LDS

[RandFan]

So what? People are still burning "witches" in the early 21st century. "God men" still roam India performing simple conjuring tricks and passing themselves off as having supernatural powers. Self-styled psychics practice cold and hot reading techniques in order to dupe the credulous into thinking that they can communicate with their dead loved ones.


The issue of whether Smith was sincere or not is (just barely) open to debate. What is not open to debate is the fact that many of the concrete claims that he made are undeniably false. The civilizations that he described as having existed in America did not exist. No indigenous American populations are descended from any Middle Eastern population from just 2600 years ago. Smith's "translation" of the book of Abraham from Egyptian funerary texts is completely wrong.

Perhaps Smith wasn't a con-man. But if he wasn't, then he had to be delusional. You can't just wave this away as anti-Mormon bias, unless you think that reality has an anti-Mormon bias.

This ^^^

 

[pakeha]

...On a related note, for those who think that Smith was consciously running a con game, I'm curious how far down you think it goes? In other words, do you think that Smith was the only con man, and everyone else was taken in? Or do you think any of his family, the first few believers, early missionaries, Brigham Young, etc., also were running it as a conscious con?

Maybe I'm overestimating the gullibility of people, but I tend to be skeptical of it being a conscious con game without more evidence like Austin's. Subconscious, sure.

I've no idea whatsoever.
From my experience with a very similar type of scam, I'd conjecture the force of personality of the 'translator' is such that people simply tend to believe, even after the deception is revealed to the cold light of day, as is the case with The Book of Abraham.

 

[Olowkow]

"There is a fundamental difference between religion, which is based on authority, [and] science, which is based on observation and reason. Science will win, because it works."

Read more: http://www.businessinsider.com/11-s...r-his-71st-birthday-2013-1?op=1#ixzz2HtTmTGYE​

I am reminded of the above Hawking quote when reading about Joseph Smith and his extraordinary claims.

Mormons have always held a kind of mystique for me, perhaps because those I have known have been so industrious and just incredibly interesting people. I have had many friends over the years who were either ex-Mormons or practicing, and they never hassled me for being an atheist.

I was really surprised to find that Romney, a Mormon apparently in good standing with the church, resorted so readily to such dishonest tactics and lies during the final days of the campaign for the 2012 presidency. His motive was a quest clearly for power.

Drawing on my knowledge of Mormons over the years, and understanding their view of the world, I pictured Romney confident that God would give him the election no matter what he did. But that is just my possibly mistaken view of the way their reasoning works.

One current good friend who is a secretly lapsed Mormon, (and openly an Obama fan) confided in me recently that no one in the church or his extensive Mormon family has mentioned Romney since the election.

I wonder, if this is not too off topic, whether any of the resident faithful have any comments on the subject of Romney's propensity for false claims.

 

[skyrider44]

I cannot comment because your citations are missing. Would you please stop making unsuported claims.

Presumably you mean claims such as these:

Post 1751: "A non-Mormon interpretation would be that because Joseph Smith was not receiving any information from a supernatural source, so like most religious advice on health, the Word of Wisdom was only his own personal guest at what was best."

Post 1746: "The world isn't a conspiracy theory against Mormons anymore than it is against Scientology."

Post 1767: "Faith leads people to false conclusions."

Post 1804: "Once you give a god like the Christian god attributes, the theology goes to hell in a hand basket."

Post 1811: "To be honest, yes, I'm sorry but they are impossible fairy tales."

I don't see any attribution for those statements, nor for many others by you of a comparable nature.

 

[RandFan]

Presumably you mean claims such as these:

Post 1751: "A non-Mormon interpretation would be that because Joseph Smith was not receiving any information from a supernatural source, so like most religious advice on health, the Word of Wisdom was only his own personal guest at what was best."

Post 1746: "The world isn't a conspiracy theory against Mormons anymore than it is against Scientology."

Post 1767: "Faith leads people to false conclusions."

