet and all. I don't mind reading honest criticism from someone who knows what they're talking about. While I may not agree with RandFan and RSLancaster, for instance, they know their stuff, and I respect that.

Thank you!

I grew up in religious family, so I know where most religious people are coming from with their viewpoint.

:)

RSLancastr

7th September 2006, 08:10 PM

Well, I'm an active Mormon (LDS) from right here in good ol' Utah (Yes, RSLancaster, a Utah_Mormon (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=1663003&postcount=12) ;) :D

Hey, I got that "Utah Mormon" thing from my Mormon buddy. A California Mormon. He grew up in California, then went to BYU. He has some definite opinions on Utah Mormons! :)

You know, I've been Mormon for almost 30 years and the humor of that never occured to me until Randi made mention of it in one of his columns. Now I keep chuckling about it at the very worst moments...Really? I remember thinking that the very first time I saw the word. Probably a combination of looking at it from the outside, and generally being a "look for the joke" kind of person.

Question: Are you by any chance the gentleman who spoke with me at TAM4 right after my paper presentation, who was considering starting up a web site about someone who was currently ripping off Utah Mormons via a MLM-type scheme?

While I may not agree with RandFan and RSLancaster, for instance, they know their stuff, and I respect that.Hmm. Have I said anything that you don't agree with?

Kopji

7th September 2006, 11:13 PM

I can see where the nomenclature is confusing. There is a much older tradition of referring to LDS as 'Utah' Mormons, and other non Brigham sects as 'Missouri' Mormons. Within the LDS there is also a newser traditon describing Utah 'heartland' type Mormons and others outside the core.

But do we care? :D

Azure

8th September 2006, 09:33 PM

Don't forget the BC Mormons.

Or is that Alberta? Either way, they're pretty extreme.

RandFan

8th September 2006, 09:56 PM

Well, I'm an active Mormon (LDS) from right here in good ol' Utah... Hey Brad, I grew up in Sandy and Taylorsville. I'm still Mormon (never had my name removed). So I guess I sorta count.

While I may not agree with RandFan and RSLancaster, for instance, they know their stuff, and I respect that. Thanks, Robert is better looking and smarter than me but... no, wait, he's just better. :) Anytime I'm mentioned with him is a good day.

Bradk3

11th September 2006, 07:43 AM

:D

Hey, I got that "Utah Mormon" thing from my Mormon buddy. A California Mormon. He grew up in California, then went to BYU. He has some definite opinions on Utah Mormons! :)
Having grown up in Utah, I think I would have to agree with your friend 100%. :rolleyes:

The funny thing is, that I read that post of yours before officially joining the forum. I finally joined, in part, because I wanted to respond with a hearty "Heck" yeah! Unfortunately, by the time I could post, it would have been terribly out of context.

Really? I remember thinking that the very first time I saw the word. Probably a combination of looking at it from the outside, and generally being a "look for the joke" kind of person.
That's probably it. I'm actually ashamed I missed it. While I take my religion and my beliefs seriously, I also take great pride in being able to laugh at myself. I should have caught that.

Question: Are you by any chance the gentleman who spoke with me at TAM4 right after my paper presentation, who was considering starting up a web site about someone who was currently ripping off Utah Mormons via a MLM-type scheme?
I'm afraid not (although, thank you for insinuating that I might be a gentleman). I've never been to a TAM.

Hmm. Have I said anything that you don't agree with?
You know, I went back and read all of your comments and... erm, no. You've said nothing I don't agreed with. MY mistake in assuming.

Hey Brad, I grew up in Sandy and Taylorsville. I'm still Mormon (never had my name removed). So I guess I sorta count.
Actually, I PM'd you a month or so ago, and you told me then that you used to be Mormon. Having read many of your past posts, I'm very impressed at how even-handed you are when dealing with religion, Mormonism in particular. In fact, I've tried to emulate your approach with things that I'm skeptical about.

Thanks, Robert is better looking and smarter than me but... no, wait, he's just better. :) Anytime I'm mentioned with him is a good day.
You're welcome!

varwoche

28th November 2006, 03:53 PM

Geek Goddess

28th November 2006, 07:09 PM

I'm 2/3 of the way through the fascinating book Under the Banner of Heaven about Mormon fundamentalism and the history of the church. To say it paints an ugly (and nutty) picture is a profound understatement. excerpt (http://www.randomhouse.com/features/krakauer/excerpt.html)

And here (http://www.lds.org/newsroom/mistakes/0,15331,3885-1-17125,00.html) are responses to the book from the church.

At some time I hope to examine some of the claims and counter-claims. In the meantime, it is incomprehensible* to me how the church persists in venerating virulent, racist whackjobs such as Joseph Smith and Brigham Young. It's easier for me to wrap my mind around present day FLDS than the mainstream church, which has elevated hypocrisy to a level I didn't know was possible.

* based not just on the book

I read that book this summer, and then happened to run across "Predators, Prey, and Other Kinfolk: Growing Up in Polygamy" by Dorothy Allred Soloman, 2003, at the half-price book store. She grew up as a child in a large polygamist family. She is still a practicing Mormom, but has counseling services for other victims. I found it very sad to see what emotional damage does to women who 'share' their husband with several other women.

Canadian Malcontent

29th November 2006, 01:41 AM

Geek Goddess, kewel name

If you argue with aMormon long enough then Adam is God.
Man is God to them, thats why a fifty-five yr old can have a thirteen year old wife or four.

Canadian Malcontent

29th November 2006, 01:43 AM

Why do you 'Mormons' not rebuke those who marry children?

Canadian Malcontent

29th November 2006, 01:48 AM

Randfan!!!!
You got it right brother ,You are a mormon, and that has nothing to do with being a Christian. Whats it like ? Being in the mafia? Scientology?
You faker.

Roboramma

29th November 2006, 08:13 AM

Randfan!!!!
You got it right brother ,You are a mormon, and that has nothing to do with being a Christian. Whats it like ? Being in the mafia? Scientology?
You faker.

When Randfan says "I'm still Mormon" I think he means that he's still registered as a Mormon by the church. He certainly isn't a believer, as taking a look over his post history will tell you.

Re: Under the Banner of Heaven - Krakauer's best book, and all of them were good. When I gave this book to my sister(no, she's not a mormon), it invoked in her a crisis of faith of sorts. Alas, she quickly recovered by going to see her "new age therapist".
It presents a great argument for the importance of skepticism, for those willing to see it.

Beady

29th November 2006, 09:27 AM

(Haddith do not have a corollary in Christianity that I know of).

There are collections of the writings of the various sect founders. The only one I'm somewhat familiar with, however, is a compndium called "What Luther Says." It's a sort of encyclopedia, grouped by subject, giving quotes from Martin Luther on such things as Marriage (interestingly, the marriage ceremony is purely optional; the union, itself, is by personal choice and its characteristics are governed by civil law -- as such, "marriage" has no inherent religious significance other than that given it by the people involved).

senorpogo

29th November 2006, 02:37 PM

Tanstaafl

29th November 2006, 03:26 PM

Zygar

29th November 2006, 04:06 PM

Geek Goddess, kewel name

If you argue with aMormon long enough then Adam is God.
Man is God to them, thats why a fifty-five yr old can have a thirteen year old wife or four.

I think you misunderstood the Mormon, which is not surprising. It is very confusing coming from the traditional Christian point-of-view. Adam created the Earth. Odd, I agree, but he's not considered to be God.

Why do you 'Mormons' not rebuke those who marry children?

Umm, those are FLDS. And I'm pretty sure very few if any of them have ever used a computer, let alone posted on this forum. Every Mormon I know would happily shoot Warren Jeffs on site.

Randfan!!!!
You got it right brother ,You are a mormon, and that has nothing to do with being a Christian. Whats it like ? Being in the mafia? Scientology?
You faker.

Randfan is an Athiest. But he's a Mormon in the same way I am. We were both baptized LDS and have our names in the record books, but don't practice the religion.

Zygar

29th November 2006, 04:11 PM

Since we're talking about Mormons and Mormonism - over at andrewsullivan.com he posted a picture of the undergarments (http://time.blogs.com/daily_dish/2006/11/mormon_sacred_u.html) that mormon men and women are supposed to wear. He didn't say anything bad about the practice or really make any judgement at all, yet he's gotten a huge backlash from Mormon readers about how improper and sacrilegious it was for him to post the picture.

While it's an odd belief, it's very far from the most outlandish religious rule out there. So why do Mormons have approriate undergarments to begin with? And why are Mormons so touchy about discussing them and posting pictures of them? Or aren't all Mormons so sensitive to the subject?

I never went to the temple, so I'm not privy to all the specifics, but the undergarments (known simply as "garments") are involved in the temple rites. The LDS church considers anything that happens in the temple to be too sacred to be discussed in any detail with non-Mormons. It is not offensive in the same way as drawing a picture of Mohammed is to Muslims, but they are sacred to them and Mormons wish for that to be respected. I can understand the backlash from their perspective.

Geek Goddess

29th November 2006, 07:07 PM

One of the men I used to know owned a successful oil-well treating business, and had so much work in Utah that he decided to open an office there. He is a rather well-to-man, and a pretty religious Lutheran, but a positively warm and friendly guy. He had a hard time finding property to rent, and other business transactions, and he felt it was because he was not Mormon. He finally decided to try and NOT hire Mormons because of the problems he was having, but of course you can't ask questions like that of people. He told me he developed a habit of patting or clasping men on the arm - he said he could tell if they were wearing the garments that way.

I'm not condoning or praising his actions, just sayin'

Geek Goddess

29th November 2006, 07:09 PM

There are collections of the writings of the various sect founders. The only one I'm somewhat familiar with, however, is a compndium called "What Luther Says." It's a sort of encyclopedia, grouped by subject, giving quotes from Martin Luther on such things as Marriage (interestingly, the marriage ceremony is purely optional; the union, itself, is by personal choice and its characteristics are governed by civil law -- as such, "marriage" has no inherent religious significance other than that given it by the people involved).

And they certainly aren't considered sacred. I've been reading quite a few books on Islam, by former Muslims, scholars, and apologists, and the Traditions and the Haddiths are considered sacred and form a part of Islamic law.

RandFan

29th November 2006, 07:15 PM

Randfan!!!!
You got it right brother ,You are a mormon, and that has nothing to do with being a Christian. Whats it like ? Being in the mafia? Scientology?
You faker. Pretty much like it is to be any believer in any religion or god be it Thor, Mithra, Allah, Yahweh, Christ, Dionysus, Ganesh, Vishnu, Golden Calf, etc.

Are you making a no true Scotsman argument? Mormons worship Christ. The name of the church is Church of Jesus Christ of Later Day Saints. Mormons study Christian philosophy. Mormons believe Jesus is God. Mormons believe Jesus died for their sins. Mormons believe that Jesus is an example for living including turning the other cheek. Mormons follow the admonition of Christ to "bless them that curse you, pray for them that despitefully use you." --Luke 6:28

I can personally think of no more unchristian thing to do than accuse another who is trying to live a Christ like life of not being Christian but then there aren't many Christians who follow the admonition of Paul, "Charity suffereth long, and is kind; charity envieth not; charity vaunteth not itself, is not puffed up." --1 Corinthians 13:4

What do you mean nothing to do with being a Christian? Are you being serious?

I'm going to make my own no True Scotsman fallacy. There are few Christians in the world.

RandFan

29th November 2006, 07:21 PM

I'm sure RandFan could give a more complete and precise response, but I believe there's something in their doctrine that forbids letting outsiders know about the sacred underwear, plus a lot of other things that go on inside the temple. Yep, there is all kinds of secrets or what Mormons call "sacred". Mormon's have a saying, milk before meat. Babies cannot eat meat when they are born. They must drink milk. So that's the justification. It's BS because most people wouldn't put up with the BS if they knew up front of the secretes.

Yes, it includes underwear (garments) and rites and rituals. I have been through the temple ceremony. It is in many ways word for word identical with the mason ritual. As I understand they have done away with the blood oaths. A rather bizarre but mostly benign set of rituals.

This is all available on the Internet for anyone who is interested and knows how to use google.

RandFan

29th November 2006, 07:51 PM

When Randfan says "I'm still Mormon" I think he means that he's still registered as a Mormon by the church. He certainly isn't a believer, as taking a look over his post history will tell you. Yes, I'm still a Mormon by the mere fact that I've never had my name taken off of the records. They count me as a Mormon and harass me from time to time. Joseph Smith was a fraud (convicted). Much of the church is easily debunked. I don't believe in god. I don't believe Joseph Smith was a prophet of god.

Hence, I'm a Mormon atheist. :) Take it for what you will.

Thanks Robo.

RandFan

29th November 2006, 07:52 PM

Randfan is an Athiest. But he's a Mormon in the same way I am. We were both baptized LDS and have our names in the record books, but don't practice the religion. Dead on and doomed to live in outer darkness for all eternity listening to the weeping, wailing and gnashing of teeth. ;)

ChristineR

29th November 2006, 08:27 PM

I had this argument with a fundy once, and it came down to:

"Christians are people who never do what I think is wrong."

RSLancastr

29th November 2006, 08:56 PM

Hence, I'm a Mormon atheist. :) Take it for what you will.Well, it looks like someone won't be hieing themselves to Kolob! :D

RandFan

29th November 2006, 09:09 PM

Well, it looks like someone won't be hieing themselves to Kolob! :D What a truly crappy song. There are some ok ones btw. Praise To The Man and Ye Elders of Israel were two of my favorites. Though I have to say I wouldn't go out of my way to hear them now. I'll stick with Gospel.

