Slashdot Mirror

For mormon adherents, the staple proof is the witness of the spirit, and the personal fruits of faith. Critics and materialists contend otherwise, and have so far found nothing that would constitute proof either for or against.

There's no shortage of reading on this topic, but this article is a good start.

Yes, the mormons have many of these attributes, but Scientology takes these to a whole new extreme.

I certainly agree with your complaints against Scientology, but I definitely have a beef with the first half of your sentence, there. I'm a recent (a few years back) convert, so I have seen the Mormons from both the outside and the inside. Let me break this down point by point, as I see some of these misconceptions come up quite a bit:

1) a clear bias towards profit.

The LDS ("Mormon") Church does urge its members to pay a tithe of their income, however the money does not go to higher-ups within the church leadership. In fact, we have one of the few layperson priesthoods and layperson leaderships among all religions in the world. What that means is that the leaders of congregations, the missionaries, the teachers, and up the ladder are volunteer (i.e. unpaid) positions--absolutely no monetary profit involved. The tithing instead goes to maintaining church buildings, production/distribution of materials, education, and (the greatest portion) charity work. (The LDS Church, despite being numerically smaller than many other religions, donated some of the largest portions of food, supplies, funds, and labor to various recent disaster sites over the last decade.)

2) Membership policies that serve to isolate its mebership from external influence.

I can't say I see where this one is coming from, either. Though the church does host plenty of social events for various age groups, attendance is certainly not mandatory. I've never felt pressure to change my group of associates or close contacts... if anything, I've become closer to my family (who are not members), upon learning more of the importance that the church places on families. If you are referring to the odd culture of Utah-Mormons, that's a totally different story of odd cultural quirks arising from a largely homogenous group of people in a small area; however the majority of Mormons in the U.S. do not live in Utah, and the majority of Mormons in the world do not even live in the U.S.

3) Extreme polices of secrecy and nondisclosure.

Now this one I hear a lot, and I assume it relates to our Temple ceremonies, as we certainly try extremely hard to distribute all of our scripture and doctrine as far and as wide (and as free) as we can. Also, all of our semi-annual conferences when the Prophet and other leaders speak (the largest and most important church gatherings) are broadcast over satellite and the internet, and are printed and available through various sources. We don't discuss the temple ceremonies because they are highly symbolic and of a sacred and individual nature to us (we believe that personal revelation is critically involved)--but there is something critical about this that I want to point out... notice what I said, that we distribute "all of our scripture and doctrine". There is no new law or doctrine or secret that comes out in the temple ceremonies that hasn't been taught in so many ways so many times throughout scripture. There's nothing comparable to Scientology's holding back of the darkest secrets until you are too deep and too invested to turn around, as in their OT III texts.

4) General skirting social norms and laws, such as child labor, marriage/sexuality, contracts, finance, education, etc.

I'm not so certain where you are going with this one... Our views on marriage/sexuality may be more traditional than most modern society (If you are referring to polygamy, it has been illegal in the church for over a hundred years. If you are interested in more information about how the polygamy is involved with the church's history, here is a 65 page historical paper on the subject by a Mormon M.D., with hundreds of cited historical references... or a

I can see how you would believe that, and I don't discount the notion completely. But looking as Smith's career, it's clear that he always thought big.

I should specify my intentions: I don't think that I can prove that Smith acted out of altruism. I think the best I can hope to do is offer an alternative reading that also fits the facts. I understood your original argument to be "the man got money and sex, so obviously that was his motive". By showing that he didn't get money and may or may not have gotten sex I think I can convincingly argue that your original position that it's an open-shut case of lust and greed is false. But I can't actually argue that my competing hypothesis is an obvious and unassailable replacement.

I understand that.

It seems that your argument has gained some subtlety as we've progressed (although I'm sure it's only your tone/style that's changed and that you've had the more sophisticated argument the whole time). And I don't really have a problem with this more sublte version. I certainly don't think Smith's reputation is, from an unbiased perspective, beyond reproach. Quite the opposite. There is much in it that looks shady.

So as the questions become more complex my motivation for arguing with you decrease. I think reasonable people can draw disparate conclusions about Smith. I also have to admit that you've clearly done more research than I have on this topic. Mormon apologetics breaks down into roughly 3 categories:

1. early Christianity
2. Book of Mormon/Bible studies (textual analysis of the Book of Mormon itself)
3. early Mormon history

I'm weakest on #3, and I'm not a professional in any of the three categories. I find the first 2 much more interesting. And much less troubling. (I can be honest that I find much in the history of my Church deeply disconcerting.)

I'm not saying that Smith was unaware of his detractors, or even that he was physically separated from them all the time. I'm talking more about the sort of separation that separates you and I. I think he put his enemies into a tiny box marked "people I don't have to respect or listen to at all", and listened primarily to those who told him he was The Lord's Prophet.

I see. Instead of talking about the impact on his happiness you're talking about the impact on his self-perception. I can't really argue with that.

Had you even skimmed those links,

I did read them. I would not disrespect you by ignoring your evidence. It was disconcerting enough that at this point it goes beyond an internet conversation for me and into real-world research. I would like to know actual sources so I can read the information myself.

