Mormonism

[Undesired Walrus]

I'm uneducated on this, so perhaps someone can clear this up for me.

Do Mormons really believe that Israeli's were the real native Americans, and the Indians were native Americans who had their skin died, or something?

Or is this just an allegory? I'm having a hard time believing that any sane Human being (Let alone a possible GOP nominee in four years) could possibly believe this.

 

[Hux]

Its that silly but that simple as far as I understand it.

 

[Rasmus]

I'm having a hard time believing that any sane Human being (Let alone a possible GOP nominee in four years) could possibly believe this.

Allegedly sane human beings routinely believe all sorts of things and I don't see how this biz would be noticably more insane than any of the others.

 

[Denver]

It seems to me it's always tricky asking what a particular religion, or person subscribing to that religion, believes. Almost any statement seems to have alternate interpretations, and almost any person seems to have their own take on things.

In the case of Mormonism, to answer this one, I think you need to:

1) Check what the book of Mormon says.
2) Check how the mainline Latter Day Saints interpret that.
3) Check the religious texts written by their other prophets (I.e., Brigham Young).
4) Ask some Mormons.

However, a quickie answer from wiki:

"The traditional view of the Book of Mormon suggests that Native Americans are principally the descendents of an Israelite migration around 600 BC."

 

[Careyp74]

here are more links on the subject

http://www.rickross.com/reference/mormon/mormon182.html
http://www.rickross.com/reference/mormon/mormon34.html

As for the belief in these topics by Mormons, how many Scientologists believe in the basis for that religion? Granted, by the time they find out, it is too late, they are trapped. I think growing up in the Mormon religion is similar. You follow what your parents follow, and don't really put any thought into the actual facts.

 

[Bikewer]

I had a nice book on psuedohistory of the Americas a few years ago, and one of the things he covered was Smith's absurd claim that JC had manifested himself to a nice group of white folks who were living in North America at the time...

This was conditioned, no doubt, by the "archeological" thinking of the time that the primitive Indians could not possibly have built imposing structures like the Mounds....It must have been someone else...Someone whiter...

Of course, when no trace of these primitive Caucasians could be found they had to make some alterations to the Book Of Mormon..

 

[Cleon]

Well, they did believe that. Then advances in DNA testing showed, conclusively, that Native Americans have no ancestry in the Middle East. So LDS slightly changed its POV so that the Lamanites (the sinful Hebrews that populated the Americas) are among the ancestors of the Native Americans, but for some reason their DNA was washed out of the gene pool.

 

[I Ratant]

Well, they did believe that. Then advances in DNA testing showed, conclusively, that Native Americans have no ancestry in the Middle East. So LDS slightly changed its POV so that the Lamanites (the sinful Hebrews that populated the Americas) are among the ancestors of the Native Americans, but for some reason their DNA was washed out of the gene pool.

.
Ain't science wonderful?
You can make it do what you want.
I keep wondering where all the pre-Columbian artifacts in North and South America that show a Middle Eastern origin are.
The Hebrews that came here from the Middle East never broke a vase!
They're not in any museums I've heard of.
And the BoM has references in time referring to events "back home" that post-date the "exodus" to the New World, that those exodees couldn't have been aware of.

 

[Cainkane1]

I'm uneducated on this, so perhaps someone can clear this up for me.

Do Mormons really believe that Israeli's were the real native Americans, and the Indians were native Americans who had their skin died, or something?

Or is this just an allegory? I'm having a hard time believing that any sane Human being (Let alone a possible GOP nominee in four years) could possibly believe this.

Mormons believe that the lost tribe of Israel came across the Atlantic ocean on submarine type craft. Once they established themselves there Jesus came after his resurrection and preached a gospel to them. He then went to heaven leaving golden tablets in the hands of one of Gods faithful servants Moroni. These Jews split into two groups. The Nephites and the Lamanites. One group went the wicked route and the other group went the righteous route. The good guys stayed white and the bad guys went dark. The bad guys eventually won the war.

Mormons used to believe that if a dark person converted to their religion they would become white. When this didn't happen they said oh well.

DNA at first seemed to discredit this nonsense but the Mormons counter by saying that the DNA has become mixed with other waves of immigration. Blind faith is a terrible thing.

My best chat friend is a Mormon. He's cool overall and he's well educated. He's also brainwashed.

 

[justcharlie09]

I think they called some of them Lamanites--at least that's what they called some of the Southern Paiutes they encountered in Utah. I don't know about the "dyed" part, but definitely descended from the Israelis.