Geek Goddess

30th November 2006, 01:08 PM

Pretty much like it is to be any believer in any religion or god be it Thor, Mithra, Allah, Yahweh, Christ, Dionysus, Ganesh, Vishnu, Golden Calf, etc.

Are you making a no true Scotsman argument? Mormons worship Christ. The name of the church is Church of Jesus Christ of Later Day Saints. Mormons study Christian philosophy. Mormons believe Jesus is God. Mormons believe Jesus died for their sins. Mormons believe that Jesus is an example for living including turning the other cheek. Mormons follow the admonition of Christ to "bless them that curse you, pray for them that despitefully use you." --Luke 6:28

I can personally think of no more unchristian thing to do than accuse another who is trying to live a Christ like life of not being Christian but then there aren't many Christians who follow the admonition of Paul, "Charity suffereth long, and is kind; charity envieth not; charity vaunteth not itself, is not puffed up." --1 Corinthians 13:4

What do you mean nothing to do with being a Christian? Are you being serious?

I'm going to make my own no True Scotsman fallacy. There are few Christians in the world.

Having sat through a short course on 'cults' back when I attended the Lutheran church in my semi-believing days - *most* mainstream Christian denominations don't believe that LDS is an actual Christian religion because (if I remember correctly from 20 years ago) of several issues. I recall they included, among other things, the belief about becoming a god, something do do with the way that Mormons believe -or not- in the crucifixion, and actual virgin birth. I *think* there was some discussion that Mormons do not believe in the conception-by-holy spirit. And that Joseph Smith made everything up, of course, including civilizations, coinage, cities, all that have never had any archaeological confirmation.

My son is in the Navy. While at the Navy boot camp, he worked as a chaplain's assistant for a few weeks. He told me there were five services: Islamic, Catholic, Jewish, Protestant, and Mormon. They also had a place set aside for 'other's to use, such as Hindus, that didn't come through very often.

senorpogo

30th November 2006, 03:44 PM

I never went to the temple, so I'm not privy to all the specifics, but the undergarments (known simply as "garments") are involved in the temple rites. The LDS church considers anything that happens in the temple to be too sacred to be discussed in any detail with non-Mormons. It is not offensive in the same way as drawing a picture of Mohammed is to Muslims, but they are sacred to them and Mormons wish for that to be respected. I can understand the backlash from their perspective.

Thanks. I kind of assumed that it was just a sacred something that shouldn't be discussed publicly, but didn't know if there was more to it.

As a former Catholic, the concept of secret rites and rituals seems kind of silly to me since we're very open about what we do and what it means. Well, maybe silly isn't the right word. (Don't want to sound condescending.) I guess I mean that I don't have an analogue in my religious past which would allow me fully understand why revealing a certain belief or practice would be something to get upset about. Nor I do I understand why a religion would hide parts of it's doctrine and practices from non-believers.

Zygar

30th November 2006, 04:53 PM

Thanks. I kind of assumed that it was just a sacred something that shouldn't be discussed publicly, but didn't know if there was more to it.

As a former Catholic, the concept of secret rites and rituals seems kind of silly to me since we're very open about what we do and what it means. Well, maybe silly isn't the right word. (Don't want to sound condescending.) I guess I mean that I don't have an analogue in my religious past which would allow me fully understand why revealing a certain belief or practice would be something to get upset about. Nor I do I understand why a religion would hide parts of it's doctrine and practices from non-believers.

I agree that it doesn't make sense to hide things from non-believers.

Their reason is that they think of their religion as having different levels. I'd be hard-pressed to actually list the levels, but suffice it to say that they think of it a little like learning Mathematics. You have to learn algebra and trigonometry before you can handle calculus. If you go straight to calculus you will just be lost and immediately dismiss the less complex stuff.

Mr Clingford

30th November 2006, 05:01 PM

RandFan

30th November 2006, 08:39 PM

Having sat through a short course on 'cults' back when I attended the Lutheran church in my semi-believing days - *most* mainstream Christian denominations don't believe that LDS is an actual Christian religion because (if I remember correctly from 20 years ago) of several issues. I recall they included, among other things, the belief about becoming a god, something do do with the way that Mormons believe -or not- in the crucifixion, and actual virgin birth. I *think* there was some discussion that Mormons do not believe in the conception-by-holy spirit. :) You are right but it really is just arrogance. "Mainstream" means that Catholics think Protestants, while Christian are apostate and going to hell and Protestant's think Catholics, while Christian, are apostate and going to hell but they do get together to denounce Mormons as non-Christian.

And that Joseph Smith made everything up, of course, including civilizations, coinage, cities, all that have never had any archaeological confirmation. Oh, it's BS, no question. Then again Christians believe that Christ walked on water, turned water into wine, fed a multitude with a few fish and a loaf of bread and that a man lived inside the belly of a fish. None of that has any archaeological confirmation either but they believe it. With god nothing is possible so people believe whatever BS they want to.

My son is in the Navy. While at the Navy boot camp, he worked as a chaplain's assistant for a few weeks. He told me there were five services: Islamic, Catholic, Jewish, Protestant, and Mormon. They also had a place set aside for 'other's to use, such as Hindus, that didn't come through very often. I guess that proves something.

RandFan

30th November 2006, 08:42 PM

I have read this:

"God himself was once as we are now, and is an exalted man, and sits enthroned in yonder heavens! … It is the first principle of the Gospel to know for a certainty the Character of God, and to know that we may converse with him as one man converses with another, and that he was once a man like us; yea, that God himself, the Father of us all, dwelt on an earth, the same as Jesus Christ himself did.”

(Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, sel. Joseph Fielding Smith, Salt Lake City: Deseret Book, 1938, pp. 345–46.)

Now this concept of god does seem totally different from the idea of the Xtian God. If I am mising something please point it out. No, you are not missing anything. It's one of the few things that does make sense. What the hell good is living forever with the time to learn so much and never be able to use it. What good are our lives now if it isn't in part to grow in wisdom and perhaps use that wisdom. The mainstream Christian concept of salvation is the most boring thing imaginable.

ChristineR

30th November 2006, 09:13 PM

Over the centuries there have been many variants on the Christian God. The first Christians were (probably) Jews and pretty much stuck to the Jewish traditions, but there were some truly wacky theologies floating around for 400 years or so, until what would become the Catholic church suppressed the heretics. Protestants changed it yet again.

The distinction is that the truly wacky ideas tend to fade away. If a theological point is not meaningful to peoples' lives, it's forgotten. (RandFan points out that Mormon heaven is more meaningful to many people's lives than classic heaven.)

If you're asking which Christian theologies are "most correct," it all depends on what your criteria are. You can make a pretty good case that Jesus' teaching was in the whack job category, and is only known from a handful of obscure manuscripts. Or you could argue that anything ancient trumps anything new (i.e., Gnosticism trumps Protestantism). Or you can argue that Catholicism is the only one that counts.

Me, I think Mormons are as Christian as anyone else, and the church has stood the test of time, so it must have something to offer society.

varwoche

1st December 2006, 12:49 AM

the church has stood the test of time, so it must have something to offer society.Such as insane beliefs? (Far nuttier than the bible for the sheer fact *LDS emerged in modern times.) Racism as a core tenant? Subjugation of women? A university named after a jihadist thug? A culture that breeds financial scams?

Mr Clingford

1st December 2006, 02:16 AM

No, you are not missing anything. It's one of the few things that does make sense. What the hell good is living forever with the time to learn so much and never be able to use it. What good are our lives now if it isn't in part to grow in wisdom and perhaps use that wisdom.But Xtians are meant to grow in character anad wisdom (just because it appears that many are so crap at it doesn't change this). What do you mean by not being able to use it? Furthermore, in the Orthodox approach the idea of one's character becoming perfected (perhaps even in this life) is expressed in theosis - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theosis

The mainstream Christian concept of salvation is the most boring thing imaginable.No other mainstream Xtian group, though, has God coming from a planet, or God coming from this universe - it is just so radically different.

Would you describe to me the mainstream Xtian concept as I don't recognise it.

Zygar

1st December 2006, 04:10 PM

Such as insane beliefs? (Far nuttier than the bible for the sheer fact *LDS emerged in modern times.) Racism as a core tenant? Subjugation of women? A university named after a jihadist thug? A culture that breeds financial scams?

Wow! Those are all rather bold assertions.

Any evidence to back up the "insane" other than "Modern Times"? Officially the LDS Church was founded in 1830. I don't know about you, but I don't consider the age before the Wild West to be "Modern Times".

How about the "racism as a core tenent"? The rule disapproving of blacks holding the preisthood was withdrawn in July of 1978. Mormons never held slaves, which I think immediately disposes of this whole arrogant statement. And I would be hard pressed to find an individual Mormon that believes in a superior race.

As for the "subjugation of women". Mormons do believe in a fairly traditional view of family roles. This means that most women are homemakers and that they are single-income households. But this is definitely not a hard rule. Many of the most successful business-people in Utah are female, and I see no reason for this absurd statement.

Who was a jihadist thug? Brigham Young? Tell me one individual bit of evidence to this effect.

And finally, the financial scams... Are you speaking of Nuskin? Yes, they created the pyramid scheme. I cannot disagree that it is a bad business design, but since they are an active business and have not been closed down for fraud, I think that this is a spurious statement.

RandFan

1st December 2006, 06:39 PM

But Xtians are meant to grow in character anad wisdom (just because it appears that many are so crap at it doesn't change this). What do you mean by not being able to use it? Well let me ask you. so the Xtians the grow in character and wisdom and do what exactly? I think wisdom can be an end to itself for some but not for me. Why does god get to have all of the fun? He gets to do while exalted souls get to forever play students. Of what value is wisdom then?

Furthermore, in the Orthodox approach the idea of one's character becoming perfected (perhaps even in this life) is expressed in theosis - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theosis
Then would not one then become like god? What would be the appreciable difference?

No other mainstream Xtian group, though, has God coming from a planet, or God coming from this universe - it is just so radically different. I won't disagree.

Would you describe to me the mainstream Xtian concept as I don't recognise it. Far be it for me to speak for mainstream Xtianity. To tell you the truth I don't know. Worshiping at the feet of Jesus? Flitting about on clouds? Playing harps?

RandFan

1st December 2006, 06:49 PM

Such as insane beliefs? (Far nuttier than the bible for the sheer fact *LDS emerged in modern times.) Racism as a core tenant? Subjugation of women? A university named after a jihadist thug? A culture that breeds financial scams? I think there is much to criticize the church for and I have done my share of criticizing. That said I think you simply caricature the church. There is an element of truth to what you are saying as there is to many such stereotypes but this reminds me of gross generalizations of the Jews.

My grandmother was southern baptist from Texas as was my father before he joined the church. My grandmother was racist. My father credits the Mormon church with letting go his hatred and bigotry. I saw lots of ignorance in the church toward African Americans and I'm very familiar with the history but I can't honestly say that racism is a core tenant of the church. Yes, I'm quite familiar with the now defunct rule against blacks holding the priesthood and I'm familiar with many of the ignorant things said by Church leaders. Racism was not overt and I never witnessed racism on the part of active Mormons. I did see it on the part of active Baptists and inactive Mormons. I will concede that my experiences were anecdotal so take them as you will.

varwoche

1st December 2006, 08:35 PM

Wow! Those are all rather bold assertions. I think not.
Any evidence to back up the "insane" other than "Modern Times"? With the caveat that I didn't use the word insane in a medical sense, and could just as easily have used whacked out or hyper-nutty, let's start with this (http://www.skepticsannotatedbible.com/BOM/int/long.html). Normally I'd excerpt the pertinent text, but in this case I wouldn't know where to start.

Officially the LDS Church was founded in 1830. I don't know about you, but I don't consider the age before the Wild West to be "Modern Times" Compared to biblical times? :confused: Pardon me but I'm having a hard time taking you seriously.

I'll get to your other whimsical challenges later on.

RandFan

1st December 2006, 09:03 PM

With the caveat that I didn't use the word insane in a medical sense, and could just as easily have used whacked out or hyper-nutty, let's start with this (http://www.skepticsannotatedbible.com/BOM/int/long.html). Normally I'd excerpt the pertinent text, but in this case I wouldn't know where to start. What exactly is this supposed to prove? Smith using the bible, in part, as a guide wrote what he thought was a compelling book. It's full of BS but what does that have to do with Mormons themselves? Mormons are like most other religious adherents. To quote Dawkins (I know, I can't help myself) "They pick and chose the good parts from the nasty parts.) Jews and Christians believe the OT to be the word of god yet they don't stone apostates or sell their children into slavery. Varwoche, you really are not making any convincing argument to support your thesis. Do you have something substantive and direct about Mormons?

Mr Clingford

2nd December 2006, 06:39 AM

Well let me ask you. so the Xtians the grow in character and wisdom and do what exactly? I think wisdom can be an end to itself for some but not for me. Why does god get to have all of the fun? He gets to do while exalted souls get to forever play students. Of what value is wisdom then?I'm not sure I am totally following you here. I'm not saying that that is all that happens; who is saying God is the only one to have all the fun? WHat do you mean by only God doing stuff?