Post 1804: "Once you give a god like the Christian god attributes, the theology goes to hell in a hand basket."

Post 1811: "To be honest, yes, I'm sorry but they are impossible fairy tales."

I don't see any attribution for those statements, nor for many others by you of a comparable nature.

Not the same thing. Those are my opinions. The attribution IS MINE! I'm NOT talking about your opinions. I'm talking about your empirical claims.

 

[dafydd]

Presumably you mean claims such as these:

Post 1751: "A non-Mormon interpretation would be that because Joseph Smith was not receiving any information from a supernatural source, so like most religious advice on health, the Word of Wisdom was only his own personal guest at what was best."

Post 1746: "The world isn't a conspiracy theory against Mormons anymore than it is against Scientology."

Post 1767: "Faith leads people to false conclusions."

Post 1804: "Once you give a god like the Christian god attributes, the theology goes to hell in a hand basket."

Post 1811: "To be honest, yes, I'm sorry but they are impossible fairy tales."

I don't see any attribution for those statements, nor for many others by you of a comparable nature.

It's a combination of the null hypothesis and common sense. Given the choice between believing that a god gave Smith gold plates to start his own religion or believing that Smith made it all up, then I know which one I'm going for. The same goes for all gods and all tales about gods.

 

[RandFan]

Stowell didn't feel he was "being taken." He defended Joseph at trial, much to the prosecution's dismay.

This is a claim, where is your source?

 

[Cat Tale]

One current good friend who is a secretly lapsed Mormon, (and openly an Obama fan) confided in me recently that no one in the church or his extensive Mormon family has mentioned Romney since the election.

No one in my church mentioned Romney before the election either. The church does not endorse political candidates, and they are not to use the pulpit or any other means within the church to do so. They reiterated it again this year despite the fact there was a LDS running. Based on hearsay, I heard there were Obama fans in my ward as well. But that's okay because we are to vote according to our own conscience.

I wonder, if this is not too off topic, whether any of the resident faithful have any comments on the subject of Romney's propensity for false claims.

He's human? I mean, I'm not sure what else you're looking for, but none of us are perfect. I'm not here to judge anyone. BTW, a little side note. I got to meet Romney when he was at a rally near here. I shook his hand and he asked me to say "Hi! to my ward." I waited till after the election to do such, since it seemed as though it would be against church policy to do so prior to the election.

 

[Shalamar]

No one in my church mentioned Romney before the election either. The church does not endorse political candidates, and they are not to use the pulpit or any other means within the church to do so. They reiterated it again this year despite the fact there was a LDS running. Based on hearsay, I heard there were Obama fans in my ward as well. But that's okay because we are to vote according to our own conscience.



He's human? I mean, I'm not sure what else you're looking for, but none of us are perfect. I'm not here to judge anyone. BTW, a little side note. I got to meet Romney when he was at a rally near here. I shook his hand and he asked me to say "Hi! to my ward." I waited till after the election to do such, since it seemed as though it would be against church policy to do so prior to the election.

How do you contrast that with the way that the LDS was actively, and heavily involved in Prop 8 in California?

 

[dafydd]

How do you contrast that with the way that the LDS was actively, and heavily involved in Prop 8 in California?

Sheer hypocrisy.

 

[RandFan]

No one in my church mentioned Romney before the election either. The church does not endorse political candidates, and they are not to use the pulpit or any other means within the church to do so. They reiterated it again this year despite the fact there was a LDS running.

I can attest to this. It was something that I really respected about the Church. Unfortunately I lost a lot of respect after the Prop 8 fiasco. I had one family member and one friend who both told me they were called into the bishop's office where the Bishop pressured them to contribute funds to support Prop 8. This has been documented in the movie
8: The Mormon Proposition.

 

[Cat Tale]

Not hypocrisy, here's the rest of the story,

How do you contrast that with the way that the LDS was actively, and heavily involved in Prop 8 in California?

