Slashdot Mirror

Not to mention "Lucifer" is/was not Satan but a fallen Babylonian King; the mixup is accredited to a mistranslation or, rather, misinterpretation of St. Jerome. http://www.lds-mormon.com/lucifer.shtml

"Mormonism has no official theology and precious little dogma."

huh???? If it has no official theology, then what to you call D&C and the Pearl of Great Price and the Book of Mormon? Seems like they meet the requirement of a theology to me! Even the LDS church speaks of Mormon theology at http://www.lds-mormon.com/lds_theology.shtml

It must be nice, not caring that he's Mormon. I, unfortunately HAVE to care, because he doesn't believe that my children and I are as HUMAN as him. They (Mormons, at least until sometime in the 70's) apparently don't like me, and I don't really care for them either:

http://www.lds-mormon.com/racism.shtml [lds-mormon.com]

"No person having the least particle of Negro blood can hold the Priesthood" (Brigham Young)

"The Lord segregated the people both as to blood and place of residence. At least in the cases of the Lamanites and the Negro we have the definite word of the Lord Himself that he placed a dark skin upon them as a curse -- as a punishment and as a sign to all others."

"In spite of all he did in the pre-existent life, the Lord is willing, if the Negro accepts the gospel with real, sincere faith, and is really converted, to give him the blessings of baptism and the gift of the Holy Ghost. If that Negro is faithful all his days, he can and will enter the celestial kingdom. He will go there as a servant, but he will get celestial glory."

I don't necessarily mean this directly towards you, but, as a black man, I say "Screw the Mormon Church." Screw Mitt Romney", and "Screw anybody else who would jeopardize our country's future any further by voting for a stooge like Romney."

Of course, I'm black, so I might be a little biased.

I don't care if he IS some sort of genius. As far as I can tell, him and all his wacko cult members don't believe I'm as "human" as they are, so they can all go to hell. I'd vote for just about anybody besides a mormon. They, apparently don't like me, and I don't really care for them either:

http://www.lds-mormon.com/racism.shtml

"No person having the least particle of Negro blood can hold the Priesthood" (Brigham Young)

"The Lord segregated the people both as to blood and place of residence. At least in the cases of the Lamanites and the Negro we have the definite word of the Lord Himself that he placed a dark skin upon them as a curse -- as a punishment and as a sign to all others."

"In spite of all he did in the pre-existent life, the Lord is willing, if the Negro accepts the gospel with real, sincere faith, and is really converted, to give him the blessings of baptism and the gift of the Holy Ghost. If that Negro is faithful all his days, he can and will enter the celestial kingdom. He will go there as a servant, but he will get celestial glory."

I don't necessarily mean this directly towards you, but, as a black man, I say "Fuck the Mormon Church." Fuck Mitt Romney", and "Fuck anybody else who would jeopardize our country's future any further by voting for a stooge like Romney."

Of course, I'm black, so I might be a little biased.

And for the record, before you even ask, I'll just say upfront that we don't have a single candidate running who I think should even be a contender for President. Not one. But I wouldn't even THINK of voting for Romney.

After growing up believing that Mormons encountered persecution in Missouri and elsewhere because the Missourians were stirred up by Satan, a little bit of one-sidedness is needed to achieve a semblance of balance.

I don't think the Mormons did anything to warrant expulsion, and there were plenty of misunderstandings and hard feelings to go around. But if you insist on believing that the early Mormons are blameless for the hatred that they engendered, your picture of the time period is incomplete.

http://www.lds-mormon.com/tmpc.shtml

"From what I gather from my friend who grew up Mormon, the main Mormon LDS church doesn't condone polygamy."

Well, your wrong. The Mormon church doesn't condone secular polygamy, but they do still preach ecclesiastical polygamy.

You can crack open a canonized Mormon scripture and read all about it: http://www.lds-mormon.com/132.shtml. If you don't think they practice it today, ask any mormon bishop what happens when a woman passes away and the man gets remarried in the temple, he's sealed to his 'second' (polygamous) wife which he can look forward to being in heaven with making babies.