Then would not one then become like god? What would be the appreciable difference?One can become like God in terms of character but not power and ability.

I won't disagree.

Far be it for me to speak for mainstream Xtianity. To tell you the truth I don't know. Worshiping at the feet of Jesus? Flitting about on clouds? Playing harps?You did post
"The mainstream Christian concept of salvation is the most boring thing imaginable"
and so either I have misunderstood what you are saying or you are stating what something is like and then saying you don't know what it is like.

RandFan

2nd December 2006, 09:17 AM

I'm not sure I am totally following you here. I'm not saying that that is all that happens; who is saying God is the only one to have all the fun? What do you mean by only God doing stuff? The answer is in your next line.

One can become like God in terms of character but not power and ability.Why? So what will people do if they are not gods?

You did post
"The mainstream Christian concept of salvation is the most boring thing imaginable"
and so either I have misunderstood what you are saying or you are stating what something is like and then saying you don't know what it is like. Yes, I did post that. I'm sorry that I wasn't clear. Having said what I said I realized that it wasn't my place to speak for anyone else. What I said was simply my understanding of what others believe. You still haven't told me what you think people will be doing in heaven, any ideas?

varwoche

2nd December 2006, 09:34 AM

What exactly is this supposed to prove? It's proof that the church promotes nutty (and ugly) beliefs.

Smith using the bible, in part, as a guide wrote what he thought was a compelling book. It's full of BS but what does that have to do with Mormons themselves? Please read my comments more carefully, begininning here (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=2139468#post2139468). I was commenting on the church.

Mormons are like most other religious adherents. First as a nitpick, I'd say they are like many other religious adherents.

And so what? Did I claim the contrary? (answer=no)

they [other christians] don't stone apostates or sell their children into slavery. I'm not highly impressed that it took until 1978 to even allow a black man to be a priest. (Smith & Young must have rolled in their graves like dervishes.) You are referring to biblical times. I'm referring to 1977. Entrenched beliefs can't be whitewashed away that easily.

It's my understanding that the church is not keen on interracial marriage to this day. Is that true?

Varwoche, you really are not making any convincing argument to support your thesis. My thesis? :confused: I made a casual reply to a goofy (imo) post and you're trying to turn it into Debate 101. (If you want to play Debate 101, please invite me first.)

What's your thesis Randfan?

Mr Clingford

2nd December 2006, 09:39 AM

Why? So what will people do if they are not gods?

Yes, I did post that. I'm sorry that I wasn't clear. Having said what I said I realized that it wasn't my place to speak for anyone else. What I said was simply my understanding of what others believe. You still haven't told me what you think people will be doing in heaven, any ideas?As far as I understand it what people will do in heaven is something like being at the best party ever, with the most exciting and interesting people, with the best food and drink and the best entertainment. It'll be a blast. That's one way of looking at it.

RandFan

2nd December 2006, 09:54 AM

It's proof that the church promotes nutty (and ugly) beliefs. I'm not sure that is accurate for all of the the items you listed. I suppose one could make an argument that technically they are promoted but you won't find many if not most of them in any current literature or doctrine.

Please read my comments more carefully, begininning here (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=2139468#post2139468). I was commenting on the church. No, I get this but let's assume your above statement that the church "promotes" ugly ideas. If the followers don't represent that promotion then what is the point?

I'm not highly impressed that it took until 1978 to even allow a black man to be a priest. (Smith & Young must have rolled in their graves like dervishes.) You are referring to biblical times. I'm referring to 1977. Entrenched beliefs can't be whitewashed away that easily. I'm not impressed either. I'm embarrassed that I had any part of that. The point is that we should honestly try and understand how Mormons viewed races and how they behaved toward minorities. I would say that an honest assessment is that it is a mixed bag. Most of the negative being borne of ignorance not malice.

It's my understanding that the church is not keen on interracial marriage to this day. Is that true? I haven't read church literature in nearly a decade and it hasn't come up in conversation. I doubt this myself. And by church I mean the leaders and the followers.

Mormons aren't always up to date on current church doctrine. I know, it is odd but the leaders often don't disabuse the members of many spurious ideas. For instance, I didn't know that official church doctrine had rejected many earlier notions of the church like blood doctrine (people who commit capital crime must be put to death in order to be forgiven) until after I had served a mission. I actualy preached blood doctine.

My thesis? :confused: I made a casual reply to a goofy (imo) post and you're trying to turn it into Debate 101. (If you want to play Debate 101, please invite me first.) Looking at your post I don't see how it was casual. In any event I shouldn't think you need an invitation. This is a skeptics forum. If you make claims then you should be willing to debate those claims or withdraw them. That's all and that is fair.

What's your thesis Randfan?That to a large degree Mormons are like most other humans. Some are good, some are bad and many are in between. Because of their culture they have some atypical traits, some are positive and some negative. Mormons tend to be conservative and I find most to be very naive or down right ignorant in many areas but enlightened in others. Like I said, they are a mixed bag.

Zygar

2nd December 2006, 10:08 AM

That to a large degree Mormons are like most other humans. Some are good, some are bad and many are in between. Because of their culture they have some atypical traits, some are positive and some negative. Mormons tend to be conservative and I find most to be very naive or down right ignorant in many areas but enlightened in others. Like I said, they are a mixed bag.

Precisely my point. And to be honest the religious views of the majority are very much in favor of tolerance and equality. I agree that many policies of the church have been bad in the past, but having grown up in Utah, I see no evidence for words like racist or jihadist.

Zygar

2nd December 2006, 10:11 AM

With the caveat that I didn't use the word insane in a medical sense, and could just as easily have used whacked out or hyper-nutty, let's start with this (http://www.skepticsannotatedbible.com/BOM/int/long.html)..

Compare and contrast with Deuteronomy and the writings of Paul. There is nothing there that is not similarly promoted by the Bible. How does this make the LDS church more "insane" than Catholics or Protestants?

RandFan

2nd December 2006, 05:39 PM

As far as I understand it what people will do in heaven is something like being at the best party ever, with the most exciting and interesting people, with the best food and drink and the best entertainment. It'll be a blast. That's one way of looking at it.That sounds like a real pleasant evenging. And the rest of eternity?

I'll concede that my finite mind might be incapable of understanding how we could have a positive expereince by simply reveling for eternity. Just saying that it is going to be a blast and comparing it to fun times on earth isn't really saying much. To me that all sounds like it would keep my interest for a week at most and for most everyone else by at least the 10 millionth year it would lose its appeal. Eternity?

"Jane, get me off this crazy ride" --George Jettson.

The Atheist

2nd December 2006, 05:50 PM

As far as I understand it what people will do in heaven is something like being at the best party ever, with the most exciting and interesting people, with the best food and drink and the best entertainment. It'll be a blast. That's one way of looking at it.I see RandFan's beaten me to the gun here - eternity's a VERY long time.

Here's another angle for you:

If everyone in heaven's happy and together, how's my mum going to feel? I won't be in heaven, no matter what. (I said to Huntster at one stage that heaven would be hell for me - full of bloody catholic priests, for starters!) My kids might be in heaven, but I won't be. How could one reconcile that? Having fun for an eternity while a loved one is in torment for the same amount of time.

Now, you're going to say that you don't believe in Dante's Hell, and fair enough, but the concept's the same, I won't be in heaven - or does everyone go to heaven?

RandFan

2nd December 2006, 05:53 PM

IMy kids might be in heaven, but I won't be. How could one reconcile that? Having fun for an eternity while a loved one is in torment for the same amount of time. Yeah, I hear some believe god will give people amnesia of their loved ones. :confused:

The Atheist

2nd December 2006, 06:02 PM

Yeah, I hear some believe god will give people amnesia of their loved ones. :confused:Nice! Wonder how that works when a father goes to hell and the mother and kids go to heaven.

Squishua

2nd December 2006, 06:17 PM

If everyone in heaven's happy and together, how's my mum going to feel? I won't be in heaven, no matter what. (I said to Huntster at one stage that heaven would be hell for me - full of bloody catholic priests, for starters!) My kids might be in heaven, but I won't be. How could one reconcile that? Having fun for an eternity while a loved one is in torment for the same amount of time.
Here's another one:

What if you're a bigamist who has two separate families who both love you dearly but know nothing of each other or your deceit, when some terrible natural disaster wipes the whole lot of you out. They die not knowing anything deceitful is going on.

Now, if they get to be with their loved ones in heaven, which family will have their you as their daddy/husband for eternity (assuming you go to heaven)?

A logical contradiction in religion. Imagine that. :D

-Squish

ChristineR

2nd December 2006, 06:44 PM

Here's another one:

What if you're a bigamist who has two separate families who both love you dearly but know nothing of each other or your deceit, when some terrible natural disaster wipes the whole lot of you out. They die not knowing anything deceitful is going on.

Now, if they get to be with their loved ones in heaven, which family will have their you as their daddy/husband for eternity (assuming you go to heaven)?

A logical contradiction in religion. Imagine that. :D

-Squish

Hmm, you don't know that this very question is addressed in the New Testament gospels? I'll let you look it up....

Squishua

2nd December 2006, 08:14 PM

Hmm, you don't know that this very question is addressed in the New Testament gospels? I'll let you look it up....
Why don't you just tell me which chapter and verse you are interpreting as addressing this very question?

Actually, don't do that. I really don't care. ;)

-Squish

Kopji

2nd December 2006, 11:17 PM

Why don't you just tell me which chapter and verse you are interpreting as addressing this very question?

Actually, don't do that. I really don't care. ;)

-Squish

O comeon, you know you care.

Matthew 22
23That same day the Sadducees, who say there is no resurrection, came to him with a question. 24"Teacher," they said, "Moses told us that if a man dies without having children, his brother must marry the widow and have children for him. 25Now there were seven brothers among us. The first one married and died, and since he had no children, he left his wife to his brother. 26The same thing happened to the second and third brother, right on down to the seventh. 27Finally, the woman died. 28Now then, at the resurrection, whose wife will she be of the seven, since all of them were married to her?"

29Jesus replied, "You are in error because you do not know the Scriptures or the power of God. 30At the resurrection people will neither marry nor be given in marriage; they will be like the angels in heaven. 31But about the resurrection of the dead—have you not read what God said to you, 32'I am the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob'[a]? He is not the God of the dead but of the living."

varwoche

3rd December 2006, 12:56 AM

No, I get this but let's assume your above statement that the church "promotes" ugly ideas. If the followers don't represent that promotion then what is the point? I have known only a handful of mormons so I'm unable to say how prevelant the nuttier, uglier beliefs are. But even if these beliefs are statistically insignificant within LDS (which I'm skeptical about, as you yourself say it's a mixed bag), when I referenced "*LDS" earlier, the star was a wild card, meant to include FLDS and the like. (Pardon me for not being more explicit.) The fundamentalist branches most certainly do adhere to the nuttiest and ugliest beliefs. FLDS beliefs come from LDS.

I'm not impressed either. I'm embarrassed that I had any part of that. Off topic, I respect people who were indoctrinated in absurd belief systems as children yet managed to come to grips with reality. As I descend from (at least) two generations of godless varwoches, I can't say if I would have done the same.

JUst in case I would say that an honest assessment is that it is a mixed bag. Most of the negative being borne of ignorance not malice. The same could be said of most racists, I think.

I haven't read church literature in nearly a decade and it hasn't come up in conversation. I doubt this myself. And by church I mean the leaders and the followers. In Under the Banner of Heaven, the author claims (in passing) that church leaders still frown upon and discourage interracial marriage. (I don't take this as definitive by any means, but offer it as a data point.)

Looking at your post I don't see how it was casual. In any event I shouldn't think you need an invitation. This is a skeptics forum. If you make claims then you should be willing to debate those claims or withdraw them. That's all and that is fair. You can drop the pompous posturing seeing as the comments you previously addressed to me have little or nothing to do with the actual words I posted. If you wish to challenge the actual words I posted, be my guest.

That to a large degree Mormons are like most other humans. Some are good, some are bad and many are in between. Because of their culture they have some atypical traits, some are positive and some negative. Mormons tend to be conservative and I find most to be very naive or down right ignorant in many areas but enlightened in others. Like I said, they are a mixed bag. I tend to believe you. What's more, nothing I've written contradicts this statement.

RandFan

3rd December 2006, 01:04 AM

I have known only a handful of mormons so I'm unable to say how prevelant the nuttier, uglier beliefs are. But even if these beliefs are statistically insignificant (which I'm skeptical about, as you yourself say it's a mixed bag), when I referenced "*LDS" earlier, the star was a wild card, meant to include FLDS and the like. (Pardon me for not being more explicit.) The fundamentalist branches most certainly do adhere to the nuttiest and ugliest beliefs. FLDS beliefs come from LDS.

Off topic, I respect people who were indoctrinated in absurd belief systems as children yet managed to come to grips with reality. As I descend from (at least) two generations of godless varwoches, I can't say if I would have done the same.

The same could be said of most racists, I think.

In Under the Banner of Heaven, the author claims (in passing) that church leaders still frown upon and discourage interracial marriage. (I don't take this as definitive by any means, but offer it as a data point.)

You can drop the pompous posturing seeing as the comments you previously addressed to me have little or nothing to do with the actual words I posted. If you wish to challenge the actual words I posted, be my guest.

