When you're debating with people who believe in what can best be described as fairy tales or mythology it's hard to be serious.
Here's the trick to this FSM, Pink Unicorn, teapot version of atheism: never talk to a serious theist. Don't listen to a word they say. Never read a book they write. Only listen to other small-minded atheists.
If you do this long enough you can get to a point where you write off 1/2 the worlds geniuses as morons and actually aren't troubled by this at all.
If you really feel so comfortable in your own superiority over those who believe: good on you. Congrats.
I don't. I've read some of the smartest atheists around. I find their beliefs compelling and their morality courageous. I mean people like de Beauvoir, Camus, and Sartre. I've read some of the smartest theists around. From C. S. Lewis to Kierkegaard. I can list you nobel-prize winning physicists and others who are religious. I'm convinced that they have an equal compelling case. For personal reasons, I currently side with the theists on this one.
But calling myself a theist does not entail denigrating what is best in atheism. I don't feel compelled to call atheists idiots. I'll leave that hubris to the extreme radical theists and the extreme radical atheists.
If you can't tell the difference between various theistic beliefs in God and an invisible pink unicorn I can't help you.
But I certainly wouldn't be able to rest easy having written off so many of humanities brightests with such a pathetically simplistic argument. I, personally, would wonder if I was beating straw men to death.
You've clearly put more thought into this than I have, and I agree with what you're saying. I was being much more careless in an attempt to illustrate the simple fact that Mormons theology is not "whatever you can quote some Mormon authority figure as saying".
If your view of the world is that religion is "nothing but bullshit and fantasies" then you are taking a sizeable chunk of the greatest minds humanity has produced and discarding them as nothing but "huge morons", "idiots", and "mentally deranged".
This rabid form of atheism is an embarrassment to rational thinking and serious atheists. I don't mind being consigned to "idiocy" with "idiots" like Newton and Pascal and various Nobel prize winners. I would love to be that kind of idiot.
You'll notice, by the way, that I'm not arguing the converse of your position. There are plenty of brilliant atheists and plenty of reasons to be atheist.
You're off on your own wild tangent with your foaming-at-the-mouth hysteria. And if you think that many of the worlds geniuses are morons and idiots, perhaps (just perhaps) you don't have as firm a grasp on religion as you think you do.
But hey, I'm sure that Flying Spaghetti Monster t-shirt makes you feel cool. So rock on.
Whatever publications the LDS church is currently placing it's name on is usually considered doctrinal. Manuals, magazines, books, etc.
Be this as it may, the Standard Works are in a class by themselves. No teacher's manual or magazine is on that level. They are clearly "doctrinal" in the sense of "conveying official doctrine", but they are not canonical.
Perhaps I should start using that term to avoid confusion.
I'm not saying it's grounds for suspicion - I'm just saying that part of the price of privacy is that when you keep things secret, people who are outside of the loop might speculate about what the secret is.
I don't think I really have a problem with mere speculation. However, as a Mormon, I'm subjected to constant "speculation" that is in fact nothing but rather bigoted attacks on my faith. Ever heard of "The God Makers"? That's the kind of thing I'm talking about. People just wondering, without any bias or prejudice, what we get up to in there doesn't bother me in the least.
I have no real problem with that (as you've described it). My problem with it is more in cases where you have a situation of "You're sick and starving, so I'm gonna to give you food or medicine, and (being a human being) you're gonna feel obligated to listen to my spiel" or (worse) "I'm gonna give you food / medicine, but first, you're gonna listen to my spiel".
Mormon aid efforts are completely separate from Mormon proselyting efforts. The Mormon church is *really* good at getting aid where it needs to go in a hurry, but the vast majority of the time we let aid agencies hand it out and don't take the credit. And we never proselyte. If your house got hit by a hurricane you need food, water, shelter, and a shoulder to lean on. Not a lesson.
I served as a missionary for 2 years. My job was to proselyte. Not hand out candy. I did do service from time to time, and I hoped to meet people who would be interested. But I don't think there was a single example of me attempting to leverage service into a sense of obligation to listen to what I have to say.
I can't defend everything every Mormon does. Mormon missionaries are kids. Ages 19 - 25. Usually closer to 19. They have a grand total of 3 weeks of formal training, and most of that is just trying to get them to grasp the basic doctrines.
So I guess all I'm saying is that it can, and should, be done right.
In addition to that, I've personally encountered a number of people of various faiths (yours included) who are very friendly and polite, but they get a bit of that telemarketer feel to them, where they basically force you to be rude and dismiss them, because anything short of that and they won't stop.
I'm sorry you've had to experience that. I mean that sincerely. It's a royal pain in the ass. Just so you understand that I do engage in proselyting, I've baptized three people in my lifetime outside of my work as a full-time missionary. So I obviously do talk to people about my faith. However, I try to be as polite and non-weird as I can be. I primarily talk to close friends about it. All of the people whom I baptized were friends for a considerable amount of time with me prior to me bringing up religion and were friends independent of any religious spiel. I've probably given out over a dozen Book of Mormons in my life. (Outside of being a missionary.) I give them to people I know and to people who I have reason to believe may be interested, and I don't pressure them.
I try to do my best to offer to share something I think is really important to me while respecting privacy and other views. I've never used tricks or deception or pressure. And I never will.
I grew up in the Bible Belt. I know that "bible-bashing" is. I don't do it. I've been tricked into religious proselyting attempts. I don't like that either.
I just try to be as sensitive as I can. Not all Mormons have that experience. They grow up in Utah where everyone is Mormon and it's more cultural than religious. They have little experience being the minority or being preached to by other religions and don't know how to behave. I wish they did. But at least I think they mean well.
That probably sounds kinda stupid, I've been hit up by other people many times before and since, but they didn't leave much of an impression.
Nah, I can see how that would be a really crappy situation. But part of that
If you are willing to believe anything on no real evidence then I suppose you might believe that anything is true.
True. So it's best to demand evidence. Which I have done and will continue to do. The evidence I've seen to date is convincing for me.
That doesn't mean it is actually true though.
Sure, sure. Lack of evidence isn't prove of a lack of existence. Lack of evidence of non-existence isn't prove of non-existence. I get it.
But my position here is not to convince people that my religion is true or to join my religion. My only intention is, specifically, to respond to arguments that are fallacious or specious. And more generally my goal is to follow C. S. Lewis's council: argument can not create faith, but lack of rational argument can destroy faith. The role of rational argument is to provide an environment in which faith may or may not flourish. I believe the ultimate decision of what another person chooses to believe is not something I can or should attempt to influence directly.
I have never, ever, seen any difference in those in practice. And it includes every known (to me) religion, moral, political view, and so on. I am absolutely certain that gay people cannot live among mormons without being judged.
Well it depends on what you mean by "gay". If you mean "having an attraction to the same sex" then of course they can live among Mormons. A gay Mormon who is celibate gets treated the exact same as any other Mormon. And I know at least 2.
