Mormonism

Remove all ads!

For those genuinely curous about the Mormon church (actually, The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints)....

First of all, ignore everything you've heard from non-Mormons about what the Mormon church believes in. The best place to find out about something is from the church itself. There are two documents that pretty much cover the fundamentals of the Mormon church:

The Articles of Faith were written by Joseph Smith (founder of the Mormon church) to briefly and accurately explain the basic beliefs of the Mormon church.

The Testimony of the Prophet Joseph Smith is an autobiographical account of Joseph Smith and the events surrounding the beginning of the Mormon church.

Those two links will pretty much tell you the basics of the Mormon church.

To expand on something kitrax stated.... There are actually three factions in Book of Mormon:

Nephites -- the good guys for most of the Book of Mormon. Decendants of Nephi, son of Lehi who fled Jerusalem during the reign of King Zedekiah (circa 600 BC). They were also white and eventually wiped out by...

Lamanites -- the bad guys. Decendants of Laman and Lemuel, the rebelious brothers of Nephi. They were cursed with a darkening of the skin. Their decendants are now Native Americans (on both the N. American and S. American contenents).

Jaredites -- these guys were around about 1000 years before the Nephites and Lamenites. They came to America at the fall of the Tower of Babel and eventually wiped themselves out.

Hey guys... I didn't make this stuff up, I'm just passing it on.

[ April 23, 2007, 20:23: Message edited by: T2Bruno ]

 

'Sup everybody...long time no type.

Quick at-work drive by...

@ Gnarff

This is a texbook example of the bias T2 is talking about, Gnarff. Rather than discuss the merits of this point of view, you immediately hone in on whatever kibble you can find to dismiss the source as "anti-mormon" and declare yourself correct without having to challenge what you already believe to be true.

You've kind of made a fool of yourself in this instance, because "xmission" is merely a popular web hosting company in the state of Utah, and has no overt anti-mormon bias whatsoever. Many websites, Mormon and non, pro and anti, secular and devout, use xMission. The word "xmission" is often included in the URL as a means of promotion, just as many blogs use "www.joeblow.blogspot.com" or whatever.

I understand that this whole "if it doesn't jive with my understanding it must be a lie" approach of yours is so much easier than asking yourself the hard questions and doing actual research (and no, members of your church don't count as "research"), but you should know that it completely robs you of your credibility. So stop going on about somebody's "axe to grind" and address the arguements on their merits. Agendas are illuminated when confronted with the facts, so any perceived biases a source has, the proper arguement will bowl right through them.

That said, I think you'll often find it to be the case that – to paraphrase Stephen Colbert: "The facts have a well-known anti-mormon bias."

@ T2,

I have to say I'm very impressed with your post above. Your path in Mormon life appears nearly identical to mine, with the exception that I left the church earlier and haven't been officially excommunicated - but the heavy family influence and ancestry are there. Your willingness to take an eyes-wide-open approach to the church - especially the research involved - is something to be commended, as is your knowledge of the church's history (which, in case anyone is curious, is SPOT ON). Few people have the intellectual honesty to be so introspective in your personal circumstances. Kudos.

I also find your observations of Gnarff's debating tactics particularly astute. And though I completely agree with your 1-4 list as it applies to Mormons specifically, items #1 and #4 can often (though not always) be applied directly to devout defenders of any faith. In fact, I was immediately reminded of past discussions I've had with NOG when I read that.

Therein lies a large part of the problem with discussions of this sort, I suppose.

 

Can I blame him for not wanting to believe it? Absolutely not. I don't want to believe a lot of things in this world. Doesn't make me right, though. Wanting's not enough.

 

Perhaps I did not make myself clear in my post. I am not arguing either for or against Joseph Smith but was simply trying to state that the argument that he was a "money digger" is IMO blown out of proportion. It proves nothing.

Kitrax, that was an excellent post. We could substitute a lot of different church names in this topic. I will make a general statement that may have exceptions. All christian churches believe they are right; therefore all other churches are wrong.

 

I would even take that a step further, Nakia. There's isn't a church on earth that isn't 100% convinced that they're in the right. Whether they state it overtly or not, by default they believe all other faiths to be misquied and wrong - else they would cease to have meaning. I don't know how many take it so far as to maintain that non-believers are enthralled by demons (as NOG does, and probably Gnarff too, I would imagine), but the above is almost certainly true of all religions, with the only possible exception I can think of being Buddhism.

And though I agree that the "money-digger" thing doesn't necessarily prove anything in and of itself, it certainly is cause for a heaping helping of doubt, and does a great deal of harm to Smith's credibility.

 

actually quite a few religions are very accepting. Janism and Wicca are a couple. Did you know that many of the Wiccan gods are not rooted in Wicca? You'll find Roman and Norse gods as well. More than a few polytheistic religions accept other faiths deities.

 

In all honesty one of the funniest times in my life was at one of those General Conferences. There are a TON of protesters there, with full organized presentation type boards with defaming comments. So, group of other people from my area and I were waiting to get into the building for the session, and it was getting quiet as the protesters must've been getting tired. Then suddenly loud enough that some 5,000 mormons and who knows how many other people heard it... "FOLLING THE TEACHINGS OF SADOM AND GAMORA WITH THEIR FORNICATION WITH POLAR BEARS!" To this date that's one of my fondest memories... so many people laughing , while at the same time others took it way too seriously.