I tend to believe you. What's more, nothing I've written contradicts this statement.Thanks for the response. I'll leave it without comment except to say that your words certainly conveyed a sentiment counter to my last post. I've had my say and I suspect we are not that far apart.

RandFan

Mr Clingford

3rd December 2006, 05:42 AM

That sounds like a real pleasant evenging. And the rest of eternity?

I'll concede that my finite mind might be incapable of understanding how we could have a positive expereince by simply reveling for eternity. Just saying that it is going to be a blast and comparing it to fun times on earth isn't really saying much. To me that all sounds like it would keep my interest for a week at most and for most everyone else by at least the 10 millionth year it would lose its appeal. Eternity?

"Jane, get me off this crazy ride" --George Jettson.You say that I am not saying very much but what do you want to say as there isn't much to say. As far as I see it heaven is meant to be something like this - think of your most favourite thing to do and then multiply that by infinity. Of course no-one has any idea what it is really like. We don't know, can only conjecture and extrapolate from what we do know - what makes us happy, pleasure, joy and fulfilment in life. And no one has any idea how eternity works because we live in the finite but as God is good (in Xtianity) it's not going to be bad or boring.

Mr Clingford

3rd December 2006, 07:24 AM

...If everyone in heaven's happy and together, how's my mum going to feel? I won't be in heaven, no matter what. (I said to Huntster at one stage that heaven would be hell for me - full of bloody catholic priests, for starters!) My kids might be in heaven, but I won't be. How could one reconcile that? Having fun for an eternity while a loved one is in torment for the same amount of time.Why are you so sure, or so determined, that you won't be in heaven? I'm not sure how it could be reconciled but for me, I am happy with the idea that heaven will be heavenly and God will work something out because that is his nature and I have no idea how that might work.

Now, you're going to say that you don't believe in Dante's Hell, and fair enough, but the concept's the same, I won't be in heaven - or does everyone go to heaven?I certainly don't buy into literature's view of heaven and hell. As I have said on the 'Atheism is a faith' thread I am a near univeralist; if someone doesn't want to be with God, that, is, embrace the way of love, then he isn't going to force them.

RandFan

3rd December 2006, 10:41 AM

You say that I am not saying very much but what do you want to say as there isn't much to say. As far as I see it heaven is meant to be something like this - think of your most favourite thing to do and then multiply that by infinity. Of course no-one has any idea what it is really like. We don't know, can only conjecture and extrapolate from what we do know - what makes us happy, pleasure, joy and fulfilment in life. And no one has any idea how eternity works because we live in the finite but as God is good (in Xtianity) it's not going to be bad or boring. I have already conceded that my finite mind might be a hindrance.

I started a thread in the science section about biological reward and punishment. The two are different in their ability to motivate us. Pain can be relenting. Well being, pleasure, comfort, etc. cannot for us mere mortals. That is why there is so much written about hell and so little written about heaven.

That said it is not my fault that heaven sounds boring. Telling me to take the best moments of my life and multiply them by Y is meaningless to me. I get the point, I will, ostensibly, be happy. Really? How do you know? Or do you just believe?

If you can't figure out a way to adequately express to me what heaven is like then spare me the abstract mental exercises. I think they are a waste of time. I understand that they serve a purpose for those who want to believe but they don't to those of us that want more than a wink wink nudge nudge "trust me you will be happy".

Mr Clingford

3rd December 2006, 10:51 AM

...That said it is not my fault that heaven sounds boring. Telling me to take the best moments of my life and multiply them by Y is meaningless to me. I get the point, I will, ostensibly, be happy. Really? How do you know? Or do you just believe?It's that 'heaven/being with God is the most amazing place to be' is, I think, about as fundamental as saying 'God is loving'.

If you can't figure out a way to adequately express to me what heaven is like then spare me the abstract mental exercises. I think they are a waste of time. I understand that they serve a purpose for those who want to believe but they don't to those of us that want more than a wink wink nudge nudge "trust me you will be happy".It's feels like you are asking the impossible as no-one knows, we can only conjecture with metaphors. Another image (I'n not trying to cheese you off but I feel at a loss) is when one listens to music one can feel timelessly transported/transcended; it might be a bit like that but your question seems to me to be similar to 'how tall is God?' and I feel at a loss.

RandFan

3rd December 2006, 10:59 AM

'Atheism is a faith' thread I am a near univeralist; if someone doesn't want to be with God, that, is, embrace the way of love, then he isn't going to force them.Mr. Congford, with all due respect I find this presumptious and backhanded. It's not argument.

RandFan

3rd December 2006, 11:03 AM

It's that 'heaven/being with God is the most amazing place to be' is, I think, about as fundamental as saying 'God is loving'. I'm not sure how many times I can say this. I get it. I was a missionary and describing heaven was something that I did because so many people were curious. I'm not without an imagination. I'm trying to tell you that in the end such descriptions are meaningless.

It's feels like you are asking the impossible as no-one knows, we can only conjecture with metaphors. Another image (I'n not trying to cheese you off but I feel at a loss) is when one listens to music one can feel timelessly transported/transcended; it might be a bit like that but your question seems to me to be similar to 'how tall is God?' and I feel at a loss. You should feel at a loss. I'm at a loss to tell you what it is like to ride unicorns or meet a leprechaun at the end of the rainbow.

Yes, I am asking the impossible but not without reason.

Mr Clingford

3rd December 2006, 11:04 AM

Mr. Congford, with all due respect I find this presumptious and backhanded. It's not argument.What's happened to my name?

I am flabbergasted that you say that - I really don't understand why.

Mr Clingford

3rd December 2006, 11:08 AM

... I'm trying to tell you that in the end such descriptions are meaningless.That's why I am at a loss that you have been asking me. Any metphors can only be pointers.

You should feel at a loss. I'm at a loss to tell you what it is like to ride unicorns or meet a leprechaun at the end of the rainbow.

Yes, I am asking the impossible but not without reason.I haven't asked you to describe what those things are like. What are your reasons, then, for asking the impossible? You are leaving me in the dark.

RandFan

3rd December 2006, 11:13 AM

What's happened to my name? I appologize.

I am flabbergasted that you say that - I really don't understand why. I say it because it is true. It's insulting. Don't get me wrong, I can be insulting also but I don't think you mean to.

You are entitled to your presumptions but I ask that you not patronize.

RandFan

3rd December 2006, 11:19 AM

That's why I am at a loss that you have been asking me. Any metphors can only be pointers. Let's go back, how did this all start? I said that the idea of heaven sounded boring. You responded to that and that started our discussion. After all of this time it still sounds boring to me. I'm not going to lie to you and tell you that it doesn't sound boring because of what you have told me. I've given a great deal of time studying and pondering heaving and having considered all of these things, in the end they are meaningless. I cannot fathom the notion and I'm not going to get all warm and fuzzy over a wink wink.

I haven't asked you to describe what those things are like. What are your reasons, then, for asking the impossible? You are leaving me in the dark.I'm hoping you will think more critically about them.

Mr Clingford

3rd December 2006, 11:19 AM

Thanks.

But what is presumptious and back-handed? I really don't know why you say this? In this world no-one can objectively know everything - everybody has an idea of God with IMO differing degress of accuracy. I believe that after death when they encounter God, that is amazing beautiful love, most people will embrace that because we will see clearly now. It is a belief, yes, but why is it presumptious and back-handed?

Mr Clingford

3rd December 2006, 11:26 AM

Let's go back, how did this all start? I said that the idea of heaven sounded boring. You responded to that and that started our discussion. After all of this time it still sounds boring to me. I'm not going to lie to you and tell you that it doesn't sound boring because of what you have told me. I've given a great deal of time studying and pondering heaving and having considered all of these things, in the end they are meaningless. I cannot fathom the notion and I'm not going to get all warm and fuzzy over a wink wink.OK, a big issue in this heaven idea seem to be the 'never-ending' angle - we don't grasp it. As I am not a Xtian because I think it will get me into heaven I am not particualry concerned about details - just being in the presence of something beyond awesome will do for me.

I'm not sure what you mean at the end of the paragraph.

I'm hoping you will think more critically about them.OK, but, unless I have missed something, you seem to be saying that time will be like it is now and therefore eventually we will get bored and I think it will be different or, indeed, heaven will be boring and Xtian teaching is that it won't be.

RandFan

3rd December 2006, 11:26 AM

But what is presumptious and back-handed? Let's look at that quote again.

...if someone doesn't want to be with God, that, is, embrace the way of love, then he isn't going to force them.

It's presumptuous to assert that A.) There is a god and B.) I don't want to be with god and C.) that I don't embrace what you call "the way of love". I'm not sure what that means but I'm quite capable of kindness, charity, love, empathy, decency and respect. I don't need god to want to be kind or loving to my fellow humans.

As to "backhanded" Telling me that if I reject god then he isn't going to force me to accept the "way of love" is insulting and patronizing.

RandFan

3rd December 2006, 11:31 AM

OK, a big issue in this heaven idea seem to be the 'never-ending' angle - you we don't grasp it. As I am not a Xtian because I think it will get me into heaven I am not particualry concerned about details - just being in the presence of something beyond awesome will do for me.That's fine. We are all different. It has no meaning to me.

I'm not sure what you mean at the end of the paragraph. Don't expect me to get excited about something that you can only say will be really good, beyond my imagination good, how do you know? You don't.

OK, but, unless I have missed something, you seem to be saying that time will be like it is now and therefore eventually we will get bored and I think it will be different or, indeed, heaven will be boring and Xtian teaching is that it won't be.No, I'm trying to get you to question your assumptions. How can you expect something to be that which you can't even explain. There is a logical problem there that I want you to get.

Mr Clingford

3rd December 2006, 11:33 AM

It's presumptuous to assert that A.) There is a god and B.) I don't want to be with god and C.) that I don't embrace what you call "the way of love". I'm not sure what that means but I'm quite capable of kindness, charity, love, empathy, decency and respect. I don't need god to want to be kind or loving to my fellow humans.

As to "backhanded" Telling me that if I reject god then he isn't going to force me to accept the "way of love" is insulting and patronizing.A)I am asserting that I believe there is a God - I do not know that there is. B)I haven't said that you don't want to be with God C)I know that atheists can be kind loving, human beings. I still don't follow.

RandFan

3rd December 2006, 11:35 AM

A)I am asserting that I believe there is a God - I do not know that there is. B)I haven't said that you don't want to be with God C)I know that atheists can be kind loving, human beings. I still don't follow. If B and C are true then there is no reason for your quote.

...if someone doesn't want to be with God, that, is, embrace the way of love, then he isn't going to force them.

Mr Clingford

3rd December 2006, 11:41 AM

If B and C are true then there is no reason for your quote.My quote is referring to after death when I believe that most people when they meet love (God) will wish to return it but I don't want to presume that all will do so hence my near universalism.

RandFan

3rd December 2006, 11:52 AM

My quote is referring to after death when I believe that most people when they meet love (God) will wish to return it but I don't want to presume that all will do so hence my near universalism. Yeah, see I don't think you realize why your statement is insulting. I did my best to explain it to you. If you can't see how or why you were being patronizing then there is not much more I can say. I could insult you back but I doubt it would be effective.

Good day.

Mr Clingford

3rd December 2006, 12:00 PM

Originally Posted by Mr Clingford
A)I am asserting that I believe there is a God - I do not know that there is. B)I haven't said that you don't want to be with God C)I know that atheists can be kind loving, human beings. I still don't follow.
If B and C are true then there is no reason for your quote. Originally Posted by Mr Clingford
...if someone doesn't want to be with God, that, is, embrace the way of love, then he isn't going to force them.

But you don't say why there is no reason for the quote. OK, if I have a blind spot won't you try and help me see it?

The Atheist

3rd December 2006, 01:52 PM

Why are you so sure, or so determined, that you won't be in heaven? I'm not sure how it could be reconciled but for me, I am happy with the idea that heaven will be heavenly and God will work something out because that is his nature and I have no idea how that might work.Goodo, I'll tell you my rationale:

First off, I am very sure it doesn't exist.

Secondly, if by some incredible chance I'm wrong and there is and I end up face to face with your god, I am going to smile politely at him and then kick him in the balls as hard as I can, while at the same time punching his square in the mouth. I accept christian reasoning that god has given us free will, blah, blah, blah, but I don't care. Anything which considered itself a "god" and then sits idly by and lets kids die, starve, be mutilated, etc., simply to prove that humans have free will, is not the kind of god I would want anything to do with.

Yeah, I'd turn down the chance at eternity in heaven for one decent shot at the ####!
I certainly don't buy into literature's view of heaven and hell. As I have said on the 'Atheism is a faith' thread I am a near univeralist; if someone doesn't want to be with God, that, is, embrace the way of love, then he isn't going to force them.As you can see, I think I've covered that!

I would certainly be hoping that Satan is real if the above came to pass - the old adage, "Rather rule in hell than serve in heaven" applies to me. I think Satan would have some little regard for me after I kicked his #1 opponent in the gonads.

The trouble is, whatever interpretation is put on god, heaven and christianity, it just looks like supreme bollocks rather than supreme being.

