LDS

Status
Not open for further replies.
Janadele said:
"Tenure in the Choir is 20 years or until age 60. All 360 members of the Mormon Tabernacle Choir and all 110 members of the Orchestra at Temple Square are unpaid volunteers who practice and perform weekly. Choir members rehearse and perform about five hours in an average week—Thursday nights for two hours and Sunday mornings for more than three hours. This does not include touring, for which members often take time off from work, sometimes foregoing personal vacations. All members must attend a minimum of 75 percent of rehearsals and performances."
Click to expand...

Why age 60? Why not "until they are no longer able to perform"? And considering the amount of money that choir must make for the church, why aren't the members given compensation?

I started out not knowing much about the LDS, despite living for a while in SLC and attending the University of Utah. But the more I learn about them, the less I like them. :(
 
Er ... yes. Do you really want me to start listing the mainstream Christian choirs which have delighted audiences for centuries? Go into any cathedral or large parish church in my country and you'll hear a decent choir. So what?
 
Pup said:
...(respectfully snipped)....But I can get that some have a need for imagination and fantasy and pretend in order to feel complete in life, a need that maybe others don't have, and extrapolating from that, I wonder if there are some people who need to believe that religion is really real, to feel complete. I'm okay with that, as long as they're not using it politically to force others to obey their religion too. Apparently that's not much of a problem outside the US but it can be a real problem here.
Click to expand...

Hi, Pup.
Fantasy is one thing, and buying into a con is another.
That's what I meant by the cognitive dissonance. I express myself very badly, but what I'm trying to say is that deliberately choosing to believe what one knows to be a lie would create far more psychological damage than living with the truth.

The deliberate and crassly gratuitous manipulation of another culture's religion to further your own religion is profoundly offensive to me.
Principally for the intellectual dishonesty, but also for the total disrespect shown to the other culture's beliefs, in this case, the ancient Egyptians.

There's no justification for what Smith did with the BoA.
None.
So my point is that KNOWING that Smith was a conman absolutely precludes believing in his legitimacy as a prophet.
This is where the belief in 'the burning in the bosom' and other manifestations is so cruel, because it encourages people to imagine those feelings trump the simple facts.

Once you have a victim hooked on that bait, anything is possible, even to the victim dying to defend the con.
Con games are seriously damaging things, Pup. My involvement with 419 scam victims was short but intense. It was dreadful trying to explain to someone how deeply they'd been conned, sometimes over decades.

It's clear the LDS is based on a deliberate scam and I can't imagine how painful it must be to have family and loved ones caught up in such a lie.
I'll admit that Janadele's link showing the LDS, in 2013, still buys into the BoA was disturbing, to say the least.



Lukraak_Sisser said:
So there are Mormons who can sing well enough to go trough an audition process for a choir.
Good for them. And I'm sure they are talented.
But errr, what exactly does this have to do with LDS practices or beliefs at all?
Click to expand...

Ever listen to recordings of the Red Army ChoirWP?
 
pakeha said:
The deliberate and crassly gratuitous manipulation of another culture's religion to further your own religion is profoundly offensive to me.
Principally for the intellectual dishonesty, but also for the total disrespect shown to the other culture's beliefs, in this case, the ancient Egyptians.
Click to expand...

Not to mention the running roughshod over the histories and cultures of native American and Polynesian peoples while imposing his own European narratives.
 
O Pharaoh, not a word as far as I could see.


Janadele said:
https://www.lds.org/scriptures/adjustments?lang=eng

Further clarifications of 2013 Edition of LDS Scriptures.

http://www.ldsliving.com/story/71864-lds-church-announces-new-version-of-scriptures

https://www.lds.org/bc/content/shared/content/english/pdf/scriptures/approved-adjustments_eng.pdf
Click to expand...

Janadele, could you post up what in those links shows anything to do with the BoA, other than possible punctuation errors?
I followed the links but found nothing relevant.
 
pakeha said:
The deliberate and crassly gratuitous manipulation of another culture's religion to further your own religion is profoundly offensive to me.
Principally for the intellectual dishonesty, but also for the total disrespect shown to the other culture's beliefs, in this case, the ancient Egyptians.
Click to expand...

Virtually every religion does that though, including every other sect of Christianity, so I can't see it's a Mormon problem in particular. All the Christian holidays and legends have their sources elsewhere. Whether it happened 200 years ago or 2000 years ago, it still happened.

There's no justification for what Smith did with the BoA.
None.
So my point is that KNOWING that Smith was a conman absolutely precludes believing in his legitimacy as a prophet.
Click to expand...

You're angry at the Mormons in particular, I realize, but to me, that's what every single religion does: lie (either deliberately or subconsciously) to manipulate people. It's common with all supernatural beliefs. We saw it a few hours ago right here in this thread.

