LDS

[Pup]

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.

That's true, but isn't it true of most religions? Christian children are taught prayers, rhymes, songs, and so forth: "Jesus loves me, this I know," "I pray the Lord my soul to take," etc. There are Vacation Bible Schools, picture books, etc.

In fact, that may actually help the LDS church convert them when they get older, since they're already indoctrinated to believe in Jesus, God, heaven, prophets, miracles, etc.

The Pew link I posted earlier does show that converts to the church are of a lower demographic:

The 26% of Mormons who are converts to the faith differ markedly from lifelong Mormons in several ways. First, converts tend to be older than lifelong Mormons. Nearly half of converts (48%) are over age 50, compared with about three-in-ten lifelong members (29%). Converts also tend to be less educated than nonconverts (16% did not graduate from high school, compared with just 6% of lifelong members) and they earn decidedly lower incomes (40% make less than $30,000 a year, compared with 21% among nonconverts).

But when one looks at the full informational chart on the page, comparing converts to members born in the church, there's still a significant number of "non-ignorant hicks." There are more who dropped out of high school and fewer who did graduate work, but the percent of college graduates is the same (18%) and the number making over $100K a year is nearly the same (15% vs. 16%)

In other words, even converts are not exclusively made up of only the most ignorant or poorest.

Complicating the matter is the fact that fewer non-whites joined the church in the days before they could have the priesthood, so there are fewer born into the church (3% non-white non-Hispanics born vs. 17% converted). Those converts would bring with them the overall demographics of non-whites.

Ideally, an apples-to-apples comparison would be best: white US-born members raised in the church vs. white US-born converts, or blacks raised in the church vs. converted, but the Pew folks don't break it down that far.

 

[Pixel42]

However, I would argue that that's true of most any religion.

That's true, but isn't it true of most religions?

I'm afraid you're probably both right, it's just so shocking to me when the brainwashing is as blatant as it is in those Mormon lesson plans.

I have no problem with parents teaching their children what they believe but I have a big problem with children being taught beliefs as fact, especially at the very young age the Mormons apparently start at. When a child starts to ask the big questions is as early as a discussion about the possible answers is required, and that discussion should be honest. So for example if a child asks where a deceased relative or pet is now, the honest answer is "nobody knows". By all means then go on to say what you believe the answer is (and ideally make it clear that there are other people who believe other things) but to simply state what you believe as if it's certain proven fact is, to me, outrageous. That's how a child's mind gets put into a mental straitjacket from which it may never escape.

 

[dafydd]

I'm afraid you're probably both right, it's just so shocking to me when the brainwashing is as blatant as it is in those Mormon lesson plans.

I have no problem with parents teaching their children what they believe but I have a big problem with children being taught beliefs as fact, especially at the very young age the Mormons apparently start at. When a child starts to ask the big questions is as early as a discussion about the possible answers is required, and that discussion should be honest. So for example if a child asks where a deceased relative or pet is now, the honest answer is "nobody knows". By all means then go on to say what you believe the answer is (and ideally make it clear that there are other people who believe other things) but to simply state what you believe as if it's certain proven fact is, to me, outrageous. That's how a child's mind gets put into a mental straitjacket from which it may never escape.

It's child abuse.

 

[Cat Tale]

I'm afraid you're probably both right, it's just so shocking to me when the brainwashing is as blatant as it is in those Mormon lesson plans.

Oops, This is a Methodist Nursery manual for three and under. Page 6 (iirc) is where the schedule is. The story time is of course Bible stories, not Lassie.

I have no problem with parents teaching their children what they believe but I have a big problem with children being taught beliefs as fact, especially at the very young age the Mormons apparently start at.

Again, it's any Christian religion. They all start young.

When a child starts to ask the big questions is as early as a discussion about the possible answers is required, and that discussion should be honest. So for example if a child asks where a deceased relative or pet is now, the honest answer is "nobody knows".

In the Methodist church I was always told my pets and Grandma went to live with God in Heaven. It's really no different being raised LDS or Methodist, or most any Christian religion of which I'm aware.

