Mormonism

Try checking more than just the first result. I ran the search myself. Here's one such link that I found with that exact set of search parameters. There are others as well....and their interpretation does tend to change based on whether or not the author is Mormon. While you may argue that non-LDS historians are biased, the same exact argument can be levied against Mormon historians. If you aren't looking at arguments from both sides, you aren't getting a clear picture. If you are feeling particularly skeptical, you can even look at the original documents.

Third party? You clearly didn't read the link very well. Joseph Smith, himself, was the editor.

Irrelevant. The Elders' Journal, of which Joseph Smith Jr was an editor, was published far before the internet was even invented. The Journal is hosted in unaltered form, so you really can't cry bias....especially since Joseph Smith was one of its editors.

Disagreement does not constitute hatred. By refusing to look in detail at arguments levied by those you deem "anti-Mormon", you deny yourself the full picture. In so doing, you are just as biased as you claim them to be.

The Crusades, The Inquisition, the selling of indulgences, the moving of child molester priests to other parishes rather than stripping them of their vocation as priests, the Salem Witch trials, Gay Marriage within the Episcopal Church, the execution of Catholics by Protestants and the execution of Protestants by Catholics that happened in the 1600s, the ordination of women........like I said, churches break their own doctrine all the time. Also, when the Joseph Smith and Brigham Young took the land and possessions of excommunicated members, they didn't do so without a paper trail. It's documented.

[ April 22, 2007, 18:25: Message edited by: Drew ]

 

Mormonism is an interesting religion because its founding is pretty well documented by non-Mormon sources and doesn't have quite the same 'well, it was so long ago that we can't really know what happened' air that mainstream Christianity has about it.

It shows pretty well how a charismatic cult leader can bring about a new religion/sect which achieves general respectability. I imagine that this is somewhat how Christianity started in general.

 

First of all I'll start out by stating I was born into the Mormon church. Blessed at six weeks, babtised at eight years old. Ordained an Elder in the church when I entered the military. My family has been Mormons for six generations. Two great, great grandmothers pushed handcarts from Nauvoo to Salt Lake City. I had male members of my family as part of the 'Mormon Battalion' and have countless missionaries in my family (including several cousins and one nephew currently serving).

I am also the first member of my family to be excommunicated -- I'm kind of a black sheep at family reunions. While I was still a member I was very proactive in learning everything I could about the Mormon -- good and bad -- and took many formal courses both during high school and college. I stopped believing the church was true (for that matter the bible as well) about two years after I was excommunicated.

I'm certain Gnarff will respond to much of what Drew has said, but anyone responding in this thread should understand a few things up front:

1. Mormons believe they are the only true church -- everyone else is being deceived. There is a smugness and sense of power that comes from the belief they are right and are the only ones with the true knowledge of God.

2. Mormons believe they have been persecuted on par with any other group in history, even recent converts believe they have been persecuted. It's really weird, they put themselves even with minorities and jews -- even though there is no evidence of any percecution in over 150 years. Even then, what the Mormons define as persecution was, in most cases, retaliation.

3. A correlation to #1 and #2 above is the overall feeling among Mormons that it's "us versus everyone." If you are not for the Mormon church you are against them and discriminate against them (you don't see this at high levels of the church, but certainly in the ranks and files). There are no neutral opinions -- on the internet there are either official Mormon sites, sites run by members supporting the Mormon church, or anti-Mormon sites. No in-between. Quoting anything other that an actual Mormon reference (or official site) will be dismissed by Mormons as being Mormon-bashing.

4. In general, when a Mormon does not know the reference being used, they will automatically assume it is anti-Mormon. Even using Mormon literature (even scriptures) in a way contradictory to what that individual Mormon believes will initially illicit a response like 'you are missinterpreting that' or 'you've taken that out of context.' Also, it is very rare a Mormon will even respond to such a statement -- most won't take the time to look it up (they just assume the argument is false), they will just quote one of approximately 100 passages in various scriptures which is closest to the issue. In doing so, the Mormon believes they have made the final argument and have proven you wrong -- any further postulating on the issue just verifies to the Mormon that they were correct.

Does this sound familiar yet? We've seen it several times in various threads. I've been on both sides in my life. I used those tactic and fought against them.

