The Norseman
Meandering fecklessly
- Joined
- Dec 10, 2008
- Messages
- 8,449
Yes, there is a fine olympic-level acrobat beginning to develop here!
LDS
- Thread starter Janadele
- Start date
- Status
Foster Zygote
Dental Floss Tycoon
- Joined
- Jun 24, 2006
- Messages
- 22,132
What is not an opinion is that FAIR is a Mormon organization. What is not an opinion is that FAIR has an undeniable bias. Citing FAIR is like citing a tobacco industry funded institution as a source for studies claiming that tobacco products pose little or no risk to one's health.
Are you suggesting that there is a vast anti-Mormon conspiracy within numerous scientific disciplines? Scientists are interested in the truth. Their inquiries are no more influenced by the Book of Mormon than they are the Bhagavad Gita, Koran, Book of the Dead, or Dianetics. The fact remains that through open, unbiased inquiry, the claims made in the Book of Mormon have been conclusively shown to be false. The civilizations described as having existed for over 2600 years left not a single archeological trace. There is no linguistic connection between any indigenous American language and any Middle Eastern language. There is no trace of the genetic markers of Middle Eastern populations that Smith claimed to be the ancestors of Native Americans.
Unwittingly, you reveal their bias. They are defensive because they have an a priori conclusion that they intend to affirm. This is no different from what young Earth creationists do. It is not science, it is religious apologetics.
It has been revealed to be a fraud. There is no empirical evidence of the Nephites, Lamanites and Jaredites.
But you do have the delusion that Joseph Smith's claims have not been shown to be false.
Last edited:
Craig4
Penultimate Amazing
Really? Now you're just recycling posts.
Pixel42
Schrödinger's cat
It's painfully obvious to anyone reading this thread that the main offender for (1) is Janadele and the main offender for (2) is you.
So when are you going to admonish Janadele for presenting opinions like this as fact:
and when are you going to provide source attributions for the claims you quote in, for example, this post:
pakeha
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Jul 11, 2009
- Messages
- 12,331
Hi, skyrider44.
Hey, I went to the FAIR site and used it as a springboard for further reading.
I can respect your conclusion to your post:
" If the BoM is a fraud, then it must eventually be revealed as such. No Latter-day Saints I know have any illusions about that."
It takes a lot of courage to face fraud in subjects which we feel are vital to our beliefs and I wish you all the best in your own experience.
Would you be comfortable answering this:
What's your honest opinion of the deer/horses explanation.
Does it ring true to you?
Janadele
Banned
- Joined
- Dec 1, 2012
- Messages
- 2,515
There has never been any LDS teaching or doctrine of "blood atonement".
Journal of Discourses is a Journal, not Doctrine. Statements "cherry picked" out of context lose their intended meaning.
In this, as in much on The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints on Wikipedia, the information given is false and misleading anti-Morman lies and propaganda.
The great and noble Prophet Brigham Young said … "If any man, woman or child that ever lived has said that Brigham Young ever counseled them to commit crime of any description, they are liars in the face of heaven. ..
he prays fervently, to his Father and God that he may never be brought into circumstances to be obliged to shed human blood. He never has yet been brought into such a position."
More at:
http://www.fairlds.org/authors/jones-mckay/dead-men-tell-no-tales#head00
Mashuna
Ovis ex Machina
So, from your link, Brigham Young claims he never carried out blood atonement, hoped he would never have to, but he would do so if required.
dafydd
Banned
- Joined
- Feb 14, 2008
- Messages
- 35,398
How many wives does your husband own?
pakeha
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Jul 11, 2009
- Messages
- 12,331
Thanks for your reply, Janadele.
I appreciate your take on this and I want to up-date my knowledge on the subject before I reply. That'll be after work.