On the other hand if you mean "gay" as in "involved in ongoing homosexual activity" then sure, they are ineligible for certain Mormon activities. Like entering the temple. But they are no less capable of living among Mormons than anyone else having sex out of wedlock.
You've also got to keep in mind that this kind of thing is not public. I have no idea who in my congregation is worthy to go to the temple and who isn't. It's none of my business. There isn't some "in" clique of worthy Mormons with a secret handshake and a clubhouse.
The truth, however, is that the gay are not gay because of sin/whatnot or even by choice. They just are gay - just like you(?) and me are straight. No "reason". No (need to) cure.
We disagree on that.
Trying to stop gays having sex by making the action a sin is (to me) as ridiculous as trying to stop gravity by making falling a sin.
That's just empirically false. People with homosexual tendencies can remain celibate. There's also the fact that, as far as I'm concerned, sexuality is a sliding scale. Not a binary switch. Some people are more "gay" than others, and for many in the gray area it's possible to live healthy and fulfilling straight lives. Not saying all gay people can. But some certainly can.
Look, you need to stop acting as though Mormonism is forcing anything on anyone. It's our Church. With our principles. There's nothing remotely coercive about it. We don't threaten people with Hellfire. We don't intimidate people into joining or staying in the Church. It's a purely voluntary action.
Mormons also believe pornography is evil and soul-destroying. Does this mean we're judging people who view porno? As in "practically all of the Slashdot community"?
If you think that every time a religion believes something is wrong they are persecuting people who do that thing you're just being oversensitive.
I know we will not get into consensus here (you cannot accept that this is wrong with your religion - I cannot accept what happens in practice is not important). So I think it is pointless to continue this argument.
Perhaps. I certainly don't expect for you to agree that the Mormon view of homosexuality is different. And I will concede that in practice many people judge those who are doing things considered sinful. They are violating Mormon principles when they do so. And Christian principles, for that matter. Christ was pretty unambiguous about that.
But it is *possible* to separate the sin from the sinner. I have a close relative who is gay. Openly. I love her. I am always happy to see her and I'm glad when she comes to family gatherings. (She's 1/2 way across the country so she doesn't always make it.) If she ever asks what I think about homosexuality I will tell her, but honestly she doesn't need to ask and she never has. And I will never lecture her on it, view her as less worthy than me, or anything.
She's doing something I believe to be wrong. I do wrong things all the time. The magnitude of our relative guilt is something for God to decide. Not me.
I respectfully, but strongly, disagree. If declaring a person as a sinner is not a form of persecution then what is.
You're missing the point. It's not about saying what a person *is*. That's identity. It's about saying what an action *is*. The Mormon faith views homosexual sex as a sin. It doesn't say a damn thing about people who consider themselves gay, other than that they are people who commit sin. So what? Everyone is. Mormonism also believes that *all* extra-marital sex is sin. If it's not between a man and a woman who are married it's sin. Does that mean that Mormons are persecuting couples who cohabitate?
Mormonism is not judging people. It's taking a stand on actions.
That makes no sense, because such a forgery would be impossible to accomplish.
Your counterargument doesn't work because it's begging the question. If Joseph Smith had complete freedom to make up any damn story he pleased, then Mrs. Harris's plot would be futile. He could simply create an entirely different story and ten be good to go.
If, however, he was actually translating from a source document he would not have that freedom. In that case his new work would be a lot like the original, and so Mrs. Harris would not need access to both texts. Only one.
So if he was a liar, he could have gotten out of this easily. If he was honest, he was trapped. He acted as though he was trapped. It doesn't prove he was honest, but the actions are consistent with what an honest person would do in the situation.
When Smith heard the news, he abandoned all work on the plates for two months. Then, "following the instruction of the Lord," he continued where he left off, translating to the end of the work. When he was finally done, he revealed that a new section of the plates told the first part of the story, but in a completely different way.
At least you have the story straight. That's a good recount.
I'm sorry, but unless you're blinded by the notion that Joseph Smith was a prophet of God, it should be easy to see that Smith was just coming up with flimsy excuses for his own inability to recreate his work, despite having both a written record to work from and supernatural aid.
Well, as I've already pointed out, your argument is only compelling if we agree from the start that Joseph Smith was inventing stuff whole cloth. It doesn't work if there's a possibility that he was telling the truth.
This is the word of god that has been given to me but I'm not going to translate it again because someone's out to get me? He obviously didn't think that 116 pages of the word of god was worth much.
And you are obviously not very familiar with the history of Mormonism. According to the Book of Mormon there were two sets of records covering that time period. So there was a redundant record. Convenient excuse? Evidence of God's providence?
Joseph Smith was convicted in 1826 in Bainbridge, New York. Check out Dale Morgan on Early Mormonism: Correspondence and a New History. The Book of Mormon was not released until 1830.
According to my sources he wasn't convicted. I'll do some more research.
YES, that is EXACTLY what I am telling you, at least in North America.
No one thinks that the Book of Mormon took place in N. America. Joseph Smith did for a while, but even before his death he was convinced it was S. America or C. America. So this makes no sense to me.
The South American civilizations left towering ruins that still stand to this day.
You're seriously telling me that we've exhaustively discovered every S. or C. American civilization that existed? And that we've positively identified each and every one as being "not related to the Book of Mormon"?
Any civilization that knew how to build anything from stone would have been found by now, even if confined to a plot of land of 10,000 square miles.
I don't think there's any reasonable basis for this claim.
What the hell does this mean?
It means that the population was sparse and the communities were intimate and this was with out doubt the most controversial event of the day. I think finding a neutral party would have been well nigh impossible.
Yes it does. First of all, there are some 11 or so claimed offspring of Joseph Smith allegedly begotten by his other wives. Genetic tests, funded by Mormon activists, have demonstrated that five of them were not his. The rest are inconclusive.
So yeah. Joseph Smith gets Emma pregnant many times. He has 36 or 37 other wives. Out of which there are only 11 potential offspring. And of those which are tested, not a single one is conclusively linked to him, and 5 of them are discounted. And you think this evidence is neutral?
Let me put it to you: why, exactly, did he marry a 14-year-old? True love?
Absolutely not. It was possibly because he believed that he had to re-instate every past practice associated with Judaism/Christianity (Acts 3:17). It was possibly a result of the Mormon belief that men and women have to be married to be saved. It seems clear, however, that Joseph Smith believed in a "spiritual" marriage. His multiple wives were called "spiritual wives". So there's every indication that it meant something to him other than "fun person to have sex with".
The attitude that "homosexuality is a sin" means that families are sundered...
This is hysteria. None of that follows necessarily from believing that homosexual sex is a sin. There's no reason to think that you have to deny visitation rights just because you think homosexual sex is a sin.
it's motivated by the same wrongheaded religious belief that being gay is a sin
Straw man. If you're going to criticize a religion, at least criticize what it actually states. Being gay is no more a sin than having a short temper. It is the *act* that is a sin, not the identity.