Although the Mormons posting may not agree, I believe myself to be neutral (I fully support my family in their beliefs and am very proud of my heritage). I am very willing to answer questions. I hope the Mormons on SP would at least look into questions presented with an open mind and do a little research before responding -- but history has shown that may not be the case.

 

Sounds like T2Bruno knows what he is talking about.

 

I don't like most Mormons because of their 'holier than thou art' and 'us versus them' attidutes. That being said I am a member of the LDS church even despite the fact that I don't enjoy the company of most of them. I feel my life is good enough enough as is that I see no reason to change anything.

 

I nearly became a Mormon once, back when I was unemployed and broke (still am, only now Im a student). Two missionaries came by and we got talking, and they said they would come back later that night with food. Since it was the first thing Id eaten in a while, I was pretty excited. After spending about 3 months with them and various other missionaries learning all I could, I finally agreed to go along to some of their meetings on Sunday nights. Everything they said made sense, and I felt like this really could be what Id been searching for. The Book of Mormon looked impressive and was a good read, but I knew that there were other books that they held as scripture, Doctrine & Covenants, Pearl of Great Price etc, and every time I asked them for a copy of those books to read, I was basically told to shove it in a polite manner. This got me curious as to why they were hidding things from me considering I was pretty much ready to be baptised into their church. Lucky enough for me I stumbled upon the previously mentioned two books in the public library in town, and I saw in the back some Ancient Egyptian things. Curiously I read the explanations for all the symbols etc that Joseph Smith had given, and I laughed because I recognized most of the imagery, and it was certainly not what Joseph Smith was claiming it to be. He even had one of the things upside down. The 'gods' he talked about in the pictures werent even Egyptian, they were obviously made up, anyone with even a small amount of knowledge on Ancient Egypt can see that. In the end I felt disillusioned despite my laughter at seeing the horrendously mistaken explanations of the Egyptian symbolism. If it wasnt for that book Id be a Mormon. Funny how it just takes one small error to make the rest of the belief system crumble.

 

My first roommate was a Mormon---really nice guy too. His name was Jake. He would never tell me anything about his religion. Then one day, when he was pretty loaded, he told me how Mormons believe that American Indians are actually decendents of Jews from Israel. I gave him a raised-eyebrow sort of look. He said something to the effect, "That's just the tip of the iceburg dude." We never really talked about Mormonism after that... He moved to Utah eventually.

 

I hadn't realized the church practises excommunication. Is that a common occurance?

 

Actually, no. If there is an axe to grind, which side they take (who to believe) when presented with contradicting claims. The site address includes "xmission", implying a site specific to destabilize the Church. Of course they will favour the ones accusing Joseph Smith.

Since the church was restored and organized, such confession must not have occurred.

Your page is also littered with referenced to Mark Hoffman, a convicted murder and forger. He forged many things "embarrassing to the Church", and was paid for these documents. Could ha not have forged some similar documents and gone to some organizations that would love to discredit the Church?

From the definition of Disorderly person, the fact that he was a prophet of God, which he did not deny would have qualified him as a disorderly person under that definition, and any member of the church with the gift of the Holy Ghost would also qualify...

Rife with arguements of forgery on both sides. In a modern court, this would not stand up...

Not Mormons. Not relevent to this discussion.

Again, I will ask to see this information. You come in to make accusations without providing a link and expect me to believe a word you say?

While this is true, in the interestes of peaceful co-existence, I try to find common ground. in light of recent comments, I'm beginning to regret that attempt.

I fell into that really heavy when I was younger, and sometimes default to that here when told that my beliefs are unjustifiable, or even their origin called to question based on debatable evidence...

Some family members or former associates may not see the changes required with membership. Even after being back for 5 years, some people still lament that I don't drink with them or go to the strip clubs. Some of this occurs on a personal scale...

This is something that people struggle with. When to try to tell me that my beliefs regarding a topic are invalid they resort to such "questionable evidence" which bears the feel of a directly targetted attack, that is fostered.

