LDS

[RandFan]

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)

It is rather amazing that everytime JS comes across ancient records (or what he believes to be ancient records) they serve his narrative. Of all of the artifacts discovered by credentialed archeologists none support Smiths claim.

The gaps of knowledge for Mormons to hide their faith in continue to shrink.

 

[Pixel42]

If said sceptics are not personally affected by the beliefs of Latter-day Saints, what is the basis for the relentless criticism?

If you don't want your beliefs discussed why on earth are you posting them on a discussion forum? All of the criticism in this thread is here because Janadele chose to come to this forum and preach.

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

All of them. Every last one.

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

Or LDS beliefs could just be being criticised because they're obviously nonsense.

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

You didn't start the thread, but you've done all the rest.

 

[skyrider44]

If you don't want your beliefs discussed why on earth are you posting them on a discussion forum? All of the criticism in this thread is here because Janadele chose to come to this forum and preach.

I'm sorry, but you haven't answered my question.

All of them. Every last one.

So, congregational singing as a form of worship is verboten, as is the belief that members are obligated to care for the poor (monthly fast offering), as is conducting funerals as a service to families who have lost loved ones, as are service projects in which young men fix problems in the houses of the elderly. All of that--and much more--is driven by a belief that we must follow the Savior's counsel to "Feed my sheep."

I have a feeling you don't know very much about the magnitude of the Church's involvement in serving those in need.

 

[bruto]

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?

The question is not whose voice is silenced, but whose voice is subsidized and protected. I am responding here to the allegation that the Mormon Church has lobbied to influence legislation, and the apparent tendency of some persons to believe that religion enjoys some protection against insult even when it steps out of its protected sphere.

I can speak my mind, and you can speak yours. But if you can speak unkindly of those you oppose, or use your church's characterizations of them, then others can speak with equal unkindness toward your position and your church. WE ARE NOT IN CHURCH HERE. There is a difference between individuals and organizations. The LDS Church, like churches in general, is subsidized by the tax paying public to the extent that its operations and property are exempt from taxation. This is, and long has been, a bargain considered appropriate by the public for charitable organizations, guaranteeing not only their survival but their independence, but the bargain is not kept when such organizations act directly to influence legislation and policy. Some tangible harm does not have to occur to make it reasonable to voice an opinion, no matter how objectionable it may be to you. You can call homosexuals sinful and disgusting, even though they do not inflict any of their conduct on you. Janadele can call me a servant of Satan. I can call your prophet a fraud and a liar without having to demonstrate that his peculations have harmed me.

 

[I Ratant]

It is rather amazing that everytime JS comes across ancient records (or what he believes to be ancient records) they serve his narrative. Of all of the artifacts discovered by credentialed archeologists none support Smiths claim.

The gaps of knowledge for Mormons to hide their faith in continue to shrink.

.
I've wondered here and elsewhere the lack of artifacts from a Middle East group of people populating the New World before Columbus..
Shurely there's a museum with a vast collection of such? Or even 50% of that?
Even a 3x5 index card drawer with references...

 

[joobz]

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?"

Some people believe that frogs cause warts; how does that affect you? Others believe that walking under a ladder brings bad luck; how does that affect you? Still others believe that breaking a mirror will result in seven years of misfortune; how does that affect you?

In A democracy, having a misinformed population affects everyone. Especially if those who are misinformed occupy political positions.

IN your examples, having people who believe in superstitious safety/health information could result in very dangerous health policy changes. Just look at the vaccination issues. AntiVax movement has increased to the point where previously unheard of diseases are starting to make a come back.


Now that I explained WHY it matters to mention that JS committed fraud, I would like to ask a question:

Why do you believe it is unimportant that a founder of a religion, who have actively sought to limit the rights of gays, demonstrably lied and committed fraud in the founding of the religion?

 

[Slowvehicle]

skyrider:

I am still extremely curious about what you think is the "moral issue"involving marriage equality.

 

[halleyscomet]

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

I defy you to find a religion that doesn't have a similar "all our critics are poopieheads" passage in its holy text.

While a pleasant, reassuring thing for people already inside a religion, the presence of similar passages in the Bible, Koran, Dianetics and other assorted texts makes it a vapid, dead, useless, self-important bit if fluff to people not already in the religion.

 

[Chernobyl X1]

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

I find the whole baptism for the dead more than bizarre. It is particularly disturbing in the worst sense of the word.

 

[Pixel42]

I'm sorry, but you haven't answered my question.

I gave my answer to your question when you first posed it, many days ago.

Both the question and all possible answers to it are, however, utterly irrelevant to whether it is reasonable for sceptics to take issue with beliefs which are presented to them by believers who deliberately seek them out in order to do so. It is not necessary to be personally effected by an assertion in order to dispute it, so this whole tangent is yet another diversionary tactic.

I have a feeling you don't know very much about the magnitude of the Church's involvement in serving those in need.

Thanks to this thread I know your church's welfare programme is a fraction of what it receives in tithes, but once again this is an irrelevant tangent. Millions of people who are not members of your church serve those in need, so such service is clearly not contingent on the bizarre beliefs which are unique to your church.