This simple, smug declaration causes an awful lot of suffering to no productive end. It's evil, and if there is indeed a vengeful God, you will be called to account for it.
That condemnation would be more meaningful if you stopped to actually address what I believe rather than accusing me of things I don't believe.
John Milton was born in 1608. He began composing Paradise Lost in 1658. He spent 6 years on it. So we've got a 50 year old man who had the best education available and numerous works under his belt with 6 years to work on Paradise Lost. A modern edition of the book will run around 300 - 400 pages. (I don't have a word count yet).
In the other corner we have a kid who has published nothing in his life and has a third grade education. By all historical accounts the Book of Mormon took Joseph Smith less than 2 years to dictate. It has 531 pages in my copy.
So yeah... Joseph Smith had a fraction of the education, none of the practice, less life experience, one third the time, and created a longer book. I'm not going to get into the aesthetics of it (it's not a work of art, for crying out loud) but it's certainly more complex in terms of narrative structure than Paradise Lost.
There's also the small detail that Paradise was released in the 17th century, not the 18th.
If you thing Joseph Smith was capable of this feat of literary genius you must think he is without doub the most talented writer to have ever lived. I don't buy it. Neither do most anti-Mormons. The idea is too absurd even for them, which is why most of them believe that 1) someone else (e.g. Oliver Cowder) was the mastermind and 2) it was based on some previous work (A View of the Hebrews) or something seriously.
I don't think anyone remotely familiar with the book considers for a moment the possibility that someone could just make it up on the fly.
The problem is, you do not define the limits of Joseph Smith's claims. He does.
I agree with that.
Try as you might to avoid it, saying "the source from which they [=="the former inhabitants of this continent"] sprang" is fundamentally different than saying "a source" or "some of the former inhabitants". If I said that Bill Gates' mind is the source from which the product line of Microsoft sprang, I could not twist that to mean his mind is the source of "not even a significant minority" of the product line, to use your phrasing.
This s a very good argument based on an accurate reading of the text. I've been pretty dismissive of most of the anti-Mormon nonsense I've seen today, but you're quoting from the Standard Works and you're quoting it in context. I just want to recognize the fact that you're making a good argument.
Having said that, however, I think the main problem is that while emphasizing the definite article you're forgetting another qualifier: "former". The people described in this verse are the "ancient inhabitants" and the source from which they "the ancient inhabitants" sprang. So a close reading actually rules out the possibility that we're talking about the ancestors of the Native Americans since the we're actually talking about an extinct race: presumably the Nephites.
I'm going to give this some more thoughts. The problem with my response is that even though it makes it quite clear that the Book of Mormon does not tell the story of where the Native Americans at the time of Joseph came from, it does seem to claim that the people it describes were the only people on the continent at the time.
Given that the Book of Mormon actually describes 3 distinct migrations, there's still some explaining left to be done on the part of a Mormon.
I'm under the impression that Joseph Smith was illiterate
He was not illiterate. Estimates are that he had a 3rd grade reading level. He could, at a bare minimum, read the King James Bible his family owned.
presuming he was faking, anything he "translated" would have to be a narrative he simply made up as he went.
There is simply no way whatsoever that the Book of Mormon could be made up in that fashion. We're talking hundreds of pages of narrative including some *extremely* complex narratives, multiple timeline, dozens of characters, significant references to past events. It's out of the question for anyone to compose a work of the complexity without screwing up a single element of internal consistency. For all the anti-Mormon claims out there, no one has found a single glaring error in the text of that nature.
That makes for a fairly strong case for option one, so I don't see how option two is "just as plausible" given, as the OP pointed out, there were other options available than simply refusing to ever translate that passage again.
Sure, given the assumptions that he was illiterate and making up the narrative as he went along. Those assumptions are false, however.
What I am suggesting is that you could make an effort to educate not only me, but everyone else, about your religion rather than getting all huffy and trying to suppress your "enemies" who are publishing your copyrighted works.
The funny thing to me is that previously you said you didn't like proselyting, and yet here you're essentially telling me I need to proselyte. That's really all proselyting is: telling people about your religion. And speaking of straw men: I've already said I don't agree with the attempt to suppress the material in this case.
I wrote this:
How is privacy supposed to survive as a concept if any attempt to exercise privacy constitutes evidence that you have something to hide?
You responded by saying you'd never said anything of the sort. Then you said this:
if you're going to hide things, then you can't reasonably blame people for drawing their own conclusions.
They seem pretty similar to me. You seem to be telling me that merely acting in a way that preserves privacy is grounds for suspicion.
As far as proselyting goes: I think it's healthy for all concerned. I draw the line at being annoying. I proselyted for 2 years. I never argued with a person. I never pestered a soul. I introduced myself and asked if they were interested in hearing more. If they said "no" I thanked them for their time and went on my merry way. We also ensured that we didn't hit the same neighborhood more often than about once a year. At the most.
As long as it's polite, I think there's nothing wrong with simply volunteering information. I certainly don't mind when the Jehovah's Witnesses happen by my house. I've also been "ambushed" before, however, and that's never a pleasant experience.
Do you really think the above was a real Mormon and not a troll? I don't know. It could be genuine. Mormons can believe any weird thing they want. It doesn't make their weird beliefs representative of Mormonism.
There's no Mormon doctrine about whether or not polygamy will be instituted again. That I know of. Unless it's a quote from the standard works (Bible, Book of Mormon, D&C, Pearl of Great Price) it's just some Mormon's opinion.
I actually did that. Believe it or not, Mormons don't sit around talking about polygamy all the time so I wasn't clear on the teachings. As far as I can tell, it's not really great evidence of polygamy. Sure, men can end up sealed (Mormon term for marriages that are supposed to last beyond the grave) to multiple women. But women can also be sealed to multiple men.
So is this some kind of zany collective marriage? Are you going to end up with random conglomerations of 3 wives and 4 husbands?
Honestly: I don't know. I doubt it. I figure that we'll sort of get that straightened out in the next life and figure out who wants to go with who. But there's no Mormon teaching about it.
People always expect the Mormons to have a complete answer to every question about their doctrine. If you want to understand Mormonism you have to understand that sometimes the answer is "we don't know yet".
but it's just as unreasonable for you to expect someone outside of your church not to think that you might be doing something wonky during your wedding ceremony if you're not going to let outsiders in.
Seriously? You think if I don't let anyone that wants to come to my marriage it's evidence that I'm "doing something wonky"? How is privacy supposed to survive as a concept if any attempt to exercise privacy constitutes evidence that you have something to hide?
So long as they're not infringing on anyone else's rights, I think people should be free to do or think or practice whatever they want, but, as you said, that comes at the price of everybody else being able to do the same.
Sure, but what rights someone has isn't the same question as what is really the best course of action. Everyone has the right to believe Mormons are a Satanic cult that eats babies. That doesn't mean it would me morally or intellectually defensible to think so.
