LDS II: The Mormons

[Pup]

I'm not sure about the colonel, interesting, but the rest is right.
Cheers!

That was point about context.
If you apply context, the BoM is far from surprising, but is fascinating as a window into those times.

Fair enough. Let me chase down what I can on early dime museums in the area. Okay, this doesn't have anyone nicknamed colonel, so I'll retract that, but this is the kind of thing I was thinking of and one can sure see how this fits with the "cabinet of curiosities" style of collecting and displaying that going on everywhere in the country in early museum-like displays at the time. It's from
http://eom.byu.edu/index.php/Museums,_LDS

"One of the first museum references in Church history is from Addison Pratt, who on May 24, 1843, donated "the tooth of a whale, coral, and other curiosities" he had obtained in Polynesia as a young sailor, 'as the beginning for a museum in Nauvoo' (HC 5:406)...

A letter from Dibble pleaded for immigrating Saints to bring "glass, nails, oils, paints, etc., to the valley…that a museum may be established…of the works of nature and art" (MS 11 [1849]:11-12). A general epistle to the Church signed by Brigham Young and Willard Richards stated, "We also want all kinds of…rare specimens of natural curiosities and works of art that can be gathered and brought to the valley…from which, the rising generation can receive instruction; and if the Saints will be diligent…we will soon have the best, the most useful and attractive museum on earth" (MS 10 [1848]:85).

The first museum in the Salt Lake Valley, established in 1869, was owned by John W. Young, son of Brigham Young. It displayed a variety of curiosities, including geological and live natural specimens indigenous to the region. This Salt Lake City Museum and Menagerie was located in a two-room adobe house behind the west wall of the Lion House. The curator was Guglielmo Giosue Rossetti Sangiovanni, a native of London called "Sangio." In 1871 the Deseret Telegraph needed the property, and, shorn of its "zoo" character, the museum was moved to a top floor of a building opposite the south gate of the temple block. On September 18, 1878, ownership was transferred to the Church.

Joseph Barfoot, a devoted naturalist, became the second curator, and under his supervision the museum matured scientifically until his death in 1882."

Lots of snippage but the rest is available at the link.

 

[halleyscomet]

Did you know it was once a mainstream Mormon belief that having black skin was the biblical "Mark of Cain?" The ever progressive, compassionate LDS finally got around to denouncing the belief in 2012.

Mormon church denounces folk beliefs about blacks and priesthood

(Published March 5, 2012)

The LDS Church strongly denounced racism Wednesday and dismissed folk beliefs about why the Utah-based faith banned blacks from its all-male priesthood until 1978.

The statements, published on the church's newsroom website, were triggered by comments made by Brigham Young University religion professor Randy Bott in Tuesday's Washington Post.

Bott pointed to Mormon scriptures that indicate descendants of the biblical Cain — who killed his brother Abel and was "cursed" by God — were black and subsequently barred from the priesthood. He also noted that past LDS leaders suggested blacks were less valiant in the sphere known in Mormon theology as the "premortal existence."

The longtime religion professor at LDS Church-owned BYU further argued that blacks were not ready for the priesthood, the Post wrote, "like a young child prematurely asking for the keys to her father's car."

Bott's comments, the church said Wednesday, "absolutely do not represent the teachings and doctrines of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints."

WOW.

In 2012, one of the BYU professors Skyrider44 wants us to take seriously was literally comparing dark skinned people to children too immature to be trusted with car keys.

Here's the article where Randy Bott is quoted. Give it a read.

It’s not clear whether Joseph Smith, the religion’s founder, who ordained at least one black priest, supported the ban. But his successor, Brigham Young, enforced it enthusiastically as the word of God, supporting slavery in Utah and decreeing that the “mark” on Cain was “the flat nose and black skin.” Young subsequently urged immediate death to any participant in mixing of the races. As recently as 1949, church leaders suggested that the ban on blacks resulted from the consequences of the “conduct of spirits in the pre-mortal existence.” As a result, many Mormons believed that blacks were less valiant in the pre-Earth life, or fence sitters in the war between God and Satan. That view has fallen out of favor in recent decades.

