there is no error in the revelations which I have taught

[helemon]

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/9630255/site/newsweek/page/2/
"I never told you I was perfect," he told his followers. "But there is no error in the revelations which I have taught."

Doesn't this statement alone prove that Joseph Smith was a liar since mormon and non mormon scholars alike have documented numerous errors in the revelations that Joseph taught. Perhaps this statement is in fact true since there are definitely more errors than one in the revelations that he taught. :duh

[Fredl]

There's no question that this is not true. I think the more interesting question is whether or not J. Smith believed sincerely himself in the truth of what he had produced. I suppose we'll never know for sure.

I must admit that I'm increasingly loosing interest in this question as well.

Fred

[silverfox]

There's no question that this is not true. I think the more interesting question is whether or not J. Smith believed sincerely himself in the truth of what he had produced. I suppose we'll never know for sure.

I must admit that I'm increasingly loosing interest in this question as well.

Fred

IMO, regardless if Joe truly believed his own crap or not, it's wrong and damaging.

[Fredl]

Oh, I don't know that it's (BoM) necessarily so damaging. Anybody that lacks sufficient natural skepticism to see through it is probably no worse off as a tbm than in his(her) state of innocent gullibility. Life is a great teacher and just as a boy with a skinned knee is arguably better off than a boy afraid to try to learn to ride a bike, over all, I think Mormonism is a great lesson for those (like me) with a need to learn a healthy skepticism towards such nonsense.

I suppose that for many, they die of old age before seeing though the Mormon nonsense, but they seem to die happy enough so why should I question their choice of illusions?

I guess my take on the BoM at this time pretty much corresponds to that of Mark Twain (Samuel Clemmons): it is stupifyingly boring and obviously a work of fiction. The illusion that it is a true history of the "Nephites and Lamanites" is, however, probably no more injurious to the average Mormon than the many illusions that swirl around in my own head unnoticed by me in my strongest illusion of all: that I actually see reality for what it is.

Fred

[lunaverse]

The BoM in and of itself is not damaging. If someone found it on the street and read it, it would probably do nothing for the person, except entertain them or cause them to believe in some things that probably already jived with their former values.

But JS did a lot more than write/translate/publish/whatever the BoM. When you consider the entirety of his creation, and the millions of people who live their lives by that creation, it is damaging ... maybe not to all, but to many of them.

The short list:

1) Moism causes people to suppress aspects of their "true" selves, which brings reduced happiness.
2) Moism induces phobias of things that aren't real, sometimes to the point of being debilitive
3) Moism reduces the number of opportunities for schooling, career, and other life-choices
4) Moism teaches an overall philsophy of "pleasure is bad"
5) Mosim hides domestic abuse, and sometimes increases abuse by blaming the victim
6) Moism takes people's money. For some, it's an inconvience -- one less stereo or new computer. For others, it means bankruptcy and other miseries.
7) Moism demands large families, even for people who are unprepared or incapable of having them, causing many miseries, including financial hardship for ALL (including children) and increased abuse due to frustrations
8) Moism causes stress, and lots of it. The work is never done, and there are always more unfufilled commandments. Moism keeps people busy working on fantasy ideals when they could be producing beautiful art or other contributions to the world
9) Moism fills many people with shame. The chapel is a shame-factory.. when you start to feel relief, you can always go back to church and get some more.

There are just a few examples of the damage JS is still causing. This doesn't count historical damage...

Luna

[Fredl]

Hi again Luna. Yano, doncha, that you're a very smart lady, so it's with more than a little trepidation that I take you on in verbal combat!

But, let me tell you what you got me thinking about.

It is my considered opinion that a huge issue in this modern world of ours that doesn't have a large number of good answers available is that of the formation of a stable and satisfying sense of identity.

Certainly, that's been the work of a lifetime for me and I STILL haven't found a completely satisfactory answer to it.

If I was to ask the question who am I, I would be very slow and unsure how to answer. When I was in the USMC, I would have answered, "A US Marine". Which is one of the most important attractions of that wonderful organization; it provides a cohesive and satisfying sense of identity. It left me feeling that I knew what it was to be honorable and with the inner strength to be so. I guess, during my business days, I would have answered, an IT Professional, a far less satisfactory identity. When I was young, I would have answered, "An American". Prior to the War in Viet Nam, I was very proud of being an American. That war left me with an identity crises that I never really completely got over. I was, frankly, ashamed, and still am, of what our country did there.