 

[skyrider44]

. . . . You can call homosexuals sinful and disgusting, even though they do not inflict any of their conduct on you.

As I recall, bruto, you made a similar comment in an earlier post, in which you suggested that LDS are guilty of calling "homosexuals sinful and disgusting" (words to that effect).

The Church has made (and is making) a sincere effort to help errant members understand that if they speak ill of homosexuals, they are not following the teachings of Jesus Christ. Note the following:

"Jesus Christ commanded us to love our neighbors. Whether sinner or saint, rich or poor, stranger or friend, everyone in God's small world is our neighbor, including our gay and lesbian brothers and sisters. LDS believe that our true commitment to Christian teachings is revealed by how we respond to this commandment." http://www.mormonsandgays.org/

"As a church nobody should be more loving and compassionate. Let us be at the forefront in terms of expressing love, compassison, and outreach. Let us not have families exclude or be disrespectful of those who choose a different lifestyle as a result of their feelings about their own gender." (Same source as above.)

"The gospel of Jesus Christ is based on love, respect, and agency. Mormons believe that all humans have inherited strengths, challenges, and blessings and are invited to live, through the help and grace of God, the principles revealed by Jesus Christ. . . . We are to love one another. We are to treat each other with respect as brothers and sisters and fellow children of God, no matter how much we may differ from one another." (Same source as above.)

I regret that some of those of my faith do not follow this counsel.

 

[skyrider44]

I defy you to find a religion that doesn't have a similar "all our critics are poopieheads" passage in its holy text.

That isn't what Nephi is saying. He's simply making the point that you cannot experience righteousnes without wickedness.

Where do you find in that statement even the slightest suggestion that Nephi is labeling critics as "poopieheads"?

 

[skyrider44]

skyrider:

I am still extremely curious about what you think is the "moral issue"involving marriage equality.

The "moral issue" is the welfare of children. Item:

"Marriage is society's most pro-child institution. In 2002--just moments before it became unfashionable to say so--a team of researchers from Child Trends, a nonpartisan research center, reported that 'family structure clearly matters for children, and the family structure that helps children the most is a family headed by two biological parents in a low-conflict marriage. All our scholarly instruments seem to agree; for healthy development, what a child needs more than anything else is the mother and father who together made the child, who love the child and each other." [emphasis added]. (Debatepedia, "Children do better with mother and father as role models."

There are many other well-researched findings that point to the same conclusion.

Now, I realize, SV may post findings that conflict with what I have posted.
If there is the slightest doubt as to which view is correct, I'll opt for the one that appears to protect children.

 

[Foster Zygote]

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?"

Perhaps you missed it, but I clearly responded to your question in post #8707. "It means that I can recognize the metaphysical and moral claims of the LDS to be based on nothing more than the fabrications of a rogue seeking power and wealth."

I have also been quite clear that when Mormons (or other religious groups) attempt to move their religious moralities from a Mormon internal matter to a matter of civil law, it has an effect on me and every other citizen.

Some people believe that frogs cause warts; how does that affect you? Others believe that walking under a ladder brings bad luck; how does that affect you? Still others believe that breaking a mirror will result in seven years of misfortune; how does that affect you?

When people believe things that cause them to seek legislation that affects the freedoms of members of society who do not share their superstitiously derived proscriptions, it is hardly appropriate to characterize it as a harmless wive's tale. If someone refuses to touch a toad or walk under a ladder, then that's no skin off my nose. But if a group of people is pushing for legislation that restricts the freedoms of people who have touched toads or walked under ladders, then I have a problem with that.

So tell me how does the "fact" that Latter-day Saints believe in two books that are frauds affect you personally? Your attempt at a credible answer falls short. Having been made aware that Joseph Smith was a liar (your characterization), and that the BoM and B/A are frauds, I reiterate: How does that affect you personally?

Already asked and answered. It's time to move on.

That statement, according to you, is a falsehood. You are positive about that.

Yes.

You don't worry about walking under ladders, do you? Nor do you worry about getting warts from handling a frog. Nor do you think breaking a mirror will result in seven years of misfortune. But you are obsessed (so it seems) with what you insist are falsehoods inherit in the history and scriptures of the LDS Church. Let's assume you are right about those LDS "falsehoods." How (I'll ask it again) does that falsification affect you personally?

Asked and answered. And I'm sure it only seems like an obsession to you because the evidence against Joseph Smith's claims is so very difficult to counter.

 

[Foster Zygote]

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.

False. Prayer is perfectly legal in public schools, so long as it does no interfere with the curricula and is not imposed on anyone who doesn't want to participate. If the principal or a teacher says, "Bow your heads so that we can pray to Jesus", then that's illegal. But if students and faculty want to meet just before the start of the school day and have prayer meeting in the courtyard under the flag, or in the cafeteria, or if a student wants to bow his/her head and say a prayer before a spelling test or before eating lunch, then that is perfectly legal. The ACLU has even defended students and faculty in court cases to protect their right to pray in public schools. They won.

 

[Foster Zygote]

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

"Pre-judgement"? We've all seen the evidence against the Book Of Mormon and the Book Of Abraham.