“God has always been discriminatory” when it comes to whom he grants the authority of the priesthood, says Bott, the BYU theologian. He quotes Mormon scripture that states that the Lord gives to people “all that he seeth fit.” Bott compares blacks with a young child prematurely asking for the keys to her father’s car, and explains that similarly until 1978, the Lord determined that blacks were not yet ready for the priesthood.

“What is discrimination?” Bott asks. “I think that is keeping something from somebody that would be a benefit for them, right? But what if it wouldn’t have been a benefit to them?” Bott says that the denial of the priesthood to blacks on Earth — although not in the afterlife — protected them from the lowest rungs of hell reserved for people who abuse their priesthood powers. “You couldn’t fall off the top of the ladder, because you weren’t on the top of the ladder. So, in reality the blacks not having the priesthood was the greatest blessing God could give them.”

 

[Pup]

Did you know it was once a mainstream Mormon belief that having black skin was the biblical "Mark of Cain?" The ever progressive, compassionate LDS finally got around to denouncing the belief in 2012.

Not sure if one can link directly to a search result, but a search of the first LDS thread (linked in the first post of this thread) brings up some discussion. Here's an attempt at a direct link to a search result: http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/search.php?searchid=2609600 But if that doesn't work, go to the first page of this thread, click on the link to the old thread, then search for mark cain. Searching for curse cain also brings up some slightly different results.

Let me see if this will modestly link to one of my own contributions on the topic, of how the racism increased with Brigham Young but was part of the wider protestant outlook of the day http://www.internationalskeptics.co...hp?p=8943466&highlight=curse+cain#post8943466 and that part of the thread, before and after, also includes a lot of discussion on the topic.

 

[Wolrab]

Why are you all linking to obvious anti Mormon sites?

 

[Pup]

Why are you all linking to obvious anti Mormon sites?

Janadele! You're back!

 

[sir drinks-a-lot]

Yes, I understand that you are simply trying to clarify but let's be honest here. We are talking about magical thinking. There is no objective evidence whatsoever that seer stones are as effective as "hocus pocus" or other enchantments.

I'd have to disagree with your assertion in bold. It seems to me that there is objective evidence that seer stones are exactly as effective as "hocus pocus"!

 

[SezMe]

Janadele! You're back!

Too funny.

 

[Wolrab]

Janadele! You're back!

Someone had to and seeing how I live in the Holy Land of the town of Manchester, NY, drove past the Temple, Ol' Joe's house, Hill Cumorah, Martin Harris' house, and the whole gamut of LSDS beginnings just this week, I am the only choice.

I can say with authority that this area has a horse culture, steel, barley (it used to be THE place to grow hops), wheeled vehicles, massive ruins, and historic battlefields that are definitely pre-columbine. I can and will prove any questions beyond a shadow of a doubt. I will even photograph the evidence myself.

 

[halleyscomet]

Why are you all linking to obvious anti Mormon sites?

Hey now! A LOT of my links have been to PRO-Mormon sites. Some of them were so good that SkyRider44 used them himself later in the thread.

Without the occasional injection of an ACTUAL pro-Mormon argument, the thread would be little more than SkyRider44 claiming we don't know what we're talking about between stretches of posts that demonstrate we know EXACTLY what we're talking about.

 

[tsig]

Someone had to and seeing how I live in the Holy Land of the town of Manchester, NY, drove past the Temple, Ol' Joe's house, Hill Cumorah, Martin Harris' house, and the whole gamut of LSDS beginnings just this week, I am the only choice.

I can say with authority that this area has a horse culture, steel, barley (it used to be THE place to grow hops), wheeled vehicles, massive ruins, and historic battlefields that are definitely pre-columbine. I can and will prove any questions beyond a shadow of a doubt. I will even photograph the evidence myself.

Do you have a seerstone?

