LDS

[Craig4]

I suppose this is as good a place as any to ask some questions, thus: If Joseph Smith was a con man/fraud/sexual deviant/crook/scoundrel. . .if his story about golden plates and translating them by looking into a hat is so absurd as to be laughable. . .if the Book of Mormon is a 19th century work riddled with anachronisms (and for which there is no archaeological evidence of any kind). . .if Joseph Smith and his followers used polygamy as a cover for having sex with young girls. . .if the Book of Abraham has nothing whatsoever to do with Abraham. . .if Brigham Young was a rabid racist. . .if, in sum, all of the warts that are a part of Mormon historicity are factually correct. . .

why does any of it matter to those on this forum who relentlessly criticize/denigrate the LDS Church? Do the Church and its members pose some kind of insidious threat to those critics? Has the Church infringed on their civil rights? Do what Mormons believe invade the critics' privacy? In other words, if Mormonism is all bunk--a load of crap--why do the critics care? Have any Mormons held guns to their heads and forced them into baptismal fonts? Have any critics been forced out of their homes for attacking the Church?

I would really like to know what accounts for the depth and breadth of the critics' rampant animosity toward the Church.

For the same reason your missionaries spread the lies originally vomited out by the Smith creature. I want to save people from wasting their limited existence on the false hope of superstition and mysticism.

 

[Sideroxylon]

I suppose this is as good a place as any to ask some questions, thus: If Joseph Smith was a con man/fraud/sexual deviant/crook/scoundrel. . .if his story about golden plates and translating them by looking into a hat is so absurd as to be laughable. . .if the Book of Mormon is a 19th century work riddled with anachronisms (and for which there is no archaeological evidence of any kind). . .if Joseph Smith and his followers used polygamy as a cover for having sex with young girls. . .if the Book of Abraham has nothing whatsoever to do with Abraham. . .if Brigham Young was a rabid racist. . .if, in sum, all of the warts that are a part of Mormon historicity are factually correct. . .

why does any of it matter to those on this forum who relentlessly criticize/denigrate the LDS Church? Do the Church and its members pose some kind of insidious threat to those critics? Has the Church infringed on their civil rights? Do what Mormons believe invade the critics' privacy? In other words, if Mormonism is all bunk--a load of crap--why do the critics care? Have any Mormons held guns to their heads and forced them into baptismal fonts? Have any critics been forced out of their homes for attacking the Church?

I would really like to know what accounts for the depth and breadth of the critics' rampant animosity toward the Church.

I for one am very curious about why people believe things and how they go about justifying them. It would be interesting to hear you defend the papyri translations and the anachronisms. And take a moment to look at the top of the browser and the address. This is a sceptics' forum. Doubt is what happens here. You and Janadele arrived here knowing this or came to such an understanding in short time. Crying persecution looks pretty silly.

 

[Craig4]

Sorry, it's not clear which post you a replying to. What privilege, exactly? And who judges worthiness?

It was my post about making time in my schedule to meet any god who asks. She did that thing where she edits posts that have already been commented on again. The reason she does this is known only to her.

 

[pakeha]

Since I suspect a link won't be forthcoming, I'll just mention that she quotes this as being from a Stake Conference. That is a gathering of several local wards, so depending on how many Mormons there are in your area, you might have to drive quite a ways to go to one. This might have been from her local Stake Conference, or she might be getting it from some church publication like The Ensign.

However, the relevant quote is from Boyd K Packer. He's the President of the Quorum of the Twelve (advisers under the prophet) and notorious for his anti-gay stance, and his insistence that being gay is not inborn. Why does he believe that? Why because our sweet, loving Heavenly Father wouldn't do such a thing to someone! Lovely chap that he is, he'd destroy the whole world with a flood including innocent children, but wouldn't create someone gay, 'cause that would just be wrong.

You can read the whole quote that Janadele is referring to here. Scroll down to "Morally mixed-up world". (Sorry, don't know how to directly link to relevant section.)

Thanks for the link, Majesty.
I read the entire article and was most struck by the definition of inoculate.
"Spiritual diseases of epidemic proportion sweep over the world. We are not able to curb them. But we can prevent our youth from being infected by them.

Knowledge and a testimony of the restored gospel of Jesus Christ are like a vaccine. We can inoculate them.

Inoculate: In—”to be within” and oculate means “eye to see.” We place an eye within them—the unspeakable gift of the Holy Ghost."

