| Author |
Message |
    
Admin (Admin)
| | Posted on Wednesday, February 05, 2003 - 3:38 pm: | 
|
To read previous messages please open the archive above. |
Anonymous
| | Posted on Thursday, February 06, 2003 - 9:44 pm: |
|
Marry a Mormon?
The Genetic Gene Pool May be Weak and Flawed Due to Past Polygamous Practices
One study indicates inbreeding of early polygamous families have clustered several bad genes causing birth defects in Mormon families
FATAL INHERITANCE: MORMON EUGENICS
Whole story here:
http://www.geocities.com/Heartland/Meadows/1247/genepool.htm |
Anonymous
| | Posted on Friday, February 07, 2003 - 8:29 am: |
|
That story is really frightening. Look at this excerpt from it:
Previously I paid little attention to Mormon history, rejecting that belief system primarily because of political differences with the Mormon leadership over civil rights and peace issues in the 1960’s. This great-grandfather married two sisters which meant the twenty-two known children were double cousins or as genetically similar as brother and sister. I began to think polygamy might be a genetically unsound marriage practice. Not only were there possibly too few fathers making it easier for defects to clump in the large interrelated kindred but succeeding generations of children from these isolated rural Mormon towns married within a few kindred as well.
Throughout the world, most polygamy is exogamous, or breeding outside the group. Breeding within, as Mormons did, endogamous polygamy, is virtually never practiced.
Mormon Prophet Hebrew J. Grant determined to keep marrying until he found a woman to bear him living sons. He did not consider this lack of sons might be his genetic inheritance, not his multiple wives. Current scientific knowledge indicates Grant’s lack of sons resulted from his own genetic defect, since only men carry the male Y chromosome to make a son.[9]
Another problem in polygamy is a man’s breeding years are expanded sometimes into his eighties by the taking of new wives. As people age the chances of children inheriting mutant genes increases. Readily accepted as a problem among mothers past the age of thirty-five, it is rarely discussed as a problem when fathers are over thirty-five, let alone eighty.
Sterility is another consequence of consanguinity and the evidence of many sterile polygamous wives is overwhelming. The adoption of children among family members sometimes disguised sterility. This is a humane coping strategy devised to deal with a dilemma that devastated a woman taught from birth her only value was in the number of children she bore for the Kingdom of God. Yet, this practice may hide the actual genetic kinship and can further exacerbate genetic problems.
Mormons can now see why American citizens passed laws intended to stop polygamy, a relic of unwise prophecy, laws continuously disregarded in Utah, a state controlled by the Mormon Church, if they will only look. In addition, the Mormon Church touts itself as the quintessential traditional family values church, advertising via expensive television campaigns. They are quick to point out to reporters that they no longer practice polygamy and excommunicate members who continue to do so. This denial is hollow considering the record. They offer no support, no exit route, and no programs for the people trapped inside polygamy endeavoring to escape these closed polygamous communities, or compounds.[10]
Then in 1998, a 16 year-old girl limped seven miles to a pay phone and called police. Bruised, welts covering her body, and a broken nose, at first she was reluctant to speak with authorities. She told investigators her father took her to a remote area and belt whipped her for running away from a forced marriage to her uncle, her father’s brother, as his 15th wife. Removed from school like so many polygamy children, she told social workers she wanted to finish high school. [12]
Finally exposed in the news, the facts of life inside this religious/cult compound are stunning Mormons, Utahns, the nation, and the world. Half and full siblings are ‘marrying’ in religious ceremonies. Escaped members report some patriarchs believe it is their duty to give a daughter her first marriage lessons. This is the equivalent of a religious rationalization for the practice of incest. [13] Buried quietly on family farms, without notice of birth or death, child death often remains undocumented in polygamy clans. Utah officials fall all over themselves in an effort to explain why they have done nothing before and what they now propose to do.[14] Unfortunately, the answer is clear as they embarrass themselves inventing new ways to say they will continue to do nothing and wait for the media to change the focus.