Robin1 wrote to Randfan: "2. It is a sign that maybe you are supposed to read the threads I've been involved in."

That's manipulation 101. Rather than phrasing it as a normal person would and taking responsibility for the recommendation ("I think you ought to read those threads"), it's framed to absolve the person speaking from any responsibility, as if they're just conveying a message from some other entity. Same formula as every preacher uses: "It's not me suggesting what you should do, it's a powerful supernatural agency that's greater than both of it."

If the manipulator phrased it normally, one could respond, "Not interested, sorry," and the conversation would end there. But the manipulator sets it up so they've got more ammunition, because surely only a foolish person would ignore signs or messages from God or some supernatural force or entity that's so powerful it can control our lives to send messages.

Con games are seriously damaging things, Pup.
Click to expand...

Only if people fall for them to the extent that they let them run their lives in a negative way.

If you're saying that I should try to convince Cat Tale to abandon her faith, well, that would be seriously damaging to her, just as if she tried to force me to believe.

It's clear the LDS is based on a deliberate scam and I can't imagine how painful it must be to have family and loved ones caught up in such a lie.
Click to expand...

If anyone said that to me in real life, I'd just laugh them off as the cliche angry atheist who's angry because they got conned by religion and can't stand seeing anyone believe, no matter how benign and personally rewarding their belief is.

Cat Tale is happy, I'm happy, what's the problem? I see it as no different than being married to somebody who's really into Star Wars or RPGs or whatever. Not my thing, but they enjoy it.

I'm not in the business of taking away things that people enjoy just on general principle, when it's causing no harm. That would be as wrong as trying to force religion on people when they're happy being atheists.

I'm all about live and let live, rather than trying to manipulate people into what I think they should be.

We're coming at this from two different directions, that can never be reconciled.
 
Last edited:
DragonLady said:
Why age 60? Why not "until they are no longer able to perform"?
Click to expand...

The first thing that occurred to me was, that wouldn't be "tenure," because they'd have to be tested to see if they're still able to perform.

I don't know anything about the Mormon Tabernacle Choir, so maybe somebody can explain.

What Janadele said was "Tenure in the Choir is 20 years or until age 60."

I read "tenure" in the college context, "The status of holding one's position on a permanent basis without periodic contract renewals."

So it would mean that for twenty years or until you reach 60, you're a member unconditionally, without any need to prove you can still perform.

After that, we have no information. It may be that members can continue to perform into their 80s and 90s, as long as they pass a performance review. It may be they're kicked out at age 60 regardless, or at age 40, if they first got tenure at age 20.

Anyone know?
 
pakeha said:
<snip>It's clear the LDS is based on a deliberate scam…
Click to expand...

Is there a religion that Isn't

…and I can't imagine how painful it must be to have family and loved ones caught up in such a lie.
Click to expand...

Depends on what the person gets out of it...and the person.

I have a devout Catholic friend. She's logical, and doesn't blindly buy into all of it, but her faith in God is something she holds deeply. I don't agree with that, but I've seen that what she takes with her from her religion is the best of what most religions have to offer: fellowship and compassion. She's a lovely woman who derives a lot of serenity from her faith. Who am I to tell her she's wrong?

Now, if she were like Janadele, that would be painful to witness.
 
Pup said:
Virtually every religion does that though, including every other sect of Christianity, so I can't see it's a Mormon problem in particular. All the Christian holidays and legends have their sources elsewhere. Whether it happened 200 years ago or 2000 years ago, it still happened.

There's no justification for what Smith did with the BoA.
None.
So my point is that KNOWING that Smith was a conman absolutely precludes believing in his legitimacy as a prophet.[/'quote]

You're angry at the Mormons in particular, I realize, but to me, that's what every single religion does: lie (either deliberately or subconsciously) to manipulate people. It's common with all supernatural beliefs. We saw it a few hours ago right here in this thread.

Robin1 wrote to Randfan: "2. It is a sign that maybe you are supposed to read the threads I've been involved in."

That's manipulation 101. Rather than phrasing it as a normal person would and taking responsibility for the recommendation ("I think you ought to read those threads"), it's framed to absolve the person speaking from any responsibility, as if they're just conveying a message from some other entity. Same formula as every preacher uses: "It's not me suggesting what you should do, it's a powerful supernatural agency that's greater than both of it."

If the manipulator phrased it normally, one could respond, "Not interested, sorry," and the conversation would end there. But the manipulator sets it up so they've got more ammunition, because surely only a foolish person would ignore signs or messages from God or some supernatural force or entity that's so powerful it can control our lives to send messages.



Only if people fall for them to the extent that they let them run their lives in a negative way.

If you're saying that I should try to convince Cat Tale to abandon her faith, well, that would be seriously damaging to her, just as if she tried to force me to believe.