Compare that to http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/inoculate
"Middle English, to insert a bud in a plant, from Latin inoculatus, past participle of inoculare, from in- + oculus eye, bud — more at eye"

 

[TjW]

I suppose this is as good a place as any to ask some questions, thus: If Joseph Smith was a con man/fraud/sexual deviant/crook/scoundrel. . .if his story about golden plates and translating them by looking into a hat is so absurd as to be laughable. . .if the Book of Mormon is a 19th century work riddled with anachronisms (and for which there is no archaeological evidence of any kind). . .if Joseph Smith and his followers used polygamy as a cover for having sex with young girls. . .if the Book of Abraham has nothing whatsoever to do with Abraham. . .if Brigham Young was a rabid racist. . .if, in sum, all of the warts that are a part of Mormon historicity are factually correct. . .

why does any of it matter to those on this forum who relentlessly criticize/denigrate the LDS Church? Do the Church and its members pose some kind of insidious threat to those critics? Has the Church infringed on their civil rights? Do what Mormons believe invade the critics' privacy? In other words, if Mormonism is all bunk--a load of crap--why do the critics care? Have any Mormons held guns to their heads and forced them into baptismal fonts? Have any critics been forced out of their homes for attacking the Church?

I would really like to know what accounts for the depth and breadth of the critics' rampant animosity toward the Church.

Or for that matter, why speak out against any lie?

 

[abaddon]

I would really like to know what accounts for the depth and breadth of the critics' rampant animosity toward the Church.

First off, it is not LDS in particular being singled out. If this thread was about the RCC, Baptists, Hindu, Islam etc. it would not matter. Pretty much the same arguments would apply. It so happens that this thread is specifically about LDS.

Secondly, there is not real animosity being shown, if there were, the mods would be all over the thread.

Thirdly, you fail to realise that we simply don't believe in any gods of any flavour, mostly.

Fourthly, the religious caused the preventable death of a young woman by forcing their view upon the laws of my country. Is that not reason to stand up and be counted? And there are many more horrible examples of what religious types force down our throats.

You are simply trying to play the victim card and say "Poor persecuted us, can't you just leave us alone to worship in peace?". My response is "Not as long as you keep ringing my doorbell and harassing me".

 

[Slowvehicle]

I suppose this is as good a place as any to ask some questions, thus: If Joseph Smith was a con man/fraud/sexual deviant/crook/scoundrel. . .if his story about golden plates and translating them by looking into a hat is so absurd as to be laughable. . .if the Book of Mormon is a 19th century work riddled with anachronisms (and for which there is no archaeological evidence of any kind). . .if Joseph Smith and his followers used polygamy as a cover for having sex with young girls. . .if the Book of Abraham has nothing whatsoever to do with Abraham. . .if Brigham Young was a rabid racist. . .if, in sum, all of the warts that are a part of Mormon historicity are factually correct. . .

why does any of it matter to those on this forum who relentlessly criticize/denigrate the LDS Church? Do the Church and its members pose some kind of insidious threat to those critics? Has the Church infringed on their civil rights? Do what Mormons believe invade the critics' privacy? In other words, if Mormonism is all bunk--a load of crap--why do the critics care? Have any Mormons held guns to their heads and forced them into baptismal fonts? Have any critics been forced out of their homes for attacking the Church?

I would really like to know what accounts for the depth and breadth of the critics' rampant animosity toward the Church.

I would like to know why asking, patiently, for your list of anachronisms from the BoM that have been demonstrated, with empirical, practical, physical evidence, bu neutral sources, to exist in the pre-Colombian Americas is "relentless criticism". I would like to know why takking exception with the idea that anyone who accurately translates the BoB, demonstrating that Abraham's personal autograph is not a part of Egyptian funerary texts, is "denigration".

Anyone who comes to a science-based forum with intent to preach; who supports their preachment with mis-statements and misquotations, and who flashes attitude when asked to support their claims with facts; is going to be ploughing uphill, in some fairly stony soil. Such a person, if offended, might find their time better spent elsewhere...

This is not a place where the MartyrCard^TM has much currency.

 

[zooterkin]

It was my post about making time in my schedule to meet any god who asks. She did that thing where she edits posts that have already been commented on again. The reason she does this is known only to her.

Ah, thanks. At least this time information was added, not removed.

 

[tsig]

I for one am very curious about why people believe things and how they go about justifying them. It would be interesting to hear you defend the papyri translations and the anachronisms. And take a moment to look at the top of the browser and the address. This is a sceptics' forum. Doubt is what happens here. You and Janadele arrived here knowing this or came to such an understanding in short time. Crying persecution looks pretty silly.

I guess this might be a bad time to say that I'm totally motivated by Satan, he really sets you on fire.

 

[Sideroxylon]

I guess this might be a bad time to say that I'm totally motivated by Satan, he really sets you on fire.