I have always liked and felt a kinship with the girls, well, women from the Philippines. I've gotten to know a lot of them, both in the Philippines and here. What charactarizes them, especially in ths country, is a sort of ongoing identity crises that they act out in promiscuity and other forms of disorganized, chaotic lives. Not all, but many if not most. It's painful for me to see. What I think it's all about is an inability to adjust from tribalism to modern, individualistic society.

Now, say what you want about the Mormons, what I see the church provides is a strong sense of personal identity. Imho, this is a HUGE benefit to many, many people. I'd have to say that this was the bargain that I was willing to make with the church and that my wife and son, to a much lesser degree my daughter, are still willing to keep with the church.

I think it's easy to over look this benefit or say it's easy to find it in other places. This has not been my experience. I do not belittle or feel superior to those that want to live by that bargain. It's just not the path for me.

This benefit, like most things in life comes at a price. You've correctly identified some of the key components of that price. Like me, you've decided it's a price you're unwilling to pay. However, that doesn't mean it's not a "value proposition" for many.

Fred

[lunaverse]

This benefit, like most things in life comes at a price. You've correctly identified some of the key components of that price. Like me, you've decided it's a price you're unwilling to pay. However, that doesn't mean it's not a "value proposition" for many.


These are some good thoughts. As a libertarian, I like to think of things in terms of free exchange, value in trade for value.

The problem with this particular exchange is the deception involved -- it's fraudulent. If the Church were to come clean on its many deceptions, then it becomes a fair exchange. If the Church allowed its down sides to be more visible, it becomes a fair exchange. If it allowed members to be vocal about their negative experiences, then it is a more fair exchange. If the Church didn't demand so much (on the threat of death and eternal misery), then it would be a fair exchange.

Imagine a consumer world with no comparison to other products, no reviews, no money back guarantees. Imagine that some controlling force tells you Ford is the only model of car to buy, that it is 100% perfect and great, and that if you buy any other brand of car, you will be killed... and in the afterlife you'll be miserable. Then imagine that they restrict your access to information about all other brands of cars, consumer magazines, and reviews online. Then you buy one of those trucks with the exploding fuel tanks they recalled a few years back. (Or was that GMC? anyway...) You have no idea it may explode, and if you take it back because it DID explode, Ford will disown you and everyone you know will think you're a freak, an idiot, and evil.

I guess my goal for writing what I do is to help bring some balance. I'm one of the many reviewers that says, "Buyer beware!", hoping that a few of the Mormons will find these "reviews" (and of course so that those who have left can have help recovering, including myself).

I focus so much on the negatives, because the Church is busy advertising the positives in a near-monopolistic fashion. The positives are those I leave out by ommission, I suppose.

I would absolutely LOVE to see New Order Mormonism succeed. I would find this type of Mormonism fascinating. An open, free, vibrant, speculative society. I would probably not belong to it, but I want to see it come about. When there is more truth in the advertising, and fewer threats and less control, then I will agree with you -- it is an informed choice some people make so they can belong to a group of people they want to identify with. Or for other reasons.

BTW, when I first left Mo'ism (and had also recently changed politics) I suffered a severe idenity crisis. I realized why so many people get so heated about the topics of religion and politics -- because they're linked to identity. "I'm a Mormon", or "I'm a Republican" ... I = my religion, and I = my politics. If someone convinces you your politics are wrong, a major aspect of yourself is in jeapordy. Many people are terrified of change, and will cling to that at all costs, even if it means yelling at someone and calling them a Nazi. :)

Luna

[free thinker]

If I was to ask the question who am I, I would be very slow and unsure how to answer. When I was in the USMC, I would have answered, "A US Marine". Which is one of the most important attractions of that wonderful organization; it provides a cohesive and satisfying sense of identity. It left me feeling that I knew what it was to be honorable and with the inner strength to be so. I guess, during my business days, I would have answered, an IT Professional, a far less satisfactory identity. When I was young, I would have answered, "An American". Prior to the War in Viet Nam, I was very proud of being an American. That war left me with an identity crises that I never really completely got over. I was, frankly, ashamed, and still am, of what our country did there.