Unless I'm mistaken, then ONLY way to reach the endgame top-level of the mormon heaven-pyramid is to have plural wives.

Aside from having relatives that are in the cult and seeing much first-hand, Google is your friend:

the Mountain Meadows massacre
The Mormon Murders
CIA and FBI recruitment of Mormons (Time Magazine)
The Mormon Army

The list goes on, but I'll leave further research as an exercise for the reader.

>Name one other religion that refuses to open its documents so someone can look at them WITHOUT you having to pay to see them.

How about the Mormons? Note that I *like* the Mormon faith in many ways, and don't intend this as a criticism of the faith, but the Church has spent a lot of money buying up documents about early Mormon history so that they disappear and stop being inconvenient.

And as long as corporate rankings are being bandied about, the church would make any list of the most admired: for straight dealing, company spirit, contributions to charity (even the non-Mormon kind) and a fiscal probity among its powerful leaders that would satisfy any shareholder group, if there were one

and then there's this (from the same article):

Huntsman resumed building the $5 billion, 10,000-employee Huntsman Chemical Corp., which he owns outright. Ten years ago, Huntsman shifted his company's mission from pure profit to a three-part priority: pay off debt, be a responsible corporate citizen and relieve human suffering. Thus far, his company has donated $100 million of its profit to a cancer center at the University of Utah. It has also built a concrete plant in Armenia to house those rendered homeless by the 1988 earthquake, and it is active in smaller charities ranging from children's hospitals to food banks.

(article found reprinted here: http://www.lds-mormon.com/time.shtml )

The Mormons - with their vast financial and capital resources and strict hierarchal organization - are frequenty fist-responders to international crises. We either go in their ourselves or just as frequently donate the funds and materials to the organizations placed to get things done. Charitable work is the one thing that Mormons are just plain really good at it. A lot of people don't like our theology, but I've never met anyone that didn't like our welfare efforts.

We've got a vested interest in long-term financial growth in these nations too. Although currently limited to Mormon members, the Perpetual Education Fund is one such example. In the 19th century Mormon converts making the long journey to Utah from Europe could borrow from Perpetual Emigration Fund, make the travel, set up a new home, and then pay back the loan for others to use. The idea has been restarted for poorer countries where eduction may help life people form poverty to (relative) middle class lifestyles. Mormons can get loans for education or to start businesses in South and Central America (as well as African and Asian nations, I believe) and use the education to move from the poorest classes to the middle classes. The education is usually for learning a trade or skilled labor as opposed to a liberal arts education. Then they repay the money into the fund for the next person to use. The intial funds for the program were derived from contributions from members in 1st world nations (like the US). Mormons care very passionately about charity and education. You don't start the donation level at 10% if this isn't something that really matters to you in your life.

I'm just really not sure where you are coming from. I'm not offended at all that you called my religion immoral. I think it's best to be honest and to call it like you see it (although for the sake of full disclosure, nothing you've said indicates to me that you or your religion or faith are immoral. Mistaken, perhaps, but certainly not immoral.)

And you jibe about "redefining" discrimination is unwarranted. From wikipedia: To discriminate is to make a distinction. There are several meanings of the word, including sta

>>> "Such a muddle[d], confused, and illogical presentaion of science directly leads to such pseudoscience as intelligent design."

I think you've got your chain of causation confused. Evolutionary theory (at least amongst humans) is not recorded until long after notions of intelligent design. Perhaps you meant "directly leads << to the enforcement of peoples concepts of theories in the realm of >> pseudoscience [such] as intelligent design"?

Funnily enough much of modern day science has a causative link to widespread religious belief be it amongst Christian, Muslim, Buddhist, Taoist ... in my opinion that's because many of those who seek the truth don't automatically dismiss non-scientific (by which I mean 'objectively empirical non-falsifiable theories') explanations.

On another note, I'm just pondering: if a time machine has ever been invented then will any theories that are currently non-scientific become scientific. For example, currently the appearance of an angel to Joseph Smith (http://www.lds-mormon.com/jsmith.shtml) is non-falsifiable (but highly unlikely!) ... however one could go back in time to the alleged incident and provide objective empirical evidence to show that the story is false. Similarly with other supposed historic events.