You're a loose cannon.

 

[tsig]

I suppose this is as good a place as any to ask some questions, thus: If Joseph Smith was a con man/fraud/sexual deviant/crook/scoundrel. . .if his story about golden plates and translating them by looking into a hat is so absurd as to be laughable. . .if the Book of Mormon is a 19th century work riddled with anachronisms (and for which there is no archaeological evidence of any kind). . .if Joseph Smith and his followers used polygamy as a cover for having sex with young girls. . .if the Book of Abraham has nothing whatsoever to do with Abraham. . .if Brigham Young was a rabid racist. . .if, in sum, all of the warts that are a part of Mormon historicity are factually correct. . . why does any of it matter to those on this forum who relentlessly criticize/denigrate the LDS Church? Do the Church and its members pose some kind of insidious threat to those critics? Has the Church infringed on their civil rights? Do what Mormons believe invade the critics' privacy? In other words, if Mormonism is all bunk--a load of crap--why do the critics care? Have any Mormons held guns to their heads and forced them into baptismal fonts? Have any critics been forced out of their homes for attacking the Church?

I would really like to know what accounts for the depth and breadth of the critics' rampant animosity toward the Church.

Would it matter to you?


The Mormon church is just part of a lifelong study of religion beginning as an altar boy, thru the seminary til now. It fascinated me because it was close enough historically to be able to discern the facts.

There seems to be no way to ask religious people any questions that might challenge their faith without it being perceived as an attack.

If you think this is rampant hostility then your hair shirt must be itching.

 

[tsig]

You're a loose cannon.

In a heavy sea.

 

[Slowvehicle]

You're a loose cannon.

...or a loose canon...

ETA ...near a holy see...

 

[Agatha]

I suppose this is as good a place as any to ask some questions, thus: If Joseph Smith was a con man/fraud/sexual deviant/crook/scoundrel. . .if his story about golden plates and translating them by looking into a hat is so absurd as to be laughable. . .if the Book of Mormon is a 19th century work riddled with anachronisms (and for which there is no archaeological evidence of any kind). . .if Joseph Smith and his followers used polygamy as a cover for having sex with young girls. . .if the Book of Abraham has nothing whatsoever to do with Abraham. . .if Brigham Young was a rabid racist. . .if, in sum, all of the warts that are a part of Mormon historicity are factually correct. . .

why does any of it matter to those on this forum who relentlessly criticize/denigrate the LDS Church? Do the Church and its members pose some kind of insidious threat to those critics? Has the Church infringed on their civil rights? Do what Mormons believe invade the critics' privacy? In other words, if Mormonism is all bunk--a load of crap--why do the critics care? Have any Mormons held guns to their heads and forced them into baptismal fonts? Have any critics been forced out of their homes for attacking the Church?

I would really like to know what accounts for the depth and breadth of the critics' rampant animosity toward the Church.

Because "falsehoods unchallenged only fester and grow". There is no animosity towards the church, at least not from anyone here, only animosity towards those who spread lies in place of truth. If people, knowing all that warts and all history to which you refer at the beginning of your post, still cling to Mormonism, then I have no problem with that, and I don't think anyone else would either.

But people should know the truth; about the founders of their church and the history. That way, they can make an informed choice, and can be aware of the misogyny, homophobia, racism and false 'translations' on which the church is founded. Your church is not being singled out as better or worse than any other on this site, this thread discusses LDS but other threads discuss Scientology and mainstream Christianity to mention just two.

Mormonism was developed so recently that we have extant writings and newspaper reports to draw on; Scientology is even more recent and the lies of L Ron Hubbard are also challenged. We don't have extant writings or contemporaneous reporting with mainstream Christianity, but that doesn't mean that the beginnings, development and traditions of Christianity are not regularly discussed and challenged.

Critical thinking (as I said earlier in the thread) means that every belief - religious, woo or political - will be challenged. It may not be very palatable to the believer, but that is the nature of the site and the participants. Everyone, no matter what their beliefs are, should critically examine and challenge those beliefs to ensure that they are not in thrall to falsehoods.

 

[RoboTimbo]

why does any of it matter to those on this forum who relentlessly criticize/denigrate the LDS Church? Do the Church and its members pose some kind of insidious threat to those critics? Has the Church infringed on their civil rights? Do what Mormons believe invade the critics' privacy? In other words, if Mormonism is all bunk--a load of crap--why do the critics care? Have any Mormons held guns to their heads and forced them into baptismal fonts? Have any critics been forced out of their homes for attacking the Church?

A good question would be why did Janadele open the floodgates? You agree that it's foolish to think there wouldn't be honest commentary after opening such a subject?