When it comes to comparing other religions (and I do like to learn about other religions) I think you need to apply Stendahl's rules:
(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."
I think (1) means you should at least ask a Mormon to explain why they don't allow everyone into their temple rather than asking an enemy. Of course you don't necessarily have to believe whatever the Mormon tells you, but you ought to at least ask them first.
But when Mormonism makes the same argument about Joseph Smith, we have historical accounts that include him fighting back (injuring or killing some in the mob that killed him with a pistol).
I actually like that about the religion. He did go like a lamb to a slaughter. At first. But when it came down to people storming the prison, he fought back. Why? Fear? A sudden desire to live? An irrational attempt to save his companions? He wasn't alone in that jail cell. Who knows.
But I like that about the religion. Christ is God. He doesn't screw up. Joseph Smith is not God. He does. I can relate to that.
It's these types of accounts that mean Mormonism will always sound wrong to outsiders.
I agree. Mormons tend to be *WAY* to rosey about their own history. Believe me, I hate this about my own culture. CES (Church Educational Services) puts out an extremely ponies-and-rainbows view of Church history. And to the extent that it departs from reality (as you have pointed out) it makes use look bad.
Which is why I wish they would stop doing it.
But Mormonism presents a convoluted story about a tribe of Israelites crossing the globe and settling in USA. Then it presents an angel who can't give Smith the message directly, but must instead show him were to get some tablets...tablets nobody else can see. He is given wisdom to translate the tablets, but not the ability to write it all down, so he gets someone else to do the writing while he reads them out of a hat or from behind a screen.
I think you're just not applying an equal standard. I mean seriously, have you read the Old Testament? And you think Mormon history is convoluted? God tells Abraham to kill his son. Then he changes his mind. God can appear and show Moses tablets, but for whatever reason can't just show up in the Camp or Israel and do the job himself? Circumcision is a necessary part of the Jewish covenant, but then not so much for Christians? Do I need to go on?
The story has changed over the years. They narrow the scope every time scrutiny tightens. (Whether the characteristics ascribed to it are "official" or not, I don't know. But I've witnessed the change in informal description over the years because I have LDS family.)
This is true. They do narrow the scope as the scrutiny tightens. I don't see a problem with that.
Joseph Smith's job as prophet was to re-establish the Church of Christ. Not provide a comprehensive history of the Americas. Mormons, as people, got a little over-excited and thought they had a history of the entire continent. They were naive. So what? They were people. They were wrong. I'm failing to see why this is a problem.
Which strangely coincides with leaders' libido.
There's no evidence that Joseph Smith's polygamy was sexual. There's strong evidence that it wasn't. (Brigham Young's were.) But the point is that people tend to use polygamy as nothing but an ideological bludgeon rather than attempting to do serious research into the practice.
If your point is Jesus > Joseph Smith than all you'll get from me is a "hear! hear!". Jesus is not only a prophet. He is the Son of God. He is infallible. He is the Savior of the World. And no, Joseph Smith and Brigham Young don't hold a candle to him.
I'm not disturbed by that in the least.
You seem to want me to look up to my prophets as my superiors. We're all just folk down here on earth. We're all sinners. We all screw up. And hopefully we're doing the best we can. That includes me, my wife, my family, my friends, my bishop, my stake president, and even my prophet.
How many more points are you going to concede and still feel as if you are standing on solid religious ground?
You just sound like you're annoyed that your points aren't actually working. That I don't believe what you think I should believe. My faith is based on certain principles and facts (as I see them). You hit one of those facts, and you'll shake my faith. But believing that Joseph Smith is on par with Jesus Christ is just not a part of my faith. So illustrating that he isn't is no more damaging to my faith then me telling you Jesus Christ didn't play lead guitar for the Rolling Stones would be to you.
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.
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
Addressing one of the GP's points - if you're afraid of things being taken out of context, then I think you're far better off providing context rather than trying to suppress information.
I agree. Just because I'm Mormon doesn't mean I agree with every move my church makes. This looks like a pretty bad blunder. At best.
If I were in your position, and I believed I was right, my response would be to make all such LDS documents available to the public (so long as they don't contain private information about individual people). I'd make things as open and transparent as possible to the outside world.
I don't think that's compatible with privacy. And I know, I know. People have rights to privacy. Corporations, and religions, don't. But that ignores the fact that Mormons are people. And I think a group of people have a right to keep aspects of their religion private if they wish to do so.
Rather than trying to hide things, why not just go out of your way to provide context? "The best response to 'bad' speech is 'good' speech, not less speech".
Sometimes that's the best strategy. But, like I said, I think there's a concept of privacy. My wife and I's marriage was a religious ceremony in a sacred temple. Non-members, and members not in good standing, aren't allowed to enter these temples. The cost of this is that some people think we're busy sacrificing virgins in their. The benefit is that it is a truly private, sacred space.
I don't think it's right to require people to give up their privacy just to convince everyone else that they are safe and normal. To some extent people need to just learn to deal with religions that are different without expecting full and total disclosure.
The canonized History of Joseph Smith claims that an angel told him the Book of Mormon was "an account of the former inhabitants of this continent, and the source from which they sprang." Not "one of the sources", or "some of the former inhabitants":shrug: I think you're putting too much emphasis on a definite article. But I will grant that you have a point.
the Book of Mormon itself describes populations in the millions, which "did cover the whole face of the land, both on the northward and on the southward, from the sea west to the sea east."
Sure, but which land? Sorensen, in "An Ancient American Setting for the Book of Mormon" argues very cogently for a specific, small region of central America. As far as the "millions" goes, I think that's a matter of translation.
Smith also described the Book of Mormon as...
Smith thought the Mound Builders were the people of the Book of Mormon. Later, when he heard of new discoveries from S. America he was sure that the people from there were the Nephites. He was wrong on both counts. Prophets aren't infallible.
This is why Smith also confidently claimed to find artifacts like Nephite writings in New York, Nephite altars in Missouri, and Lamanite graves of men who were famous from the Rocky Mountains to the Atlantic. It's why his D&C revelations refer to North American Indian tribes as "Lamanites". If you've invented a different set of religious beliefs that are more compatible with real archeology, good for you, but you're going to have to do a lot more twisting to get it to fit the original claims of Mormonism.
Or, to save postage, I could just say "some of the original claims of Mormonism were wrong". Which I have no problem saying.
Slashdot Mirror
When you're debating with people who believe in what can best be described as fairy tales or mythology it's hard to be serious.
Here's the trick to this FSM, Pink Unicorn, teapot version of atheism: never talk to a serious theist. Don't listen to a word they say. Never read a book they write. Only listen to other small-minded atheists.
If you do this long enough you can get to a point where you write off 1/2 the worlds geniuses as morons and actually aren't troubled by this at all.
If you really feel so comfortable in your own superiority over those who believe: good on you. Congrats.