The religious history of the United States (and the Americas in general) is an interesting one. It's definitely worth a look.

 

[Marduk]

It seems to me it's always tricky asking what a particular religion, or person subscribing to that religion, believes.

one of the nicest guys I ever met was a Mormon, he freely admitted that the beliefs of Joseph Smith were baloney and that very few of his fellow Mormons believed it, he said that his religion was much more about being good to others and leading a good life than it was about long disproved fables and he made a good point, all religions are built on easily disproved claims and should be measured on the behaviour of their adherents than what their adherents neccesarily believed about history. He also stated that he was more than happy with just the one wife and as polygamy was reserved for higher ups in the church he had no religious ambitions as he had no desire to ruin his life completely. hehe

I always found him very refreshing.


South Park spoofed the Mormons quite expertly, that episode is online here
http://www.free-tv-video-online.info/player/megavideo.php?id=AI09RLW3
at 22 minutes in length its well worth a watch if you havent seen it
dum dum dum dum dum

 

[Cainkane1]

Allegedly sane human beings routinely believe all sorts of things and I don't see how this biz would be noticably more insane than any of the others.

This is true. I used to know a jewish police captain who was a friend of my father when they were on the Alameda police dept and when I'd say something about the lack of believeability of the Mormon religion he being an atheist would tell me this. Well I'm a jewish atheist and I don't believe Moses went up a mountain and had god give him the ten commandments. Mormonism is no less believable than someone walking on water and bringing dead rotting corpses back to life again etc.

 

[I Ratant]

The interesting thing about Mormonism is the beginnings are documented reliably.
Using those as a guide, similar beginnings can be inferred in the older religions.
In this case, a con man making it up using an established religion to work from.
Some of the older ones can be seen to have a lot of con built into the basics, along with the typical "revelations" brought on by physical and mental deprivations when going out to the desert, the mountain, and coming back with "The TRUTH"!

 

[justcharlie09]

The interesting thing about Mormonism is the beginnings are documented reliably.
Using those as a guide, similar beginnings can be inferred in the older religions.
In this case, a con man making it up using an established religion to work from.
Some of the older ones can be seen to have a lot of con built into the basics, along with the typical "revelations" brought on by physical and mental deprivations when going out to the desert, the mountain, and coming back with "The TRUTH"!

Cynical much?

Just because some hucksters have gotten into the business of religion (L.Ron Hubbard) doesn't mean all of religion and spirituality are predicated on the manipulations of the gullible or infantile.

Isn't it possible that religious and spiritual movements are a genuine attempt to understand life beyond pure materialism? I'll grant you that the attempt can be misguided at times, even bordering on the looney, but name one human enterprise that doesn't contain an element of nuttiness (and don't say science/mathematics because it's had its share of wild-eyed loonies, too).

ETA: I'm not Mormon, by the way.

 

[popscythe]

You know what they say about Mormons:

They're a religious group.

 

[I Ratant]

Cynical much?

Just because some hucksters have gotten into the business of religion (L.Ron Hubbard) doesn't mean all of religion and spirituality are predicated on the manipulations of the gullible or infantile.

Isn't it possible that religious and spiritual movements are a genuine attempt to understand life beyond pure materialism? I'll grant you that the attempt can be misguided at times, even bordering on the looney, but name one human enterprise that doesn't contain an element of nuttiness (and don't say science/mathematics because it's had its share of wild-eyed loonies, too).

ETA: I'm not Mormon, by the way.

.
The manipulation of the customers is pretty much embedded in the sale of long established religions.
The tenets of any faith tend to add restrictions in the independence of the adherents as the religion gets going.
Are there any that don't permit extreme responses or even advocate death for those who fail to come into the flock?
What is this except for cowing the members and demonstrating the fearsome power the leaders assume when they get sufficiently taken up by their own brilliance?
Deaths for heresy began not long after Christianity began to spread.
The 1st Crusade was directed toward fellow Christians.
As religions deal with the imaginary, getting terminal about any of them seems extreme.
With the good data we have on how they form.. Scientology, Mormonism, Islam, there's no reason to presume any of the less-well documented sects have any more firm basis, than con men and deluded charismatics.

 

[justcharlie09]

.
The manipulation of the customers is pretty much embedded in the sale of long established religions.
The tenets of any faith tend to add restrictions in the independence of the adherents as the religion gets going.
Are there any that don't permit extreme responses or even advocate death for those who fail to come into the flock?
What is this except for cowing the members and demonstrating the fearsome power the leaders assume when they get sufficiently taken up by their own brilliance?
Deaths for heresy began not long after Christianity began to spread.
The 1st Crusade was directed toward fellow Christians.
As religions deal with the imaginary, getting terminal about any of them seems extreme.
With the good data we have on how they form.. Scientology, Mormonism, Islam, there's no reason to presume any of the less-well documented sects have any more firm basis, than con men and deluded charismatics.