The First Presidency in September 1962 said: “Strictly political matters should be left in the field of politics where they belong. However, on moral issues, the Church and its members take a positive stand.” (David O. McKay, Henry D. Moyle, Hugh B. Brown). David O. McKay and the Rise of Modern Mormonism, By Gregory A. Prince, William Robert Wright 2005 UofU Press p. 333

And this is reconfirmed in the Church Handbook 2010 and on the Church website.

Does the Church support any political parties or candidates?
No. Though the Church generally encourages members to be informed and engaged politically, it leaves each person to decide for himself or herself which people and ideas best represent his or her views. “The Church is neutral regarding political parties, political platforms, and candidates for political office. The Church does not endorse any political party or candidate. Nor does it advise members how to vote” (Handbook 2: Administering the Church [2010], 21.1.29). The Church does, however, reserve the right to speak out on moral issues or other issues that significantly affect the Church and its members, including matters related to family, marriage, and religious freedom.

 

[Slowvehicle]

Presumably you mean claims such as these:

Post 1751: "A non-Mormon interpretation would be that because Joseph Smith was not receiving any information from a supernatural source, so like most religious advice on health, the Word of Wisdom was only his own personal guest at what was best."

Post 1746: "The world isn't a conspiracy theory against Mormons anymore than it is against Scientology."

Post 1767: "Faith leads people to false conclusions."

Post 1804: "Once you give a god like the Christian god attributes, the theology goes to hell in a hand basket."

Post 1811: "To be honest, yes, I'm sorry but they are impossible fairy tales."

I don't see any attribution for those statements, nor for many others by you of a comparable nature.

These are RandFan's opinions; as such, you may disagree with them, even offer contrary opinions. You may ask RandFan to support his opinions. You may even dispute RandFan's opinions. But the attribution for RanbdFan's opinions is, in fact, RandFan himself.

Are you, then, advancing the position that your substantive claims about pre-Colombian animal husbandry, crop cultivation, and metal technology are just your opinions? I disagree.

I am of the contrary opinion, supported by empirical evidence, that domesticated barley was unknown in the pre-Columbian Americas (there is no reliable evidence for the cultivation of domestic barley in the pre-Colombian Americas; the late-80's claims that the Anasazi domesticated modern barley, promulgated by sectarian researchers, have been demonstrated to be incorrect). If you would care to provide reliable, empirical evidence to the contrary, I would appreciate it.

I am of the contrary opinion, supported by empirical evidence, that domesticated cattle, and their husbandry, were unknown in the pre-Columbian Americas. If you would care to provide reliable, empirical evidence to the contrary, I would appreciate it.

I am of the contrary opinion, supported by empirical evidence, supported by empirical evidence, that domesticated horses, and their employment as beasts of burden or of transport, were unknown in the pre-Columbian Americas. If you would care to provide reliable, empirical evidence to the contrary, I would appreciate it.

I am of the contrary opinion, supported by empirical evidence, that steelmaking, and its concomitant support technology, were unknown in the pre-Columbian Americas. If you would care to provide reliable, empirical evidence to the contrary, I would appreciate it.

Without reliable, empirical evidence of the existence of these and other things, the fact that the artifacts to support the claims have not been found; nor are the claims are attested to in legend, or tradition, or art; stand as strong indication that domestic barley, domesticated horses, domesticated cattle, and steelmaking (not to mention,elephants and pigs et al. were not features of the pre-Colombian Americas.

 

[Vic Vega]

No one in my church mentioned Romney before the election either. The church does not endorse political candidates, and they are not to use the pulpit or any other means within the church to do so. They reiterated it again this year despite the fact there was a LDS running.

Doesn't federal law prevent clergy belonging to tax exempt religious organizations from endorsing candidates?

 

[tsig]

These are RandFan's opinions; as such, you may disagree with them, even offer contrary opinions. You may ask RandFan to support his opinions. You may even dispute RandFan's opinions. But the attribution for RanbdFan's opinions is, in fact, RandFan himself.