Fred

What would be wrong with identifying yourself as a kind loving father, and faithful devoted husband?

free thinker

[Fredl]

Luna, much as I respect your opinions, I'm going to have to disagree with you on this one.

Imho, you're failing to recognize a basic part of what religion is: the reworked product of of experience; a sort of artistic product which creates myths of how things "should have been", based on how they really were, but reworked to provide a satisfying illusion that carries with it a sense of who we are and why we are what we are. Members use it to create a consensus reality which supports a way of life that they love, or at least tolerate and, at the very least, find preferrable to consensus reality outside the tribe.

And, I believe that at some level, however profound the denial, I think they know this very well. As I understand your view, you believe that Mormons are living in ignorance because the church has mislead them. Not so, I say. I believe them to be living in denial. I base this on the extreme emotion with which they defend their position. I think that if ignorance were the problem, there wouldn't be a lot of emotion involved in defending their position, rather they'd be more prone to simple curiosity.

Now, children born into the tribe live in this consensus reality from a young age (though it appears that some seem to have a sort of natural resistance to it from a VERY early age). I grant they are less conscious of making a DECISION to accept the consensus reality of the tribe, but even they, at some point, make a DECISION to accept it.

Now, I have a great deal of confidence in the ability of other human beings to run thir own lives a lot more intelligently than I could ever run their lives for them. Which means to me that other people understand their bargain with the church just fine, thank you, and are just as capable of figuring out what's wrong with the church as you and I are. The fraud perpetrated by the church is very obvious to anyone WANTING to see it and is not much different than that practiced by most religious organizations. Take a look at Islam, for example; the Wold's fastest growing religion. I'd say the Mormon Church looks pretty benign by THAT standard.

Now, in my view, people join the Mormon Church (and Islam) not because they are deluded but because it meets a need in their lives that is profound and not easy to meet in the world of today. Now many, probably the majority, soon find out thet've made a bad bargain and drop out. Those that stay, imho, need what the church provides and are willing to pay the price.

And for them, it is the right decision.

Fred

[helemon]

There are just a few examples of the damage JS is still causing. This doesn't count historical damage...

Luna

That last point is something that I think to often goes overlooked. It is heartbreaking for me to think about all the amazing cultural knowledge that has been supressed, lost, and destroyed by the promulgation of Christianity on Native Americans. Mormonism is particularly insideous because it puts forth a psuedo-historical document that it claims is an actual historical record of the ancient inhabitants of the Americas. How many people in South and Central America have accepted JS's fraudlent half baked story as their own history? How much of the indigenous culture has been lost because Christians and Mormons labeled it as wicked and evil? How much could we have learned from a greater understanding of the amazing astronomical calculations achieved by the Maya and Aztecs? What mysteries were lost to the ages due to the zeal of Christian missionaries in stamping out the "wicked" indigenous cultures?

[why me]

We would need someone at fair to stir the pot here. generalizations are never good without decent and honest debate from two knowledgeable sources.

Many genealizations have been made and Fred has done some challenging to them but we definitely need an expert here. And I am not that person.

But it is great to read posts from people who have found new truths to believe in. :)

Has it now been determined that the church is fraudalent? Where is the proof?

Maybe at the next postmo luncheon we can all bear our testimonies: I know the church is fraudalent. I know that Joseph Smith was not a prophet but a profit. I know that the book of mormon is a work of fiction. I am grateful to myself for dicovering this information and I say these things in the name of myself. Amen. :rolleyes:

[why me]

That last point is something that I think to often goes overlooked. It is heartbreaking for me to think about all the amazing cultural knowledge that has been supressed, lost, and destroyed by the promulgation of Christianity on Native Americans. Mormonism is particularly insideous because it puts forth a psuedo-historical document that it claims is an actual historical record of the ancient inhabitants of the Americas. How many people in South and Central America have accepted JS's fraudlent half baked story as their own history? How much of the indigenous culture has been lost because Christians and Mormons labeled it as wicked and evil? How much could we have learned from a greater understanding of the amazing astronomical calculations achieved by the Maya and Aztecs? What mysteries were lost to the ages due to the zeal of Christian missionaries in stamping out the "wicked" indigenous cultures?