I would really like to know what accounts for the depth and breadth of the critics' rampant animosity toward the Church.

I found the answer:

If Joseph Smith was a con man/fraud/sexual deviant/crook/scoundrel. . .if his story about golden plates and translating them by looking into a hat is so absurd as to be laughable. . .if the Book of Mormon is a 19th century work riddled with anachronisms (and for which there is no archaeological evidence of any kind). . .if Joseph Smith and his followers used polygamy as a cover for having sex with young girls. . .if the Book of Abraham has nothing whatsoever to do with Abraham. . .if Brigham Young was a rabid racist. . .if, in sum, all of the warts that are a part of Mormon historicity are factually correct. . .

 

[Sideroxylon]

I found the answer:

It was an interestingly comprehensive list.

 

[skyrider44]

You're playing the victim again.

No, I'm asking questions that apparently make you squirm because they address the issues of motivation and intent, and, yes, civility.

Please remember that you came to this thread (which Janadele started) to discuss the LDS. If encountering people who don't believe the stories that you believe makes you feel insulted and angry to the point that you post histrionics like the above, then why are you here?

You haven't answered my questions. Why do what Mormons believe matter to you, especially inasmuch as you probably don't even believe in the existence of God? What drives what is often more than merely "discussion" about the LDS Church and its members, sometimes taking the form of mocking and denigration (not to mention the use of emotionally loaded words like "histrionics")?

 

[Foster Zygote]

No, I'm asking questions that apparently make you squirm because they address the issues of motivation and intent, and, yes, civility.

That's interesting coming from someone who never explained why he claimed that the formulation of scientific hypotheses required faith, nor admitted that he was wrong. I am not "squirming". I am pointing out to you that you came to this thread knowing that it had been opened by Janadele for the purpose of discussing the LDS. Characterizing those who doubt the legitimacy of a prophet who, among other things, created a blatant forgery based on Egyptian hypocephali as engaging in "rampant animosity" is nothing more than a transparent attempt to shift attention away from your failure to address a number of points with cogent counter-arguments.

You haven't answered my questions. Why do what Mormons believe matter to you, especially inasmuch as you probably don't even believe in the existence of God?

I am interested in human psychology. Mormonism is but one of many religions that influences the behavior of humans over the globe. In the case of this discussion, I am here because Janadele opened this thread in a forum that exists for the purpose of critically examining and discussing metaphysical claims.

What drives what is often more than merely "discussion" about the LDS Church and its members, sometimes taking the form of mocking and denigration...

Unless you can point to a post in which I have mocked or denigrated anyone, you'll have to ask others for an answer to that question.

...(not to mention the use of emotionally loaded words like "histrionics")?

If you don't want to be perceived as melodramatic, then quite playing the victim card. Try actually addressing arguments that have been made in response to your own.

 

[DragonLady]

why does any of it matter to those on this forum who relentlessly criticize/denigrate the LDS Church?

1) Because Mormon missionaries occasionally show up at MY door! And no, they don't stick around to listen to me telling them the "good news" of MY religion.

2) Because I've known more than one person to give up a relatively decent life to join the LDS church only to become very disillusioned and have to spend years repairing the damages to self and family.

3) Because there's a topic (this one) started by an LDS member, at the good ol' JREF, where I've been spending more and more of my free time.

4) Because human behavior and beliefs in general fascinate and interest me.

5) Because I didn't know a lot about it when this topic started, and have learned a lot.

Shall I go on? I have a handful of less charitable reasons; including all those teen girls forced into marriage, and all those teen boys abandoned to prevent them from being rivals to their own fathers for said teen girls....

 

[SezMe]

You haven't answered my questions. Why do what Mormons believe matter to you, especially inasmuch as you probably don't even believe in the existence of God? What drives what is often more than merely "discussion" about the LDS Church and its members, sometimes taking the form of mocking and denigration (not to mention the use of emotionally loaded words like "histrionics")?

You may not like the excellent answers others have provided, but they did respond directly to your question. But you seem to want specific harms done so I'll give you two:

1. Prop 8 in California. The LDS put A LOT of money into the California political process to deny equal marriage rights to gays. This is direct, palpable harm to thousands and thousands of good California/USA citizens who just want an equal bite at the apple of life. That matters, skyrider44.
2. LDS sponsorship of Boy Scout troops. Young boys at an impressionable age are taught that without god you're unworthy. You're "different" - so much so that you can't be loyal, thrifty, prepared, etc. and you can't be in our little club. The damage done to young minds by the LDS (yes, and all the others but those others are off topic in this thread) may well be the worst sin of all. That matters, skyrider44.