Squishua

3rd December 2006, 02:02 PM

if by some incredible chance I'm wrong and there is and I end up face to face with your god, I am going to smile politely at him and then kick him in the balls as hard as I can
...
I would certainly be hoping that Satan is real if the above came to pass - the old adage, "Rather rule in hell than serve in heaven" applies to me. I think Satan would have some little regard for me after I kicked his #1 opponent in the gonads.
One wonders what God would be doing with a set of 'nads in the first place. :D

But your point is well taken and I concur wholeheartedly! :)

-Squish

RandFan

3rd December 2006, 02:04 PM

One wonders what God would be doing with a set of 'nads in the first place. :D

But your point is well taken and I concur wholeheartedly! :)

-Squish Yeah, I've grown a new found appreciation for The Atheist's prose. It makes for a great visual. :D

varwoche

3rd December 2006, 07:53 PM

How about the "racism as a core tenent"? The rule disapproving of blacks holding the preisthood was withdrawn in July of 1978. Mormons never held slaves, which I think immediately disposes of this whole arrogant statement. As I posted earlier, I'm entirely unimpressed that it took until 1978 for the church to change this policy. Further, entrenched beliefs don't disappear overnight.

Before I get back to my assertion that racism is a core tenet of LDS, first let's dispense with your weasel and/or ignorant words that I underlined above. Even if true, this is incredibly misleading.

In an 1859 interview conducted by Horace Greely, at a time when most of the country was coming to its senses regarding slavery, here is Brigham Young in his own words (http://www.utlm.org/onlineresources/sermons_talks_interviews/brighamgreeleyinterview_july131859.htm): H.G. — What is the position of your Church with respect to Slavery?
B.Y. — We consider it of Divine institution, and not to be abolished until the curse pronounced on Ham shall have been removed from his descendants.
H.G. — Are there any slaves now held in this Territory?
B.Y. — There are.
H.G. — Do your Territorial laws uphold Slavery?
B.Y. — Those laws are printed — you can read them for yourself. If slaves are brought here by those who owned them in the States, we do not favor their escape from the service of those owners. And here is the introduction from Young's infamous 1852 pro-slavery speech (http://www.utlm.org/onlineresources/sermons_talks_interviews/brigham1852feb5_priesthoodandblacks.htm): The principle of slavery I understand, at least I have self confidence enough, and confidence enough in God to beleive I do. I beleive still further that a great many others understand it as I do. A great portion of this community have been instructed, and have applied their minds to it, and as far as they have, they agree preciesly in the principles of slavery. It goes on and on from there.

As to my original assertion that racism is a core tenet, I began to compile quotes however I was risking bumping into the size limit for a post. The examples are so copious that it's a joke. Here's a summarization at the Skeptic's Annotated Book of Mormon (http://www.skepticsannotatedbible.com/BOM/int/long.html), with links to the specific passages.

To deny this ugly truth is disconnected from reality in the extreme.

I'll deal with your other goofy challenges one at a time, in time.

"Arrogantly" yours.

RandFan

3rd December 2006, 08:13 PM

As I posted earlier, I'm entirely unimpressed that it took until 1978 for the church to change this policy. Further, entrenched beliefs don't disappear overnight. I thought we dealt with this. I guess not. Racism is not a key element of Mormonism. It might have been at one time but that has been some time ago. Your assertion that entrenched beliefs don't disappear overnight sounds reasonable but when was the last time the Church espoused racism? Yes it took until 1978 for the church to change it's policy and this is a damn embarrassment but racism wasn't at all the norm in the Mormon church in 1978.

Do you have a recent pro-slavery speech? I am familiar with some ignorant and pernicious claims but nothing along the line of what Brigham Young has said. And to be fair these are sentiments that were shared to some degree by Lincoln and even Gandhi. I lost a lot of respect for Gandhi when I found that out. I'm not excusing Young's remarks I am saying that they should be judged in the context of their time.

As to my original assertion that racism is a core tenet, I began to compile quotes however I was risking bumping into the size limit for a post. The examples are so copious that it's a joke. Here's a summarization at the Skeptic's Annotated Book of Mormon (http://www.skepticsannotatedbible.com/BOM/int/long.html), with links to the specific passages. Yes, the passages are awful. Do you have evidence that these passages are used today or even in 1978 to propagate racism?

I think I could accept an argument that racism and mostly ignorance had become a big part of the Mormon Church but I don't see any evidence that it remained so for very long.

varwoche

3rd December 2006, 08:31 PM

I thought we dealt with this. I guess not. Racism is not a key element of Mormonism. It might have been at one time but that has been some time ago. I don't know if you are correct about present day LDS beliefs on the ground -- I take no position. And I don't know how to find out.

No matter though. That's not my point. Read the sub-thread please, starting here (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=2139213#post2139213). These disgusting texts are part of the LDS contribution to our society, no matter how hard the church, adherents, and former adherents try to whitewash them away.

Minimally, I point to present day FLDS as a direct result of these LDS "contributions" to society.

RandFan

3rd December 2006, 08:44 PM

I don't know if you are correct about present day LDS beliefs on the ground -- I take no position. And I don't know how to find out.

No matter though. That's not my point. Read the sub-thread please, starting here (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=2139213#post2139213). These disgusting texts are part of the LDS contribution to our society, no matter how hard the church, adherents, and former adherents try to whitewash them away.

Minimally, I point to present day FLDS as a direct result of these LDS "contributions" to society. I think there are many good and bad contributions of the church. I'm not sure how significant racist contributions have been. I don't know how to find out either.

varwoche

3rd December 2006, 10:41 PM

Here (http://www.utlm.org/onlineresources/sermons_talks_interviews/brigham1852feb5_priesthoodandblacks.htm) are some more snippets from Brigham Young's 1852 pro-slavery speech. (The typos are per the original printed publication.)
people that are commonly called negroes are the children of old Cain. I know they are, I know that they cannot bear rule in the preisthood, for the curse on them was to remain upon them
...
not one of the children of old Cain have one partical of right to bear Rule in Government affairs from first to last, they have no buisness there. this privilege was taken from them by there own transgressions, and I cannot help it
...
The moment we consent to mingle with the seed of Cain the Church must go to desstruction
...
If the Affricans cannot bear rule in the Church of God, what buisness have they to bear rule in the State and Government affairs of this Territory or any others?
...
ought not in the first thing have anything to do in Government afairs
...
What we are trying to do to day is to make the Negro equal with us in all our privilege. My voice shall be against all the day long. And yet in 2006 there's still a university named after this demented zealot.

RandFan

3rd December 2006, 11:12 PM

Here (http://www.utlm.org/onlineresources/sermons_talks_interviews/brigham1852feb5_priesthoodandblacks.htm) are some more snippets from Brigham Young's 1852 pro-slavery speech. (The typos are per the original printed publication.)

And yet in 2006 there's still a university named after this demented zealot. Yeah, and there's a monument in Washington for Lincoln who also had some awful things to say about African Americans. We also celebrate Columbus who did some pretty nasty things to Native Americans. I can't justify the actions of Lincoln, Columbus or Young but I can understand those actions and beliefs somewhat in light of the times. Young had a lot of idiotic ideas and I don't think much of him as a human-being but he created a successful society in the wilderness. Young, like Lincoln and Columbus was a historical figure that contributed greatly to settling of the west.

I wish the Church would denounce him and change the name of the University but I'm not going to lose sleep over it. I also wish we would take Hoovers name off of the FBI building. He was murdering prick.

In any event, as bad as Young's statements are, and they are I think he might very well have been involved in much worse including mass murder (see Mountain Medow Massacre).

varwoche

3rd December 2006, 11:32 PM

In any event, as bad as Young's statements are, and they are I think he might very well have been involved in much worse including mass murder (see Mountain Medow Massacre). Mountain Meadow (a mass murder of men, women and children on a wagon train heading west through Utah) is what inspired my "jihadist thug" comment. I intend to post about it later but first I need to learn more.

As to the stuff I didn't quote back: Yup, understood.

trvlr2

4th December 2006, 12:58 AM

Mr Clingford

4th December 2006, 08:39 AM

Goodo, I'll tell you my rationale:

First off, I am very sure it doesn't exist.

Secondly, if by some incredible chance I'm wrong and there is and I end up face to face with your god, I am going to smile politely at him and then kick him in the balls as hard as I can, while at the same time punching his square in the mouth.Perhaps I have made a mistake in making my points in too brief a manner, perhaps not, I dunno.

Do you think Christians and other believers would let you have a chance to get near enough to God to kick and punch him if he is like your god? Not a chance because they would form a very long queue and you would be at the back of it and would have a long time to wait your turn.

I accept christian reasoning that god has given us free will, blah, blah, blah, but I don't care. Anything which considered itself a "god" and then sits idly by and lets kids die, starve, be mutilated, etc., simply to prove that humans have free will, is not the kind of god I would want anything to do with.Funnily enough, or not, I am in complete agreement. If that is God then I am an atheist too as I don't believe that God exists either.

Yeah, I'd turn down the chance at eternity in heaven for one decent shot at the ####!
As you can see, I think I've covered that!

I would certainly be hoping that Satan is real if the above came to pass - the old adage, "Rather rule in hell than serve in heaven" applies to me. I think Satan would have some little regard for me after I kicked his #1 opponent in the gonads.

The trouble is, whatever interpretation is put on god, heaven and christianity, it just looks like supreme bollocks rather than supreme being.Do you think that you're so specially evil and bad that the Devil (you're belief, not mine) would be interested in spending any time with you? I don't think so. You love people other than yourself, you consider others' feelings and needs which doesn't sound very hellish to me. You don't seem like Dorian and Henry Wotton from The Picture of Dorian Gray who got pleasure from using and abusing others, devouring them and spitting out the bones, with regard only for themselves, completely self-absorbed.

Expanding on it; as humans we can't know everything now, 'we see as through a glass darkly', but after death things will be revealed, perhaps a bit like meeting Plato's Forms.

I believe that God is loving and just and as most, if not all, people can find these qualities in themselves they will strike a chord, resonate in sympathy.

RandFan

4th December 2006, 09:50 AM

Varwoche- I fear you treat these cults too kindly. FWIW, all religions are delusional, some more distasteful than others.
My opinion.
The amazing thing, to me, is that we as a species have advanced in any way, hamstrung by these notions. As much as I am willing to criticize religion and I am, and as much as I'm tempted to simply agree with you and I am, I have to be honest and say that religion has been a double edged sword. I don't think that anthropologists would look at the early advancement of man and suggest that man advanced solely in spite of religion. On the contrary. Religion served a need for early humans and it was instrumental in our advancement in many ways. I think it is fundamentally wrong to make a statement that it is a wonder that we as a species have advanced in any way due to religion. I don't think that is a fair and critical assessment of the facts. Has religion hamstrung humans? Yes, no question. Has religion only been to the detriment of humans? I don't think there is evidence to support such a proposition but I would be open to the evidence and argument if you could provide it.

Zygar

4th December 2006, 02:42 PM

In an 1859 interview conducted by Horace Greely, at a time when most of the country was coming to its senses regarding slavery, here is Brigham Young in his own words (http://www.utlm.org/onlineresources/sermons_talks_interviews/brighamgreeleyinterview_july131859.htm): And here is the introduction from Young's infamous 1852 pro-slavery speech (http://www.utlm.org/onlineresources/sermons_talks_interviews/brigham1852feb5_priesthoodandblacks.htm): It goes on and on from there.

Fine. But he did not own slaves. Also, given that he was the territorial governor at the time he may have simply been attempting to maintain control by supporting the popular vote which had opened the territory to slavery as part of the Compromise of 1850 (look it up). Of course it also never took foothold in the territory so I see it as a moot point given the political environment at the time.

Zygar

4th December 2006, 02:46 PM

Mountain Meadow (a mass murder of men, women and children on a wagon train heading west through Utah) is what inspired my "jihadist thug" comment. I intend to post about it later but first I need to learn more.

As to the stuff I didn't quote back: Yup, understood.

The Mountain Meadows Massacre was an absolutely horrible tragedy. But I don't see how it could be called jihadist. I cannot justify the actions of the people at the time, but I can say that the massacre was highly likely to be motivated by a desire to keep non-Mormons out of the area. They had undergone a great deal of persecution and instead of learning tolerance from it they applied it to others. A horrible tragedy, but not a jihad.

Zygar

4th December 2006, 02:53 PM

As much as I am willing to criticize religion and I am, and as much as I'm tempted to simply agree with you and I am, I have to be honest and say that religion has been a double edged sword. I don't think that anthropologists would look at the early advancement of man and suggest that man advanced solely in spite of religion. On the contrary. Religion served a need for early humans and it was instrumental in our advancement in many ways. I think it is fundamentally wrong to make a statement that it is a wonder that we as a species have advanced in any way due to religion. I don't think that is a fair and critical assessment of the facts. Has religion hamstrung humans? Yes, no question. Has religion only been to the detriment of humans? I don't think there is evidence to support such a proposition but I would be open to the evidence and argument if you could provide it.

I agree. Religion has been one of the strongest mechanisms for social order. Constantine understood this and used it to his advantage to strengthen the Roman Empire and reunify it under a single emporer. This social order has been pivotal in the evolution of societies and was absolutely critical to Renaissance and the Industrial Revolution.

Given that no single large society has developed without a primary religion I would be hardpressed to prove that religion has put us where we are faster than we would have been without it, but I certainly have my opinions.

Bradk3

4th December 2006, 04:30 PM

In Under the Banner of Heaven, the author claims (in passing) that church leaders still frown upon and discourage interracial marriage. (I don't take this as definitive by any means, but offer it as a data point.)