I don't. I've read some of the smartest atheists around. I find their beliefs compelling and their morality courageous. I mean people like de Beauvoir, Camus, and Sartre. I've read some of the smartest theists around. From C. S. Lewis to Kierkegaard. I can list you nobel-prize winning physicists and others who are religious. I'm convinced that they have an equal compelling case. For personal reasons, I currently side with the theists on this one.
But calling myself a theist does not entail denigrating what is best in atheism. I don't feel compelled to call atheists idiots. I'll leave that hubris to the extreme radical theists and the extreme radical atheists.
If you can't tell the difference between various theistic beliefs in God and an invisible pink unicorn I can't help you.
But I certainly wouldn't be able to rest easy having written off so many of humanities brightests with such a pathetically simplistic argument. I, personally, would wonder if I was beating straw men to death.
You've clearly put more thought into this than I have, and I agree with what you're saying. I was being much more careless in an attempt to illustrate the simple fact that Mormons theology is not "whatever you can quote some Mormon authority figure as saying".
If believing in God makes one mentally deranged, than at least I'm in good company.
Georges Lemaître - Roman Catholic priest who first proposed the Big Bang Theory http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Georges_Lema%C3%AEtre
William Daniel Phillips - Nobel prize winning physicist and a methodist. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_D._Phillips
Francis Collins - Leader of the Human Genome Project and an evangelical Christian. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Francis_Collins_(geneticist)#Religious_views
Arthur Stanley Eddington - Renowned physicist and a Quaker. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arthur_Eddington
That's just a smattering of current scientists/mathematicians. We could also go more old school:
Blaise Pascal http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blaise_pascal
Isaac Newton http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isaac_Newton#Religious_views
Joseph Louis Lagrange http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_Louis_Lagrange
Gottfried Leibniz http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liebniz
And that's just a paltry sampling of the scientists/mathematicians. I haven't even touched on the philosophers:
SÃren Kierkegaard http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kierkegaard
Thomas Merton http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Merton
Alexis de Tocqueville http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alexis_de_Tocqueville
If your view of the world is that religion is "nothing but bullshit and fantasies" then you are taking a sizeable chunk of the greatest minds humanity has produced and discarding them as nothing but "huge morons", "idiots", and "mentally deranged".
This rabid form of atheism is an embarrassment to rational thinking and serious atheists. I don't mind being consigned to "idiocy" with "idiots" like Newton and Pascal and various Nobel prize winners. I would love to be that kind of idiot.
You'll notice, by the way, that I'm not arguing the converse of your position. There are plenty of brilliant atheists and plenty of reasons to be atheist.
You're off on your own wild tangent with your foaming-at-the-mouth hysteria. And if you think that many of the worlds geniuses are morons and idiots, perhaps (just perhaps) you don't have as firm a grasp on religion as you think you do.
But hey, I'm sure that Flying Spaghetti Monster t-shirt makes you feel cool. So rock on.
Whatever publications the LDS church is currently placing it's name on is usually considered doctrinal. Manuals, magazines, books, etc.
Be this as it may, the Standard Works are in a class by themselves. No teacher's manual or magazine is on that level. They are clearly "doctrinal" in the sense of "conveying official doctrine", but they are not canonical.
Perhaps I should start using that term to avoid confusion.
I'm not saying it's grounds for suspicion - I'm just saying that part of the price of privacy is that when you keep things secret, people who are outside of the loop might speculate about what the secret is.
I don't think I really have a problem with mere speculation. However, as a Mormon, I'm subjected to constant "speculation" that is in fact nothing but rather bigoted attacks on my faith. Ever heard of "The God Makers"? That's the kind of thing I'm talking about. People just wondering, without any bias or prejudice, what we get up to in there doesn't bother me in the least.
I have no real problem with that (as you've described it). My problem with it is more in cases where you have a situation of "You're sick and starving, so I'm gonna to give you food or medicine, and (being a human being) you're gonna feel obligated to listen to my spiel" or (worse) "I'm gonna give you food / medicine, but first, you're gonna listen to my spiel".
Mormon aid efforts are completely separate from Mormon proselyting efforts. The Mormon church is *really* good at getting aid where it needs to go in a hurry, but the vast majority of the time we let aid agencies hand it out and don't take the credit. And we never proselyte. If your house got hit by a hurricane you need food, water, shelter, and a shoulder to lean on. Not a lesson.
I served as a missionary for 2 years. My job was to proselyte. Not hand out candy. I did do service from time to time, and I hoped to meet people who would be interested. But I don't think there was a single example of me attempting to leverage service into a sense of obligation to listen to what I have to say.
I can't defend everything every Mormon does. Mormon missionaries are kids. Ages 19 - 25. Usually closer to 19. They have a grand total of 3 weeks of formal training, and most of that is just trying to get them to grasp the basic doctrines.
So I guess all I'm saying is that it can, and should, be done right.
In addition to that, I've personally encountered a number of people of various faiths (yours included) who are very friendly and polite, but they get a bit of that telemarketer feel to them, where they basically force you to be rude and dismiss them, because anything short of that and they won't stop.
I'm sorry you've had to experience that. I mean that sincerely. It's a royal pain in the ass. Just so you understand that I do engage in proselyting, I've baptized three people in my lifetime outside of my work as a full-time missionary. So I obviously do talk to people about my faith. However, I try to be as polite and non-weird as I can be. I primarily talk to close friends about it. All of the people whom I baptized were friends for a considerable amount of time with me prior to me bringing up religion and were friends independent of any religious spiel. I've probably given out over a dozen Book of Mormons in my life. (Outside of being a missionary.) I give them to people I know and to people who I have reason to believe may be interested, and I don't pressure them.
I try to do my best to offer to share something I think is really important to me while respecting privacy and other views. I've never used tricks or deception or pressure. And I never will.
I grew up in the Bible Belt. I know that "bible-bashing" is. I don't do it. I've been tricked into religious proselyting attempts. I don't like that either.
I just try to be as sensitive as I can. Not all Mormons have that experience. They grow up in Utah where everyone is Mormon and it's more cultural than religious. They have little experience being the minority or being preached to by other religions and don't know how to behave. I wish they did. But at least I think they mean well.
That probably sounds kinda stupid, I've been hit up by other people many times before and since, but they didn't leave much of an impression.
Nah, I can see how that would be a really crappy situation. But part of that
If you are willing to believe anything on no real evidence then I suppose you might believe that anything is true.
True. So it's best to demand evidence. Which I have done and will continue to do. The evidence I've seen to date is convincing for me.
That doesn't mean it is actually true though.
Sure, sure. Lack of evidence isn't prove of a lack of existence. Lack of evidence of non-existence isn't prove of non-existence. I get it.
But my position here is not to convince people that my religion is true or to join my religion. My only intention is, specifically, to respond to arguments that are fallacious or specious. And more generally my goal is to follow C. S. Lewis's council: argument can not create faith, but lack of rational argument can destroy faith. The role of rational argument is to provide an environment in which faith may or may not flourish. I believe the ultimate decision of what another person chooses to believe is not something I can or should attempt to influence directly.