You have probably seen such groups in your past in the church. I live far from the core and I've seen them. They protest temple open houses and other major Mormon events, like a production staged in Palmyra Ney York every summer. I've heard that some of them protest in Temple Square during General Conference, shouting obscenities at the members, some of whome have traveled hundreds or thusands of miles to attend the event. Some protesters have even defiled sacred Temple Garments in front of such a crowd...

When I have said that, I believe it to be the case.

So I'm rare because I actually looked at such statements? It doesn't change the fact that these ones have been BS...

I do see that you try to present things calmly. I find some claims hard to accept however...

The links presented by Drew that I have looked at seemed to have a distinctive bias against the Chruch and an objective to attack it's credibility. I may not be able to answer difinitively the charges presented, but I can sense some distortion of fact...

Again, those are the two easiest pitfalls for members to fall into. I think that in areas that are less populated with members of the Church, that is easier to overcome as we are exposed to non members on a daily basis.

I found your story quite interesting.

This I find surprising. While I agree that they may be easier to follow after baptism, with the gift of the Holy Ghost, the onus is on the missionary to answer your questions honestly. In that position, I would have likely balked too.

I don't understand the facimilies myself. If I understand them correctly they were reproductions of things brought to Joseph Smith. Could the Artist rendering them for the book have messed up?

We believe that, but that's hard enough to explain sober, I could imagine how hard it would be plastered...

I don't know how common it is, but there are two grounds for it. First is gross misconduct, such as unrepentant, grievous sexual sins, violent crime and defrauding the church. The second, and I believe that is where T2Bruno fits in, is at the member's request. A member can request that they be removed from the records. This also falls under the heading of excommunication.

For my own experience: I was born to the Chruch, but my parents weren't active. I wasn't baptized until I was 15, and fell away a few years later. During that time I had developed a taste for alcohol and weed, as well as flirting with other philosophies, including Humanism. there are other things I did in that time I really don't care to talk about. About 5 years ago, I found myself at the lowest point in my life, and upon returning, gained a greater understanding of the teachings.

In that time, it's not about reading the doctrine, but living it to the best of your ability. Any reservation you hold denies you the blessings that come from such service, to the Church and to your fellow humans. Mosiah 2:17 teaches us that when we are in the service of our fellow beings, we are only in the service of God. Even if you don't believe, you are doing His will, whether or not you know or care...

You can slander Joseph Smith and Brigham Young all you want, but that does not negate the fact that I have experienced the forgiveness of my sins, personal revelation (which qualifies me as a disorderly person), and the presence of the Holy Ghost. I understand these experiences prove nothing to you, but they prove the truthfulness of the Book of Mormon and the divine mission of Joseph Smith. By these personal experiences, I know that it is true. I ask that you not begrudge me this, but I don't think some of you will show me that decency...

 

Why? You can see all manner of corruption in the Catholic Church, both before and after the Reformation, yet it's still going strong. More importantly the contemporaries could see the corruption. Didn't destroy the church.

For that matter, Scientology still seems to have a fair amount of life in it, and we all know how credible that, ah, faith is, don't we?

Just playing Devil's Advocate (though not literally. I hope).

 

My on the fact that Joseph Smith may have admitted to being a money digger. No where did I see that he confessed to doing it for fraudulent purposes. It is possible that he believed that he had some gift for finding treasure. I have known water dowsers and they were sincere people. Water dowsers sometimes seek for ore or buried treasure. Please let us not argue whether they are right or wrong in believing that they can do it. That should be a separate topic but if they sincerely believe that they can find water, ore, treasure, my lost keys then they are not doing it to defraud anyone.

 

They are churches. is the mormon faith not a church? then it is relevant.

While the Americans certainly came from Europe and Asia by going across the ice between the continents, the Hebrews probably wouldnt have had a reason for going far north enough.

Suspicious that they teach you things like that, with no basis in fact whatsoever.

Gnarf, are there any sources, which dont agree with Mormonism, which arent biased? Seriously, all the evidence that Drew has presented to you, you refute, based on a belief that they are all biased.

You claim to have examined the evidence, but I dont see how you did with your eyes and mind closed.

 

Nakia,

That is not really a convincing argument. Smith would have needed to be a bloody idiot to do so. If he was a fraud, why should he rub it in the faces of those he fooled, and risk getting lynched? That was not too uncommon a fate for swindlers preying on country folk at that time.