It's a well known fact that god appears thru a rock so get thou a holy rock and rock on!

 

[Wolrab]

Hey now! A LOT of my links have been to PRO-Mormon sites. Some of them were so good that SkyRider44 used them himself later in the thread.

Without the occasional injection of an ACTUAL pro-Mormon argument, the thread would be little more than SkyRider44 claiming we don't know what we're talking about between stretches of posts that demonstrate we know EXACTLY what we're talking about.

If those sites can be used in any way to denigrate Mormonism they are anti-mormon!

I have seen the Mormon Pageant (in various state of chemical enhancement) and observed the anti-mormons shouting loudly and carrying placards while accosting the (lily white) drones attending the show. It is pretty creepy seeing all these Mormons smiling and offering blessings to foaming at the mouth Christian protesters.

 

[halleyscomet]

If those sites can be used in any way to denigrate Mormonism they are anti-mormon!

I have seen the Mormon Pageant (in various state of chemical enhancement) and observed the anti-mormons shouting loudly and carrying placards while accosting the (lily white) drones attending the show. It is pretty creepy seeing all these Mormons smiling and offering blessings to foaming at the mouth Christian protesters.

Well, THIS is certainly complimentary to Mormons, and I doubt anyone here could take issue with it.

 

[skyrider44]

Why are you all linking to obvious anti Mormon sites?

Excellent question. Answer: Because that's the fountainhead of all of their information. It's where they go to find information that supports their position.

 

[Giordano]

Excellent question. Answer: Because that's the fountainhead of all of their information. It's where they go to find information that supports their position.

I believe that post you quoted was sarcasm. See the emoticon? But I am happy to be corrected by the poster.

 

[Pup]

Excellent question. Answer: Because that's the fountainhead of all of their information. It's where they go to find information that supports their position.

I think the joke was that the last few posts with links were linking to sites with "byu" in the URL or to articles in legitimate Utah newspapers or the Associated Press. Janadele used to claim these were anti-Mormon site, or at least I recall posting something from a BYU professor's website/blog, and we argued a bit about whether it was anti-Mormon.

Edited to add: Not the specific example I was thinking of, but just a quick sort-of example of that kind of thing, starting with mostly Randfan's posts and a few of mine on this page: http://www.internationalskeptics.co...p?p=8883309&highlight=anti-mormon#post8883309 (hope that link works, realized I can't link to search results but that might do it).

 

[Slowvehicle]

Excellent question. Answer: Because that's the fountainhead of all of their information. It's where they go to find information that supports their position.

Interesting response from someone who is pleased to stoop to "massresistance.com" as a source of "information".

Some posters actually read the sources to which they link, not just the titles of the "articles".

Since you are back, perhaps you could explain when, in your opinion, (rough dates would be just dandy) the exciting stories in the "american chapters" of the BoM are to be supposed to have taken place.

Perhaps you could also explain where, in your opinion, the civilization described in the exciting "american chapters" ("covered the land"; "thousands of years") is to be supposed to have been located.

Perhaps you could also vouchsafe your own, personal, opinion of when þͤ Fludde is to be supposed to have taken place.

 

[Wolrab]

Excellent question. Answer: Because that's the fountainhead of all of their information. It's where they go to find information that supports their position.

I know, really. All these fools linking to archeological, astrophysical, genetic, metallurgical, academic, Egyptology, theological, historical, geological, anthropological, radiological, epigraphical, chronological, codicological, philological, and the rest of those silly established scientific disciplines when they could just accept the word of a convicted confidence man that used his position of authority to get in the pants of young girls.

The real kicker is when they link to blatant anti-Mormon sites like byu.ed. It sickens me that nearly the entire collected knowledge of mankind and the internet don't support the BOM or the BOA except for what some would call apologetic sites that aren't peer reviewed or distort findings.

Funny that.