I have never, ever, seen any difference in those in practice. And it includes every known (to me) religion, moral, political view, and so on. I am absolutely certain that gay people cannot live among mormons without being judged.
Well it depends on what you mean by "gay". If you mean "having an attraction to the same sex" then of course they can live among Mormons. A gay Mormon who is celibate gets treated the exact same as any other Mormon. And I know at least 2.
On the other hand if you mean "gay" as in "involved in ongoing homosexual activity" then sure, they are ineligible for certain Mormon activities. Like entering the temple. But they are no less capable of living among Mormons than anyone else having sex out of wedlock.
You've also got to keep in mind that this kind of thing is not public. I have no idea who in my congregation is worthy to go to the temple and who isn't. It's none of my business. There isn't some "in" clique of worthy Mormons with a secret handshake and a clubhouse.
The truth, however, is that the gay are not gay because of sin/whatnot or even by choice. They just are gay - just like you(?) and me are straight. No "reason". No (need to) cure.
We disagree on that.
Trying to stop gays having sex by making the action a sin is (to me) as ridiculous as trying to stop gravity by making falling a sin.
That's just empirically false. People with homosexual tendencies can remain celibate. There's also the fact that, as far as I'm concerned, sexuality is a sliding scale. Not a binary switch. Some people are more "gay" than others, and for many in the gray area it's possible to live healthy and fulfilling straight lives. Not saying all gay people can. But some certainly can.
Look, you need to stop acting as though Mormonism is forcing anything on anyone. It's our Church. With our principles. There's nothing remotely coercive about it. We don't threaten people with Hellfire. We don't intimidate people into joining or staying in the Church. It's a purely voluntary action.
Mormons also believe pornography is evil and soul-destroying. Does this mean we're judging people who view porno? As in "practically all of the Slashdot community"?
If you think that every time a religion believes something is wrong they are persecuting people who do that thing you're just being oversensitive.
I know we will not get into consensus here (you cannot accept that this is wrong with your religion - I cannot accept what happens in practice is not important). So I think it is pointless to continue this argument.
Perhaps. I certainly don't expect for you to agree that the Mormon view of homosexuality is different. And I will concede that in practice many people judge those who are doing things considered sinful. They are violating Mormon principles when they do so. And Christian principles, for that matter. Christ was pretty unambiguous about that.
But it is *possible* to separate the sin from the sinner. I have a close relative who is gay. Openly. I love her. I am always happy to see her and I'm glad when she comes to family gatherings. (She's 1/2 way across the country so she doesn't always make it.) If she ever asks what I think about homosexuality I will tell her, but honestly she doesn't need to ask and she never has. And I will never lecture her on it, view her as less worthy than me, or anything.
She's doing something I believe to be wrong. I do wrong things all the time. The magnitude of our relative guilt is something for God to decide. Not me.
I respectfully, but strongly, disagree. If declaring a person as a sinner is not a form of persecution then what is.
You're missing the point. It's not about saying what a person *is*. That's identity. It's about saying what an action *is*. The Mormon faith views homosexual sex as a sin. It doesn't say a damn thing about people who consider themselves gay, other than that they are people who commit sin. So what? Everyone is. Mormonism also believes that *all* extra-marital sex is sin. If it's not between a man and a woman who are married it's sin. Does that mean that Mormons are persecuting couples who cohabitate?
Mormonism is not judging people. It's taking a stand on actions.
That makes no sense, because such a forgery would be impossible to accomplish.
Your counterargument doesn't work because it's begging the question. If Joseph Smith had complete freedom to make up any damn story he pleased, then Mrs. Harris's plot would be futile. He could simply create an entirely different story and ten be good to go.
If, however, he was actually translating from a source document he would not have that freedom. In that case his new work would be a lot like the original, and so Mrs. Harris would not need access to both texts. Only one.
So if he was a liar, he could have gotten out of this easily. If he was honest, he was trapped. He acted as though he was trapped. It doesn't prove he was honest, but the actions are consistent with what an honest person would do in the situation.
When Smith heard the news, he abandoned all work on the plates for two months. Then, "following the instruction of the Lord," he continued where he left off, translating to the end of the work. When he was finally done, he revealed that a new section of the plates told the first part of the story, but in a completely different way.
At least you have the story straight. That's a good recount.
I'm sorry, but unless you're blinded by the notion that Joseph Smith was a prophet of God, it should be easy to see that Smith was just coming up with flimsy excuses for his own inability to recreate his work, despite having both a written record to work from and supernatural aid.
Well, as I've already pointed out, your argument is only compelling if we agree from the start that Joseph Smith was inventing stuff whole cloth. It doesn't work if there's a possibility that he was telling the truth.
This is the word of god that has been given to me but I'm not going to translate it again because someone's out to get me? He obviously didn't think that 116 pages of the word of god was worth much.
And you are obviously not very familiar with the history of Mormonism. According to the Book of Mormon there were two sets of records covering that time period. So there was a redundant record. Convenient excuse? Evidence of God's providence?
Could go either way.
Joseph Smith was convicted in 1826 in Bainbridge, New York. Check out Dale Morgan on Early Mormonism: Correspondence and a New History. The Book of Mormon was not released until 1830.
According to my sources he wasn't convicted. I'll do some more research.
YES, that is EXACTLY what I am telling you, at least in North America.
No one thinks that the Book of Mormon took place in N. America. Joseph Smith did for a while, but even before his death he was convinced it was S. America or C. America. So this makes no sense to me.
The South American civilizations left towering ruins that still stand to this day.
You're seriously telling me that we've exhaustively discovered every S. or C. American civilization that existed? And that we've positively identified each and every one as being "not related to the Book of Mormon"?
Any civilization that knew how to build anything from stone would have been found by now, even if confined to a plot of land of 10,000 square miles.
I don't think there's any reasonable basis for this claim.
What the hell does this mean?
It means that the population was sparse and the communities were intimate and this was with out doubt the most controversial event of the day. I think finding a neutral party would have been well nigh impossible.
Yes it does. First of all, there are some 11 or so claimed offspring of Joseph Smith allegedly begotten by his other wives. Genetic tests, funded by Mormon activists, have demonstrated that five of them were not his. The rest are inconclusive.
So yeah. Joseph Smith gets Emma pregnant many times. He has 36 or 37 other wives. Out of which there are only 11 potential offspring. And of those which are tested, not a single one is conclusively linked to him, and 5 of them are discounted. And you think this evidence is neutral?
Let me put it to you: why, exactly, did he marry a 14-year-old? True love?
Absolutely not. It was possibly because he believed that he had to re-instate every past practice associated with Judaism/Christianity (Acts 3:17). It was possibly a result of the Mormon belief that men and women have to be married to be saved. It seems clear, however, that Joseph Smith believed in a "spiritual" marriage. His multiple wives were called "spiritual wives". So there's every indication that it meant something to him other than "fun person to have sex with".
