Question: Radical Islam or Mormonism?

[skeptic]

…the time is not far distant, but it will never come until the inhabitants of the earth, and especially those who have been gathered together, have a sufficient time to be educated in the celestial law, so that each person may understand for himself. Then if they transgress against the light and knowledge they possess, some will be stoned to death, and “judgment will be laid to the line, and righteousness to the plummet.”

You say, “That man ought to die for transgressing the law of God.” Let me suppose a case. Suppose you found your brother in bed with your wife, and put a javelin through both of them, you would be justified, and be received into the kingdom of God. I would at once do so in such a case; and under such circumstances.
>
>
>
>
>
>


Answer: Statements were made in a talk given by President Brigham Young, Delivered in the Tabernacle, Great Salt Lake City, March 16, 1856. Journal if Discourses Volume III pages 246 and 247.


The apologetic view: Now see here, these talks were given in a different time so they do not apply now. Answer: Let’s see, so therefore we then disregard the Ten Commandments right?

SoUtSkeptic

[Born Free]

<snip>

The apologetic view: Now see here, these talks were given in a different time so they do not apply now.

SoUtSkeptic
Absolutely, absolutely. The 19th century is not the 21st. And never will be.

But this statement makes it abundantly clear that Young was of a pre-Christian mindset and actions, rendering his ideas 1,800 years out of time; or nearly 2 millenia.

So MoInc's problem is not that Youngs statements are out of kilter with contemporary thought; it is that his thinking fits perfectly the Old Testament mentality of an eye for an eye, and that men own women, and have the right to slaughter anyone defiling 'their property'. Just as he believed they had the right to slaughter innocents as he ordered or encouraged at MMM.

If this man was called of 'God', then the God of the New Testament had taken leave, and the God of the Old Testament was at the helm. He was probably the leader Mormonism had to have to stop it imp/exploding in the maelstrom after Smith's demise, which must have left a very fractured, demoralised, and divided people.

The good news is he succeeded in 'managing' the survival of a people.

The bad news is that he had to revert to very primitive leadership skills to achieve it, which has left a lasting legacy - a religion that cannot handle dissent or divergence of thought, and which deals brutally with difference.

These might be tools useful for survival in a storm. They are less viable in an information age, when people are more swayed by your argument, than the size of the stick you wield.

So not only don't those ideas fit now, they were nearly 2,000 out of date then in the Jdueo/Christian tradition, or even older if you test them against the philosophies forthcoming in various parts of the world during the Axial Age (900 - 200BC), making them nearly 3,000 years primitive by cutting edge human standards.

So what does that say of the Mormon God? Clearly Young would have loved the old temple ordinances, what with all the throat cutting and disembowling. 'Cept that he wanted 'javelineing' added to the list of punishments!

What's Christ got to do with it??

Daryl

[helemon]

I'll take Mormonism. Unless you are talking about Warren Jeffs' Mormonism. I agree neither represent a form of government I'd want to live under. Dalin Oaks has already said Mormonism is not democracy.

[skeptic]

-Intimidation is of the devil-

Mormon doctrine teaches the use of intimidation is of the devil. Agency Mormon Doctrine by Bruce R McConkie.

Satan “sought to destroy the agency of man, that one soul shall not be lost” Moses 4:1-4; and eventuality which would have made the attainment of salvation impossible, and accordingly he was cast out of heaven. Two great agencies on earth pattern their courses in accordance with Lucifer’s program of compulsion and seek to deny the inalienable right of agency to men. These are the church of the devil and the communistic dictatorships, both of which prosper proportionately as they are able to withhold the truth from their adherents and compel through fear to conform the “religious and party lines.


__________________________________________________ __
Absolutely, absolutely. The 19th century is not the 21st. And never will be.

But this statement makes it abundantly clear that Young was of a pre-Christian mindset and actions, rendering his ideas 1,800 years out of time; or nearly 2 millenia.

So MoInc's problem is not that Youngs statements are out of kilter with contemporary thought; it is that his thinking fits perfectly the Old Testament mentality of an eye for an eye, and that men own women, and have the right to slaughter anyone defiling 'their property'. Just as he believed they had the right to slaughter innocents as he ordered or encouraged at MMM.