I feel your pain... We make fun of Utah Mormons all the time at my branch.

 

First of all, whether or not Joseph Smith thought he was working a Con, what he was doing was still against the law. Further, his conviction was actually worded "A disorderly person and an impostor". Admittedly, the conviction alone doesn't guarantee that Joseph Smith was a con man, but when you add to that the fact that there are actually 9 conflicting versions of Joseph Smith's first vision story (that Gnarff will no doubt denounce as being anti-Mormon without bothering to read),his own father's experience as a "diviner" and involvement in the Wood Scrape** incident in 1800-1802 , things start to look a little bit ugly for Mr. Smith. Then there is the fact that Smith lied about having multiple wives (which he had taken without the consent of his first wife), took land from excommunicated members, and even once ran an illegal banking operation.....

**This group claimed to have been descended from ancient Jews and the lawful inheritors of the whole country. They prophesied that an earthquake would happen during the night of the 14th Jan. 1802; at which time "the Destroying Angel" was to smite all but the chosen. They also claimed that they had the power to cure all sorts of diseases, had intuitive knowledge of lost or stolen goods, and the ability to discover the hidden treasures of the earth, as well as the more convenient talent of transmuting ordinary substances into precious metals. For more information, several primary sources are available here.

[ April 24, 2007, 07:59: Message edited by: Drew ]

 

But how powerful and established was the church at that time? We are talking maybe a 1000 at most, who've been subjected to a seemingly inordinate amount of hardship here. If the Prophet was a con man, and they fount that out, they'd have lynched him themselves.

And since he was a prophet (according to his report of the First Vision and dealinds with the angel Moroni), he would have been tempted to use that gift to help people. But the Lord doesn't give such gifts for the gaining of wealth, but to do His will.

I didn't have the time, but I made the time. I really should have been in bed but I gave up much needed sleep to examine these charges.

That night, I did not invest the time for that purpose.

I had heard the number even higher than that (from within the church), but can't remember an exact number...

I did hear that. I also don't think she challenged her Husband publicly over that...

So where does the law of Consecration fit in. Under that law, Members moving to the communities were not given or sold land, but were placed in charge of areas of that land by the Church (who retained the titles of these lands). Members worked the lands and were able to support their families, but the Church still owned the land, and could re-assign stewardships as circumstances required. When a member was excommunicated for whatever reason, they were relieved of their stewardship. They could not sell or be stripped of lands they did not own...

Living here in Canada, I was spared that Pressure, and was actually prepared for the responsibilities of the Priesthood when I received it at 31.

You'd be surprised. When I returned to the Church, and had to face the Sins of the 12 years away, I was almost expecting to face excommunication, but my Bishop was satisfied that my sins were in the past, and that I was more than willing to leave them there. He did not feel anything beyond prayer and a bit of advice was required. The emphasis is on the Atonement, not punishment...

I've heard the stories. I really don't think I'd fit in with them. I like my Heavy Metal Music, D&D, and probably a few other things that, while they won't pre-empt me from a Temple Reccommend, would mortify the heck out of them. That and I don't think I completely dodged the Coprolalia (the swearing thing) bullet with my Tourette Syndrome...

And if you weren't sure you had one, that would be really hard. I know that I have such a testimony, but to go to the front of the chapel in front of at most 100 people is very intimidating. Quite often, I feel things I want to say, but when I get there. I draw a complete blank. I only survive Sacrement talks by having prepared notes...

I didn't look at it that way. I looked at it as frightening, like I'd excluded myself from the Atonement of Christ by violations of covenents. I guess that I felt re-assured that that was not the case and have been able to leave my sins behind me and move forward as a better man.

No, the word is excommunication. The difference is that it is by your request that there is no communication. I know someone that did that. Even though I haven't seen him since, I do miss him...

I thought a discourse on the merits of horse manure would be off topic. The link that Drew provided cited allegations of forgery by both camps, picked a side and stuck with that side. There was no attempt at impartiality, only a criticism of one of the key points in the history of the Church, and a character assassination of the Prophet of the restoration.

In this case, yes. By the definition of "Disorderly Person", the claims that he was a Prophet and his testimony of the First Vision would classify himself as such. Further, without the corroborating testimony for God the Father or Jesus Christ, there was no reason to suspect that he was anything other than an imposter. In our personal life, the Holy Ghost can provide that witness, clearing the name of Joseph Smith. Ironically, this would put us in the category of a "disorderly person"...

I speak from the heart and soul, not some rule book of logic. The Truth doesn't always fall along such neatly deliniated criterion.

I don't believe that, but they have not made that spiritual connection required to believe...

Let me ask a couple questions of those that believe that the Church is a fraud:

1: If Joseph Smith was indeed a charlatan, and by the record (Doctrine and Covenents 135) of a man arrested at the same time as Him and his brother Hyrum (also wounded in the attack), he knew he was going to be murdered, why then, would he submit to the arrest? Certainly he understood the concept of death and martyrdom. If it was a con, wouldn't he have fled with as much ill gotten wealth as he could carry and found another mark?