Alongside the medical tragedy, other social and legal problems emerge. Currently, thousands of children are born into these closed authoritarian patriarchies. Indoctrinated from birth that they are better than others, exalted, and lacking outside education, understanding nothing about democracy; they not only believe government is corrupt, but then frequently use that rationalization to engage in fraud schemes that bilk the public. As early as 1985, John Ortell Kingston, in an out of court settlement agreed to pay $250,000 to the Utah Department of Recovery Services for child support. Four wives and at least 29 children collected hundreds of thousands of dollars in public assistance. Judgments entered for more than $100,000 against ten other Kingston clan members made on behalf of over 40 children. Recovery Services thinks this is a fraction of the money involved.[15]
Until quite recently, the Kingston leaders did not even pay wages to their captive members but paid them in script for working in the cult businesses. Members then used the script to purchase goods at clan owned stores. Reputedly, this cults net worth is over $300 million. It is certainly difficult to leave a cult that holds all the money, property and takes the children if you attempt to leave. Utah courts and social service agencies threaten or remove parental rights from women who want to leave polygamy and then give the children to other polygamous households.[16] What emerges from this record is a system that protects men and violates the rights of women to live in liberty, all supported by the Mormon Church.
These groups are white supremacists, and inbreeding is an essential doctrine in keeping the bloodline pure.[18] Convinced they are breeding a pure white master race; they blame the mother if a deformed baby is born, then preach she was unrighteous or unclean. It is these discredited ideas that foster this genetic legacy. Early polygamy was rife with incestuous and eugenic ideas and practices as well. Brigham Young, the second Mormon leader, preached, “The time is coming when the Lord is going to raise a holy nation…a royal priesthood upon the earth, and he has introduced a plurality of wives for that express purpose.” [19]
It is important that Mormons fight the tendency to discount history and the actions of their leaders in favor of a faith promoting history while neglecting important facts. It is important the American public recognize that polygamy was outlawed for valid reasons; and not as apologists claim because of outmoded Victorian moral ideas. It is difficult to assess less than perfect family background when men are revered as ‘prophets,’ ‘apostles,’ and ‘kings.’ If descendants of polygamy do not look critically at the ideas of their ancestors, Utah children may be increasingly at risk. If two descendants of hierarchical polygamy marry, the chances for genetic defects increase if the families were ever interrelated. This means it may be genetically unwise for children of the early leaders to marry other children of early leaders, even now; yet, this tendency still exists in Mormonism.
http://www.geocities.com/Heartland/Meadows/1247/genepool.htm |
Anonymous
| | Posted on Friday, February 07, 2003 - 8:31 am: |
|
This is a website that exposes all the sexual aberration in Utah. Several Mormon scandals are exposed in it:
http://www.childpro.org/ |
Anonymous
| | Posted on Friday, February 07, 2003 - 8:37 am: |
|
The Mormon Church seems to be placed very similar to where the Catholics were two decades ago: That is they have a practice of keeping secrets, denying responsibility for molestation when it happens, and doing everything they can to prevent it from becoming known; and as a result, the children are not very well protected in that church. |
Anonymous
| | Posted on Friday, February 07, 2003 - 8:51 am: |
|
Mormon leaders, bishops and stake presidents don't have the authority, the qualifications or the understanding to be investigating crimes. Child sexual abuse is a crime that happens all the time in the Mormon church. They deny this all the time in their try to devaluate allegations in law suits around the country against the Mormon Church. |
Anonymous
| | Posted on Friday, February 07, 2003 - 8:56 am: |
|
Mormonism prior to 1890 has little resemblance to today’s orthodox Mormonism. In those early days the meetings were spiced with frequent uninhibited hosanna shouts, hallelujahs, amens, speaking in tongues, and the interruption of the garble. It was nothing at all like today’s subdued, sober, intellectual conferences and sacrament meetings.
Brigham Young: Prophet, Governor, General and Polygamist
Between the year 1852 when Brigham Young admitted to the world that Mormons really did preach and practice plural marriage, and the year of the Manifesto, 1890, “celestial marriage” [polygamy] was the hub of Mormonism around which all other doctrines revolved. Contemporary Mormon fundamentalists have continued that scenario.