If this man was called of 'God', then the God of the New Testament had taken leave, and the God of the Old Testament was at the helm. He was probably the leader Mormonism had to have to stop it imp/exploding in the maelstrom after Smith's demise, which must have left a very fractured, demoralised, and divided people.

The good news is he succeeded in 'managing' the survival of a people.

The bad news is that he had to revert to very primitive leadership skills to achieve it, which has left a lasting legacy - a religion that cannot handle dissent or divergence of thought, and which deals brutally with difference.

These might be tools useful for survival in a storm. They are less viable in an information age, when people are more swayed by your argument, than the size of the stick you wield.

So not only don't those ideas fit now, they were nearly 2,000 out of date then in the Jdueo/Christian tradition, or even older if you test them against the philosophies forthcoming in various parts of the world during the Axial Age (900 - 200BC), making them nearly 3,000 years primitive by cutting edge human standards.

So what does that say of the Mormon God? Clearly Young would have loved the old temple ordinances, what with all the throat cutting and disembowling. 'Cept that he wanted 'javelineing' added to the list of punishments!

What's Christ got to do with it??

Daryl

[helemon]

These are the church of the devil and the communistic dictatorships, both of which prosper proportionately as they are able to withhold the truth from their adherents and compel through fear to conform the “religious and party lines.[/B]

I wonder if it was the comunal aspect of communism that caused the church to hate it or it's rejection of God? Or the fact that these men were Americans living through the Cold War?

[Born Free]

Wow! Isn't that a great quote?



<snip>

".... which prosper proportionately as they are able to withhold the truth from their adherents and compel through fear to conform the “religious and party lines."


Now that sounds familiar. I feel as if I should be able to recognise organisations which thrive upon that principle. Let me think. It sounds so very familiar. What was it he said? "Lucifer's Program"?

No, it can't be. He was speaking of that Whore of Babylon and of Communism. He said there were just two organisations! :duh :duh :duh

Daryl

[skeptic]

From Vol I Journal of Discourses (Preface, second paragraph)

The Sermons were largely extemporaneous and apparently without notes… In most cases it appears that the speakers depended almost entirely upon inspiration from the Holy Ghost.


Remarks by President Brigham Young Delivered in the Tabernacle, Salt Lake City January 2, 1870

“I have never yet preached a sermon and sent it out to the children of men, that they may not call Scripture. Let me have the privilege of correcting a sermon, and it is as good Scripture as they deserve. The people have the oracles of God continually.”

[helemon]

Remarks by President Brigham Young Delivered in the Tabernacle, Salt Lake City January 2, 1870

“I have never yet preached a sermon and sent it out to the children of men, that they may not call Scripture. Let me have the privilege of correcting a sermon, and it is as good Scripture as they deserve. The people have the oracles of God continually.”

I don't think any of the other prophets have been as bold as ole' Brigham. Especially after the Manifesto. Still if we are to equate Hinckley et al. with the apostles of Jesus then Brigham's assertion should stand.

[skeptic]

helemon,
Wrote: don't think any of the other prophets have been as bold as ole' Brigham. Especially after the Manifesto. Still if we are to equate Hinckley et al. with the apostles of Jesus then Brigham's assertion should stand.

I’m suspecting with Utah being so isolated Brigham Young felt he could be very bold. This obviously helped get him replaced as governor. Mormon doctrine in many aspects is so fluid. (i.e. The churches teachings that the sacred ordinances should never be changed) I recall my high school seminary teacher always quoting from Mormon Doctrine by McConkie. In doing so he opened up a can of worms for the church.

One of my favorites is from Gordon B. Hinckley putting on his “apologist hat” when he was a counselor in the First Presidency. He made the following statement in the Sunday Morning Session April 4, 1982 Conference. (Five Million Members- A Milestone and Not a Summit)

“Of course there are aberrations in our history. There are blemishes to be found, if searched for, in the lives of all men, including our leaders past and present. But these are only incidental to the magnitude of their service and to the greatness of their contributions. Keep before you the big picture, for this cause is as large as all mankind and as broad as all eternity. This is the church and kingdom of God. It requires the strength, the loyalty, the faith of all if it is to roll forward to bless the lives of our Father’s children over the earth.”