You need to ask the catholics these questions more than the mormons.

Where have the mormons labeled indigenous culture wicked or evil? I am sure that it is somewhere but where? :confused:

But yes you are right...greed and colonialism have been responsible for destruction.

[Fredl]

As I have mentioned earlier, I'm just finishing up "The Eternal Frontier". I think it fair to say the author, Tim Flannery is indeed an expert. What he has to say about the Aztecs is illuminating. He discusses what bad neighbors they were, beginning from their earliest origins, and what a horrific society they created, based on slavery, wholesale human sacrifice and a tyranical imperialism over anybody within reach that they were able to subdue. It was truly remarkable what the Spanish conquestadors were able to accomplish wth a few hundred troops, operating against several hundred thousand Aztec warriors. They certainly couldn't have done it without the help of large numbers of Amerindian allies who were entirely willing to accept Spanish domination if it meant the end of Aztec rule.

It is my view that the Eropean colonists brought with them a culture far superior to that which existed in the Americas upon their arrival. Their society was far more open to new ideas, technologies, social structures and progress in general than the Amerindian cultures of the New World. The reason that their military might was so far superior to that of the Amerindian tribes was not just because of technological superiority but also that it was so much more cohesive. This was a reflection of the culture it was based on: people could trust each other.

Imho, Christianity, with all its problems, deserves a significant share of the credit for the state of European culture at the time. There were lots of other factors, but Christianity was a generally far more benign influence over European society than that of the Aztecs over their's.

I shed a tear for the fate of many of my ancestors societies, but thank God that I do not have to live in them today. Perhaps more could have been saved, but I doubt it would have meant much to me, personally. I'm not much for going to museums and am quite content to confine my knowledge of them to the many books that are available today.

Fred

[helemon]

You need to ask the catholics these questions more than the mormons.

Where have the mormons labeled indigenous culture wicked or evil? I am sure that it is somewhere but where? :confused:

But yes you are right...greed and colonialism have been responsible for destruction.

Why Me have you ever read the BoM??????
Does the phrase filthy and loathsome ring a bell?
The BoM tell the story that the righteous civilized fair skinned natives were killed of by the wicked loathsome natives. It also justifies the more righteous white Europeans stealing the land from the wicked Lamanites.

Do you not feel that using a multi billion dollar corporation to promulgate a fraudulant history of American antiquity puts at risk the preservation of the actual history of these people? I think the real history of Native Americans is far more fascinating and spectacular than the drivel contained in the BoM.

[helemon]

As I have mentioned earlier, I'm just finishing up "The Eternal Frontier". I think it fair to say the author, Tim Flannery is indeed an expert. What he has to say about the Aztecs is illuminating. He discusses what bad neighbors they were, beginning from their earliest origins, and what a horrific society they created, based on slavery, wholesale human sacrifice and a tyranical imperialism over anybody within reach that they were able to subdue. It was truly remarkable what the Spanish conquestadors were able to accomplish wth a few hundred troops, operating against several hundred thousand Aztec warriors. They certainly couldn't have done it without the help of large numbers of Amerindian allies who were entirely willing to accept Spanish domination if it meant the end of Aztec rule.

It is my view that the Eropean colonists brought with them a culture far superior to that which existed in the Americas upon their arrival. Their society was far more open to new ideas, technologies, social structures and progress in general than the Amerindian cultures of the New World. The reason that their military might was so far superior to that of the Amerindian tribes was not just because of technological superiority but also that it was so much more cohesive. This was a reflection of the culture it was based on: people could trust each other.

Imho, Christianity, with all its problems, deserves a significant share of the credit for the state of European culture at the time. There were lots of other factors, but Christianity was a generally far more benign influence over European society than that of the Aztecs over their's.

I shed a tear for the fate of many of my ancestors societies, but thank God that I do not have to live in them today. Perhaps more could have been saved, but I doubt it would have meant much to me, personally. I'm not much for going to museums and am quite content to confine my knowledge of them to the many books that are available today.

Fred

Even if the European society had some advantages over the indigenous civilizations, there is no excuse to promote a fraudulant history to these people over an open and honest examination of their true culture. Clearly there were many great and complex civilizations in the Americas. We should not fill peoples minds with a farm boys day dreams over an honest informed discussion of what these people were really like.