As for the lack of confession.... there is a reason why the enlightenment abandoned the necessity of a confession or testimony and settled for evidence, or rather empirics. Witness testimony is unreliable enough. Autobiographical testimony is way worse.

 

Well Gnarff, this is one I find amusing:

Especially given that in the past (on these very boards) you have stated that you did not have time to look up such things. Also, in the 'sickening...' thread you responded to my suggestion to look some of the topic on the lds.org site with:

[numbers added by T2Bruno]

Yet, within FIVE minutes I was able to find links to articles describing points 1, 2, and 4. That would be a majority of the points you stated were not addressed by the site. Clearly, either you did not try to look those up, or your search skills are very lacking. In either case, you certainly did not practice due diligence in researching your point. Such tactic have become the norm with regard to your statements -- I was hoping you would take this more seriously and not continue along those lines.

I have the opinion that you have a below average knowledge of church history as compared to most Mormons I have known. This is not a slight or even a bad thing, but it does mean that you should examine the issues more closely and spend more time than you currently do researching the question/argument. Instead you often fall into the categories I listed above and simply argue 'the church is true and anything you say bad about it is a lie.' I don't ever recall you providing a reference -- except the scripture quoting ploy.

By the way, Joseph Smith had five wives. Emma never acknowledged them (nor did she approve of them -- a direct violation of the polygamy policy of the church, I guess Joseph was the only man who did not need the approval of his first wife to practice polygamy). None of his other wives lived in Emma's spacious home. They each lived in their own home -- provided by the church.

Another point: Excommunicated members could sell their lands -- but who would buy them? No non-member wanted land near the Mormons (who were known for violence) and the Mormons would not deal with excommunicated members. So the land went to the local government (i.e., the city of Nauvoo or Salt Lake City) which was entirely run by the Mormon church. Those lands were then sold at auction.

For the other posters here -- I suggest you reread my statement at the top of the page. My point #1 was the Mormons believe they are the only true church -- all others are being deceived. Dissecting Gnarff's argument that the church still exists and so it must be true may be misleading. Realise Mormons believe everyone else is being deceived -- that means those religions still exist as a direct result of Satan's influence. It is circular logic that only makes sense to Mormons: 'our existence after all our trials and persecution is evidence of our divine origins -- other churches continued existence after their trials and persecution is the evidence of the direct influence of the devil.' Go figure. A person who uses such logic can never admit to being wrong.

[ April 23, 2007, 16:53: Message edited by: T2Bruno ]

 

I thought that was common knowledge? I spoke to him last week, he says Darwin says hi.

 

Well, well, well....what have we here?

Wow...I am almost exactly the same way. The only difference between your situation and mine is the lack of such a deep LDS family history, and I began to not believe in *any* religion well before I was ordained an Elder...I did it due to peer pressure of my family and other mormons. I didn't get excommunicated, but if I were to confess my "sins" I guarantee I would have. At this point, the only reason I haven't requested that my name be removed from the church's records, is because it would break my mom's heart.

That said, I'm indifferent to Mormons. I try to take the middle ground with them due to my background. My biggest pet peeve is that people bash the religion with all these messed up reasons. If you want to hate Mormons, that's fine...just know the *real* reasons/facts. Hate them because you can't have sex before marriage, or because you can't drink alcohol. Don't hate them because you heard from Joe Somebody that they still practice polygamy (which they don't).


That said, here are my replies to things said so far:

Heh...you think you've got it bad? I live in the Salt Lake City area...the "heart" of Mormonism. It's common knowledge that "Utah Mormons" are the worst kind of Mormons for that reason alone.
Some of the biggest reasons I fell away from the church was because of that attitude, the peer pressure and guilt trips they use to get you to do the things they want you to do.

One of the biggest breaking points for me was when I went on a 'youth conference' mainly because the "big" activity was white water rafting. Well, one night everyone had to stand up and give their testimony. I felt very uncomfortable being forced to stand up in front of all the teens of the steak I was in to tell everyone why I believe the church is true.

To reply to what Nataraja said:
Those missionaries are idiots. Two of my brothers went on LDS missions, and I have a cousin currently serving. They're supposed to start with the Book of Mormon, and are supposed to be excited to give a potential convert the PoGP and the D&C because that means they are showing interest in the church. Missionaries are only human, and make mistakes just like every normal person, but those guys sound like idiots.