Joseph Smith conveniently received a revelation “commanding” him to do what he had already been vigorously doing. Prominent historians believe that the revelation was produced to appease his first wife, Emma, and some of the other concerned ladies. Other authors, mainly Mormon apologists, contend that there was a revelation before the revelation, excusing Joseph of promiscuity before the “published revelation,” but none has been produced. Had Mark Hoffman not been sentenced to prison, maybe he would have found it.
Joseph already had 27 wives when he received the “revelation” July 12, 1843. Eleven wives were between ages 14 and 20 when he married them. This was Mormonism at the fountainhead, supposedly at its best.
Joseph already had 27 wives when he received the “revelation” July 12, 1843. Eleven wives were between ages 14 and 20 when he married them. This was Mormonism at the fountainhead, supposedly at its best.
http://www.polygamybooks.net/pastnprsnt.htm |
Anonymous
| | Posted on Friday, February 07, 2003 - 8:59 am: |
|
The Mormon Church has centered most of its arguments on the
question ofwhen does the state's interest in protecting children override a
church's First Amendment rights to avoid government control. The Court
responded by saying the state's interest in protecting children from the
horrors of sexual abuse "will override even the most sincerely held religious
convictions."
The Court, in an exhaustive opinion, examined each of the Mormon Church's First Amendment claims and found that they did not shield the
Church from this suit.
The Court also found that Jane Doe and her mother "have alleged
sufficient gross, wanton and reckless conduct such that a jury may award
punitive damages." Awards of punitive damages are designed to punish a
defendant in order to deter similar bad conduct in the future.
Although Judge Kirkpatrick had earlier dismissed the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints as defendants on procedural grounds, after hearing arguments from the plaintiff, the Court allowed them to amend their complaint and return the Mormon Church as defendants in the suit.
Church lawyers have attempted to distance the Mormon Church, headquartered in Salt Lake City, Utah, from the local church in Beckley, claiming its members were not acting for the Mormon Church itself when they failed to report the sexual abuse of Jane Doe. The Court found this
contention by the Church unpersuasive and ruled that a jury should decide whether or not Mormon leaders in Salt Lake City exercise control over their local churches.
http://www.valleyskeptic.com/Mchurch.htm |
Anonymous
| | Posted on Friday, February 07, 2003 - 9:00 am: |
|
As Mayor of Nauvoo, Illinois, Joseph Smith issued the following order:
"To the Marshal of said City, greetings.
"You are here commanded to destroy the printing press from whence issues the Nauvoo Expositor, and the type of said printing establishment in the street, and burn all the Expositors and libelous handbills found in said establishment; and if resistance be offered to your execution of this order by the owners or others, demolish the house; and if anyone threatens you or the mayor or the officers of the city, arrest those who threaten you, and fail not to execute this order without delay, and make due return hereon.
"By order of the City Council, Joseph Smith, Mayor" (Vol. 6, p. 448).
In part because of Joseph Smith's demolition of the printing press and the Nauvoo Expositor, he was jailed at Carthage, Illinois. History records that Smith was killed in a gun fight at this jail on 27 June 1844 (History of the Church, Vol. 7, p. 103).
http://www.watchman.org/lds/history.htm |
Anonymous
| | Posted on Friday, February 07, 2003 - 6:40 pm: |
|
You all claim the Mormon church not to be Christian, yet how Christian is it to say:
"...Ashley. She will get married one of these days, will have a lot of children that will eventually be medicated for some Ritalin, and she'll end up being too busy and too fat to think about what is going on with her mind and her identity as a free human being." (Tuesday, February 04, 2003 - 11:48 pm) found on the prevous page located through the link at the top of this page.
You all keep saying what Christ would and wouldn't want his church to do, yet think of the more important question: What would Christ want his disciples to do? It is so hypocrytical to find fault with people just because they are "Mormon" but before you go and judge someone else. Look in the mirror. What kind of Christian are YOU being? |
Anonymous
| | Posted on Friday, February 07, 2003 - 11:12 pm: |
|
I am NOT a Christian. You don't need to be a Christian to discuss in FACTNet. I believe in materialist socialism. I don't know about the other people posting, but after all the psychologic conflicts that I was subjected to through religion, I have gone from Mormonism to Atheism. I just don't believe that religion can lead people to clarity or even to peace. The contrary appears to be evidenced by the many conflicts that are described in this web site. |
Anonymous
| | Posted on Friday, February 07, 2003 - 11:15 pm: |
|
Too many Utah children are taking Ritalin, an Orem legislator believes, and she wants teachers to think twice about implying to anyone that they should.
