LDS

[bruto]

Skyrider, you ask over and over what difference the question of fraud makes to anyone outside the church, and then ask what form oppression by Mormons might take.

Well, continuing my previous response, I would point out that, as a Vermonter, a parent, and an advocate of civil and marriage equality, I personally, (in the sense that I consider my personal principles and political beliefs a personal matter, as I also do my concern for other persons I consider part of my community,) am affected by the Mormon Church (among other churches), and Mormon spokespeople, who have publicly opposed not only gay marriage but quite publicly in the past, civil unions. They continue to fight the spread of marriage equality to the rest of the nation, which until it happens means that even gay couples legally married cannot enjoy true equality under Federal law. If I should happen to believe that the faith of Mormons is false and their scriptures a fraud, then it is clearly not only my right but my duty to point this out when they use those beliefs and their reliance on those scriptures to attempt to influence the civil laws that govern us all.

When you step out of the church you are not in church any more. If you don't want people to insult your flag, fold it up and put it away.

 

[skyrider44]

. . . I would say that questions of that nature are entirely valid, and they affect all of us to the extent that one's beliefs form the basis of political action that affects those not attached to them.

But doesn't that cut both ways? Haven't the "unbeliefs" of atheists impacted the political process; i.e., no prayer in public schools, etc.

As I have said before, I don't see a problem with individuals using those scriptures as the basis for their political beliefs or for argument with others if they have the chops, but the protection of religion disappears when the civil sphere is entered . . .

Not quite. Churches have a right--indeed, an obligation--to speak out on moral issues. It is partly on that basis that they receive 501(C)(3) status under U. S. tax law.

 

[Slowvehicle]

Skyrider:

If anyone were calling the "mormon lifestyle" perverse, unnatural,or disgusting; if anyone were spending bushels of tax-free money trying to make it illegal to perform an act of mormon worship; if anyone were supporting the right to refuse to buy from, sell to, rent to, or provide services to, mormons; if anyone were actively campaigning to make it difficult to give, or will, property to mormon organizations, at that point you would have a valid question about what effect the transparent frauds of the BoM, and the clumsy ahistorical inventions of the BoA has upon the persons doing so.

 

[RandFan]

Yes, indeed, you have "repeatedly referenced the overwhelming evidence of . . .fraud." The fact that you have done so should make it easy for you to explain how said fraud personally affects you.

It has cause estrangement between myself and members of my family. Members are warned to avoid apostates. An organization that prides itself on families is happy to put enmity between family members.

 

[Pixel42]

This latest diversionary tactic is almost surreal. Apparently when believers come to a sceptics site of their own free will and present their bizarre beliefs it is necessary for the sceptics to demonstrate that they are personally affected by those beliefs before they can dispute them. Who knew?

This is obviously the next logical step in this surreal sequence so let's go for it.

Janadele/skyrider: how does the fact that nonbelievers think the BoM and BoA are frauds affect you personally? Please explain why it affects you so much that you find it necessary to seek out those nonbelievers on sceptics forums and start threads which purport to explain and defend your beliefs, but which actually consist of mindless preaching and increasingly desperate attempts to divert attention from the fact that the beliefs are indefensible?

 

[Slowvehicle]

But doesn't that cut both ways? Haven't the "unbeliefs" of atheists impacted the political process; i.e., no prayer in public schools, etc.

You do realize, I hope, that "no prayer in public schools" is a straw man. An individual may pray wherever they choose. What an individual may not do is impose their prayers on others (xianists might want to consider what someone...I forget who...said about not making a public show of praying). It is always interesting to me how quickly the morning prayer would get put aside at a Texas school when, for instance, a catholic wanted to lead a decade of the rosary, or a hindu wanted to chant, "Oh, Brahma, mighty in the void beyond, from thy navel springs the lotus"...to say nothing of when a wiccan asked for the PA. A school may not sponsor prayers, but individuals may pray. Non-disruptively.

Not quite. Churches have a right--indeed, an obligation--to speak out on moral issues. It is partly on that basis that they receive 501(C)(3) status under U. S. tax law.

So what, in your opinion, is the "moral issue" involved in adults with the ability to consent being granted the rights and privileges, the responsibilities and protections, of civil marriage?

 

[Craig4]

But doesn't that cut both ways? Haven't the "unbeliefs" of atheists impacted the political process; i.e., no prayer in public schools, etc.