What you wrote was extremely convincing. As I said earlier, this is not my strong point and from the evidence provided you've clearly won this round. What's more important than winning or losing, however, is that your evidence is strong and therefore has a better claim on reflecting the reality of what happened.

I've heard of "Sacred Loneliness", but I haven't read it yet. I will certainly take the time to do more research into this arena. So, even though it's not comfortable to research this stuff, I have to say thanks for being as well-informed as you have been.

Another thing that I think undermines your argument: why did Smith marry so many, and usually so young?

FWIW, I didn't find this particularly convincing. But honestly, I don't know a ton about the topic. Here's the only extensive article I've read: http://www.fairlds.org/FAIR_Conferences/2006_Zina_and_Her_Men.html

Anyway, just out of curiosity, what have you read from Mormon scholars responding to the accusations that polygamy was about sex? What have you read from the Mormon perspective about why polygamy was practiced? You seem very well-read on the anti side, I'm just curios what you've read from the Mormon side.

It appears to me, then, there is no automatic policy to seal women to all her husbands after her death. It seems instead that it depends on the intent of that woman and her families understanding of that intent--because they'd have to be the ones that go to the temple to do the proxy ordinances.

When a sealing is cancelled, it is gone. That woman is just plain no longer sealed to that man and without further action will never be sealed to him again. She may then be sealed to a different man. After her death she remains sealed to her second husband and not to her first.

(note that sealings for time only exist, but the rule is that a woman may only be sealed to one man--not differentiating between types of seals, so she can't even get a sealing for time only to her new husband without cancelling the first seal)

Believing Joesph Smith today even though he refused to submit to the methods of proof well known and available at the time of his revelations in 1826-30 is much stupider than believing in Jesus today

I think you're over-estimating the level of scientific sophistication in the backwoods of New York state. Maybe if Joseph Smith had been college educated and lived in Boston you'd have a stronger case. But he had no formal education and spent his life on the frontier.

Whatever. The whiteness and firstness parts aren't important; the important part is that they were a non-Native Americans with an advanced civilization that predated the thirteen colonies. Again, archeology demonstrates that this is false.

This is patently absurd. Archeology can not, and never will be able to prove that such an advanced civilization did not exist. First of all, there's nothing more advanced in those people than the S. American civilizations that we know. It's not like we're talking gun powder and light bulbs. And secondly the Book of Mormon narrative can easily be confined to a small (100 miles X 100 miles) region that ended at least 1600 years ago. Are you honestly going to tell me we know *every* such civilization that has existed?

Archeology has certainly not proved the Book of Mormon true, but it is not one step closer to proving it false.

Yes, since the conviction predated all the religious stuff for which he was hated.

If you're referring to the 1826 trial, Joseph Smith was not convicted. The sole complainant actually defended him at the trial (for whatever reason) and so Joseph Smith was acquitted. Then there was a lawsuit in 1827 involving the lost 116 pages (so clearly involving Mormonism) and then the next trial didn't come about until after the BOok of Mormon was published.

http://www.fairlds.org/FAIR_Conferences/2006_Legal_Trials_of_Joseph_Smith.html

This is some seriously weak sauce, and pretty convenient if he was a fraud. If he seriously thought Harrison altered his translations, he could have found a trusted third party and then translated the documents several times with the third party vouching for the similarity or dissimilarity of these subsequent translations.

Sure. A neutral third party. In upstate New York. About a claim involving angels and gold plates. You think that's likely? There weren't a whole lot of neutral parties to be found.

And as far as "weak sauce" goes, I don't see why either version is preferable to the other. The only facts we know are that he translated 116 pages, they were lost or stolen, and he refused to translate them again. Either he was less capable of faking something twice than once or he was afraid of being framed.

I really don't think you have a strong case for the former, and my only point is that the latter is just as plausible.

Um, he was the leader of a religion of over ten thousand by the time he was assassinated.

You really don't know very much about Mormon history. First of all, most of these 10,000 were destitute. Secondly, his followers were constantly leaving the Church and attacking him and then rejoining the Church. They were anything but obedient sheep. The Nauvoo Expositor, which led to the eventual martyrdom, was run by ex-Mormons. And regardless of how many followers he had, he didn't live in wealth. That's just a fact.

I mean between the tarring and feathering, being imprisoned in Liberty Jail for months, losing newborn children due to exposure from when the mob broke in to tar and feather hims some more, a bank failure, etc. you think he did this for money? You're crazy.

He had numerous wives, including one whom he married when she was 14

The obvious implication is that Joseph Smith had a harem. The interesting thing is that Joseph Smith had 36 or 37 wives. I forget how many. His first wife, Emma Smith, becam

If this was a supernaturally assisted event, why does the leadership of the LDS work so hard to suppress distribution of the original printings of Joseph Smith's works?

The Church doesn't suppress original writings. At least, not to the best of my knowledge.

Have you ever compared the original book of Mormon with the current one? It's really quite interesting.

I really don't think it is.
http://www.fairlds.org/Book_of_Mormon/Book_of_Mormon_vs_the_Critics.html

You don't think magical underwear is weired?