Are you, then, advancing the position that your substantive claims about pre-Colombian animal husbandry, crop cultivation, and metal technology are just your opinions? I disagree.

I am of the contrary opinion, supported by empirical evidence, that domesticated barley was unknown in the pre-Columbian Americas (there is no reliable evidence for the cultivation of domestic barley in the pre-Colombian Americas; the late-80's claims that the Anasazi domesticated modern barley, promulgated by sectarian researchers, have been demonstrated to be incorrect). If you would care to provide reliable, empirical evidence to the contrary, I would appreciate it.

I am of the contrary opinion, supported by empirical evidence, that domesticated cattle, and their husbandry, were unknown in the pre-Columbian Americas. If you would care to provide reliable, empirical evidence to the contrary, I would appreciate it.

I am of the contrary opinion, supported by empirical evidence, supported by empirical evidence, that domesticated horses, and their employment as beasts of burden or of transport, were unknown in the pre-Columbian Americas. If you would care to provide reliable, empirical evidence to the contrary, I would appreciate it.

I am of the contrary opinion, supported by empirical evidence, that steelmaking, and its concomitant support technology, were unknown in the pre-Columbian Americas. If you would care to provide reliable, empirical evidence to the contrary, I would appreciate it.

Without reliable, empirical evidence of the existence of these and other things, the fact that the artifacts to support the claims have not been found; nor are the claims are attested to in legend, or tradition, or art; stand as strong indication that domestic barley, domesticated horses, domesticated cattle, and steelmaking (not to mention,elephants and pigs et al. were not features of the pre-Colombian Americas.

The whole idea that the Maya were the people in the BoM seems ludicrous in the extreme.

 

[RandFan]

Not hypocrisy, here's the rest of the story,

The First Presidency in September 1962 said: “Strictly political matters should be left in the field of politics where they belong. However, on moral issues, the Church and its members take a positive stand.” (David O. McKay, Henry D. Moyle, Hugh B. Brown). David O. McKay and the Rise of Modern Mormonism, By Gregory A. Prince, William Robert Wright 2005 UofU Press p. 333

And this is reconfirmed in the Church Handbook 2010 and on the Church website.

Does the Church support any political parties or candidates?
No. Though the Church generally encourages members to be informed and engaged politically, it leaves each person to decide for himself or herself which people and ideas best represent his or her views. “The Church is neutral regarding political parties, political platforms, and candidates for political office. The Church does not endorse any political party or candidate. Nor does it advise members how to vote” (Handbook 2: Administering the Church [2010], 21.1.29). The Church does, however, reserve the right to speak out on moral issues or other issues that significantly affect the Church and its members, including matters related to family, marriage, and religious freedom.

Why did the Church choose to ask members to donate funds? Why didn't the Church simply spend their money?

source The Foundation receives numerous questions about church activities in influencing legislation, or lobbying. A 501(c)(3) organization, including a church, is allowed to engage only in “insubstantial” lobbying. In other words, a 501(c)(3) could lose its tax-exempt status if it engages in substantial lobbying;

IMO:

• At the very least the Church violated their own rule of avoiding the appearance of impropriety.
• The Church should lose their 501(c) status for their overt lobbying (even if it was through the members).

 

[Shalamar]

Not hypocrisy, here's the rest of the story,



The First Presidency in September 1962 said: “Strictly political matters should be left in the field of politics where they belong. However, on moral issues, the Church and its members take a positive stand.” (David O. McKay, Henry D. Moyle, Hugh B. Brown). David O. McKay and the Rise of Modern Mormonism, By Gregory A. Prince, William Robert Wright 2005 UofU Press p. 333

And this is reconfirmed in the Church Handbook 2010 and on the Church website.

Does the Church support any political parties or candidates?
No. Though the Church generally encourages members to be informed and engaged politically, it leaves each person to decide for himself or herself which people and ideas best represent his or her views. “The Church is neutral regarding political parties, political platforms, and candidates for political office. The Church does not endorse any political party or candidate. Nor does it advise members how to vote” (Handbook 2: Administering the Church [2010], 21.1.29). The Church does, however, reserve the right to speak out on moral issues or other issues that significantly affect the Church and its members, including matters related to family, marriage, and religious freedom.