2: If the continued Church is a scam, why is it not investigated by law enforcement? If it's a scam, then it would not be a legitimate religion, and thus not subject to any protection from prosecution...

3: If this was a man made fraud, then how come they have the resources to supply aid in times of distress alot faster and more effectively than other organizations that exist for that porpose alone?

Also, I have found this site that may provide some evidence to support the Church and the Book of Mormon.

http://www.ancientamerica.org/

BTW: T2, I guess that the explanation of the Nephites and Lamanites was easier than I thought it would be...

 

How can you possibly know what sort of spiritual connection anyone else has made?

[ April 24, 2007, 10:56: Message edited by: Rallymama ]

 

Like scientology, it started as a scam. unlike scientology, it became a church.

Truth is not required for a church, all that is required is belief, whether misguided or not.

 

Seconded. If churchs didnt have religion, I dont think I would have a problem with them at all. you get all the moral and community support with none of the lies, controversy and outdated rules.

I wonder why logic and faith are said to be incompatible. Didnt god give us logic so we can appreciate his universe? why then must we abandon logic and use only faith? why couldnt logic reaffirm faith instead of being the cure for it?

 

You have to watch out for those damn Mormon Bear-lovers.

My favorite story of anti-Mormon protests, was when the Southern Baptists came up to SLC to "Save the Mormons". Imagine if the Protestants were to converge to the Vatican to 'save the Catholics'. As you can imagine, they didn't receive a warm welcome.

Actually, like Death Rabbit suggested, I was referring to more than just Christianity. Islam is just as bad. The only difference is their "Holy Wars" continue to this day, while Christianity’s wars seem to have been left in the past...to be forgotten.

As I said before, I have problems with religion in general. I am a fact/proof oriented kind of person, so the concept of religion just doesn’t work for me.

Take the "afterlife" for example...
How does anyone know what Heaven or Hell really is, or if it really exists? In my mind, it could have been that early religious leaders needed a *reason* for people to believe what they were teaching, based on a reward/punishment form of an afterlife. If you’re good, and follow the church’s teachings, you get to go to Heaven…otherwise you’re going to Hell. Over the years both “places” could have been refined and elaborated on by other religious leaders…but when it comes down to it, no one really knows. No one has been there and back. It is just common acceptance that one place is the worst of all things bad, and the other is the best of all things good.

 

I appreciate the supportive comments from everyone.

Gnarff, I don't see why you are fighting the criminal record of JS so much -- he even admitted it:

To many, a person who has done wrong and has repented is much more believable. He also knew his past would come out and being forthright and contrite about his past diffuses the issue entirely. Very smart of him -- or in your view, inspired.

 

THere's nothing that says it can't, Proteus_za. It's simply a matter of looking until you find a religion that provides you with a spiritual path that your heart can follow without demanding that you leave your brain on the sideline. It can be done. There are a few people here on the BoM who manage to be erudite and logical while maintaining a strong spiritual practice, in a variety of flavors.

That said, I have to admit that Gnarff's posts on Mormonism make me long for the good old days of Chevalier's rants.

 

I've encountered most of the mainstream religions except buddhism, such as Hindi, Islam and Christianity (well I have friends who follow each faith, used to be christian myself).

and it seems all of them suppress thinking critically about religion and encourage people not to seek knowledge but to accept what your church and elders tell you.

so although a logical church is a good idea, I'm not sure they exist in practice.

 

Indeed, such wars are a dim and distant memory, as are the places that hosted them; Northern Ireland and Rwanda, for instance.

 

Um... if he was, in fact, a charlatan, then he wouldn't have known he was going to be murdered. That seems quite obvious. If he didn't have some type of divine knowledge, then he couldn't have known he would be lynched. (I mean, he probably knew it was a possibility, but that's not what it appears you are saying... but I'll give you the benefit of the doubt, and move on to what my point actually is.) Furthermore, if he was a charlatan, than concepts of martyrdom wouldn't have even entered his thought process. If fact, I would go to the opposite extreme - that you could only make such assumptions if he was NOT, in fact, a charlatan.

As others have said, once you gain the status of a church, you are protected from legal authorities provided you are not doing anything against the law. Last I checked it's not illegal to believe that Joseph Smith was a prophet, or believe the other tennants of Mormonism. As you have adequately proved, some people's faith is so strong as it cannot be shaken by any means. You aren't committing a crime - and any crime that was committed in the formation of the church, well, everyone involved in that are long dead and thus beyond the reach of the law - why would law enforcement become involved at all?

But that misses thr point too, because Joseph Smith did not commit a crime in forming the Church of LDS in the first place. Conning people out of money or possessions is criminal. Conning people into believing something - in this case belief in a religion - is not. (Unless of course you make them believe something that will allow you to con them out of money or possessions.)

No one ever claimed that the Church of LDS didn't have financial resources. Bill Gates also has the resources to do the same - that doesn't prove any type of divine connection though. I don't think point 3 is relevant to the discussion at all - all it requires is money - not spirituality.