 

[Slowvehicle]

I think the joke was that the last few posts with links were linking to sites with "byu" in the URL or to articles in legitimate Utah newspapers or the Associated Press. Janadele used to claim these were anti-Mormon site, or at least I recall posting something from a BYU professor's website/blog, and we argued a bit about whether it was anti-Mormon.

Edited to add: Not the specific example I was thinking of, but just a quick sort-of example of that kind of thing, starting with mostly Randfan's posts and a few of mine on this page: http://www.internationalskeptics.co...p?p=8883309&highlight=anti-mormon#post8883309 (hope that link works, realized I can't link to search results but that might do it).

There was at least one incident (regarding, IIRC, the Spencer Lake Horse Hoax) where J'delle quoted a BYU professor in one place, but dismissed him as an "anti-mormon" source in another.

 

[Giordano]

They are all against me, I tell you! I mean against the Church of LDS! You can't trust anyone who says anything against the Church dogma. Simple.

We have had others on these forums who believed that anything stated that contradicted the Church (not the LDS by the way) was propaganda and untrustworthy. Once you can get your Church members to believe in this fashion, you have avoided a lot of unpleasant questioning by "the ranks."

 

[skyrider44]

. . . At best, you can say that certain artists have been under the impression that "divine inspiration" was "operative" in their acts of creativity.

Here again (as you have done countless times) you make an unsupportable assumption. How do you know that certain artists were only under the impression that divine influence was operative in the creation of their masterpieces? You don't know that any more than you know that Mars is inhabited by green, one-eyed midgets with ears six inches wide.

Charlie Parker claimed that smack was the driving force behind his creativity. Shall we celebrate musicians using heroin, and advance the superstition that mind-altering drugs enhance creativity?

You commit an error in inductive reasoning. You would have us believe that one person's experience is of universal relevance.

Not to mention, if a 'god' "inspired" Handel, it was the 'god' he worshipped . . . .

I never said Handel was influenced by the God LDS worship. BTW, how do you know what god Handel worshipped (assuming that there are, as you suppose, many gods)?

Are you asserting that any or all 'gods' can provide "divine inspiration"?

That's your assertion; otherwise, you wouldn't have asked the question.

Or, as seems more likely, are you simply indulging yourself in your habit of cherry-picking and special pleading?

Surely you have some fresh, new, valid accusations to lodge against me.

You really do not understand the problem with circular reasoning, and special pleading, at all, do you? You demonstrably do not understand epistemology.

You are well acquainted with those terms, having availed yourself of them countless times.

At best, we can be said to "know" that people have said that they, themselves, believe that their works were "divinely inspired"; which is, of course, no more evidence for "divine inspiration" than your own beleif in Smith's inventions is evidence that "there has to be a pony".

You reject wholesale the validity of all first-person accounts. How you are able to do that is a mystery.

Not to mention which "divinity" is to be supposed to be providing the "inspiration". How do you address the creedal distinctions among those claiming "divine inspiration" from different 'gods' than yours?

You know virtually nothing about LDS doctrine; it holds that there is God the Father, Jesus Christ, and the Holy Ghost.

You are missing (overlooking? being dishonestabout?) the fact that, at best, some people claim "divine inspiration".

More dishonesty, eh? Surprised I am not. Yes, "some" people may wrongly claim "divine inspiration," but "some" is not the same (ahem) as all.

Some people claim to "speak with the dead"; some claim to be able to read invented languages. Are their beliefs to be taken as evidence of the "immortality" of the "soul", or of the actual existence of "Reformed Egyptian"? I wonder where you, personally,draw the line.

Still another error in inductive reasoning.

No. It is, in fact, you who are making an unevidenced claim; you who are toeing a party line. Unless and until you provide evidence for the mere existence of a 'god' (and of course, explain the problem with all of the different 'gods'), you indulge yourself in fallacy when you make claims about that 'god' "inspiring" creative work. Again, you are advancing a claim for "divine inspiration" without bothering to provide the least foundation for your claim.

Your proclivity for conjecturing appears to know no bounds. I find that strange, inasmuch as you are "big" on evidence.