True. IIRC, they are either the Nephites or Laminites. I've forgotten the lessons they pound in to your head, but from whhat I *do* remember, the Nephites and Laminites were constantly switching between the wrath of god and the favor of god. Correct me if I'm wrong, but one group was commanded by god to wipe out the other...so they did...and then did something to really piss off god, so god basically made them speak all sorts of different languages and such and scattered them all over what is now North and South America.

Also, what kind of Mormon is getting loaded? If it is as I suspect, he probably stopped going to church and has a similar situation as me.

The church doesn't want you know it, but yes, it happens quite frequently. Usually it happens to people who want to stay in the religion. The do something the church doesn't approve of...going to a strip club, getting drunk, having sex, and doing this on a regular basis for some time, but then realizing you may have ruined your chance at salvation, so you go to your Bishop to see what you can do to fix it. He'll probably suggest that you be excommunicated. That way, you basically start off at square one in the church. You have to have all the lessons all over again, show that you're worthy, be re-baptized, and work your way back up the priesthood.

I thought that was called dis-fellowship or something like that. You didn't necessarily do anything "bad" you just want out of the religion.

While I think it good for every member to have a testimony of the church, my feeling towards it, are:
The mind does many things that no one can explain. The best way I can explain a Mormon’s testimony to people, is that it's like an intense love for your wife. There's a strong feeling of warmth, connection, belonging, and meaning. But in my mind, those feelings for my wife don’t mean that she is perfect...and in a similar way, to me, that doesn't make a church TRUE. There’s not real way to prove a church is true, so a person must find a connection to what that religion teaches, and you have to believe that what they say is true.

Now...time to expand on religion in general. I have no faith in any religion for several reasons. They all have too many accounts of double standards and hypocrisy. I mean, look at a "Holly War". That's an oxymoron to me, but to a religion they see it as a guaranteed ticket to heaven to kill people in the name of their god.

Look at how the early religions dealt with so called witches. If you were thought to use magic, you were killed. But on that same token, look at how Jesus Chris is described. He healed the sick, raised the dead, and turned a little bit of fish and bread in to mass quantities to feed a mass of people. Look at Mosses. The dude split the Red Sea. How is that not magic? It's called God's Power...but the way I see it, it's either a bunch of stories blow *waaaaaaay* out of proportion, or they are just made up stories by religious leaders that were mistranslated as fact.
Besides, the Bible is just a history lesson...and history is re-written by those that win wars.

Anyway...that's my take on Mormonism and religion in general.

[ April 23, 2007, 18:10: Message edited by: Kitrax ]

 

Kitrax -- I became inactive while attending the University of Utah....

 

Wow Kitrax, rare to see such an enlightened post about religion.

You and I share many views it seems.

 

You don't see your own bias at all, do you? If you only listen to arguments made by pro-Mormon groups, you are at least as biased as your so-called anti-Mormon groups....and probably much more, since you throw around the term "anti-Mormon" far more often than is appropriate (calling, for example, secular historical sites or sites that host "all comers" anti-Mormon instead of acknowledging their neutrality).

Seriously, when you are going to research a matter that is potentially embarrassing to an organization, do you honestly think you're going to get a less slanted take on the facts from the organization facing potential embarrassment? I take it then, that the only place you would look when researching the Spanish Inquisition or The Crusades would be the Catholic Church? The only place you'd look when investigating a political scandal would be the press releases issued by the politician in question? After all, anyone arguing that the Catholic Church or the politician in question might have actually done something scandalous would clearly have an axe to grind.......

It's very relevant. I'm going to paraphrase to save space, OK?

T2: The LDS church took the lands of many of the people it excommunicated.

You: No they didn't. I know they didn't because that's against the rules.

Me: So? Churches break their own rules all the time.

You: No they don't.

The rest of the exchange is quoted above.

So, the fact that these weren't Mormon churches does not make this case irrelevant since the entire exchange was actually about an instance when the LDS church did break its own doctrine.

[ April 24, 2007, 00:31: Message edited by: Drew ]