I know I'm stepping in here rather late, but I wanted to answer this as best I could.

I've been a Mormon for 30 years and I've only come across a single official discouragement of interracial marriages. I can't remember it word for word, and I don't have a link but it said, in a nutshell, that interracial marraiges are to be avoided because they add undue stress to an already stressful situation. In other words, the LDS church isn't against interracial marraiges, they merely advise against them for practical reasons. I personally know several active, interracial LDS families.

I really see nothing else to comment on. RandFan and Zygar are doing far better than I ever could.

Zygar

4th December 2006, 04:43 PM

I've been a Mormon for 30 years and I've only come across a single official discouragement of interracial marriages. I can't remember it word for word, and I don't have a link but it said, in a nutshell, that interracial marraiges are to be avoided because they add undue stress to an already stressful situation. In other words, the LDS church isn't against interracial marraiges, they merely advise against them for practical reasons. I personally know several active, interracial LDS families.

Let me just expand upon that by saying that it is more of an issue of marriage between cultures than between races.

I really see nothing else to comment on. RandFan and Zygar are doing far better than I ever could.

I love that a couple of ex-Mormons are defending the Mormons better than the resident active Mormon. :D

Kopji

4th December 2006, 07:24 PM

What's the stand on marrying outside the faith?

RandFan

4th December 2006, 07:48 PM

I love that a couple of ex-Mormons are defending the Mormons better than the resident active Mormon. :D Agreed.

RandFan

4th December 2006, 07:51 PM

What's the stand on marrying outside the faith? It's frowned upon. It causes stress and pain (not to mention reduces the likely number of future tithe payers). When my brother married a Catholic he and his wife elected to raise the children Catholic. Cool, except it caused a great deal of pain to my parents but then so did my announcement that I'm atheist which, it turns out, is also frowned upon. ;)

Zygar

4th December 2006, 08:57 PM

It's frowned upon. It causes stress and pain (not to mention reduces the likely number of future tithe payers). When my brother married a Catholic he and his wife elected to raise the children Catholic. Cool, except it caused a great deal of pain to my parents but then so did my announcement that I'm atheist which, it turns out, is also frowned upon. ;)

Not to mention the whole "temple marriage" thing. You can't exactly marry a non-Mormon in a Mormon temple.

Kopji

5th December 2006, 12:12 AM

varwoche

5th December 2006, 01:05 AM

Fine. But he did not own slaves. Also, given that he was the territorial governor at the time he may have simply been attempting to maintain control by supporting the popular vote which had opened the territory to slavery as part of the Compromise of 1850 (look it up). Of course it also never took foothold in the territory so I see it as a moot point given the political environment at the time.Given the racist texts that permeate the Book of Mormon, and given a history of institutionalized racism up until 1978, and given Young's unambiguous views, that you are still debating this point is absurd. "May have simply been..."? This defies credulity.

The Mountain Meadows Massacre was an absolutely horrible tragedy. But I don't see how it could be called jihadist. I cannot justify the actions of the people at the time, but I can say that the massacre was highly likely to be motivated by a desire to keep non-Mormons out of the area. They had undergone a great deal of persecution and instead of learning tolerance from it they applied it to others. A horrible tragedy, but not a jihad. I haven't presented this argument yet. When I do, I'll certainly refer back to your words that I underlined to support my point.

I'm perfectly willing to withdraw the word jihadist, as I foresee semantic quibbling, and substitute a man complicit in the mass murder of innocent men, women and children in the name of his zealous religious views.

(Realize that jihad can mean something as benign as "striving in the way of God", so semantic arguments woudn't cut your way in any case. However I don't wish to debate the semantics.)

Zygar

5th December 2006, 01:30 AM

Given the racist texts that permeate the Book of Mormon, and given a history of institutionalized racism up until 1978, and given Young's unambiguous views, that you are still debating this point is absurd. "May have simply been..."? This defies credulity.

I quibble over this point because I was certainly not raised to be racist, and I certainly was raised by Mormons. Notwithstanding the fact that some racism exists in words an text of historical figures, modern Mormons are not racist. And I can say with certainty that my parents and grandparents, all of whom were or are Mormon, were and are not racist. It sickens me that the words of a few can be construed to be the thoughts of a majority even in this liberal and progressive society.

And I'd also like to point out that many of the quotes that have been mentioned in regards to this issue are with respect to Jews. Which is almost comical considering the great awe that Mormons have for Jews. If you could call Mormons racist it would be as seeing Native Americans, Polynesians, and Jews as the master races. Not whites.

I haven't presented this argument yet. When I do, I'll certainly refer back to your words that I underlined to support my point.

I'm perfectly willing to withdraw the word jihadist, as I foresee semantic quibbling, and substitute a man complicit in the mass murder of innocent men, women and children in the name of his zealous religious views.

(Realize that jihad can mean something as benign as "striving in the way of God", so semantic arguments woudn't cut your way in any case. However I don't wish to debate the semantics.)

I am 100% behind you on calling this a religiously motivated massacre. It is, in my opinion, the greatest blemish on Utah's history. I can even offer some literature which says precisely what I anticipate you want to write up.

varwoche

5th December 2006, 01:48 AM

Mormons never held slaves Like I said, this is unconvincing even if true, given that racist texts permeate the Book of Mormon.

But as a side point, I'm not so sure that you are correct (http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0885-6826%28195733%2918%3A3%3C298%3ANSITUT%3E2.0.CO%3B2-G&size=LARGE).

varwoche

5th December 2006, 02:26 AM

I quibble over this point because I was certainly not raised to be racist, and I certainly was raised by Mormons. Notwithstanding the fact that some racism exists in words an text of historical figures, modern Mormons are not racist. While I reject the absoluteness of the part I underlined, I tend to believe the gist of what you are saying here.

I invite you to review what I've posted. I have not claimed that modern, mainstream Mormons adhere to the racist texts that permeate the Book of Mormon. For the third time, that's not my point.

I do however consider FLDS as part of the LDS contribution to our society. And that's a different story entirely (http://www.splcenter.org/intel/intelreport/article.jsp?sid=342).
The black race is the people through which the devil has always been able to bring evil unto the earth.
...
Today you can see a black man with a white woman, et cetera. A great evil has happened on this land because the devil knows that if all the people have Negro blood, there will be nobody worthy to have the priesthood.
...
If you marry a person who has connections with a Negro, you would become cursed.

Bradk3

5th December 2006, 07:24 AM

I admit that I am a little intrigued on how the 'atheist Mormon' thing goes (but suspect it will end sadly).

When I left RLDS it was not so much about believing in god or not, but more like the sheer weight of it all. And RLDS is easy going compared to LSD... I mean LDS :D (one of the greatest 'Trek' lines)
Interesting point of view. The RLDS church has always intrigued me. They seem to be cursed with a permanant identity crisis. They don't seem to know what they believe.

RLDS theology was toying with the idea of the Book of Mormon being a metaphor or parable. Sheesh, I mean if it's not true it's sure a lot of extra trouble.
Not only that, but if the Book of Mormon isn't true, it makes the whole church rather pointless, if you ask me. Most Mormons will tell you that the LDS Church stands or falls based on the Book of Mormon and I would have thought that the RLDS stance would be the same. Hmmmm...

My issue was not really with personal belief, but in what it would take to (mis)lead others once I realized it all wasn't right. I suppose that was selfish in a way, doing something to save myself...
I'm interested in this. Do you mean you couldn't see yourself continuing to promote the RLDS faith because you no longer believed in it? As I see it, that's not selfish - that's doing what's right.

Bradk3

5th December 2006, 07:28 AM

Let me just expand upon that by saying that it is more of an issue of marriage between cultures than between races.
Thank you. That's precisely what I meant to say.

I love that a couple of ex-Mormons are defending the Mormons better than the resident active Mormon. :D
I don't know that you two are defending Mormons so much as "setting the record straight". And yes - you're doing a much better and more unbiased job than I ever could.

Would you mind teaching my Gospel Doctrine class for me next week too? :roll:

Kopji

5th December 2006, 08:09 AM

Interesting point of view. The RLDS church has always intrigued me. They seem to be cursed with a permanant identity crisis. They don't seem to know what they believe.
RLDS (now 'community of christ') is more like Quakerism sometimes. Instead of basing their beliefs to the later 1840's period, RLDS is similar to the earlier 1830's church.

Not only that, but if the Book of Mormon isn't true, it makes the whole church rather pointless, if you ask me. Most Mormons will tell you that the LDS Church stands or falls based on the Book of Mormon and I would have thought that the RLDS stance would be the same. Hmmmm...

Not that way in RLDS.

I'm interested in this. Do you mean you couldn't see yourself continuing to promote the RLDS faith because you no longer believed in it? As I see it, that's not selfish - that's doing what's right.
Partly, I need go to work, but will be back.

RandFan

5th December 2006, 08:53 AM

Would you mind teaching my Gospel Doctrine class for me next week too? :roll: Thankfully now there is TIVO and Mormons don't have to miss football. In any event, no. :D

Zygar

5th December 2006, 10:50 AM

While I reject the absoluteness of the part I underlined, I tend to believe the gist of what you are saying here.

I didn't mean it to be absolute. It was a generalization.

I invite you to review what I've posted. I have not claimed that modern, mainstream Mormons adhere to the racist texts that permeate the Book of Mormon. For the third time, that's not my point.

I do however consider FLDS as part of the LDS contribution to our society. And that's a different story entirely (http://www.splcenter.org/intel/intelreport/article.jsp?sid=342).

I agree with you about the FLDS. But I see them as Mormons in the same way I see Nazis as Catholics. Their society is based loosely on some specific doctrines of Mormons, but they miss the point by several miles.

Zygar

5th December 2006, 10:58 AM

Would you mind teaching my Gospel Doctrine class for me next week too? :roll:

Would you like a raging debate in class about the existence of God? After all, I didn't become an athiest the long way by deciding the Church was lies, then deciding Christianity was false, then finally addressing the root of the matter. I went straight to the big man and decided he's not there. I'll go straight for the foundation.

:xmasfsm
Merry Xmas!

Bradk3

5th December 2006, 01:28 PM

Would you like a raging debate in class about the existence of God? After all, I didn't become an athiest the long way by deciding the Church was lies, then deciding Christianity was false, then finally addressing the root of the matter. I went straight to the big man and decided he's not there. I'll go straight for the foundation.

:xmasfsm
Merry Xmas!
At least it would keep them interested, which is more than can be said of my lessons. Besides, I think every religious person could do with a shake-up now and then. Keeps us from getting too dogmatic and keeps us questioning our beliefs, which is not neccessarily a bad thing.

I've often thought about starting exactly that sort of debate in class, but seeing as I still believe in the whole thing, I try to stay on the Church's good side... :)

Sorry for derailing the thread. I'll be good now.

Merry Chirst-, er X-, uh... Happy Holidays!

varwoche

5th December 2006, 03:31 PM

I agree with you about the FLDS. But I see them as Mormons in the same way I see Nazis as Catholics. Their society is based loosely on some specific doctrines of Mormons, but they miss the point by several miles. Interesting. This is entirely counter to the impressions I have gained.

It's my impression that FLDS is truer to the texts/teachings of Smith and Young than LDS. Plural marriage is an obvious example. The racist quotes from Jeffs (above) are clearly(?) more in line with the Book of Mormon and with Young.

Zygar

5th December 2006, 03:58 PM

Interesting. This is entirely counter to the impressions I have gained.

It's my impression that FLDS is truer to the texts/teachings of Smith and Young than LDS. Plural marriage is an obvious example. The racist quotes from Jeffs (above) are clearly(?) more in line with the Book of Mormon and with Young.

Plural marriage, yes. Forced marriage of 12-year-old girls to their own 40-year-old cousins, no. The FLDS Church is very much more like a gang than a religion in my eyes. Having known two women who escaped from them, I know more about their inner dealings than I'd like.

I don't honestly see any actual racism in the BOM. I see things that could be mistaken for racism without clear context. Since the BOM has no blacks whatsoever, and Mormons clearly have found reasons to praise the Jews and the Native Americans from other statements in the BOM, I can't understand this stance at all.

Joseph Smith himself does not seem a racist if for no other reason than Elijah Abel, who was a black man he personally ordained an Elder in the Church, and who later served on the Quorum of the Seventy (which I think of a little like the Cardinals of Rome). You can read about him in History of the Church (which I know is a bit biased but generally has good references). Book 5, page 217 and book 6, pages 243-244.

I can see from the quoted Brigham Young text that he did make some racist remarks. But I'd like to point out that his view was not unusual among American Protestants at the time. Read Noah's Curse: The Biblical Justification of American Slavery by Stephen R. Haynes for my reasons for this statement.

varwoche

5th December 2006, 05:10 PM

Plural marriage, yes. Forced marriage of 12-year-old girls to their own 40-year-old cousins, no. Hmm. I'll get back to you on this one. First however, I doubt I can find that precise scenario.

What if I present evidence that Young, Smith, and/or other church leaders "married" 14 year olds? Or evidence they married relatives under 18 years old? Will you then cede this sub-point? If not, why not?

and Mormons clearly have found reasons to praise the Jews and the Native Americans from other statements in the BOM Present your evidence please. I have already linked to BOM texts that say vile things about Jews, and countless vile things about Native Americans.

Joseph Smith himself does not seem a racist... Well sure, if you're willing to whitewash all the racist texts in the BOM.