SoUtSkeptic

[Born Free]

<snip>

I’m suspecting with Utah being so isolated Brigham Young felt he could be very bold. This obviously helped get him replaced as governor. Mormon doctrine in many aspects is so fluid.

<snip>

SoUtSkeptic
Skeptic,

I am not so confident that it was the freedom of isolation that fuelled BYs boldness.

He sounds like an individual who 'suffered' from an extreme sense of grandiosity, heavily lacking in empathy for his fellow man (not to mention his fellow woman), who frequently, if not consistently confused his thoughts and utterances, with God's. As if that were not enough, he was not well versed with even the science of the day, so capable of uttering the most amazing drivel without any sense that scientific development might catch him up, and make him look like the horses arse.

Much of the above suggests an extreme childhood, with extremely disciplinarian parents. That may have included a fair dose of toxic shaming, which would explain how he had developed such an insensitive 'I'm OK, You're Not' mindset.

Now I know little of his childhood, or even if reliable accounts have survived, but that would be my guess based on what I observe.

Any one got access to reliable historical accounts?

OK, I found this at:

http://www.ourlittlecircle.com/john_young.html

"My parents were devoted to the Methodist religion and their precepts of morality were sustained by their good example. ... I was taught by my parents to live a strictly moral life."

Phinehas, an older brother, said, "We moved to Whitingham, Windham County, Vermont, where we lived three years, and during this time I recollect being taught to pray and obey my father and mother."

These short references to early youth open a window through which one looks into a home of strict puritan influence. There was affection, but it was controlled. There was quick obedience, rigidly enforced. Abigail, a woman of quiet culture, tempered the vigor of John's applications of discipline. There was a deep abiding faith, controlled by religious form. This however had been modified from the early puritan Congregationalism to the more liberal Methodism. John Young early joined the reformed Methodist Church. So did Abigail."

It fits the picture - 'Pray and obey'

Daryl

[helemon]

It fits the picture - 'Pray and obey'


While I don't doubt that some of your analysis is true, I think BY may have truly bought into the belief that he was a prophet of God, and therefore whatever idea popped into his head he figured it must be inspiration of God and went with it. I am sure he had plenty of Yes men around that didn't want to challenge his authority and thus fed his perception of himself as a divine oracle. Those who did like Parley Pratt on the Adam God theory were marginalized during BY's lifetime. It must have been a heavy ego trip to have all those people idolizing him and hanging on his every word.

[Born Free]

While I don't doubt that some of your analysis is true, I think BY may have truly bought into the belief that he was a prophet of God, and therefore whatever idea popped into his head he figured it must be inspiration of God and went with it. I am sure he had plenty of Yes men around that didn't want to challenge his authority and thus fed his perception of himself as a divine oracle. Those who did like Parley Pratt on the Adam God theory were marginalized during BY's lifetime. It must have been a heavy ego trip to have all those people idolizing him and hanging on his every word.
My point is that a person has to have an underlying need to be idolized in that way to embrace it as healthy and desirable.

Healthy people place reasonable limits on themselves.

For instance, a child might have wild imaginings about who or what lives on the moon, but at some level they know it is just fantasy. Young imagined, but not content to leave it at that, then proceeded to arrogantly state that the moon was inhabited and by what and with a level of confidence that suggests a problem - unless he was on magic mushrooms

BY appears to have replicated the power dynamic he had experienced as a child, except that the parent/child dynamic is on a much smaller scale, and less problematic than the cult leader/blind unquestioning follower one he created as an adult. That anyone who disagreed with him was marginalised is also a sign of a person who somewhere deep inside is scared of being the powerless child again/still. That lack of capacity for empathy is frequently symptomatic of a disconnect from their own inner world.

I have read the reviews on a book on JS by a psychiatrist, but have never seen a mental analysis of BY. Anyone aware of one?

Daryl

[puff]

…the time is not far distant, but it will never come until the inhabitants of the earth, and especially those who have been gathered together, have a sufficient time to be educated in the celestial law, so that each person may understand for himself. Then if they transgress against the light and knowledge they possess, some will be stoned to death, and “judgment will be laid to the line, and righteousness to the plummet.”