BTW, I don't mean to pick on the Methodists, it's just that's the church I was born and raised in. Just wanted to make that clear.

 

[tsig]

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.

So being a religious genius means you can lie boldly and prolifically?

 

[dafydd]

So being a religious genius means you can lie boldly and prolifically?

That's part of the job description.

 

[Craig4]

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

Odd that you missed the obvious flaw in ole' Bring em' Young's statement.

 

[RandFan]

I'm afraid you're probably both right, it's just so shocking to me when the brainwashing is as blatant as it is in those Mormon lesson plans.

I have no problem with parents teaching their children what they believe but I have a big problem with children being taught beliefs as fact, especially at the very young age the Mormons apparently start at. When a child starts to ask the big questions is as early as a discussion about the possible answers is required, and that discussion should be honest. So for example if a child asks where a deceased relative or pet is now, the honest answer is "nobody knows". By all means then go on to say what you believe the answer is (and ideally make it clear that there are other people who believe other things) but to simply state what you believe as if it's certain proven fact is, to me, outrageous. That's how a child's mind gets put into a mental straitjacket from which it may never escape.

This ^^^

IMO: It is immoral to teach children what to believe. Teach children demonstrable facts and teach them how to think. If there is a god then he gave the children brains so they could think for themselves. I think parents should be good examples and it's of course okay to share beliefs of god with children. Just be honest with the children and tell them that god isn't an empirical fact.

 

[RenaissanceBiker]

So being a religious genius means you can lie boldly and prolifically?

That's part of the job description.

I don't think you can give Smith all the credit, just as you can't give Jesus all the credit for christianity. A succession of bold and prolific liars religious geniuses took the reins of their organizations and continued the scam work of their predecessors. Occasionally they took them in new and different directions. Some succeeded and some failed. This evolution is responsible for the diverse species of religions we see today.

 

[RandFan]

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.

A.) At the time it was doctrine. B.) Nothing has been cherry picked or taken out of context.

"I say now, when they [his discourses] are copied and approved by me they are as good Scripture as is couched in this Bible . . . " (Journal of Discourses, vol. 13, p. 264; see also p. 95).

 

[Pup]

So being a religious genius means you can lie boldly and prolifically?

Well, sure. What else did you think it would involve? It's the charisma of politics combined with delusion.

But this gets back to the question of lying.

I think that virtually all great religious leaders--as well as their followers--on some deep level, do realize they're "lying" (edited to add, I mean subconscously, and they have to work to protect themselves from cognitive disonance.) Some leaders may consciously create a scam from the start, but I think that more fall into leadership through a sort of operant conditioning, as they're rewarded when certain things work and ignored when other things don't, and they're able to shape their delusions in those directions.

I think skeptics have to guard against the trap of assuming everyone is like them, and therefore assuming that religious leaders must be running a conscious con, because they couldn't possibly be fooling themselves.

That ignores one problem: it means dividing religions into leaders who are clever rational thinkers and know it's a scam, compared to their gullible followers who are taken in.

But I don't see why gullible people can't create their own original delusions and get their beliefs to spread and become religious leaders themselves. From Martin Luther to Buddha to Mohammed to Mother Anne Lee to Mary Baker Eddy, I suspect that more religious leaders are/were believers rather than skeptics of their own religions. At least as Smith grew further into it, I think he became the same way.

There are plenty of small-time examples today, of conspiracy theorists, alien abduction believers, etc., who apparently truly believe in their delusions and convince a few others that their stories are true. They just don't have the genius to get a whole religion going around it. Of course there are examples where someone creates a conscious hoax that others fall for, but we can also see examples that show both the originators and followers as equally deluded.

 

[Craig4]

I can easily see something like Mormonism which may have begun as only a short con growing beyond the control of Smith and him simply afraid to let it go. It's a bit like holding a wolf by the ears. At some point you just can't stop being the prophet. Maybe at some point you believe what you're saying. For all we know, Smith simply got addicted to his power over people or he never found a point where he could escape from the con that went out of control.

Obviously. we can dismiss any truth to Smith or Young's claims but since we don't know their true thoughts when perpetrating the scam it's hard to say what they did or did not believe.