IAAM. I don't think they are weird. I do think it is weird that people so credulously believe any rumor they hear about them. I enjoy learning more about other religions and faith traditions, and I think Stendahl's Rules are a good guide.

(1) When you are trying to understand another religion, you should ask the adherents of that religion and not its enemies.

(2) Don't compare your best to their worst.

(3) Leave room for "holy envy."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Krister_Stendahl

This is a pretty clear violation of rule #1. I don't get the impression you particularly care to know much about Mormonism, but it certainly strikes me as ignorant to combine apathy and ignorance and pass it off as having an opinion.

It never ceases to amaze me how stupid people are.

Stendahl (above) is not a Mormon. Daniel Peterson is. He added a 4th rule to Stendahl's Rules:

So the principle that came to me on this was that if you are looking at a religious tradition that has a large number of adherents...then there must be something in it that appeals to different people.

Mormonism, for example, has clearly lasted long enough and has clearly appealed to a wide enough cross section of people that you don't have to concede that it's true to say there must be something there that appeals to people; bright people, practical people, highly educated people, uneducated people; all sorts of people in all sorts of cultures have found something appealing in this movement. The same is true of Hinduism, Islam and Christianity.

http://www.fairlds.org/Anti-Mormons/Critics_of_the_LDS_Faith.html

Then again, you may be one of those folks that think all religions are stupid. It's not always obvious whether an anti-Mormon is a belligerent atheist or a belligerent evangelical, but most of them break down into one or the other. (With a smaller category for angry ex-Mormons, I suppose.)

Some piece of clothes all of a sudden have magic meaning.

I know. It's so stupid. Like the way we just pretend that all of a sudden patterns of black lines on a white background have meaning and call them letters and numbers. What could be dumber?

It's so absurd it's beyond comprehension.

Which means either:
1. All 11 million Mormons (say 5 or 6 million if you want to just talk about practicing Mormons) are retarded.

or

2. Your perception of their beliefs is not accurate.

I don't think anyone could seriously believe #1, but it makes a nice insult if that's your goal.

If you think religious clothing is a must, you have some serious mental issues.

What if you don't think it's a "must". What if you choose to believe that it's merely a symbol of personal commitment and wear it for that reason?

> gain them "martyrs" as LDS fallaciously claim for Joseph Smith

Take a look here:

http://www.fairlds.org/apol/misc/misc22a.html

I asked an LDS co-worker about this very subject and he told me pretty much the same thing in the above URL.

Absolutely not. The Church stays strictly out of politics, except where a serious moral issue is involved, and then only the moral at issue is taught, but the vote and the law is up to the members individually.

Explain Ezra Taft Benson's affilation with the Birch sociecty then; not to mention his political appointments. How about the bank that Joseph Smith founded to print money? Who was the governer of Navoo? What about the law of consecration and Brigham Young's confescation of all wealth (or the Nation of Deseret, for that matter)?

Including a majority of the Utah state government, of course. What of a church that routinely gets such perks as the land swap for the "reflecting pool" in downtown Salt Lake (complete with a censoship zone); or how about the temple ceremony, in which members swear to uphold their leaders on penalty of death? Here are some quotes by the church's prophets, seers and revelators on the subject.

On the contrary, the Church is only homogenous in that we share certain core beliefs.

Wow, that list doesn't even scratch the surface of what I was taught while growing up in the church:

• All religions apart from Mormonism are an "abomination" in the sight of God
• People of "dark skin" were less valiant in the pre-existence, so God cursed them in this life
• American Indians are really errant Jews, who lost the gospel when they rebeled against God
• There are three levels of heaven, and you can only get to the highest level by practicing polygamy; then you will be a God and have your own planet
• John the Beloved and the Three Nephites are eternal beings that roam the planet, even today, doing the work of God (and the prieshood needed to be restored through Joseph Smith... why exactly?)
• Joseph Smith could translate a common Egyptian Funeral Book, to find that it contained extensive writings by father Abraham
• Homosexuality is a disase that you must suffer for (I wonder when the 1978-esque "oops, my bad, blacks can have the priesthood now" gay revelation will come). Masturbation is almost as bad.

To be fair, the church has changed dramatically over the past 50 years, and it continues to evolve into a more mainstream puritanical protestant sect (I bet Joseph Smith is rolling in his grave). Most of the members are people of high quality; heck, all my extended family are still members. They are generally great people to know, associate with and love. Despite that, I just get ruffled when the church portrayed as something that it really isn't; I did enough of that on my 2-year mission with the ultra-simplistic 6 discussions.

If you are interested in apologetic responses to any of the above, feel free to visit the FAIR website.

the truth about the godmakers
http://www.fairlds.org/pubs/tagm/tagm00.html

Actually, it's not a hard and fast rule. I'm not Mormon, but a friend is, and Google provides the needed documentation.

Here it is.

Now, mind you explaining is easy. Check out this page, go all the way to the bottom and you'll find a lot of links to people discussing the changes in the Book of Mormon.

If there's anything I've learned in years of intense religious discussion is that there is no such thing as an easy proof that another religion is wrong. There is not even an easy way to disprove atheism.