This is an older article from Wired, but I think it makes the point well enough for me.

People in general do these things with ideas and when they get into large groups.

Some particularly vocal "new" atheists have suggested some fairly draconian measures of their own for dealing with the "problem" of others not believing the world is exactly as they see it. (Not to say *all* atheists or agnostics feel this way...and certainly not saying that this point makes all atheistic commentary invalid as a result.)

I'm not a Mormon or a Muslim, but I think that both groups have their good points. Religious tolerance (and tolerance of non-religious worldviews) seem more productive than a rigid adherence to either religion or non-religion.

As for deaths for "heresy" and Christianity, I think this is pushing it a little. Yes, Christians have been wrong in the past and probably will be wrong in the future. But, do you honestly think people weren't hacking other people up and/or burning them before Christianity came along?

The problems of *all* religions and other worldviews that collect "followers" lie with the people in them. This is true for atheism and for theism alike (noting here that those are not the only flavors of worldview on the market).

To call the realm of religion "imaginary" is a bit unfair. It is myth and allegory and an attempt to tap into the larger themes and the intangible. I don't support or condone jihads or crusades, but dying for certain principles and beliefs (i.e. sacrificing individual needs for the greater good, and things along that line) are worthy of praise. Writing it all off as a con is disingenuous.

 

[I Ratant]

...

To call the realm of religion "imaginary" is a bit unfair. It is myth and allegory and an attempt to tap into the larger themes and the intangible. I don't support or condone jihads or crusades, but dying for certain principles and beliefs (i.e. sacrificing individual needs for the greater good, and things along that line) are worthy of praise. Writing it all off as a con is disingenuous.

.
"...Dying for certain principles...", as in Freedom FROM Religion is praise worthy.
The "greater good" as seen by the religious is too often "saving your soul", when there is no such thing as a soul, so mind you, keep your superstitions to yourself, is the way I feel.
Dying to keep us safe from loonies as most of the world got together and did in the middle of the 20th Century, where a bona-fide evil, man-made and needing to be eliminated, not something as superficial as any belief in a big sky daddy was obviously a danger to everyone.
Dying for a religion which is impressing itself on others is stupid. And it's murder when done by the adherents thereunto; crusades and jihads, as after all, the core of all religions is "myth and allegory....intangible".

 

[Marduk]

This is an older article from Wired, but I think it makes the point well enough for me.

People in general do these things with ideas and when they get into large groups.

Some particularly vocal "new" atheists have suggested some fairly draconian measures of their own for dealing with the "problem" of others not believing the world is exactly as they see it. (Not to say *all* atheists or agnostics feel this way...and certainly not saying that this point makes all atheistic commentary invalid as a result.)

I'm not a Mormon or a Muslim, but I think that both groups have their good points. Religious tolerance (and tolerance of non-religious worldviews) seem more productive than a rigid adherence to either religion or non-religion.

As for deaths for "heresy" and Christianity, I think this is pushing it a little. Yes, Christians have been wrong in the past and probably will be wrong in the future. But, do you honestly think people weren't hacking other people up and/or burning them before Christianity came along?

The problems of *all* religions and other worldviews that collect "followers" lie with the people in them. This is true for atheism and for theism alike (noting here that those are not the only flavors of worldview on the market).

To call the realm of religion "imaginary" is a bit unfair. It is myth and allegory and an attempt to tap into the larger themes and the intangible. I don't support or condone jihads or crusades, but dying for certain principles and beliefs (i.e. sacrificing individual needs for the greater good, and things along that line) are worthy of praise. Writing it all off as a con is disingenuous.

ok Maam, would you like me to go fetch your soapbox now or are you done ?

 

[justcharlie09]

ok Maam, would you like me to go fetch your soapbox now or are you done ?

No need, I've long ago eliminated that need by attaching two small soap boxes to the soles of my regular shoes. Not only does this modification add some much needed extra height, but it also allows the audience fair warning.

A most efficacious arrangement--even if I do say so myself.

I've tried to seek a patent, but alas, as so many geniuses before me, my application only invites derision.

But, I assure you, I am completely undaunted by this minor setback and would be more than happy to take on a willing and well funded business partner. May I be so bold as to presume you are interested?