See you then.
dafydd
Banned
- Joined
- Feb 14, 2008
- Messages
- 35,398
''Now was Brigham become a second Andrew Johnson in the small beginning and steady progress of his official grandeur. He had served successively as a disciple in the ranks; home missionary; foreign missionary; editor and publisher; Apostle; President of the Board of Apostles; President of all Mormondom, civil and ecclesiastical; successor to the great Joseph by the will of heaven; "prophet," "seer," "revelator." There was but one dignity higher which he could aspire to, and he reached out modestly and took that--he proclaimed himself a God!
He claims that he is to have a heaven of his own hereafter, and that he will be its God, and his wives and children its goddesses, princes and princesses. Into it all faithful Mormons will be admitted, with their families, and will take rank and consequence according to the number of their wives and children. If a disciple dies before he has had time to accumulate enough wives and children to enable him to be respectable in the next world any friend can marry a few wives and raise a few children for him after he is dead, and they are duly credited to his account and his heavenly status advanced accordingly.
Let it be borne in mind that the majority of the Mormons have always been ignorant, simple, of an inferior order of intellect, unacquainted with the world and its ways; and let it be borne in mind that the wives of these Mormons are necessarily after the same pattern and their children likely to be fit representatives of such a conjunction''-Mark Twain.
He claims that he is to have a heaven of his own hereafter, and that he will be its God, and his wives and children its goddesses, princes and princesses. Into it all faithful Mormons will be admitted, with their families, and will take rank and consequence according to the number of their wives and children. If a disciple dies before he has had time to accumulate enough wives and children to enable him to be respectable in the next world any friend can marry a few wives and raise a few children for him after he is dead, and they are duly credited to his account and his heavenly status advanced accordingly.
Let it be borne in mind that the majority of the Mormons have always been ignorant, simple, of an inferior order of intellect, unacquainted with the world and its ways; and let it be borne in mind that the wives of these Mormons are necessarily after the same pattern and their children likely to be fit representatives of such a conjunction''-Mark Twain.
dafydd
Banned
- Joined
- Feb 14, 2008
- Messages
- 35,398
The title page goes as follows: "The Book of Mormon, an account written by the hand of Mormon upon plates taken from the plates of Nephi. Wherefore, it is an abridgement of the record of the people of Nephi, and also of the Lamanites - Written to the Lamanites, who are a remnan of the house of Israel; and also to Jew and Gentile. Written by way of commandment and also by the spirit of prophecy and of revelation - written and sealed up and hid up unto the Lord that they might not be destroyed, to come forth by the gift and power of God unto the interpretation thereof - sealed by the hand of Moroni and hid up unto the Lord, to come forth in due time by way of the Gentile - the interpretation thereof by the gift of God.
''Hid up'', lol. Really godlike language. I didn't know that god was a hick.
''Hid up'', lol. Really godlike language. I didn't know that god was a hick.
Pup
Philosopher
- Joined
- Dec 21, 2004
- Messages
- 6,679
This post hasn't had much specific discussion, so I'd like to bring it out again, especially the part I've bolded.
What do you mean by a work of the 19th century? There's no doubt of course that it was first published in English in the 19th century--everyone from the most faithful to the most skeptical agrees with that.
Do you mean not actually an ancient record translated from almost-2000-year-old gold plates, and instead something written by the "religious genius" Joseph Smith in the 19th century?
Because, well, that's pretty much what the skeptics here have been saying. Genius and spiritual insight are subjective, but there's no doubt the book has been able to get a lot of followers, so in that sense, Smith had the genius to know what kind of spiritual book a lot of people would respond to.
So, could you explain more what that subset of Mormons believes about the Book of Mormon? Harold Bloom, whom you mentioned, is of course not one of them, being Jewish and critical of the modern church, but I'm curious for examples of articles or books by such members.
dafydd
Banned
- Joined
- Feb 14, 2008
- Messages
- 35,398
''Religious genius'' is a contradictio in terminis. There are geniuses who are religious, but that is not the same thing and that does not apply to the fraud Joseph Smith. Calling him a religious genius is like calling Beatrix Potter a fantasy rabbit genius. At least her tales are entertaining. Mark Twain was right when he called the BOM ''chloroform in print''.