Oh damn ... there I go again ...

Wrong. He DID use spectacles and then resorted to the rocks (a tool of his profession which was "finding" lost treasures by peering into a hat with rocks in it). For the benefit of those not yet educated, we are talking about Joseph Smith translating the Books of Mormon given to him by the Angel Moroni by peering into a hat containing rocks, sacred rocks at that... Yes, I am not making it up. We are talking about the Joseph Smith that had himself ordained "King on earth!"

Here's a link for you on your church's revisionist history of what Joseph Smith claimed that happened with the Native Americans. There's a lot of historical/archaeological problems with the book of Mormons including elephants in the Western Hemisphere and advanced metal producing capabilities in America before 400 A.D.

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.

Every time I read silence and BYU I think of the forced silence BYU forces on its professors. It's good to see a positive article about academics at BYU. Here's to freedom of thought and freedom of speach; even at BYU.(if that's possible.)

I don't mind being "out there" as you characterize it, as long as my opinion is supported by fact. Hence, a little research will show you that:

1) Mormonism is not rooted in Christianity. For further clarification, see this link.

2) You obfuscate the issue, by stating that "blacks were always allowed in the Church." The question was whether or not the Church discriminated against blacks. The Church obviously has a long history of discriminating against, and maligning, blacks. For further information, see this link. Don't be surprised at the racist and hateful statements LDS apostles (who speak for God) have made against blacks throughout history.

I stated that Joseph Smith (founder of the Church) introduced and practiced polyandry (multiple wives and husbands), not polygamy (multiple wives for a single husband). You state erroneously that "there were never multiple men to one woman." Yet eight (8) of the thirty three (33) marriages of Joseph Smith were of this type! I suggest you check this link for supporting facts.

Likewise, everything in the temple is not documented. In fact, Mormon literature teaches us that "some things in the temple are sacred, and not to be revealed to outsiders." For an overview, see this link. For an overview of how the ceremony has changed over time, you can go here.

To address your next statement... yes, there are some racist people everywhere. But that wasn't the issue, or in question. I'm not sure what your point is in mentioning this. The fact that Mormons have a dark history with black people (no pun intended) is not exculpated by other examples of racism, rampant or otherwise.

You also state that "at no time did the leadership ever say black people had the mark of Cain." Again, you are incorrect. Plenty of LDS prophets (who speak for God) have told us so, as you can see for yourself right here. For a history of the black man and Mormonism in general, you can go here.

So far, your contentions are without merit. If you have evidence to present that is contrary to my researched opinion, please feel free to cite your sources, as I have done. I'm always open to assimilating new facts, and learning new things.

Unfortunately just the opposite would probably happen, look at the Book of Mormon. When life is found somewhere else, Jesus is going to have to save them too you know.

OK people, if you're going to whine about someone else being wrong, then you should at least try to be accurate yourself.

Despite what you all think, the mormon religion does not condone plural marriage any longer.

That is , originally it was encouraged. Don't believe me, checkout The LDS/Mormon webpages on the subject

Answer found here, originally seen on Groklaw here (scroll to the bottom) by xtifr

thanx for asking!

The church has a lot of "baggage", as one poster put it, but compared to that of other religions, it is small.

The problem is that the LDS church continues to hold onto this baggage. They are in an uncomfortable position of having living prophets proclaim the importance of polygamy while at the same time having to adjust to modern times and laws.

You can't say "Oops, didn't mean that, we take it back" if you claim to have a prophet who receives instruction directly from god.

Note that similiar things have occured and will continue to occur in church doctrine. The changing wording of the LDS endowment cerimony makes people wonder "why didn't god give us the right version in the first place?". The now removed references to disembowlment, throat cutting, and fighting against the US government seem like foolish emblishments now, but were actually part of the original endowment cerimony.

Dont bother asking a mormon about it, they are sworn to secrecy. You can however read more here:

LDS Temple Endowment

Also interesting to read is the account of Dr. Michael Quinn who was a well respected Elder in the church and professor of history at BYU. He began to study LDS history and publishing his findings until unpleasant aspects of the religion started drawing attention.