The attitude that "homosexuality is a sin" means that families are sundered...
This is hysteria. None of that follows necessarily from believing that homosexual sex is a sin. There's no reason to think that you have to deny visitation rights just because you think homosexual sex is a sin.
it's motivated by the same wrongheaded religious belief that being gay is a sin
Straw man. If you're going to criticize a religion, at least criticize what it actually states. Being gay is no more a sin than having a short temper. It is the *act* that is a sin, not the identity.
This simple, smug declaration causes an awful lot of suffering to no productive end. It's evil, and if there is indeed a vengeful God, you will be called to account for it.
That condemnation would be more meaningful if you stopped to actually address what I believe rather than accusing me of things I don't believe.
John Milton was born in 1608. He began composing Paradise Lost in 1658. He spent 6 years on it. So we've got a 50 year old man who had the best education available and numerous works under his belt with 6 years to work on Paradise Lost. A modern edition of the book will run around 300 - 400 pages. (I don't have a word count yet).
In the other corner we have a kid who has published nothing in his life and has a third grade education. By all historical accounts the Book of Mormon took Joseph Smith less than 2 years to dictate. It has 531 pages in my copy.
So yeah... Joseph Smith had a fraction of the education, none of the practice, less life experience, one third the time, and created a longer book. I'm not going to get into the aesthetics of it (it's not a work of art, for crying out loud) but it's certainly more complex in terms of narrative structure than Paradise Lost.
There's also the small detail that Paradise was released in the 17th century, not the 18th.
If you thing Joseph Smith was capable of this feat of literary genius you must think he is without doub the most talented writer to have ever lived. I don't buy it. Neither do most anti-Mormons. The idea is too absurd even for them, which is why most of them believe that 1) someone else (e.g. Oliver Cowder) was the mastermind and 2) it was based on some previous work (A View of the Hebrews) or something seriously.
I don't think anyone remotely familiar with the book considers for a moment the possibility that someone could just make it up on the fly.
The problem is, you do not define the limits of Joseph Smith's claims. He does.
I agree with that.
Try as you might to avoid it, saying "the source from which they [=="the former inhabitants of this continent"] sprang" is fundamentally different than saying "a source" or "some of the former inhabitants". If I said that Bill Gates' mind is the source from which the product line of Microsoft sprang, I could not twist that to mean his mind is the source of "not even a significant minority" of the product line, to use your phrasing.
This s a very good argument based on an accurate reading of the text. I've been pretty dismissive of most of the anti-Mormon nonsense I've seen today, but you're quoting from the Standard Works and you're quoting it in context. I just want to recognize the fact that you're making a good argument.
Having said that, however, I think the main problem is that while emphasizing the definite article you're forgetting another qualifier: "former". The people described in this verse are the "ancient inhabitants" and the source from which they "the ancient inhabitants" sprang. So a close reading actually rules out the possibility that we're talking about the ancestors of the Native Americans since the we're actually talking about an extinct race: presumably the Nephites.
I'm going to give this some more thoughts. The problem with my response is that even though it makes it quite clear that the Book of Mormon does not tell the story of where the Native Americans at the time of Joseph came from, it does seem to claim that the people it describes were the only people on the continent at the time.
Given that the Book of Mormon actually describes 3 distinct migrations, there's still some explaining left to be done on the part of a Mormon.
I'm under the impression that Joseph Smith was illiterate
He was not illiterate. Estimates are that he had a 3rd grade reading level. He could, at a bare minimum, read the King James Bible his family owned.
presuming he was faking, anything he "translated" would have to be a narrative he simply made up as he went.
There is simply no way whatsoever that the Book of Mormon could be made up in that fashion. We're talking hundreds of pages of narrative including some *extremely* complex narratives, multiple timeline, dozens of characters, significant references to past events. It's out of the question for anyone to compose a work of the complexity without screwing up a single element of internal consistency. For all the anti-Mormon claims out there, no one has found a single glaring error in the text of that nature.
That makes for a fairly strong case for option one, so I don't see how option two is "just as plausible" given, as the OP pointed out, there were other options available than simply refusing to ever translate that passage again.
Sure, given the assumptions that he was illiterate and making up the narrative as he went along. Those assumptions are false, however.
What I am suggesting is that you could make an effort to educate not only me, but everyone else, about your religion rather than getting all huffy and trying to suppress your "enemies" who are publishing your copyrighted works.
The funny thing to me is that previously you said you didn't like proselyting, and yet here you're essentially telling me I need to proselyte. That's really all proselyting is: telling people about your religion. And speaking of straw men: I've already said I don't agree with the attempt to suppress the material in this case.
I wrote this:
How is privacy supposed to survive as a concept if any attempt to exercise privacy constitutes evidence that you have something to hide?
You responded by saying you'd never said anything of the sort. Then you said this:
if you're going to hide things, then you can't reasonably blame people for drawing their own conclusions.
They seem pretty similar to me. You seem to be telling me that merely acting in a way that preserves privacy is grounds for suspicion.
As far as proselyting goes: I think it's healthy for all concerned. I draw the line at being annoying. I proselyted for 2 years. I never argued with a person. I never pestered a soul. I introduced myself and asked if they were interested in hearing more. If they said "no" I thanked them for their time and went on my merry way. We also ensured that we didn't hit the same neighborhood more often than about once a year. At the most.
As long as it's polite, I think there's nothing wrong with simply volunteering information. I certainly don't mind when the Jehovah's Witnesses happen by my house. I've also been "ambushed" before, however, and that's never a pleasant experience.
Last time I checked the LDS church instituted the practice of polygamy.
Really? You think Mormons invented that? Read the OT recently?
Do you really think the above was a real Mormon and not a troll? I don't know. It could be genuine. Mormons can believe any weird thing they want. It doesn't make their weird beliefs representative of Mormonism.
There's no Mormon doctrine about whether or not polygamy will be instituted again. That I know of. Unless it's a quote from the standard works (Bible, Book of Mormon, D&C, Pearl of Great Price) it's just some Mormon's opinion.
I actually did that. Believe it or not, Mormons don't sit around talking about polygamy all the time so I wasn't clear on the teachings. As far as I can tell, it's not really great evidence of polygamy. Sure, men can end up sealed (Mormon term for marriages that are supposed to last beyond the grave) to multiple women. But women can also be sealed to multiple men.
So is this some kind of zany collective marriage? Are you going to end up with random conglomerations of 3 wives and 4 husbands?
Honestly: I don't know. I doubt it. I figure that we'll sort of get that straightened out in the next life and figure out who wants to go with who. But there's no Mormon teaching about it.
People always expect the Mormons to have a complete answer to every question about their doctrine. If you want to understand Mormonism you have to understand that sometimes the answer is "we don't know yet".
That's what an open canon is all about.
but it's just as unreasonable for you to expect someone outside of your church not to think that you might be doing something wonky during your wedding ceremony if you're not going to let outsiders in.