Under a bill sponsored by Rep. Katherine Bryson, teachers could be charged with a crime if they refer a student's behavioral problems to anyone outside the school other than a parent -- and then only in written form.
Bryson, a Republican, believes schools are partly to blame for "coercing" parents into getting psychotropic drugs such as Ritalin prescribed for problem children. But she presented no evidence that a disproportionate share of psychotropic drugs dispensed in Utah was given to students.
Ritalin, in use since 1955, is often prescribed by doctors to correct attention deficit (hyperactivity) disorder, which interferes with a person's ability to sustain attention or focus on a task. It is characterized by impulsivity, wandering attention and hyperactivity.
http://www.sltrib.com/2002/feb/t02012002.htm |
Anonymous
| | Posted on Friday, February 07, 2003 - 11:16 pm: |
|
UTAH COURT ORDERS CHILDREN TO TAKE PSYCHIATRIC DRUGS, AGAINST THE WILL OF THEIR OWN PARENTS, IN JUNE 16, 1998 HEARING CHILDREN ALREADY IN FOSTER CARE AFTER SEIZURE FROM PARENTS BY GOVERNMENT IN 2 AM POLICE RAID
Support Coalition International is passing on an alert from a member in the State of Utah, who reports that a court has ordered several children to be forced to take psychiatric drugs, against the expressed wishes of their own two parents.
http://www.networksplus.net/fhp/madnation/dendrite6_98.htm |
Anonymous
| | Posted on Friday, February 07, 2003 - 11:25 pm: |
|
An atheist couple who had asked for a civil marriage ceremony was very much offended to have their special day marred by the intrusion of excessive religious language.
Another couple, who had had a religious ceremony performed by a leader in a non-Christian religion, was astonished to find that their marriage certificate was so full of religious jargon from a religion that was not their religion that they were ashamed to show it to their relatives or friends. They subsequently found that upon requesting it, they could get a certificate with language that is neutral as to religion -- but by then, all the visitors had gone home.
How much latitude do you have in the wording of the marriage ceremonies you perform in your county, and how would you respond if asked to perform a purely secular ceremony?
Are marriage certificates with purely secular wording available as an alternative to those containing religious language, and are these routinely offered or do the parties have to ask?
Are those who perform marriage services registered with the county, or with the state?
http://www.atheists-of-utah.org/clerksletter.html |
Anonymous
| | Posted on Friday, February 07, 2003 - 11:27 pm: |
|
Atheism Teaches
There is no heavenly father.
Humankind must protect the orphans and foundlings, or they will not be protected.
There is no god to answer prayer.
Man must hear and help man.
There is no hell.
We have no vindictive god or devil to fear or imitate.
There is no atonement or salvation by faith.
We must face the consequences of our acts.
There is no beneficent or malevolent intent in nature. Life is a struggle against preventable and unpreventable evils. The cooperation of humankind is the only hope of the world.
There is no chance after death to "do our bit."
We must do it now or never.
http://www.utahamericanatheists.org/ |
Anonymous
| | Posted on Friday, February 07, 2003 - 11:29 pm: |
|
FEDS TO OFFER MORMON CHURCH 20-YEAR LEASE ON DISPUTED LAND
Four Senators -- All LDS Members -- Working Behind Scenes On Controversial Deal?