At that point, given the choice to censor his work, or leave the church, he was excommunicated. The LDS leadership wants certain things NOT DISCUSSED and are very clear that you will be run out of the church as an "apostate" if you try to challenge their authority on the matter.

On Being A Mormon Historian by Dr. Michael Quinn.

To the old blood in the church, the memory of the "apostate intellectuals" being purged en masse back in the 70's and 80's is still a vivid memory.

That's rather presumptuous. I guess it's easier to pretend that there's no-one to debate against than actually consider entering into a debate in the first place. If it's so easy, then do it.

Christians have a habit of avoiding anything that contradicts their worldview. The fact that you have seemingly never heard of the more popular websites or read any of them leads me to believe you are of the same sheepish ilk.

Given your distinct lack of sources/evidence I suspect that I'm rather better versed in this field than you.

As I correctly guessed, you would ignore my statement that there are literally thousands of resources at your fingertips. Why should I reiterate all of it when a simple Google search will provide you the information? I don't desire to argue with you because I know your belief system is one of circular logic and self-fulfilling prophecy, and so nothing I can say will convince you. But the materials out there will at least point out the factual errors and inconsistencies inherent in the Christian religion.

There are so many resources. Hell, of the top of my head, there is the most well-known mistranslation, that of "virgin," which was a mistranslation of the Greek word:

"Therefore the LORD himself shall give you a sign: Behold, a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel." (Isaiah 7:14)

The original Hebrew version uses the word "almah" which means "young woman" which may or may not refer to a virgin. Of course the context of the original Hebrew Isaiah does not refer to a virgin at all, as scholars the world over agree, but only refers to a young woman.

Later, the author of Matthew 1:22-23, quoted from the mistranslated Isaiah version, and thus the error turned into a world-wide belief.

Today a few of the modern bibles such as the Revised Standard Version, have corrected this mistranslation and have replaced the word virgin with "young woman." (Isaiah 7:14, RSV)

Apparently either your god makes errors or the Bible does not come from your god, but rather from fallible men.

Of course, it's quite likely that this is another of your trolling experiments, but I'd like to think there's a chance you might want to engage in intelligent debate some time.

I told you where to find the material. If you can't even be bothered to do a simple Google search to bring up simple places like this, this, and more, it shows me you are unwilling to seek out the information and therefore unwilling to crank open that closed steel trap of a Christian-diseased mind you've got there. The fact that the Bible isn't so straightforward as you claim is a testament to the fact that it is a monumental failure as a medium for the word of your god.

'Many 'words of the Lord', attributed to the historical Jesus are in fact utterances....'transmitted' through Christian prophets. Of the twenty-seven New Testament writings, only the authentic Pauline epistles are strictly speaking, the testimony of an apostolic witness. And even Paul was not a witness of the historical Jesus. Since the earliest witnesses wrote nothing, there is not a single writing in the New Testament which is the direct work of an eyewitness of the historical Jesus'.
-- Professor R. H. Fuller A Critical Introduction to the New Testament, pp.103,197.

And what exactly what this 'fiasco' entail?

The fact that the original Hebrew texts referred to an ancient Babylonian king. Lucifer is a Latin name--how do you think it got in there? Freaking READ something other than that black book they raised you on:

http://www.lds-mormon.com/lucifer.shtml

Heck, even the Christian idea is paradoxical. Supposedly, Lucifer was a perfect creation, and his perversion was not put there by a god but by himself. But that would inva

Sometimes, humorists attempting to comment on tragic events have made serious mis-steps.

Steve Benson's cartoon of a fireman with a baby in his arms after the bombing of the Murrah Federal Building in Oklahoma, for instance. (N.B., The former Pulitzer winner was caricaturing a famous photo from the event.) But, as an editorial cartoonist, he often goes looking for trouble and finding it, so his relationship with the edge of taste is rather intimate.

Have you ever had a piece that seemed right go horribly wrong when the public read it?

Maybe they wanted to simulate polygamy ... best way to establish a remote colony.