SO the church feels it is a moral issue, and will actively take a political stance on it, thus eliminating the rights of those that are not members of their church?

There is a difference between speaking out on moral issues, and being active on a political issue to strip rights from a segment of the population.

 

[SezMe]

Does the Church support any political parties or candidates?
No. Though the Church generally encourages members to be informed and engaged politically, it leaves each person to decide for himself or herself which people and ideas best represent his or her views. “The Church is neutral regarding political parties, political platforms, and candidates for political office. The Church does not endorse any political party or candidate. Nor does it advise members how to vote” (Handbook 2: Administering the Church [2010], 21.1.29). The Church does, however, reserve the right to speak out on moral issues or other issues that significantly affect the Church and its members, including matters related to family, marriage, and religious freedom.

I'd note that this policy is consistent with USA law and governs (in principle) all other USA congregations so the Mormons don't stand out in this regard. But some of them push the limitation on endorsing candidates too far, IMO. For example, you know which candidate is being supported when, for example, the Moral Majority, puts out their "issues guides".

 

[RandFan]

The First Presidency in September 1962 said: “Strictly political matters should be left in the field of politics where they belong. However, on moral issues, the Church and its members take a positive stand.” (David O. McKay, Henry D. Moyle, Hugh B. Brown). David O. McKay and the Rise of Modern Mormonism, By Gregory A. Prince, William Robert Wright 2005 UofU Press p. 333

BTW: What does morality have to do with gays and lesbians being allowed to marry? The Church has taken a stand saying that it is not okay to discriminate against gays and lesbians.

Mormon Church Calls For Compassion Toward Gays, Says Homosexuality Is Not A Choice

So, the Church says that gays and lesbians do not choose to be homosexual but, they can't engage in sexual activity and they can't get married.

It's not enough for the Church to tell gay Mormons they can't get married but the Church thought it okay to tell non-Mormon gays and lesbians that they cannot get married.

I still don't know if the Church allows hermaphrodites to marry.

Sorry Cat but the Church's stance here is so wrong.

 

[Pup]

Post 1751: "A non-Mormon interpretation would be that because Joseph Smith was not receiving any information from a supernatural source, so like most religious advice on health, the Word of Wisdom was only his own personal guest at what was best."

That one is actually my statement, not Randfan's. It was quoted by Randfan in his post 1751.

It's originally from my post 1747. Ironically, my post was all about how one should give less weight to secondary sources, and rely on primary sources for evidence as much as possible. The heart of it was this:

I encourage anyone who's interested in history to focus mainly on the primary sources underlying any modern author's argument, and always come to their own conclusions.

The part quoted by Skyrider44 was just one of three examples: an evidence-based conclusion, then two possible further interpretations of the evidence, including a pro-Mormon one:

The evidence-based conclusion is that the Word of Wisdom contains health advice which was already being promoted by others at the time, but does not contain things which were only discovered later, like germ theory. That's as much as one can conclude from the evidence.

A pro-Mormon religious interpretation might be that God was already starting to reveal this information to mankind in various ways and the Word of Wisdom was to be the culmination. Or that God instructed Joseph Smith to tell people only health advice they would find believable. But there's no actual evidence of God's involvement; those interpretations are based on faith.

A non-Mormon interpretation would be that it's because Joseph Smith was not receiving any information from a supernatural source, so like most religious advice on health, the Word of Wisdom was only his own personal guess at what was best.

But note that the actual data is the same, whether interpreted in a pro-Mormon or anti-Mormon way.

Not sure what supporting evidence you're looking for, in this particular case: That I actually said what Randfan quoted? That my opinion is correct? It's just an opinion, but I gave my logical reasons in the post.

I'd be glad to discuss it more, if you want.