http://64.177.238.218/UtahAA/martin.html |
Anonymous
| | Posted on Saturday, February 08, 2003 - 4:51 am: |
|
To the post dated Feb 7, 6:40 PM. I am a Christian and I always will be. But anyone christian or non christian can point out the false teachings and inconsistencies
in the Mormon church. Because I am christian, if I know something to be false I am going to expose it. And the Mormon church doctrine is a complete joke. There is plenty of evidence here on this board. Click on some of the links posted and read. There are some people in this church who choose to stick their head in the sand instead of really thinking. That's fine. But for the people who are really interested there is plenty of information available. This thread is only pointing the way to some of it. And there is absolutely nothing wrong with providing the information that has been posted here. |
Anonymous
| | Posted on Saturday, February 08, 2003 - 6:54 am: |
|
It is true that religion is the cause of too much hate on this earth. I can understand when people leave Mormonism to become atheists after they were subjected to so much pressure from the priesthood holders in the church, especially after a family has gone through all kinds of traumatizing situations when trying to leave the church. In some of our small towns in Utah, the social pressure is so strong that some decide to move out of town. Also, after you have been forced to believe in so many complex precepts about god and his commandments, the only way out for many is to leave aside the idea of god completely (because it is too dangerous and you may fall again in another form of religious charlatanry), and to try to focus on a few things, real things to believe in: Help the needy and love one another - no matter what god the other may worship - is a good start and it won't hurt anyone. Someone in here wrote that many Mormons leave the church and become atheists. I think that it does not matter what your religion, belief or faith is, the only thing that really matters is that you remain trying to be a good person and that your works and actions may serve others for better. Only fundamental religiosity will try to place another religion in a mind where once first something like Mormon belief existed. For many, it is better to leave the questions of heaven and earth aside for a long time... |
Anonymous
| | Posted on Saturday, February 08, 2003 - 11:17 am: |
|
As a Mormon, I was once prejudiced against the atheists, until I learned to understand where my prejudices came from: In the archaic English language, the atheist would be considered an ungodly, someone who denies or disobeys, an impious, irreligious, sinful and wicked person. Such persons did not deserve respect and would be persecuted. The inquisition persecuted even genial personalities like Galileo for being an atheist. Socrates was poisoned, Voltaire sent to to the Bastille, Diderot sent to prison. Someone who understands these relations between history and the colonialism of religion will easily conclude that even in our days it is certainly safer to claim being a member of some kind of a sect (a sect meaning a group adhering to a distinctive doctrine or to a leader), a party or a fraction, rather than to be "excluded" and persecuted for being considered an "ungodly." Although today's society counts with more resources available for information and scientific research, the lack of education continues to be the strongest reason why in America it is so easy for a fundamentalist charlatan to become a reverend, to lead his own religious community and to make his living from the tidings of the mass, that remains unable to make up their minds for conclusions of their own. |
Anonymous
| | Posted on Saturday, February 08, 2003 - 6:18 pm: |
|
There is truth and there is non truths. With definitions of words agreed upon, I could say a lemon tastes bitter and another person could say a lemon tastes sweet. We could both say we hold the truth. But there is only one truth. There is not your truth or my truth, there is just truth. I am very aware everyone is entitled to believe or not believe as they wish. In the end we will all know what that truth is.
As I stated before I am a Christian but I also think for myself. If any church that claimes to be christian and does not follow the teachings of Christ, it is not christian. I said that before and it is
not an unchristian thing to say as someone previously posted.