Last edited:
Pup
Philosopher
- Joined
- Dec 21, 2004
- Messages
- 6,679
I disagree. (And I think you'd actually like what Harold Bloom says about the church--google a bit).
While genius is a subjective term, I think it's well within the definition of genius to start your own religion that goes from nothing to dominating an entire US state and spreading worldwide within 200 years. Religion was really the only area he had exceptional talent in. Note that he's not being called a literary genius, a political genius, a military genius or a financial genius, because he dabbled in those fields and, well, kinda sucked. But as far as founding a religion, convincing people to believe and making it spread, he was darn good.
I see just as much knee-jerk defensiveness on the anti-Mormon side as the Mormon side. It's okay to give Smith credit for what he was good at. Really, it is.
Pixel42
Schrödinger's cat
Pup
Philosopher
- Joined
- Dec 21, 2004
- Messages
- 6,679
What he wrote still fools a broad spectrum of people, including college professors. Demographically, members of the Mormon church tend to be as educated and wealthy as the average, or more so.
http://www.pewforum.org/christian/mormon/a-portrait-of-mormons-in-the-us.aspx
So members of the church today do not cluster in what one would call the "ignorant hick" category, yet believing that Joseph Smith was a prophet of God is still central to being a member.
Again, it seems to me to be anti-Mormon defensiveness or willfully ignoring the facts, to claim that the religion he founded was so poorly done that it only fools a certain demographic.
Pup
Philosopher
- Joined
- Dec 21, 2004
- Messages
- 6,679
I think the reason many people are reluctant to give Smith credit was because he actually did such a rubbish job of faking the documents on which he based his religion. Yes people were taken in by them but they shouldn't have been, darn it.
That's why he's also not considered a genius at forgery.
His contemporary Constantine Rafinesque, who "translated" his own ancient Indian record the Wallum Olam, which I mentioned earlier in the thread, outstripped Smith at pure forgery, fooling both scholars and Native American tribes into the 1990s.With Smith, it seemed to require the whole package--his personality, the way the church was organized, his leadership to get it going, the way he gathered the right key people around him. Religious genius really seems to be the only way to sum it up.
Pixel42
Schrödinger's cat
True, but most are brought up to believe. I was once pointed to a Mormon nursery guide which was a textbook example of how to indoctrinate very young children - among other things they were required to repeat the basic Mormon tenets over and over again. It must be incredibly difficult to extricate yourself from something which permeates everything around you, I have nothing but admiration for people like Randfan who have the strength of mind to manage it.
Just goggled and found this: http://ldsblogs.com/1829/the-new-mormon-nursery-manual
ETA: I just looked at a few of the lesson plans. Pure, unadulterated, brainwashing.
Last edited:
Cat Tale
Thinker
- Joined
- Jan 4, 2013
- Messages
- 222
However, I would argue that that's true of most any religion. Being brought up in the Methodist Church I remember hating to go to nursery, I wanted to stay with my parents in the chapel, but I was always required to go to nursery to learn the songs, be taught Bible stories (for kids), and to be taught about the Trinity, etc. I was sent to Bible school in the summer, along with church camp and numerous other church related activities all from about the same age of 18 months, up until the time I chose to leave the church. Trust me, it's just as hard to join the LDS church as it is to leave it, family and peer pressure and all. As soon as I joined the church, my siblings started getting all the anti-Mormon stuff and forcing me to have to deal with it. My minister told me I was going to hell, and told my parents that too. My best friends deserted me, my "boyfriend" (told me the only way he'd ever marry me was if I left the church), my sister disowned me and declared me dead to her. I mean, it's not easy coming or going from any religion, and they all indoctrinate their children from an early age.
Last edited:
- Status