He discusses what bad neighbors they were, beginning from their earliest origins, and what a horrific society they created, based on slavery, wholesale human sacrifice and a tyranical imperialism over anybody within reach that they were able to subdue.

And how is that different from the imperialism of the Brits and Spainards? They also engaged in slavery, wholesale slaughter, tyranical imperialism over anybody within reach of their fleets.

[peter_mary]

I gotta say, I agree with Luna. The Church is harmful because of the deception from which it springs. Any perceived good that ignorant members claim to enjoy at this point is merely the good that comes from so many other community organizations and nothing unique to Mormonism. The bad, however, is great.

I believe that Joseph Smith knew exactly what was going on when he perpetrated the great lie of Mormonism. The evolution from money-digger to prophet was too smooth and too interrelated to be mere coincidence. Because I believe Joseph knew what he was doing, everything he created was a lie, and the people who live under it's auspices are living a lie foisted upon them either by deceptive missionary practices or "the wicked traditions of their fathers." They may do so willingly and in ignorance, all with the best of intentions, but they are living a lie. And frankly, that's not healthy.

Happiness is available to people who confront reality every bit as much as to people who live in a fantasy. There is no need to keep people stupid just so they'll be happy. Keeping them stupid is a form of manipulation and control, and has real benefits for the corporation at THE EXPENSE of it's members (read: Fortune 500 level corporation with Tax exempt status). Anyone who claims to be happy as a Mormon can be just as happy as an informed person living a more authentic, reality based life, saving themselves 10% and getting Sunday's off, not to mention sparing themselves the guilt trip of a lifetime.

I know lots of Mormons who seem happy enough, but who wallow in deception, and I know lots of former Mormons who are just, well, happy. Guess which system I think is superior?

Peter_Mary

[Fredl]

At the risk of repeating myself, I'll say it one more time: The fallacy that I see in your comments Peter is that they are based on the assumption that you are smarter than the people you're commenting on, see reality more clearly and generally know what's best for them better than they do themselves. My theorizing is based on the premise that EVERYBODY knows what's best for themselves better than I do, is smarter about their own decisions than I am and sees their own reality far better than I do. I am a lot more interested in coming to understand other people (particularly Mormons) than in straightening them out.

Now, I may well be completely wrong in my conjectures but I continue to believe that the church is not my enemy and does enormous amounts of good as well as bad. Like most human institutions. I don't belong in it but that doesn't make it evil. Just like me, it has committed evil acts, but that doesn't make it or me evil.

Peter, you're a good man but imho you're allowing you're hostility towards tscc to undermine your objectivity.

Fred

[lunaverse]

generalizations are never good without decent and honest debate from two knowledgeable sources.

You realize this sentence is ironic, right? :)

Luna

[lunaverse]

I shed a tear for the fate of many of my ancestors societies, but thank God that I do not have to live in them today. Perhaps more could have been saved, but I doubt it would have meant much to me, personally. I'm not much for going to museums and am quite content to confine my knowledge of them to the many books that are available today.


Whether or not they were more violent and unethical than the Europeans, it was still a dirty rotten shame their records were destroyed. Same thing happened to the Irish Celts.

The Aztecs had a large body of scientific knowledge (probably including their predecessors like the Mayans) and the cultural knowledge was important, too.

Granted, they did have mass human sacrifices and war-like culture, but Europe was barely out of its uncivilized infancy as well. (And as others have pointed out, it's arguable just how civilized they were...) Was Rome any better? Were the dark ages any better?

If we had those records, we might know more... nothing pisses me off more than book burning. :/

Luna

[lunaverse]

Fred, I must say you have given me a little to think about. I used to trust people to make their own decisions, but then I studied mind control... There are ways to trick people into accepting something they simply wouldn't accept under honest circumstances. But just where that line should be drawn is not very clear.

It's obvious, when we look say at Nazism... people believed in it and joined it because they were promised a happy utopia. They were never told the Jews were being tortured and killed. They became convinced by a charismatic leader that they were following the right and idealistic path. They were made to believe they would finally be saved from economic oppression.

Were those people freely choosing the total of Nazism, including the war and the slaughter of innocents? I don't believe they were -- they were tricked.