As I said before everyone is free to believe as they wish. But everyone including atheists need to know the church is not the God christians believe in. The people are not God. The man made rules are not God. The way the Mormon church in particular make up their own stories and confuse people is not God. Although I know some people who leave the Mormon church are afraid to join any other church. They don't know what's true and what's not. They are afraid to get into a situation similar to the one they just came out of. This could happen with any abusive organization. But what people need to realize is none of this crazy stuff that some of the churches do is what God wants. Some "church leaders' like power, money, admoration, ect ect. They lie, steal, cheat, make up rules as they go, distort scripture and confuse people in their thinking. Leaders are just people and they are not perfect. After leaving a situation like this some want nothing to do with God. They blame God for what man has done to them. Some don't even believe in God. I understand that. But it was never God that deceived you, or took your money. or made you jump through hoops just to be "worthy" to become "mini gods in celestial heaven". I do want you to know not all Christians are like that. I know some become atheists after leaving the Mormon church, but know this, you don't have to be a part of organized religion to believe and know God. But if you choose to not believe in God then I still wish you well. |
Anonymous
| | Posted on Saturday, February 08, 2003 - 6:37 pm: |
|
I never said it was unChristian to state your opinion. But it IS unChristian to insult someone
saying thay they will be fat and stupid. I don't agree with what you say about the Mormon church. I'm Mormon and I believe that it is true. Yet, whether we agree or not is not an issue. We are both Christian, and we are both stiving to follow the word of God. Why is there a debate? We are both on the same side. |
Anonymous
| | Posted on Saturday, February 08, 2003 - 9:36 pm: |
|
I am the post dated Feb 8, 6:18 PM. I never said anyone was fat or stupid. I didn't personally insult anyone. I was speaking about churches. You are speaking about another person. I appreciate very much that you say "we are both striving to follow the word of God", because you do sound sincere. I would like to ask you some questions Ashley couldn't answer. I am not going to fight or argue. I have read posts from ex mormons but I don't think people still in the Mormon church have posted since I started except Ashley. You ask "Why is there a debate?" I think you would understand more if you were willing to answer a few questions and hear me out. Are you willing? |
Anonymous
| | Posted on Saturday, February 08, 2003 - 10:26 pm: |
|
I appreciate the different opinions posted in this discussion: We had a few chances to learn what happens inside those temples, what teachings are imposed on the people also by using threats and fear in order to keep them as members; we have read about the treatment of women and children in the Mormon Church and we have studied the history of Mormonism and how it was changed and rewritten by the Mormon leaders through the history.
It is good to remember that even when there may be atheists, Christians, Jews or Moslems in this discussion, the reasons why most of us are exposing different points of view are more or less the same:
> We are interested to find out why is the mormon church a cult.
> We want to learn the dogmas that the Mormon church imposes on the people after they have accepted to become members.
> Why it is dangerous when our relatives or friends may be considering their conversion to the Mormon Church?
> How can we help the ones we love if they are about to enter that obsessive compulsive group?
> What is the difference among mainstream Christianity and the Mormon teachings that are promoted inside the temples?
> What to do with family members that have been subjected to the Mormon use of threats and fear to remain silent and keep attending the meetings?
> Where to seek help, if someone we know is in danger of entering that cult or trying to leave the cult?
> How can we live among the Mormons (for the ones of us who live in Utah), maintaining a safe mental environment for our family members?
I have been very interested to read some responses given by Ashley to the questions that were posted about the Mormons. Ashley did not respond to at least one of the questions that many former mormons have asked with sincere interest regarding their [former] religion.
It seems very much predictable that if Ashley continues following that cult in the complete intellectual blindness and that the church has imposed on her mind, she will most likely end up like many other women whose lives have been destroyed by the psychologic manipulation and the [false] "authority" of the priesthood leaders in the LDS church.
A young woman in Ashley's situation will most likely not be given a chance to understand that in reality she is dealing with a patriarchi of white supremacists that do not endorse independent thinking among their members, even less if they are women.
About Atheism, it is one of the alternatives available for people that have been mind-controlled for too long and too intensively, especially after having been forced to believe all of the terrible lies and fantasies that the Mormons indoctrinate on their members. Atheism works for some ex-Mormons the same way like an alcoholic needs to stay dry if he does not want to fall in the vice again. It is sad to admit it, but Mormonism correctly practiced for longer periods of time will leave serious mental damages after the members see clear and decide to leave. By that time, it often becomes difficult for many to believe in any variant of the Bible revival stories, or to follow the revelations of any person talking about spiritual salvation. The ex-Mormon knows how he has been deceived and will protect his mind from the same error happening again.
To the person that posted on February 8, 2003 -05:37 pm, I don't think we are both Christians: If you say you are Mormon, you are NOT REALLY a Christian, because your religious understanding of the biblical Jesus does not match any of the basic principles of Christianity. |
Anonymous
| | Posted on Saturday, February 08, 2003 - 10:56 pm: |
|
I agree completely with the above post. |
Anonymous
| | Posted on Sunday, February 09, 2003 - 9:26 am: |
|
Marie Wood and Terry Borman sued the University of Utah Medical Center, Salt Lake City, after their baby was born with Down syndrome.