 

[RandFan]

I can easily see something like Mormonism which may have begun as only a short con growing beyond the control of Smith and him simply afraid to let it go. It's a bit like holding a wolf by the ears. At some point you just can't stop being the prophet. Maybe at some point you believe what you're saying. For all we know, Smith simply got addicted to his power over people or he never found a point where he could escape from the con that went out of control.

Obviously. we can dismiss any truth to Smith or Young's claims but since we don't know their true thoughts when perpetrating the scam it's hard to say what they did or did not believe.

There is a theory that Smith didn't start the con. It was possibly Sidney Rigdon and possibly with help from Martin Harris. Smith was brought in because he was charismatic but he soon became too powerful to stop without exposing the ruse.

It's interesting given the computer comparative analysis of the text, however, the analysis has been heavily criticized for methodological flaws. I honestly don't know. There can be little question that by the time Smith died he was in complete control of the church.

 

[Craig4]

There is a theory that Smith didn't start the con. It was possibly Sidney Rigdon and possibly with help from Martin Harris. Smith was brought in because he was charismatic but he soon became too powerful to stop without exposing the ruse.

It's interesting given the computer comparative analysis of the text, however, the analysis has been heavily criticized for methodological flaws. I honestly don't know. There can be little question that by the time Smith died he was in complete control of the church.

The difficulty is that no one involved in the scam appears to have ever written down their true thoughts or confided in anyone. You can't really draw any conclusions about their true intent in their writings or statements intended for public consumption.

 

[RandFan]

The difficulty is that no one involved in the scam appears to have ever written down their true thoughts or confided in anyone. You can't really draw any conclusions about their true intent in their writings or statements intended for public consumption.

I think you can make probabilistic statements about their intent.

If I encounter a guy on the road today and he offers to sell me some magic beans, I think it's fair to say that I can infer his intent to some degree.

 

[Craig4]

I think you can make probabilistic statements about their intent.

If I encounter a guy on the road today and he offers to sell me some magic beans, I think it's fair to say that I can infer his intent to some degree.

Early on sure. Intent become cloudy the as you get farther away from the initial event. At some point you just can't extricate yourself from the con. I have a darkly comic view of Smith trapped in the personal hell he created for himself with all these followers and no way to escape the increasingly intricate web of lies.

 

[carlitos]

In Post 989, I began the process of addressing criticisms of the Book of Mormon, using FAIR as my source ("Book of Mormon/Anachronisms"). My post was immediately dismissed as worthless, coming as it did from an LDS source (although the Church does not necessarily endorse what appears on FAIR). Here are three examples of the close-minded responses I received:
1) "FAIR makes crap up to support their belief in a made-up book"--Cleon;
2) ". . .the explanations it [FAIR] offers are poor and not credible"--jsfisher;
3) ". . .the apologetics. . .were pretty lame"--Carlitos.
Note that the responses are opinions.

Yes, that was my opinion. I also noted why I thought they were lame. I took time out of my day to go read a Mormon apologist site, and to evaluate their arguments in an area (American languages) that I know something about. Neither you nor your co-religionists responded to the substance of my post, and now you have the gall to go back and reference it with your sophistry derail?

 

[carlitos]

Silly Mormonism 101 question:

Is there a general Mormon consensus on when Jesus was in the Americas? I know that Smith and others had visions, but more or less what century was he said to be with the Nephites? And more or less when were the Nephites said to have emigrated to America?

 

[RandFan]

Early on sure. Intent become cloudy the as you get farther away from the initial event. At some point you just can't extricate yourself from the con. I have a darkly comic view of Smith trapped in the personal hell he created for himself with all these followers and no way to escape the increasingly intricate web of lies.

That's fair. Agreed.

 

[RandFan]

Silly Mormonism 101 question:

Is there a general Mormon consensus on when Jesus was in the Americas? I know that Smith and others had visions, but more or less what century was he said to be with the Nephites? And more or less when were the Nephites said to have emigrated to America?

Well, according to Mormonism, Christ visited the Americas at the time of his crucifixion. @ 30 AD