Not quite. Churches have a right--indeed, an obligation--to speak out on moral issues. It is partly on that basis that they receive 501(C)(3) status under U. S. tax law.

If the Mormon Church wishes to speak out on issues, their opponents then should point out that the basis on which they claim moral authority is a fraud. If people voting on those issues know the truth about the origins of the Mormon religion I suspect that would devalue their message.

 

[Dissolution]

But doesn't that cut both ways? Haven't the "unbeliefs" of atheists impacted the political process; i.e., no prayer in public schools, etc.

Nobody has banned prayer in public schools. Children are no longer forced to do so, however.
Could you offer a correct example instead, please?

 

[skyrider44]

Keep in mind, the topic of this thread is all things LDS, and the questions regarding the shady character of the Church founder and other leaders and the fraudulent nature of its cornerstone documents are germane to that topic.

I agree except that your starting point is a pre-judgement of Joseph Smith and the Church's cornerstone documents.

Whether and how those questions personally affect Foster Zygote aren't all that interesting, and they wouldn't be very much on topic, either.

Judging by the response to "those questions," it's obvious that they are interesting. Furthermore, how can the character of Joseph Smith and the integrity of the Church's "cornerstone documents" possibly be off topic?

On the other hand, how members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints reconcile the hoax versus faith questions is an interesting one and completely on topic.

True, that's why I continue to ask how your purported hoax affects Latter-day Saints.

Would you kindly respond to that without further evasion. What would be most useful are your own views on this. Official propaganda, less so.

I believe the character of Joseph Smith and the validity of the Church's founding documents will, in time, be vindicated. Given the evidence uncovered to date, you will think I'm irrational, if not insane. Recall, however, that rushing to judgement--in any discipline--is fraught with peril.

 

[RoboTimbo]

Your response has nothing to do with my question, which, it appears, you are unable to answer. I asked (paraphrasing) "How does the 'fact' that the BoM and B/A are frauds affect you personally?"

If you didn't think it affected us personally, why did Janadele start a thread here?

If it does affect us to the extent that Janadele saw it necessary to start a thread on a discussion forum about it, then we will certainly oblige her by discussing it. It would be rude to do otherwise.

Why would acknowledging the proven fraud of the conman Joseph Smith cause anyone discomfort?

 

[bruto]

But doesn't that cut both ways? Haven't the "unbeliefs" of atheists impacted the political process; i.e., no prayer in public schools, etc.

Of course it does, and religious opponents have been extremely outspoken about this. Of course there is no law that says there is no prayer in public schools either. There is a law that public schools may not perform prayer as a part of their operation, because of course it is a clear violation of the separation of Church and State.

Not quite. Churches have a right--indeed, an obligation--to speak out on moral issues. It is partly on that basis that they receive 501(C)(3) status under U. S. tax law.

I don't know where you get that strange and contrary interpretation. That status referred to is tax exemption, and the laws for 501 C3 status specifically forbid lobbying and attempts to influence legislation. The basis for obtaining tax exemption, aside from the obligation NOT to engage in certain activities, is largely fiscal, which is why things like music schools and cat shelters can obtain the same tax exempt status as churches. The IRS rules are pretty clear on what is and is not permitted here, and I suggest you look to them. Insofar as those rules allow churches to speak out, they do so as an explicitly delineated exception, not an obligation or a reason for tax exemption.

Churches may have an obligation to speak out on moral issues, but they are forbidden to do so as political organizations, and (my point, which you continually miss or skirt) their members, who may act as directly as they please, act as individuals, without the protection of a church. A preacher can tell all his parishioners to go out and agitate for or against some sinful legislation, but when they do so they are not a church, they are individuals, and what they say can be argued on its merits.

When you're acting as a member of a church, the church can say what it will, and impose its rules on you, no matter how silly anyone else believes they are. If your church requires you to wear a funny hat, the government cannot say otherwise, and cannot tell you to take it off. But if you go out on the street and say that other people should wear funny hats, they can tell you not only that your idea is nonsense but they can tell you why.

 

[RoboTimbo]

I agree except that your starting point is a pre-judgement of Joseph Smith and the Church's cornerstone documents.

No, it is actually a post-judgement based on examination of the evidence. Why would you think it was pre-judgement?