The couple sought genetic counseling because they knew the baby was at increased risk of genetic problems because of Wood's age. Tests at the medical center showed there was an 85% chance the child would be born with Down syndrome. But according to court documents, physicians told Wood and Borman "not to worry because the tests often resulted in false-positives" and led the couple to believe there was only a small chance the child would have Down syndrome.
The baby girl was born in August 1998 and diagnosed with Down syndrome.
http://www.ama-assn.org/sci-pubs/amnews/pick_03/gvsb0203.htm |
Anonymous
| | Posted on Sunday, February 09, 2003 - 9:28 am: |
|
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION:
Case at a glance
Marie Wood and Terry Borman individually and as the natural parents of Mary Lorraine Wood Borman, a minor, v. University of Utah Medical Center
Venue: Utah Supreme Court
At issue: Whether the state's Wrongful Life Act is constitutional.
Potential impact: The court ruled that the law is constitutional. The decision protects physicians from lawsuits if a prenatal genetic screening test is misinterpreted. Some parents say the law could allow physicians who oppose abortion to withhold information that might cause a woman to get an abortion.
http://www.ama-assn.org/sci-pubs/amnews/pick_03/gvsb0203.htm#rbar_add |
Anonymous
| | Posted on Sunday, February 09, 2003 - 9:34 am: |
|
Modern advances in DNA research discredit the Book of Mormon and show that Mormonism's founder, Joseph Smith, engaged in deception, according to a cultural anthropologist and lifelong Mormon.
The recently published research of Thomas Murphy, chairman of the anthropology department at Edmonds Community College in Lynnwood, Wash., drew sharp rebuke from officials with the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, often called Mormons. Murphy was threatened with excommunication from the church, a matter left pending after a Dec. 8 hearing was postponed.
Murphy, 35, traces his personal lineage through the first Mormon pioneers who settled in the West. But contrary to Mormon doctrine, he contends it is highly unlikely that Mormons can trace the lineage of American Indians through a Jewish remnant the Book of Mormon calls Lamanites.
According to the Book of Mormon, a "lost tribe of Israel" migrated to the Americas in 600 B.C. The introduction to the Book of Mormon describes these Lamanites as "the principal ancestors of the American Indians."
The Lamanites allegedly lapsed into apostacy, but Joseph Smith claimed to have been shown golden tablets bearing their story by an angel named Moroni. Smith said he translated these tablets in 1823 from an unknown language called Reformed Egyptian, thus creating the Book of Mormon.
Mormons contend they are the true remnant of the Christian church, the one true church. Many Christian scholars historically have insisted Mormonism is a cult or sect, not a legitimate branch of Christianity. Although no historical support for Joseph Smith's claims has been found, Mormons have accepted the church's teachings on faith, including subsequent revelations said to have been given to the church's prophet or president.
Because Latter-day Saints (LDS) and the Book of Mormon have faced stiff criticism from traditional Christian churches, leaders of the Mormon church initially expressed hope that genetic research might validate their beliefs.
"The hope is that DNA research would link Native Americans to ancient Israelites, buttressing LDS beliefs in a way that has not been forthcoming from archaeological, linguistic, historical or morphological research," Murphy wrote in his academic paper, titled "Lamanite Genesis, Geology and Genetics."
The paper was published last fall in "American Apocrypha: Essays on the Book of Mormon." Murphy also is a doctoral candidate at the University of Washington, where his dissertation work focuses on Mormon representations of Native Americans.
Any hopes the LDS church had of gaining credence through science have been dashed, Murphy wrote in the essay. "So far, DNA research lends no support to traditional Mormon beliefs about the origins of Native Americans. ... Latter-day Saints should not expect to find validation for the Book of Mormon in genetics."
Whole article here:
http://www.mcjonline.com/news/03a/20030120c.shtml |
Anonymous
| | Posted on Sunday, February 09, 2003 - 9:44 am: |
|
They Serve Coca-Cola in Hell
Caffeine: The Choice of an Evil and Corrupt Generation
(or, How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love the Word of Wisdom)
http://fray.ca/treatises/cokehead.html |
Anonymous
| | Posted on Sunday, February 09, 2003 - 9:50 am: |
|
SALT LAKE CITY -- A University of Washington graduate student with Mormon family roots says he will probably be excommunicated for articles that he has written questioning the validity of the Book of Mormon.