Furthermore, how can the character of Joseph Smith and the integrity of the Church's "cornerstone documents" possibly be off topic?

That's what we've been asking. Let's talk about the integrity of those cornerstone documents.

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

I think we can clearly see that.

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.

That is the essence of faith: Belief in something for which there is no evidence, or contradictory evidence. I'll take it as a tacit admission that Smith fails the test of evidence.

If you want to ignore the massive evidence against Joseph Smith, that's fine. If the apologetic that maintains your faith is to hope that something will suddenly appear to completely overturn the massive amount of evidence that has been accumulated by human genomics, archaeology, paleontology and the entire field of Egyptology, then you are free to think that way.

But don't act like we're intellectually deficient or psychologically aberrant for rejecting something that you yourself admit to be irrational. Rushing to judgement is a risky practice, but the rejection of clear and overwhelming evidence because it isn't what one wants to discover is simply unjustifiable.

 

[Loss Leader]

'family structure clearly matters for children, and the family structure that helps children the most is a family headed by two biological parents in a low-conflict marriage.

But if you can't have that, what should you do?

1. My friend Mike is gay. He cannot have a low-conflict marriage with a woman. It would destroy his very notion of personhood, force him to live a lie and cause him and his female spouse great consternation. However, he has no intention of ever having children. He's in his forties and does not have any desire to have a child in his life. Why should he be prevented from marrying a man he loves?

2. My friend Greg is not gay. He is married to a woman. His marriage is hardly low-conflict. He and his wife fight constantly (when they are speaking at all). Each has cheated on the other. They will never love each other. Should they be legally prevented from having children?

3. My friend Stu married a woman and they had children. For years, it was a loving, low-stress relationship. However, he and his wife have grown apart. Each blames the other for holding him/her back. Each curses loudly at the other in front of the children. Neither has had a nice thought towards the other in years. Should their children be taken away?

4. There is a young orphan baby. He was born prematurely to a crack-addicted mother, the father is unknown. The mother neither wants the child nor could she care for him anyway. She is on her way to jail in any case. Her sister (a sober and responsible lawyer) is willing to raise the child. Her sister is in a happy, low-stress marriage of eight years. She loves and wants the child and her spouse feels the same way. Nobody else is available to adopt the child. Literally, nobody else wants the sickly, disabled little baby. Her spouse is a woman. Should she be prevented from adopting?

This assumes your statement about male/female families is true. It isn't, but I'm giving you the benefit of the doubt.

 

[Foster Zygote]

The "moral issue" is the welfare of children. Item:

"Marriage is society's most pro-child institution. In 2002--just moments before it became unfashionable to say so--a team of researchers from Child Trends, a nonpartisan research center, reported that 'family structure clearly matters for children, and the family structure that helps children the most is a family headed by two biological parents in a low-conflict marriage. All our scholarly instruments seem to agree; for healthy development, what a child needs more than anything else is the mother and father who together made the child, who love the child and each other." [emphasis added]. (Debatepedia, "Children do better with mother and father as role models."

There are many other well-researched findings that point to the same conclusion.

Now, I realize, SV may post findings that conflict with what I have posted.
If there is the slightest doubt as to which view is correct, I'll opt for the one that appears to protect children.

And this is why you should actually read these sources yourself, instead of just copying them from religious websites with anti-gay marriage agendas. (The above quote can be found on numerous such sites.)

Here's a link to the actual summary brief published by Child Trends.

Written in very large font on the first page, right under the letterhead, is the following statement:

Note: This Child Trends brief summarizes research conducted in 2002, when neither same-sex parents nor adoptive parents were identified in large national surveys. Therefore, no conclusions can be drawn from this research about the well- being of children raised by same-sex parents or adoptive parents.

 

[Pixel42]

the family structure that helps children the most is a family headed by two biological parents in a low-conflict marriage[/U]. All our scholarly instruments seem to agree; for healthy development, what a child needs more than anything else is the mother and father who together made the child, who love the child and each other."

In case you haven't noticed, this is not a perfect world. There are many children whose biological parents are either very obviously not the best people to raise them, having abused or neglected them, or who are unable to raise them on account of being dead. A loving home with a gay couple is a many times better option for a lot of children than their current situation.

If the welfare of children really is your primary concern then you will be delighted that gay couples are willing and able to provide loving homes for many whose biological parents could not do so.

There is not so much love in the world that we can afford to actively try to prevent more.

 

[Olowkow]

Originally Posted by skyrider44
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.

Nonsense. Just let non-Mormon prayers be required by the state in your kids' classroom, or in your office, and you will no doubt be the first to cry foul.

Those "unbeliefs" of atheists are what this country is founded on, many men and women have died to defend such "unbeliefs" as written in the Constitution and particularly the Bill of Rights. All the writings of our founding fathers virtually scream "Keep religion out of government", and vice versa.

When will religious zealots finally come to understand that this is a protection for them as well as for the non religious. It is wrong to impose your religious beliefs or my lack of god beliefs on anyone as a function of the government. Why can't the religious understand this? To attempt to do so is transparently an attempt to establish a theocracy which is a nightmare. Please try at least to understand why separation of state and religion is a treasured invaluable part of our culture.