If anyone said that to me in real life, I'd just laugh them off as the cliche angry atheist who's angry because they got conned by religion and can't stand seeing anyone believe, no matter how benign and personally rewarding their belief is.

Cat Tale is happy, I'm happy, what's the problem? I see it as no different than being married to somebody who's really into Star Wars or RPGs or whatever. Not my thing, but they enjoy it.

I'm not in the business of taking away things that people enjoy just on general principle, when it's causing no harm. That would be as wrong as trying to force religion on people when they're happy being atheists.

I'm all about live and let live, rather than trying to manipulate people into what I think they should be.

We're coming at this from two different directions, that can never be reconciled.
Click to expand...

Pup, it comes across as anger, but it's disbelief.
And surprise.
After all, I first read the BoA when Janadele posted a references to the text. I'm still astonished this crass hoax is considered a reference for anyone's faith.

In any case, a discussion about the lies which form the basis of the LDS is strictly within the subject, isn't it?
Remember, this thread is specifically about LDS. My real interest in the thread is learning more and also discovering how someone squares belief in a known lie with intellectual honesty.

As for our Robin1's posts, you're absolutely spot on. ;)
Click to expand...
 
desertgal said:
Is there a religion that Isn't



Depends on what the person gets out of it...and the person.

I have a devout Catholic friend. She's logical, and doesn't blindly buy into all of it, but her faith in God is something she holds deeply. I don't agree with that, but I've seen that what she takes with her from her religion is the best of what most religions have to offer: fellowship and compassion. She's a lovely woman who derives a lot of serenity from her faith. Who am I to tell her she's wrong?

Now, if she were like Janadele, that would be painful to witness.
Click to expand...

Very good points, desertgal.
However, your friend's beliefs aren't the subject of the thread.
Unless what you mean is your opinion that personal beliefs are private and not a fit subject for general discussion?
I agree with you.

But here we're talking about the LDS.
I'm here to learn, not preach.
I've expressed, obviously too strongly, my surprise at the brazen scam Smith pulled off with the BoA.
So please accept my apologies, if my reaction has offended any here.
 
pakeha said:
Very good points, desertgal.
However, your friend's beliefs aren't the subject of the thread.
Click to expand...

Of course not. It was merely an example.

Unless what you mean is your opinion that personal beliefs are private and not a fit subject for general discussion?
Click to expand...

Whoa. Never implied that. Wouldn't even think it.

But here we're talking about the LDS.
Click to expand...

Ah. A thousand apologies for interrupting. I'll exit the room now.
 
Janadele said:
While the storm clouds gather far across the sea,let us swear allegiance to a land that's free:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q2VNOmxnu4A

The Mormon Tabernacle Choir have inspired and given joy to many with their music. :)
Click to expand...

Do any of them have an opinion on the anachronisms in the BoM or the obvious fraud that the conman Smith pulled off?

Note that you don't need to answer me via PM.
 
pakeha said:
Hi, Pup.
There's no justification for what Smith did with the BoA.
None.
So my point is that KNOWING that Smith was a conman absolutely precludes believing in his legitimacy as a prophet.
This is where the belief in 'the burning in the bosom' and other manifestations is so cruel, because it encourages people to imagine those feelings trump the simple facts.

Once you have a victim hooked on that bait, anything is possible, even to the victim dying to defend the con.
Con games are seriously damaging things, Pup. My involvement with 419 scam victims was short but intense. It was dreadful trying to explain to someone how deeply they'd been conned, sometimes over decades.

It's clear the LDS is based on a deliberate scam and I can't imagine how painful it must be to have family and loved ones caught up in such a lie.
I'll admit that Janadele's link showing the LDS, in 2013, still buys into the BoA was disturbing, to say the least.
Click to expand...

I've read something that could speak to this exact thing. A survivor of the Jonestown massacre still believed, after all the horror, that Jones had been a prophet. Her view was that, as Jones was a fallible human, he had sinned enough for god to take away his "prophet blessing" if you will, and that at the end he was simply a man. But this woman was thoroughly convinced that earlier in his life, Jones had a direct line to god. She mentioned how when he was a giving you a blessing, he would kind of listen and look off to the side, like he was getting instructions, and then repeat them to you. She was utterly convinced that god was speaking through Jones, and had Jones continued to be worthy of god's word, he would have continued to have been a prophet.

I can see some LDS believing the same thing, even if they finally realize what a crock the BoA is. Sort of: Yeah, the BoA was just Smith pulling a fast one, b/c he'd got caught up in human sin and fallibility, but that doesn't preclude him having once had a direct line to god and being a prophet.

Of course, the BoM is just as clearly fake, but we don't have the original document to compare against (since they only existed in Smith's hat). That sort of rationalization is an amazing thing, and many people are born into it. They believe it, no different than believing in Genesis, simply b/c that's what they're told as children, and it never occurs to them to find the facts.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom