Slashdot Mirror

There were many drivers to why people hated the mormons back in the day, not just reactions to the mormons. Geez if your reactions to your neighbours leads you to rape, pillage and kill them I'm not going to blame it on them. Everyone is accountable for *how* they react to things. It was impossible for them to live 'peacefully' with their neighbours, that's a naive thing to say. 19th century USA wasn't exactly the place of tolerance and acceptance for people who are different. Mormonism was *always* a peaceful religion, it didn't just become one. The thing is that religions are made up of people, and when you push people enough they eventually push back. I hear lots of people on this thread saying that Linus should speak his mind no matter whether it's politically correct or not. Yet when we get to the mormons any time they pushed back or spoke up it's somehow not ok. Double standard much?

Here are some of the *real* reasons why mormons were hated:
1) Mormon theology was by 19th century norms, unorthodox, and in the 1840's when J.S. introduced many new ideas, heretical. When J.S. started talking about gold plates the persecution was either from other pastors who found it heretical (revelation is gone! the heavens are closed! everyone knows that!) or from people who wanted to steal them from him.
2) Mormon theology and cosmology was very attractive. When mormonism first came on the scene people converted in droves. Entire congregations converted en-mass leaving many pastors without livelihoods. (That's what happened with Sydney Rigdon.) Those pastors saw it as a huge threat both doctrinally and financially. They didn't take it lying down, in fact much of the earliest and most vociferous persecution comes as a result of this.
3) Mormons were very insular. They tended to only patronize businesses that were also mormon. There were many reasons for this, such as people poising the wine they sold them for sacrament services, but they also to blame.
4) Joseph Smith was quite egalitarian. He believed in freedom and equality for all people. He even ordained blacks to the priesthood. Unfortunately that brought a lot of persecution and he stopped the practise. (Again, unfortunately he didn't really explain why he stopped it and no one resumed it again until the 1970's but that's another discussion.) You have this against the backdrop of mounting tensions that eventually lead to the civil war. People accused them of stirring up the indians and blacks to rebellion because they were teaching them that they were and should be equal to whites.
5) The failure of the kirkland bank pissed off a lot of people, both mormon and non-mormon. There are a lot of reasons why it failed. If you are interested you can read the LDS side of the story here: http://en.fairmormon.org/Mormonism_and_church_finances/Kirtland_Safety_Society
6) Early mormon converts typically came from poverty or lower class backgrounds. Middle & Upper class people largely looked down on them and saw them as a threat. They feared being over-run by the poor and needy, largely b/c of the next point.
7) Politics as I already mentioned. J.S. run for president scared a lot of people as did his prophecy that the new jerusalem would be in jackson county. (had nothing to do with an prophesy about gods kingdom over the whole earth. In fact most 19th century protestants believed that was going to happen anyway at the time of christ's second coming.) People there feared the mormons would overwhelm them and drive them out. The opposite happened of course.
8) Immigration. The LDS church brought a lot of poor foreigners into the areas where they lived. Locals saw it as an economic threat.
9) Polygamy in the Navoo period. It scandalized most europeans. Although there was good and bad elements to it it's not what people think of today when they look at the mormon fundamentalists. A very small percentage of people practised it and usually if you had money you got

Lol. I've heard it all before. J.Smith wasn't the only one tarred and feathered, or murdered. But it must all be the mormon's fault. What bad neighbors they were. (If I was treated how they were treated I might not be such a nice neighbor either.) Because his actions justify the rape and murder of others, including women and children. Right.....

There's lots of problems with the so called evidence of J.Smith being an early womanizer. The story of Marinda Johnson is complete with contradictions. At the end of the day, the attack against him had little to do with supposed womanizing, accusations of which don't show up until long after the events (like 12 years later.) Go read the other side of the story. http://en.fairmormon.org/Polygamy_book/Early_womanizer

Boggs was shot by an unknown assailant and your 'prophesy' is based on the imagination of John Bennett, an active anti-mormon who was booted out for homosexuality, adultery, performing of abortions and polygamy, among other things. He was given more than one chance once caught. He actually vowed to drink the blood of J.S. he hated him so much. Yeah, I'm going to take his word for it as the unbiased party.

And really, Haun's mill not as bad? Really? I suppose it was all Brigham's fault; they must have brought it on themselves they did. Yup, that justifies all the persecution they got. I'm not defending the MMM. It was very unfortunate, but I can also understand how people who had repeatedly persecuted and driven out of the US, with an army coming to exterminate them might get jumpy and do something stupid. But of course that doesn't matter to you because you are apparently smarter than the rest of us and are yourself a completely unbiased party. So we must have deserved it. Question, do you say the same thing about the holocaust?

The only thing I agree with you on is the politics. People in the area were terrified of the 'mormon' vote b/c they would vote as a block; but not the nonsense about inheriting by the sword and terrorizing neighboring towns. (You don't mean those towns that sent mobs to burn them out of their homes in the middle of the night do you? Certainly not the ones where little children had to walk for miles in bear feet in the middle of winter over the frozen stubble of wheat fields that cut up their feet and left trails of blood? Not the ones where many of those children died from exposure? Certainly not those ones... because all those towns folk were perfect neighbors. )

What, because I don't believe all of your 'evidence' from the people who were trying to destroy them I'm clueless? Hmm.. maybe you're just a bigot. My guess is your either an evangelical who 'loves' us or an ex mormon. Either way, all your repeating is tired old allegations we've heard for 100 years now, or more.

It's been just about impossible to criticize the religious beliefs of anyone for decades,

Wow, cognitive bias much? Lots of people criticize religious beliefs. It's kind of a national past-time, you wouldn't believe how much the early puritans criticized each other. Dawkins has gotten a lot of publicity in the last decade criticizing religion, and Christopher Hitchens (may God rest his soul) got in on it too. If you haven't seen people criticizing religion, you haven't been paying attention.

Except that no, Mormonism is much like Scientology in that they keep a large laundry list of things "not to be discussed with outsiders."

If you look at their wiki you'll see the following disclaimer plastered all over: "Important note: Members of FAIR take their temple covenants seriously. We consider the temple teachings to be sacred, and will not discuss their specifics in a public forum."

The moment a religion starts trying to hide what it says from you, that's when you realize they're up to no good.

A policy of fairmormon.org, which is not an official LDS site, doesn't suddenly make it Mormon church policy. It carries as much weight if I were to say that atheist eat chicken for dinner.

Mormons are very open about their teachings, in fact, Mormons will give public tours of their temples and churches on a regular basis. Everything that's taught in the temple is available in the Mormon's cannon, which you can order a free copy from lds.org. There is even teacher's guides and study aids if you want someone to hold your hand through the teachings. If you want to spoil the experience for yourself then dive on in.

Except that no, Mormonism is much like Scientology in that they keep a large laundry list of things "not to be discussed with outsiders."

If you look at their wiki you'll see the following disclaimer plastered all over:
"Important note: Members of FAIR take their temple covenants seriously. We consider the temple teachings to be sacred, and will not discuss their specifics in a public forum."

The moment a religion starts trying to hide what it says from you, that's when you realize they're up to no good.

I find it a bit comical that a university run by the LDS church (mormons) is out hunting for dinosaurs. Of course, they think they are alien life-forms from another planet. Or that Adam used to ride them in the garden of Eden.

http://en.fairmormon.org/Mormonism_and_science/Dinosaurs

I think these types of findings and studies must put the participating church members through some really fantastic psychological gymnastics. Especially when run through their belief that Adam was the first actual living thing on the Earth.

http://scriptures.lds.org/en/abr/5/3-7
http://scriptures.lds.org/en/dc/77/12#12

There is no way I'd say this out in the open. It isn't polite to object with the local theocracy.

They exist, they just don't relate in any way to the Middle East.

Nobody said they did.

Yes, bogus claims.

"I didn't even bother with basic fact-checking" (which is what you did, or rather didn't, do) is never followed by "therefore their claims are bogus".

You can't just say "OMG BIAS THEREFORE FALSE". No degree of bias automagically invalidates the evidence, especially when the methodology and data are clear and public, as is the case with Stubbs' research, and especially when non-biased parties concur with the conclusion, as is also the case with Stubbs' research.

Do you have evidence that Stubbs' research methodology was wrong, or are you just going to fall back on "because I said so" again?

I'm saying there is not a shred of DNA evidence for the presence of Jews. You simply come up with all sorts of reasons why we haven't seen it.

Suppose I travel deep into China, marry a chinese farmer, have a few kids, and then die. A thousand years pass by, and you take random DNA samples of Chinese people in the area.

Your argument is like complaining that, a thousand years later, you can't find my DNA among the Chinese people, and that therefore I must not have gone there at all.

Regardless of whether or not I actually did go there, the conclusion is absurd - the best you can say is that there's no DNA corroborating the idea that I lived China, you cannot extend that to rule out the idea.

You are extending your DNA complaint well beyond the scope of the question DNA can answer, and as such your argument is baseless.

Show me peer-reviewed, non-religiously affiliated studies and journals, together with multiple independent fact checking.

The same site I linked you to quotes a non-LDS scholar approving of Stubbs' work.

But it's not like your opinion that it's "junk science" even matters - you didn't even read it.

You simply haven't even been able to come up with a single plausible timeline and scenario that would explain what we see today.

You're pretending I've tried to "come up with" a timeline during this discussion.

In fact, the only claim I've made has been to say "the Book of Mormon's claims about specific events and technologies have thus far been entirely corroborated by archeological evidence."

The fact that you think a plausible scenario can't exist merely means that you haven't bothered to even research whether such a timeline is possible - that is, you have apparently not read the book you claim is false.

So, let me ask you directly - have you ever read the Book of Mormon in its entirety?

If not, you have no reasonable basis for claiming it "cannot" be what it claims to be, because you don't even know what it says.

If you have, then could you kindly provide an example of some claim it makes that is contradicted by archeological evidence?

As I have indicated, you're clearly unwilling to bother reading the linguistic research I have cited, and as such your complaints on that matter are irrelevant.

Oh, and if you want me to provide a timeline for things, you're going to need to be more specific. Do you just want me to corroborate particular archeological or other discoveries and their dates with their counterparts in the Book of Mormon?

Or do you want me to provide a detailed timeline of the Book of Mormon and point out every single detail that's corroborated by archeological or other empirical evidence? This I am not willing to do myself - it would literally be a lifetime of work.

Instead, I would link you to others who have done much of the work already. If you refuse to research those on your own, you wo

Leaving aside the Book of Mormon, there is no physical evidence for the presence of people from the Middle East in the Americas prior to the arrival of Columbus.

On the contrary:

Indeed, what graphonomic evidence there is indicates exactly that: Canaanite inscriptions are found in Georgia and Tennessee as well as in Brazil; and Mediterranean coins, some Hebrew and Moroccan Arabic, are found in Kentucky as well as Venezuela.

I would call coins and inscriptions "physical evidence".

And, in fact, Smith tried to have his work authenticated and failed.

By whom? By Anthon? Anthon's own comments on the matter are inconsistent.

I'm unaware of other attempts. Cite or retract.

You have to come up with an explanation for this discrepancy: why are there no monuments, no writing, no DNA, and no linguistic traces?

No monuments? You've got to be kidding me. You're pretending the vast swaths of native American ruins don't exist?

No writing? I already gave you one example, correlating with the Anthon transcript - Mexican seals dating no later than 400BC which use characters found on the Anthon transcript.

No linguistic traces? I've already linked you to ample information on the subject.

Your DNA complaint is based on the premise that the Book of Mormon claims all native Americans are direct descendants of a group of Jews from Jerusalem. That is not the case.

As is discussed the above-linked article regarding languages, the evidence suggests that the group of Jews arrived in the Americas and merged into a much larger group of natives. As such, the Jewish DNA contribution to the group as a whole would be negligible. A lengthy treatment of the subject can be found here.

Your original claim was:

purely based on linguistic and historical criteria, it is clear that the Book of Mormon cannot have come into existence the way the Mormon church claims.

You have utterly failed to demonstrate that this is the case.

In fact, you apparently refuse to provide any evidence whatsoever - you merely refer to a vague complaint about linguistics (which I have thoroughly debunked) and DNA (regarding which again I have given you more than sufficient information to study before you renew your complaints).

Native American languages are not related to Hebrew.

There's no reason to expect Native American languages to bear any resemblance to Hebrew, at least not based on the Book of Mormon.

The most likely scenario is that the Lehites - who were a small incursion into a larger existing native populace - embraced the habits, culture, and language of their neighbors within a very short period after their arrival in the New World. This is what we generally find when a small group melds with a larger group. The smaller group usually takes on the traits of the larger (or, at least, the more powerful) group - not the other way around.

However, the linked site cites research by one Dr Stubbs. Stubbs' research shows significant similarity between Hebrew and Uto-Aztecan. The site links a five-part YouTube video presentation entitled "A Few Hundred Hints of Egyptian and Northwest Semitic in Uto-Aztecan" - a presentation that you as a linguist will no doubt find interesting, assuming you are not so stubborn you'll dismiss it without watching it.

What's interesting to note is that Stubbs is not arguing that Uto-Aztecan is derived from Hebrew, he's merely arguing that Ato-Aztecan had absorbed many words from Hebrew - an argument that fits nicely with the idea that a small group of Hebrew newcomers was absorbed into a larger group of natives!

This is exactly what one would expect when a larger native population absorbs an arriving smaller population - a situation perfectly supported by the Book of Mormon.

So, he didn't "guess", he just described what he knew about those people.

You're being inconsistent.

You see, you want me to believe this:

A) Joseph postulated the arrival of a group of Hebrews to the Americas around 590 BC.
B) Joseph extrapolated the development of a civilization from that point, thus having them develop cement a few hundred years later.

Yet you also want me to believe that point A is factually incorrect - that no such group arrived.

Thus, the only way that the extrapolation in point B could hope to be corroborated by empirical evidence - as it actually has been - would be if some group of people actually did arrive around 590 BC and begin developing.

We've also both agreed that he knew nothing about the Americas.

So you want me to believe that he merely guessed luckily when he posited the time of the arrival of a group of newcomers, and that every other example of empirical evidence is irrelevant because of that initial lucky guess.

If I publish a book describing Atlantis in detail, including who built it, their unique social progression, and their destruction, and then a century later someone digs up Atlantis just where I said it was, and archeological evidence continually confirms everything I wrote about them even including specific methods of commerce and construction and warfare, would you just call it a lucky guess?

Or would you want to know how I got so many details right?

Be honest. ;)

As it turns out, civilizations develop in parallel: many civilizations practice baptism, many have been building with cement, many experience natural catastrophes, etc.

You're telling me that it's highly likely that a large number of events and practices - including wars and specific methods of warfare, specific religious and economic practices, specific technological developments, specific natural disasters, and so on - would occur in multiple unrelated civilizations in the same order and along the same timeline?

Are you sure you're a statistician?

Or a better question: can you point to two unrelated civilizations in secular history that developed so closely in parallel, including the relative time and severity of natural disasters, as did the Boo

solar rotation:

The solar rotation period, by the way, is about 24.5 days at its equator

according to the Mormons