Judging by the response to "those questions," it's obvious that they are interesting. Furthermore, how can the character of Joseph Smith and the integrity of the Church's "cornerstone documents" possibly be off topic?

Judging by your and Janadele's continued discussion, you clearly think that the hoax perpetrated by Joseph Smith and the demonstrable fraudulent nature of the BoA and BoM are of interest to non-Mormons.

True, that's why I continue to ask how your purported hoax affects Latter-day Saints.

It's actually Joseph Smith's hoax.

I believe the character of Joseph Smith and the validity of the Church's founding documents will, in time, be vindicated.

How much more time do you need? I don't believe any amount of time will change the fact that Joseph Smith was a conman and the BoA and BoM are fraudulent.

Given the evidence uncovered to date, you will think I'm irrational, if not insane. Recall, however, that rushing to judgement--in any discipline--is fraught with peril.

Given the evidence uncovered to date, maintaining wide-eyed belief in the tenets of Mormonism is irrational and fraught with even more peril.

 

[jsfisher]

I agree except that your starting point is a pre-judgement of Joseph Smith and the Church's cornerstone documents.

No, that would be untrue. My view of the character and conduct of Joseph Smith, Brigham Young, et al., has been formed by what has been revealed in this very thread and the further investigation it sparked for me. Ditto for the Books of Mormon and of Abraham.

Your attempt to attach a pre-judgement label may work to poison the well, but it has no basis in fact.

Judging by the response to "those questions," it's obvious that they are interesting. Furthermore, how can the character of Joseph Smith and the integrity of the Church's "cornerstone documents" possibly be off topic?

It would be delightful if you'd actually discuss the character of Joseph Smith (and others) and the integrity of the Church's "cornerstone documents". That would definitely be right on topic. Personal impact on Foster Zygote, not so much.

True, that's why I continue to ask how your purported hoax affects Latter-day Saints.

I don't recall you asking that (not to say you didn't), but it would be far more appropriate for a Latter-day Saint to respond how it affects Latter-day Saints than I (or Foster Zygote), don't you agree?

I believe the character of Joseph Smith and the validity of the Church's founding documents will, in time, be vindicated. Given the evidence uncovered to date, you will think I'm irrational, if not insane. Recall, however, that rushing to judgement--in any discipline--is fraught with peril.

Not insane, no. Fraught with cognitive dissonance, perhaps, but not insane. I also note that your response is a summary dismissal rather than any sort of meaningful basis for a discussion.

If you choose to not discuss LDS controversy, that's fine, but please, then, stop pretending to be doing so under a veil of amateurish evasion techniques.

 

[skyrider44]

This latest diversionary tactic is almost surreal. Apparently when believers come to a sceptics site of their own free will and present their bizarre beliefs it is necessary for the sceptics to demonstrate that they are personally affected by those beliefs before they can dispute them. Who knew?

If said sceptics are not personally affected by the beliefs of Latter-day Saints, what is the basis for the relentless criticism? LDS believe,for example, that worthy families can be together in the hereafter. How does that belief have a negative impact on non-LDS?

What beliefs that LDS hold are, to use your word, "bizarre"?

: Janadele/skyrider: how does the fact that nonbelievers think the BoM and BoA are frauds affect you personally?

The criticism of the BoM and BoA by sceptics validates the words of Nephi who wrote: "For it must needs be, that there is an opposition in all things. If not so. . .righteousness could not be brought to pass, neither wickedness, neither holiness, nor misery, neither good nor bad." 2 Nephi 2:11

Please explain why it affects you so much that you find it necessary to seek out those nonbelievers on sceptics forums and start threads which purport to explain and defend your beliefs, but which actually consist of mindless preaching and increasingly desperate attempts to divert attention from the fact that the beliefs are indefensible?

Janadele is more than capable of speaking for herself. As for me, I do not and have not undertaken the actions you describe.

 

[Shalamar]

But doesn't that cut both ways? Haven't the "unbeliefs" of atheists impacted the political process; i.e., no prayer in public schools, etc.

You are mistaken. Atheists have not banned prayer in school. In fact, anyone can still pray in school. What is objectionable, thanks to separation of church and state, is mandated, school or teacher led prayer. You would probably find it acceptable for a christian prayer.. How would you feel for a catholic specific prayer? Or if the teacher of your children led the class in an Islamic prayer?