Seriously? You think if I don't let anyone that wants to come to my marriage it's evidence that I'm "doing something wonky"? How is privacy supposed to survive as a concept if any attempt to exercise privacy constitutes evidence that you have something to hide?
So long as they're not infringing on anyone else's rights, I think people should be free to do or think or practice whatever they want, but, as you said, that comes at the price of everybody else being able to do the same.
Sure, but what rights someone has isn't the same question as what is really the best course of action. Everyone has the right to believe Mormons are a Satanic cult that eats babies. That doesn't mean it would me morally or intellectually defensible to think so.
When it comes to comparing other religions (and I do like to learn about other religions) I think you need to apply Stendahl's rules:
(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
I think (1) means you should at least ask a Mormon to explain why they don't allow everyone into their temple rather than asking an enemy. Of course you don't necessarily have to believe whatever the Mormon tells you, but you ought to at least ask them first.
But when Mormonism makes the same argument about Joseph Smith, we have historical accounts that include him fighting back (injuring or killing some in the mob that killed him with a pistol).
I actually like that about the religion. He did go like a lamb to a slaughter. At first. But when it came down to people storming the prison, he fought back. Why? Fear? A sudden desire to live? An irrational attempt to save his companions? He wasn't alone in that jail cell. Who knows.
But I like that about the religion. Christ is God. He doesn't screw up. Joseph Smith is not God. He does. I can relate to that.
It's these types of accounts that mean Mormonism will always sound wrong to outsiders.
I agree. Mormons tend to be *WAY* to rosey about their own history. Believe me, I hate this about my own culture. CES (Church Educational Services) puts out an extremely ponies-and-rainbows view of Church history. And to the extent that it departs from reality (as you have pointed out) it makes use look bad.
Which is why I wish they would stop doing it.
But Mormonism presents a convoluted story about a tribe of Israelites crossing the globe and settling in USA. Then it presents an angel who can't give Smith the message directly, but must instead show him were to get some tablets...tablets nobody else can see. He is given wisdom to translate the tablets, but not the ability to write it all down, so he gets someone else to do the writing while he reads them out of a hat or from behind a screen.
I think you're just not applying an equal standard. I mean seriously, have you read the Old Testament? And you think Mormon history is convoluted? God tells Abraham to kill his son. Then he changes his mind. God can appear and show Moses tablets, but for whatever reason can't just show up in the Camp or Israel and do the job himself? Circumcision is a necessary part of the Jewish covenant, but then not so much for Christians? Do I need to go on?
The story has changed over the years. They narrow the scope every time scrutiny tightens. (Whether the characteristics ascribed to it are "official" or not, I don't know. But I've witnessed the change in informal description over the years because I have LDS family.)
This is true. They do narrow the scope as the scrutiny tightens. I don't see a problem with that.
Joseph Smith's job as prophet was to re-establish the Church of Christ. Not provide a comprehensive history of the Americas. Mormons, as people, got a little over-excited and thought they had a history of the entire continent. They were naive. So what? They were people. They were wrong. I'm failing to see why this is a problem.
Which strangely coincides with leaders' libido.
There's no evidence that Joseph Smith's polygamy was sexual. There's strong evidence that it wasn't. (Brigham Young's were.) But the point is that people tend to use polygamy as nothing but an ideological bludgeon rather than attempting to do serious research into the practice.
Mormons, your two top prophets, not so much, eh?
If your point is Jesus > Joseph Smith than all you'll get from me is a "hear! hear!". Jesus is not only a prophet. He is the Son of God. He is infallible. He is the Savior of the World. And no, Joseph Smith and Brigham Young don't hold a candle to him.
I'm not disturbed by that in the least.
You seem to want me to look up to my prophets as my superiors. We're all just folk down here on earth. We're all sinners. We all screw up. And hopefully we're doing the best we can. That includes me, my wife, my family, my friends, my bishop, my stake president, and even my prophet.
How many more points are you going to concede and still feel as if you are standing on solid religious ground?
You just sound like you're annoyed that your points aren't actually working. That I don't believe what you think I should believe. My faith is based on certain principles and facts (as I see them). You hit one of those facts, and you'll shake my faith. But believing that Joseph Smith is on par with Jesus Christ is just not a part of my faith. So illustrating that he isn't is no more damaging to my faith then me telling you Jesus Christ didn't play lead guitar for the Rolling Stones would be to you.
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
Addressing one of the GP's points - if you're afraid of things being taken out of context, then I think you're far better off providing context rather than trying to suppress information.
I agree. Just because I'm Mormon doesn't mean I agree with every move my church makes. This looks like a pretty bad blunder. At best.
If I were in your position, and I believed I was right, my response would be to make all such LDS documents available to the public (so long as they don't contain private information about individual people). I'd make things as open and transparent as possible to the outside world.
I don't think that's compatible with privacy. And I know, I know. People have rights to privacy. Corporations, and religions, don't. But that ignores the fact that Mormons are people. And I think a group of people have a right to keep aspects of their religion private if they wish to do so.
Rather than trying to hide things, why not just go out of your way to provide context? "The best response to 'bad' speech is 'good' speech, not less speech".
Sometimes that's the best strategy. But, like I said, I think there's a concept of privacy. My wife and I's marriage was a religious ceremony in a sacred temple. Non-members, and members not in good standing, aren't allowed to enter these temples. The cost of this is that some people think we're busy sacrificing virgins in their. The benefit is that it is a truly private, sacred space.
I don't think it's right to require people to give up their privacy just to convince everyone else that they are safe and normal. To some extent people need to just learn to deal with religions that are different without expecting full and total disclosure.
The canonized History of Joseph Smith claims that an angel told him the Book of Mormon was "an account of the former inhabitants of this continent, and the source from which they sprang." Not "one of the sources", or "some of the former inhabitants" :shrug: I think you're putting too much emphasis on a definite article. But I will grant that you have a point.
the Book of Mormon itself describes populations in the millions, which "did cover the whole face of the land, both on the northward and on the southward, from the sea west to the sea east."
Sure, but which land? Sorensen, in "An Ancient American Setting for the Book of Mormon" argues very cogently for a specific, small region of central America. As far as the "millions" goes, I think that's a matter of translation.
Smith also described the Book of Mormon as...
Smith thought the Mound Builders were the people of the Book of Mormon. Later, when he heard of new discoveries from S. America he was sure that the people from there were the Nephites. He was wrong on both counts. Prophets aren't infallible.
This is why Smith also confidently claimed to find artifacts like Nephite writings in New York, Nephite altars in Missouri, and Lamanite graves of men who were famous from the Rocky Mountains to the Atlantic. It's why his D&C revelations refer to North American Indian tribes as "Lamanites". If you've invented a different set of religious beliefs that are more compatible with real archeology, good for you, but you're going to have to do a lot more twisting to get it to fit the original claims of Mormonism.
Or, to save postage, I could just say "some of the original claims of Mormonism were wrong". Which I have no problem saying.