Mormonism clearly is NOT Nazism. But where should the line be drawn? When does it stop being a free choice and become a fraud with dangerous, unforseen consequences?

Luna

[silverfox]

Peter, you're a good man but imho you're allowing you're hostility towards tscc to undermine your objectivity.

Fred

I must have missed something. IMO, I don't get where P_M's post came off as hostile. In fact I don't feel hostility from him at all. I think he is one of the happiest Post Mos I've ever known.

It should be accepted that many many church members have left the church because of the deception. Period.

[peter_mary]

At the risk of repeating myself, I'll say it one more time: The fallacy that I see in your comments Peter is that they are based on the assumption that you are smarter than the people you're commenting on, see reality more clearly and generally know what's best for them better than they do themselves.
Nope...I ain't smarter 'n nobody, dumber 'n most.

Actually Fred, this is possibly projection, or at least an attempt at mind-reading. I think I was pretty clear in my opening remarks that this is what "I" believe. "I" believe Joseph was a knowledgeable deceiver. "I" believe it is unhealthy to participate in a fraud whether you do so unwittingly or otherwise.

If, for instance, I formulate a plan to create a multi-level vitamin company, and I am just the happiest, most charismatic vitamin company guy you ever did run across, and in the course of talking to me, you become COMPLETELY convinced that taking my vitamins will be the greatest thing that ever happened to you, (not to mention signing up to be a distributor yourself, possibly to become a Diamond one day :rolleyes: ...), maybe you will be just the happiest little vitamin taker/seller ever. Maybe you really will believe that you are feeling better, even if there is no clinical proof. Maybe you really do believe that you will live 6 months longer...who will know whether or not that's true? Maybe you are so bought into it all that you start selling other people on the products and the company, too, and they believe it. Maybe everyone still comes down with a cold, but they're pretty sure it doesn't last as long.

But maybe I am selling repackaged generic brand vitamin C and that's all...and I know it full well. Then all that happiness you are believing in is based on a false premise...one that would come collapsing down if people found out the truth. Can you imagine yourself saying, "Peter_Mary, that's okay that I pay three times the amount for these generic Vitamin C tablets when I buy them from you, and that I thought they were SO much more than just Vitamin C. I'll stick with it because it doesn't matter what it really is, all that matters is that I'm happy!"? No, I doubt you would.

So it's not that I'm suggesting that I know whether or not the Church is good for someone, but rather whether its POSSIBLE to be good for someone if it is a complete fabrication? If people are engaged in a lifestyle, by choice, that they BELIEVE is founded on something that it's NOT, wouldn't they be furious to find that out? Wouldn't that be destructive? And then wouldn't the only way to avoid that discovery be to encourage ignorance? Is happiness that can come crashing to the ground with a small dose of reality really a healthy thing for anyone?

Wait! I know the answer to that! Yeah, it sucks pretty bad to make all those discoveries. Lot's of PostMo's are the walking, living, breathing testament to the dangers of believing a lie.

All of western religion is founded on the PREMISE of truth. People adhere to one religion or another because they BELIEVE in it's truths, whatever they are. Well, I argue that as a result of that, most people would get pretty down-right hostile to learn that their "TRUTH" was manufactured behind a screen, with a face in a hat.

Therefore, when I said what I said above, and I stand by those words as a matter of integrity rather than reactive hostility, I was considering the impact of people discovering what is really true about their belief system, and the damage that can be done as a result.

Thinking back on my vitamin example, what responsibility do I bear if you develop skin cancer, and because you believe in the healing properties of my vitamins, you shun the very medical assistance that would have saved your life, only to find out too late that my vitamins were nothing but generic vitamin C with no cancer-fighting properties any better than your average orange? Because you were committed, happily, to my "manufactured truth," you failed to avail yourself to something that, although imperfect, was a better 'truth' than mine. That would be criminal.

Well, how is this any different?

Peter, you're a good man but imho you're allowing you're hostility towards tscc to undermine your objectivity.

Fred
Actually, I'm a son-of-a-bitch, and can't play nicely with anyone.

Peter_"the hostile one"_Mary

[papa]

awww...I wanna be the hostile one! No, wait, I wanna be the funny one! No, dam, that won't work either. I dunno then...