I can see from the quoted Brigham Young text that he did make some racist remarks. But I'd like to point out that his view was not unusual among American Protestants at the time. Immaterial. Let's not stray this time. We're discussing which denomination is truer to church texts/founders, not comparing the founders to contemporaries.

Zygar

5th December 2006, 05:53 PM

Hmm. I'll get back to you on this one. First however, I doubt I can find that precise scenario.

What if I present evidence that Young, Smith, and/or other church leaders "married" 14 year olds? Or evidence they married relatives under 18 years old? Will you then cede this point? If not, why not?

Let's go with 16. As it is post-puberty was a perfectly acceptable marrying age in the early 1800's.

Present your evidence please. I have already linked to BOM texts that say vile things about Jews, and countless vile things about Native Americans.

I'm at work so none of these will have references for now, but here I go:

Mormons believe that the Jews will rebuild their temple in Jerusalem, and this will herald in the 2nd Coming of Christ.
Mormons believe that the Jews are "God's Chosen People" as stated in the Bible and BOM.
BYU Jerusalem Center for Near Eastern Studies (http://ce.byu.edu/jc/index.cfm) was founded partially do encourage better relations with Israel (which temporarily backfired).
Orson Hyde dedicated Palestine for the return of the Jews in 1840.

The Native Americans are equally easy, but with no references at the moment I will have to get back to you.

Well sure, if you're willing to whitewash all the racist texts in the BOM.

Immaterial. Let's not stray this time. We're discussing which denomination is truer to church texts/founders, not comparing the founders to contemporaries.

I hadn't gotten the impression you were doing anything but berrating Mormons of any flavor out of some sort of sense of superiority.

RSLancastr

5th December 2006, 06:42 PM

Nice! Wonder how that works when a father goes to hell and the mother and kids go to heaven.It's always the father... :(

Kopji

5th December 2006, 07:34 PM

I'm interested in this. Do you mean you couldn't see yourself continuing to promote the RLDS faith because you no longer believed in it? As I see it, that's not selfish - that's doing what's right.

Honestly?... at the time I was not thinking of it as being 'the right thing', but more an act of survival based on feelings rather than a thinking, rational process.

With some distance behind me now, the way I think of 'deconversion' is similar to that popular illusion with the lamp and the face. One perspective only sees two faces and thinks that is right. Another sees a lamp, and thinks that is right.

A third perspective though, is when we understand that it is an illusion that sometimes looks like a lamp and sometimes like a pair of faces. We are closer to understanding the thing as it is.

Once realized, I suspect that you can never go back to just seeing only a lamp or faces. When I 'disbelieved RLDS' it was like that. It is not so much that it was wrong, but that there is a bigger idea, something more.

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/106144e2bb7d42f3f.jpg

RandFan

5th December 2006, 07:40 PM

Varwoche,

I wanted to touch on the scriptures you keep linking. Yes, I think they are atrocious and ignorant and I concede that there is a degree of racism implicit in them. However, it is not as simple as dark skin bad, light skin good. In the Book of Mormon there are a number of instances when the "bad" or wicked people are the white people and the good people are dark skinned. I know it happened at least twice and I think it was more than that. My googling for "righteous Lamanites" (dark skinned people) found references in Helman. So, while it is appropriate to single out these scriptures I think it only fair to look at the entire book and take them in context. If you read the Book of Mormon and think it is ok to hate people of color then you haven't read the entire Book of Mormon and I can honestly say that this is not the general feeling of members of the church but I will absolutely concede that such scriptures can and likely have given justification to racist or bigoted attitudes. I'm not opposed to critiquing the church for this but I want to get it right.

varwoche

5th December 2006, 08:25 PM

Let's go with 16. As it is post-puberty was a perfectly acceptable marrying age in the early 1800's. OK, we'll give a pass to early Mormons who may have married 17 year old relatives.

BYU Jerusalem Center for Near Eastern Studies (http://ce.byu.edu/jc/index.cfm) This is a web page pertaining to modern day matters, and it lacks in relevant content. What is this supposed to convey?

Again, bear in mind that we're trying to determine which present tense denomination is truer to original beliefs/practices (which I'm going to refer to as OLDS for brevity).

I have provided two substantial examples of FLDS similarity to OLDS -- plural marriages and racist beliefs. You've provided nothing.

The Native Americans are equally easy, but with no references at the moment I will have to get back to you. As a heads up, see above.

I hadn't gotten the impression you were doing anything but berrating Mormons of any flavor out of some sort of sense of superiority. Given the facts presented, I understand why it is that you keep trying to change the subject. I'd be appreciative however if you would keep your presumptuous, self-serving, off-topic comments to yourself. Let's just stick with facts please.

And speaking of facts, you failed to respond to the evidence I presented that Mormons owned slaves.

varwoche

5th December 2006, 08:51 PM

I wanted to touch on the scriptures you keep linking. Yes, I think they are atrocious and ignorant and I concede that there is a degree of racism implicit in them. Implicit? Seems pretty explicit to me.

However, it is not as simple as dark skin bad, light skin good. In the Book of Mormon there are a number of instances when the "bad" or wicked people are the white people and the good people are dark skinned. I know it happened at least twice and I think it was more than that. My googling for "righteous Lamanites" (dark skinned people) found references in Helman. Instead of alluding to evidence, how about presenting it?

So, while it is appropriate to single out these scriptures I think it only fair to look at the entire book and take them in context. The entire book? It's almost as if you're saying that one must be a morman, ex-mormon, or mormon scholar in order to evaluate the racist texts. Since I am none of these, would you prefer that I cite ex-mormons and/or mormon scholars instead of citing texts directly?

Silly Green Monkey

5th December 2006, 09:32 PM

Zygar

5th December 2006, 09:36 PM

OK, we'll give a pass to early Mormons who may have married 17 year old relatives.

Fine, but you are missing the point. Prevelant cultural attitudes of an era should not be bundled with religious beliefs of a specific sect.

This is a web page pertaining to modern day matters, and it lacks in relevant content. What is this supposed to convey?

Yep. Missing the point. I was pointing you at a joint venture of Mormons and Jews. Just to establish a lack of modern prejudice against Jews. I bundle it with references to early Mormons lack of anti-Semitism.

Again, bear in mind that we're trying to determine which present tense denomination is truer to original beliefs/practices (which I'm going to refer to as OLDS for brevity).

Ok. If this is truly all you are doing, then I'll leave it up to you. I was raised in a modern LDS family in Utah and I likely have some significant bias on this subject.

Now, this is not why I entered the discussion. I was defending my people (my family, friends) and my locale from the sort of predjudice that you seemed to be showing. Which I found highly ironic due to the particulars of the attack revolving around predjudice.

I have provided two substantial examples of FLDS similarity to OLDS -- plural marriages and racist beliefs.

Not true. In the last post I referenced specific LDS leaders from the time of Joseph Smith and Brigham Young showing a lack of racism. I hadn't cracked open my copy of History of the Church and really gotten to work on the matter.

You've provided nothing.

How about this: Relief Society. The LDS Church maintains the Relief Society in much the same way as it was organized in 1842. It was slightly reorganized by Brigham Young in 1866, but the FLDS sect does not maintain a Relief Society, or any other women led organization in or out of the Church.

As a heads up, see above.

Mission to the Lamanites (The LDS name for Indians derived from the BOM):
"At this time a great desire was manifested by several of the Elders respecting the remnants of the house of Joseph, the Lamanites, residing in the west-knowing that the purposes of God were great respecting that people, and hoping that the time had come when the promises of the Almighty in regard to them were about to be accomplished, and that they would recieve the Gospel, and enjoy its blessings." They then send some missionaries. History of the Church, Vol 1, 118. This sounds to me like they wanted the Native Americans to be part of them. Not exactly an attitude held by racists.

Joseph Smith met with members of the Sac and Fox Indian tribes, apparently proselytizing to them. It was followed by a feast with the church members. History of the Church, Vol 4, 401-402

Joseph Smith was accepted as a prophet by the Pottawattamie Chiefs. He gave them an ox and horses. History of the Church, Vol 5, 479-481

Do you need some modern references to compare with?

Given the facts presented, I understand why it is that you keep trying to change the subject. I'd be appreciative however if you would keep your presumptuous, self-serving, off-topic comments to yourself. Let's just stick with facts please.

Self serving? Changing the subject? Please go back and read your post (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?p=2139468#post2139468) that got me started in this thread and tell me I am misinterpreting it.

And speaking of facts, you failed to respond to the evidence I presented that Mormons owned slaves.

Yes. Great evidence. Three slaves that moved to the Utah Territory. No reference to the owners. And, I should add, during the years the Utah Territory allowed slavery (1850-1862) the territory included most of Nevada, Utah, part of Colorado, and part of Wyoming. Not all of the territory was occupied by Mormons.

RandFan

5th December 2006, 09:40 PM

Implicit? Seems pretty explicit to me. Hmmm... really? Maybe I'm just blind because of my upbringing. Why do you say they are explicit? Do you mean all of them? In what way?

Instead of alluding to evidence, how about presenting it? "Alluding"? Jeez, I didn't realize how seriously you had taken this. You suddenly have taken a rather ominous tone. If I did something wrong I'm sorry. I'm not sure how much I'll have to prove to you or how much you know about the BOM. I'll start off with Helman 6. The heading of the chapter is The righteous Lamanites preach to the wicked Nephites—Both peoples prosper during an era of peace and plenty—Lucifer, the author of sin, guides the Gadianton robbers in their murders and wickedness—They take over the Nephite government.

You can find the text here (http://scriptures.lds.org/en/hel/6).

The entire book? It's almost as if you're saying that one must be a morman, ex-mormon, or mormon scholar in order to evaluate the racist texts. Since I am none of these, would you prefer that I cite ex-mormons and/or mormon scholars instead of citing texts directly? I don't understand your point. No, I'm not saying what you are implying at all. I'm saying there is more to the book than the verses you are quoting. Do you not feel that it would not be fair to consider any counter examples?

Varwoche, I grew up in the Church and my experience has lead me to believe that there is a valid and somewhat different perspective than yours. Hey, I could be wrong. I'm open minded. I'm just interested in discussing my beliefs. If you are interested and would be willing to sincerely consider points that you might not have considered then I would be more than happy to have a discussion with you but it seems that you have an ax to grind. If someone from the church has hurt you then I'm sorry. I'm not that person. Truth is, I'm not really a Mormon. Let me know. I don't take any of this personally and in the end I'm happy to let you believe anything you want. I would just like to get the record straight. Hopefully that in and of itself doesn't threaten you.

RandFan

Zygar

5th December 2006, 09:40 PM

Always important to remember that racism does not mean "whites against the world". Racism is when one self-identified race is considered inherently better than another race (usually identified by the first group). It can be any race in any place on the hierarchy.

Agreed. What is your point? We've argued specific instances of racism of several different flavors, and I've not been convinced that there is any more than specific statements being taken out of context.

Zygar

5th December 2006, 09:42 PM

Varwoche, I grew up in the Church and my experience has lead me to believe that there is a valid and somewhat different perspective than yours. Hey, I could be wrong. I'm open minded. I'm just interested in discussing my beliefs. If you are interested and would be willing to sincerely consider points that you might not have considered then I would be more than happy to have a discussion with you but it seems that you have an ax to grind. If someone from the church has hurt you then I'm sorry. I'm not that person. Truth is, I'm not really a Mormon. Let me know. I don't take any of this personally and in the end I'm happy to let you believe anything you want. I would just like to get the record straight. Hopefully that in and of itself doesn't threaten you.

RandFan

Well said, RandFan. I echo your sentiment.

RandFan

5th December 2006, 09:44 PM

Now, this is not why I entered the discussion. I was defending my people (my family, friends) and my locale from the sort of predjudice that you seemed to be showing. Which I found highly ironic due to the particulars of the attack revolving around predjudice. Ditto.

Kopji

5th December 2006, 10:18 PM

Like I said, this is unconvincing even if true, given that racist texts permeate the Book of Mormon.

But as a side point, I'm not so sure that you are correct (http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0885-6826%28195733%2918%3A3%3C298%3ANSITUT%3E2.0.CO%3B2-G&size=LARGE).

There is only one page in the link, but text is historically misleading and actually does not support your assertion but tends to lend evidence against it.

1: The text is in error that Mormons were chased out of states in the 1830 period due to the practice of polygamy. This practice was not an issue until the 1840's - a significant historic error in the text.

2: One of the underlying causes of the 1838 'Mormon War' was the influx of 'yankee' Mormons into Missouri, then a slave state. The influx of anti slavery religious followers were feared because of their potential political influence. This is not a good case for the practice of slavery among Mormons.

3: Referring to early Mormonism as a 'communistic' system is historically inaccurate and anachronistic. Mormonism has a deep streak of Utopianism, but the economic system was not unique of the time and place. If the author labels Mormonism communistic, he must also label new testament Christians as such and I doubt he would be consistent in that argument.

All in all, the linked text seem a poor work to base a 'Slavery' argument on.

The only 'racist' passage I can think of from the BoM might be 'white and delightsome people' but there is more than one version of the BoM and I have also seen it translated as 'pure and delightsome people'.

Regardless, although black people were excluded from some LDS temple activities until recent history, RLDS never made a distinction in priesthood for blacks since its beginnings in 1860. If there were a case to be made for racism in the Book of Mormon, we would see it at an early date in both churches and we do not.