 

[skyrider44]

. . . If I should happen to believe that the faith of Mormons is false and their scriptures a fraud, then it is clearly not only my right but my duty to point this out when they use those beliefs and their reliance on those scriptures to attempt to influence the civil laws that govern us all.

I don't disagree. Has the LDS Church tried to silence your voice? Yes? In what way? Haven't you been free to express your support for "marriage equality" in whatever way you wish? In a representative democracy, all voices deserve to be heard, and they are being heard. How else do you explain the fact that in the latest Gallup Poll, more than 50% of Americans now approve of same-sex marriage?

 

[RandFan]

I agree except that your starting point is a pre-judgement of Joseph Smith and the Church's cornerstone documents.

I grew up believing Joseph Smith to be a prophet of god and the BoM was scripture. My presuppositional position or, starting point, was that it was true. It pained me very much to learn of Smiths money digging and mysticism (seer stone). I would have thought that god would pick someone who earned an honest pay through labor. Why pick someone who would use deception to win converts?

I believe the character of Joseph Smith and the validity of the Church's founding documents will, in time, be vindicated. Given the evidence uncovered to date, you will think I'm irrational, if not insane. Recall, however, that rushing to judgement--in any discipline--is fraught with peril.

Since I started asking question, prior to my mission while I was in High school, the evidence has poured in and the gaps for the truth to hide in have grown increasingly small. Your belief, with all due respect, is mere hope against a mountain of facts including incongruities, anachronisms, DNA, history, etc...

 

[I Ratant]

From an article in Free Inquiry, Winter 1983/84... The author shows the origins of some of the artifacts that are part of the LDS history.
.
"in 1835, at Kirkland, Ohio, Joseph Smith paid a collector $6000 for four mummies. From the papyrus scrolls found with the mummies, he translated the "Book of Abraham" including an account of the creation attributed to the Old Testament patriarch. Subsequently, scholars have identified these papyri as funerary scrolls from the Egyptian Book of Breathings, commonly buried with the dead."
(the scroll attached)
.
On April 23,1843, a group of men recovered 6 bell-shaped brass plates covered with "hieroglyphics" from an old earth-mound outside of Kinderhook, Illinois, near Nauvoo. The "Kinderhook plates" were brought to Joseph Smith, who pronounced them genuine and began to translate them. His diary for May 1, 1843 reads: "I have translated a portion of them and find they contain the history of the person with whom they were found. He was a descendant of Ham through the loins of Pharaoh, King of Egypt, and that he received his from the Ruler of heaven and earth. (History of the Church, Vol. 5, p. 372.
It was later discovered that the Kinderhook plates were fabricated by Joseph Smith's enemies to trap him into pretending to translate a writing that was not genuine. On June 8, 1879, Wilbur Fugate, one of the nine men who recovered the plates, confessed in a letter that they were a "humbug" cut out of copper, etched with acid, rusted with nitric oxide, old iron and lead, and buried under a flat rock eight feet deep in a mound".
(photo of the plates attached)

 

[tsig]

I agree except that your starting point is a pre-judgement of Joseph Smith and the Church's cornerstone documents.



Judging by the response to "those questions," it's obvious that they are interesting. Furthermore, how can the character of Joseph Smith and the integrity of the Church's "cornerstone documents" possibly be off topic?



True, that's why I continue to ask how your purported hoax affects Latter-day Saints.



I believe the character of Joseph Smith and the validity of the Church's founding documents will, in time, be vindicated. Given the evidence uncovered to date, you will think I'm irrational, if not insane. Recall, however, that rushing to judgement--in any discipline--is fraught with peril.

Will new facts be uncovered that offset what we now know?

So far the more facts that have been uncovered the blacker Joe looks.

 

[Cat Tale]

It is not a competition, LDS.org is an official site of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. As per my post 8622 I support the Brethren and LDS Public Affairs and their interpretations of The Scriptures, and their endorsement of LDS.org.

So you agree then that it is both scriptural and doctrinal that LDS have the potential to become gods and goddesses, and inherit thrones, kingdoms, principalities, and powers, dominions, and have no end, being everlasting to everlasting? That's not 100% clear in your previous responses. Yes means you agree, no means you do not agree. I'll settle for a two to three letter response (no or yes).
Thanks,
Cat Tale.