But yeah, Joseph said all his revelations were true. So, that means, even the ones about Zelph? Nephite towers and mounds? Or the altars of Adam at AOA? Then, I wonder what could have motivated the SCC to bulldoze the most sacred things under sod?

[peter_mary]

awww...I wanna be the hostile one! No, wait, I wanna be the funny one! No, dam, that won't work either. I dunno then...


How 'bout you be the hillariously hostile one?

:D

Peter_Mary

[papa]

yeah man, that works for me! :eek:

[free thinker]

Fred

Who loves ya baby? :cool:

Sorry brother, but I am gonna go with Peter_Mary here.

I have yet to see anyone illucidate better this argument anywhere, than him. I think he is dead right about everything above. EVERYTHING.

Beleive me, he and I are at absolute opposite poles on other issues, but he has this one nailed IMHO.


free thinker

[peter_mary]

Beleive me, he and I are at absolute opposite poles on other issues, but he has this one nailed IMHO.

free thinker
We are? Wow...

Peter_Mary

[why me]

Why Me have you ever read the BoM??????
Does the phrase filthy and loathsome ring a bell?
The BoM tell the story that the righteous civilized fair skinned natives were killed of by the wicked loathsome natives. It also justifies the more righteous white Europeans stealing the land from the wicked Lamanites.

Do you not feel that using a multi billion dollar corporation to promulgate a fraudulant history of American antiquity puts at risk the preservation of the actual history of these people? I think the real history of Native Americans is far more fascinating and spectacular than the drivel contained in the BoM.
I understand what you are saying helemon. And I agree that the term 'filthy and loathsome' people is terrible. But here I think that there is something interesting. If the book of mormon were true then such a phrase would be understandable.

People are nothing more than human beings---not being able to come to grips with difference. It makes no difference if it is the book of mormon, the koran, or the bible---people cannot seem to tolerate differences.

And if the book of mormon isn't true, then who ever wrote it was just going along with the mood of american society at that time in its history---bottom line, however, is that people cannot tolerate difference. And that is sad and indictment on the human spirit.

It was the same for the mormons during JS's time. The frontier people were intolent people. The indians became victims, the catholics became victims and the blacks became victims of intolerance.

Now I know the arguments that the mormons were proud and also intolerant etc...but the issue is one of intolerance and the evil that this causes in my opinion. Self-motive and self-interest, although praised in america, can cause problematic behavior.

[why me]

You realize this sentence is ironic, right? :)

Luna
I didn't at first. But thanks for bringing it up. I suppose that it is ironic but I didn't mean it to be.

[why me]

[QUOTE=lunaverse]
It's obvious, when we look say at Nazism... people believed in it and joined it because they were promised a happy utopia. They were never told the Jews were being tortured and killed. They became convinced by a charismatic leader that they were following the right and idealistic path. They were made to believe they would finally be saved from economic oppression.

Were those people freely choosing the total of Nazism, including the war and the slaughter of innocents? I don't believe they were -- they were tricked.


I think that this is open to debate. The great majority of Germans knew of the anti-semitism of the nazi party but they chose to ignore it. Yes they were promised an utopia and many were living it until 1939 but at the expense of the other.

But when we consider nazism we must look at the circumstance which led to the rise of Hitler and this can be found in the outcome of WWI on the german people.

The jews became a useful scapegoat for the nazi party and for Hitler in particular. Hitler also blamed the jews for the war not understanding that the aggression against Poland in 1939 would not be tolerated by Britain.

But Hitler promised hope and a return to German greatness---regardless of the cost to gays, gypsies, communists, jews and political opponents.

And here we go back to intolerance once more as a cause for destruction.

[miss taken]

Hi havn't read all the posts, so apologies if it has already been said.

Someone over on the FAIR boards mentioned the ethics that can be found in the Book of Mormon, some of which are not particularly good. (The bible is the same I have to say, particularly the OT).

Not all the theology taught in the BOM is clear, concise or even good in my opinion, and sometimes it's downright contradictory. (same can be said of bible) I really used to like 3 Nephi, until someone over on FAIR started to bring up all the implications in that particular book. It really is quite startling, and makes me want to go back and read with a slightly more objective eye.

I do feel though at present, that the BOM is a work of 19th century fiction. To me when one accepts this, everything seems to fit into place and proper perspective, but that's just me...

Mary