You say, “That man ought to die for transgressing the law of God.” Let me suppose a case. Suppose you found your brother in bed with your wife, and put a javelin through both of them, you would be justified, and be received into the kingdom of God. I would at once do so in such a case; and under such circumstances.
>
>
>
>
>
>


Answer: Statements were made in a talk given by President Brigham Young, Delivered in the Tabernacle, Great Salt Lake City, March 16, 1856. Journal if Discourses Volume III pages 246 and 247.


The apologetic view: Now see here, these talks were given in a different time so they do not apply now. Answer: Let’s see, so therefore we then disregard the Ten Commandments right?

SoUtSkepticbut this story is from the bible so its not brigham young anyway . he,s quoting from the bible

[Jeff_Ricks]

...I have read the reviews on a book on JS by a psychiatrist, but have never seen a mental analysis of BY. Anyone aware of one?

DarylSo what does the shrink say about brother Joseph? Inquiring minds want to know.

[Born Free]

So what does the shrink say about brother Joseph? Inquiring minds want to know.
Narcissism in one word, but more likely full blown narcissistic personality disorder. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Narcissistic_personality_disorder

NPD is pretty common with gurus. See Feet of Clay - A Study of Gurus by Anthony Storer.


"Like others who have become religious leaders, Dr. Anderson diagnoses Joseph Smith (based on Joseph's own writings and what those who knew him best said about him) as a narcissist. Unlike some previous diagnoses which have been done on Smith (such as manic depressive, epileptic, dissociation, demential Praecox, schizophrenic, paranoid, and bi-polar which both Anderson and I don't believe he exhibited), the narcissistic conclusion is spot on in my opinion. If narcissism wasn't already in his genes, the traumas that he suffered (three excruciatingly painful surgeries) while very young brought it on or caused the trait to be manifested. The surgeon's scalpels forever leave their imprint on young Joseph's mind. They turn up in the Book of Mormon narrative over and over again as (steel) swords--at times and places in Joseph Smith's fictionalized history when and where such items simply didn't exist."

From: http://www.lds-mormon.com/josephsmithmind.shtml

I have never read this book myself to see if I concur with his analysis. Mind you he sounds much better qualified to make a formal diagnosis anyway.

But narcissism, combined with highish intelligence, charisma and a propensity to tell porkies seem to add up to create what we see in the historical accounts.

That pattern of telling lies to look good, then being prepared to tell bigger lies as the earlier ones looked like getting caught fits the bill. Remember our good old mate Zelp!

Daryl

[skeptic]

puff
Wrote: but this story is from the bible so its not brigham young anyway . he,s quoting from the bible.

Puff thank you, and your point should be acknowledged. The scriptures below are most likely where Brigham Young obtained his mindset. (The loving God of the Old Testament) In light of puff’s point I feel I should have titled my thread- Question: Radical-Islam, Mormonism or Christianity?


In the ‘End of Faith’ Sam Harris writes: “ When their beliefs are extremely common we call them “religious”; otherwise, they are likely to be called “mad”, “psychotic, or “delusional.” Most people of faith are perfectly sane, of course, even those who commit atrocities on account of their beliefs. But what is the difference between a man who believes that God will reward him with seventy-two virgins if he kills a score of Jewish teenagers, and one who believes that creatures from Alpha Centauri are beaming him messages of world peace through his hair dryer?” pg. 72


SoUtSkeptic


1. Lev. 20: 2, 27
2 Again, thou shalt say to the children of Israel, Whosoever he be of the children of Israel, or of the strangers that sojourn in Israel, that giveth any of his seed unto aMolech; he shall surely be put to death: the people of the land shall stone him with stones.
• • •
27 ¶ A man also or woman that hath a afamiliar spirit, or that is a wizard, shall surely be put to death: they shall stone them with stones: their blood shall be upon them.
2. Ex. 21: 29
29 But if the ox were awont to push with his horn in time past, and it hath been testified to his owner, and he hath not kept him in, but that he hath killed a man or a woman; the ox shall be stoned, and his owner also shall be put to death.
3. Lev. 24: 16
16 And he that ablasphemeth the name of the LORD, he shall surely be put to death, and all the congregation shall certainly stone him: as well the stranger, as he that is born in the land, when he blasphemeth the name of the LORD, shall be put to death.
4. Num. 15: 35
35 And the LORD said unto Moses, The man shall be surely put to death: all the congregation shall stone him with stones without the camp.