It might be interesting to note that Mormons consider themselves grafted onto the house of Israel, even to the extent of referring to non Mormon Christians as 'gentiles'. I do not see a case for anti semitism, only a kind of naive belief that Jews would really want to be Mormons if they only understood. :rolleyes:

Native Americans are thought to be descendants of the Hebrews, perhaps a 'fallen people' but not savages.

varwoche

6th December 2006, 04:04 AM

Fine, but you are missing the point. Prevelant cultural attitudes of an era should not be bundled with religious beliefs of a specific sect. Except that I've linked to copious racist BOM texts.

Yep. Missing the point. I was pointing you at a joint venture of Mormons and Jews. Just to establish a lack of modern prejudice against Jews. I bundle it with references to early Mormons lack of anti-Semitism. Fair enough. And since we're trying to evaluate if LDS or FLDS is truer to OLDS, can you provide evidence of anti-semitism in FLDS?

Ok. If this is truly all you are doing, then I'll leave it up to you. I was raised in a modern LDS family in Utah and I likely have some significant bias on this subject. You made an assertion...
I agree with you about the FLDS. But I see them as Mormons in the same way I see Nazis as Catholics. Their society is based loosely on some specific doctrines of Mormons, but they miss the point by several miles. ... and I am challenging it. Are you withdrawing this assertion?

Trying to debate these topics with you feels a lot like a game of whack-a-mole.

Now, this is not why I entered the discussion. I was defending my people (my family, friends) and my locale from the sort of predjudice that you seemed to be showing. As it pertains to racism, that you take what I say as an attack on "your people" is paranoid, especially since I've clarified that this is not the case at least three times.

That said, I do think that LDS beliefs are totally whacked out, in the same way I think that other religions are whacked out (i.e. belief in creationism, Xenu, etc.) And I also think the LDS church operates like a cult. If you want to interpret this as a personal attack, that's your perrogative but tough luck.

How about this: Relief Society. The LDS Church maintains the Relief Society in much the same way as it was organized in 1842. It was slightly reorganized by Brigham Young in 1866, but the FLDS sect does not maintain a Relief Society, or any other women led organization in or out of the Church. From what you've provided, I can't tell if this is significant, or if it is even true. Please connect the dots and provide citations.

Mission to the Lamanites (The LDS name for Indians derived from the BOM)... This sounds to me like they wanted the Native Americans to be part of them ... Joseph Smith was accepted as a prophet by the Pottawattamie Chiefs. Were these Native Americans then accepted into the church with equal standing to white people?

Do you need some modern references to compare with? I need to see that FLDS has different attitudes about Native Americans than LDS, and that the LDS beliefs are closer to OLDS.

Self serving? Changing the subject? Please go back and read your post (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?p=2139468#post2139468) that got me started in this thread and tell me I am misinterpreting it. I stand behind that post. And yes, you are misinterpreting it (at least in part) with great persistence.

Yes. Great evidence. Three slaves that moved to the Utah Territory. No reference to the owners. Because the blurb is ambiguous, I presented this data with "I'm not sure you are correct" rather than "You are wrong". Did you not see that? I wish you would stop recasting my words into something they are not.

varwoche

6th December 2006, 04:21 AM

Ditto. Ditto my last comments to Zygar. I have clarified myself multiple times, and yet you won't stop casting my words into something they are not. You are inordinately defensive.

And that you are whinging about my request for a citation, Mr. Debate 101, is nothing short of bizarre. ("Ominous"? Sheesh.) :confused::confused: << the rarely used doubly confused indicator

varwoche

6th December 2006, 04:50 AM

All in all, the linked text seem a poor work to base a 'Slavery' argument on. Then it's a good thing I didn't do that.

The only 'racist' passage I can think of from the BoM might be 'white and delightsome people' but there is more than one version of the BoM and I have also seen it translated as 'pure and delightsome people'. Then you and I have different definitions of racist. examples (http://www.skepticsannotatedbible.com/BOM/1ne/int_list.html)

Regardless, although black people were excluded from some LDS temple activities until recent history, RLDS never made a distinction in priesthood for blacks since its beginnings in 1860. I don't know about RLDS until reading your posts in this thread. Thanks for the information.

varwoche

6th December 2006, 06:34 AM

Some additional information to consider on the topic of LDS racism, historical and present day:

God and skin color (http://www.realmormonhistory.com/god&skin.htm#Blacks%20are%20Inferior)
collection of racist texts/quotes

Religious Tolerance (http://www.religioustolerance.org/lds_race.htm)
examples of racism and of tolerance

Hinckley (http://www.deseretnews.com/dn/view/0,1249,635196411,00.html)
he acknowledges (and speaks against) present day LDS racism 2006
his speech on youtube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TDhW0kWSm-A) (ignore overlays)

Black Mormons struggle for acceptance in church (http://www.rickross.com/reference/mormon/mormon201.html)
book of essays examines the perception of racist attitudes in church settings and offers solutions to problems

Repercussions for speaking out (http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/local/103898_cmurphy13.shtml)
Instructor risks expulsion with his claim that Book of Mormon is racist

RandFan

6th December 2006, 08:57 AM

Ditto my last comments to Zygar. I have clarified myself multiple times, and yet you won't stop casting my words into something they are not. You are inordinately defensive. This is not true at all. I'm not inordinately defensive. I just don't understand your inordinate defensivenss.

And that you are whinging about my request for a citation, Mr. Debate 101, is nothing short of bizarre. ("Ominous"? Sheesh.) :confused::confused: << the rarely used doubly confused indicator Well then were both confused. It's not so much that you asked for a citation but that you snapped at me for simply asking you a question. You seem to be upset that people are not agreeing with you. There is no emotion in my text. Nothing between the lines. I'm just trying to have a discussion. I honestly don't understand you.

I've read your "copious" texts. I don't see what you see. Could you do a bit more than debate by link? Could you post some of the text and tell us why it is what you say it is?

RandFan

6th December 2006, 09:03 AM

varwoche

6th December 2006, 11:59 AM

It's not so much that you asked for a citation but that you snapped at me And there you go again, taking my simple request and inferring something negative behind it.

I appreciate your non-desire to debate with links -- I often respond to naked links the same way. That said, the first link in my prior post is entirely pertinent, except for the contradictory "Smith ordained a black man" part which obviously doesn't support my position. Consider it if you wish, and that's all I have to say for now.

Zygar

6th December 2006, 12:14 PM

Except that I've linked to copious racist BOM texts.

And I have stated that these are either taken out of context, or being completely misunderstood. Assuming A) that Joseph Smith made up the BOM and B) that Joseph Smith was not a racist based upon historical evidence readily available in the form of History of the Church and other texts, I believe that you are being presumptuous and bigoted.

Fair enough. And since we're trying to evaluate if LDS or FLDS is truer to OLDS, can you provide evidence of anti-semitism in FLDS?No. I don't honestly care about the FLDS belief system. They are isolationist group that keeps their children outside the public school system, forces young girls to marry adults in a gross misinterpretation of the intent of polygamy, uses murder and other tactics of criminal gangs, and is only a religious organization in that it uses religion as an excuse for its crimes. I do not need to explain this to because you already know it, but in attributing these attributes to the mainstream LDS Church you are again being presumptuous and bigoted.

You made an assertion...
... and I am challenging it. Are you withdrawing this assertion?No. I do not withdraw the assertion based upon the very real criminal activity of the FLDS sect. Read up on them and read up on the LDS Church. And stop sending me links to items that have little or no verifiability. This is not how you do research if you actually want the facts.

Trying to debate these topics with you feels a lot like a game of whack-a-mole.Right back at ya.

As it pertains to racism, that you take what I say as an attack on "your people" is paranoid, especially since I've clarified that this is not the case at least three times.You make that statement, and then turn around and claim that the roots of the religion are racist and that the religion itself is racist. Is it paranoid to defend one's family and friends from false accusations?

That said, I do think that LDS beliefs are totally whacked out, in the same way I think that other religions are whacked out (i.e. belief in creationism, Xenu, etc.) And I also think the LDS church operates like a cult. If you want to interpret this as a personal attack, that's your perrogative but tough luck.I only accept this statement if you are saying that all of the other Christian churches also operate like a cult. There is nothing at all more despicable about the current mainstream LDS Church than the Roman Catholics and the southern Baptists.

From what you've provided, I can't tell if this is significant, or if it is even true. Please connect the dots and provide citations.

Were these Native Americans then accepted into the church with equal standing to white people?

I need to see that FLDS has different attitudes about Native Americans than LDS, and that the LDS beliefs are closer to OLDS.I give you facts and data and you simply ignore or question it's validity and applicability. How about you try looking at the stuff I reference and decide for yourself?

I stand behind that post. And yes, you are misinterpreting it (at least in part) with great persistence.It was a strong statement that can only be interpreted as an attack on a group of people. And you keep waffling about whether it applied to FLDS and LDS equally.

I give you data about the early church and the modern mainstream church proving that you were at a minimum wrong, and rather than accept that as proof that this could only have applied to FLDS sect, you ask me to support your statement with regards to the FLDS sect.

Because the blurb is ambiguous, I presented this data with "I'm not sure you are correct" rather than "You are wrong". Did you not see that? I wish you would stop recasting my words into something they are not.Recasting? You take fluff and throw it at me as an argument and you assume that I am misinterpreting you?

You do not have any intention here other than to attack Mormons. For whatever reason you hold a needless grudge against a particular religious sect. You make blanket statements with no reliable evidence. When burdened with proof you expect me to do your research for you. You are a bigot and a liar and I am through with you.

varwoche

6th December 2006, 11:00 PM

What if I present evidence that Young, Smith, and/or other church leaders "married" 14 year olds? Or evidence they married relatives under 18 years old? Will you then cede this sub-point? If not, why not?

Let's go with 16. As it is post-puberty was a perfectly acceptable marrying age in the early 1800's.

Smith "married" a number of teenagers. The youngest -- Helen Mar Kimball -- was 14 years old. link (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plural_marriage) Some information I've read says that Nancy Winchester was also 14 when Smith married her, but the facts aren't as clear.

In addition, Smith was appointed the legal guardian of two teenage sisters (the Lawrence sisters) whom he proceeded to marry. link (http://www.xmission.com/%7Ecountry/reason/nov96_2.htm)

On a related note, apparently there was an attempt in 1872 to lower the marriage age for women in Utah territory to 12 years old. link (http://www.xmission.com/%7Ecountry/reason/nov96_2.htm) I'm not clear if this became law or not.

varwoche

7th December 2006, 05:27 PM

And I have stated that these are either taken out of context, or being completely misunderstood. I reject the (as yet unexplained) context argument. If these texts (http://www.realmormonhistory.com/god&skin.htm#Blacks%20are%20Inferior) can be whitewashed away by theological context, then one could just as easily redefine racism in the old south as not racism, but economic exploitation. The word would cease to have meaning.

If I could backtrack though, I'd have chosen the term white supremacy, for the simple purpose of restricting semantic wiggle room.

And getting back to your Mission to the Lamanites (native americans) argument, are you aware of the belief that people of color who were admitted to the church were relegated to a servile role -- inferior to whites -- even in the (fictional) afterlife...? [If the] Negro is faithful all his days, he can and will enter the celestial kingdom. He will go there as a servant, but he will get celestial glory. link (http://www.utlm.org/onlinebooks/changech10a.htm)

I don't honestly care about the FLDS belief system. No sale. To the credit of LDS, I contend that FLDS is closer to OLDS (original LDS) than is LDS, and hence part of the *LDS contribution to our society.

To support this contention, we have: (1) the practice of polygamy, (2) an example of Smith marrying a young teen, per the criteria you agreed to, and (3) quotes from Jeffs that are much in synch with Young and the BOM.

but in attributing these attributes to the mainstream LDS Church you are... Please stop twisting my words. For the nth time, I do not* attribute these attitudes to the present day LDS church. I do, on the other hand, attribute them to OLDS and FLDS.

* with the exception that LDS has not purged the racist texts

You are a bigot Even if it were true that I am bigoted against Mormons (I'm not, to the best of my awareness), this doesn't change the facts. It's just another ad hominem, of which you are in no short supply.

varwoche

10th December 2006, 11:50 AM

RandFan

10th December 2006, 11:59 AM

I claimed that the church promotes nutty beliefs. This is obviously true and I don't think anyone has challenged this statement. However it was suggested that LDS is no worse than other churches, specifically the Catholic and Protestant churches.

Surely LDS is not alone in promoting nutty beliefs.

That said, the Catholic church has long recognized science, and evolution in particular, as not in conflict with church teachings. And some Protestant denominations (Episcopal, Lutheran, Presbyterian) are on record supporting the teaching of evolution in school. link (http://www.ncseweb.org/resources/articles/9203_statements_from_religious_org_12_19_2002.asp)

I'm unclear where LDS stands on the teaching of evolution. I think Randi has taken the Catholic Church to task on their uneven responses to science. Shermer, Dawkins and Harris are but a few that believe religion is a net negative when it comes to religion and science. I don't know where the Mormon Church comes down on evolution. This has come up before but I was never told that Mormon doctrine was anti evolution but a number of the members are. I don't know what the numbers are.

I think it problematic to try and figure out which religion is nuttier than the next. It seems to me to be a fool's errand.