Thomas Murphy, 35, published an article in the May Signature Books anthology, "American Apocrypha," that uses genetic data to discredit the Book of Mormon claim that Native Americans are heathen descendants of ancient Israel. The conclusion also is the thesis of his UW doctoral dissertation.
"We're told to tell the truth, but not if the truth contradicts church doctrine. I would prefer to tell the truth," Murphy said.
http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/local/98020_mormon02.shtml |
Anonymous
| | Posted on Sunday, February 09, 2003 - 10:28 am: |
|
The unpleasant nature of life in the mormon church has no relation to whether or not it's true.
I despise the mormon church for all the mind control, exploitation and lying, but unfortunately those negatives are not a reflection of the truth/untruth of the matter. No matter how much the church sucks, it could still be true. Lots and lots of very unpleasant things in life are true. Leaving the church because it sucks is logically no different than joining/remaining because it teaches things you like. How many times have we heard a mormon extol the virtues of the church's teachings as some kind of justification for believing? Staying because you like the values is as logically flawed as leaving because you don't.
I've found that those ex-mormons most likely to relapse are the ones that left simply because they were unhappy with the lifestyle or culture of the church. A lot of people used it as a catalyst to investigate the truth which confirmed their feelings, but not all. Those whose disaffection led them to seek the truth are much better off. They felt something was wrong, looked into the facts, and left with a clear conscience once they confirmed what a fraud it all is. Unfortunately, not everyone does the homework and many ex-mormons simply leave because they were offended or unhappy with the lifestyle, the people, or the culture. Yes it's true! Mormons are actually sometimes RIGHT when they say the so-and-so left because they were offended or because they wanted to feel free to live a non-mormon lifestyle (i.e. "sin").
The friends I had while growing up were mostly mormons. The ones who left and never looked back were the ones who used critical thinking and honest investigation to peer through the murk. The ones who left because they were mad at their parents, or wanted to party, or because the bishop was a perv, these were the ones who relapsed later in life and came back to the "fold" (god I hate that word!).
It's downright eerie to talk with some of these people. I have fond memories of them as wild fun-loving 18-20 year olds with open minds, a love of life, and a detached amusement about the cultish fervor of the mormons. Now they are married in the temple and their walls are covered with those treacly mormon affirmations that make you gag. Unbelievable. I have one friend who throughout our high school years always complained to me about the "brain washing" that went on in young women's. She was sickened by the mantras they were forced to repeat about getting married in the temple and having babies and obeying their husbands. She clearly saw it for the mind control tactic that it was.
Now she's married in the temple and has a baby and obeys her husband like a good mormon woman! I often wonder HOW did this happen? How do you go from seeing so clearly to getting blinded again? My theory is that she never really saw clearly. She was simply rebelling against control, like many teenagers no matter what their circumstances, and that once she got a little older, the brainwashing re-asserted itself because she had never consciously fought against it. She just wanted to party and after she got past the age where you party too much, mormonism pulled her back in with a vengeance.
This all shows that it's VERY difficult to overcome the mind-control of the mormon cult. Bursting out of it was the hardest thing I've ever done in my life. I spent five or six years fully putting it to rest. Being born and raised is different than being a convert, so I can't speak to that experience. Converts tend to come and go, but the ones who were born and raised have a VERY hard time getting out. And mormons KNOW this. They often pounce when an inactive child or friend has a kid because they know that is a vulnerable time for people who don't have strong convictions. Lots of mormons who left the church come back once they start a family. I believe it's because the same logic they used as an excuse for leaving works on them as a reason for coming back. "The church sucks, I don't like the values or culture, therefore it can't be true. I'm outta here" vs. "I agree with the values taught by the church, and I really love my family so I hope I can be with them forever, my baby is an amazing miracle, there must be a god, so the church must be true". The same weak logic that got them out is what sucked them back in.
What is the point of this? I guess I'm trying to say that if you're on the fence, if you're here lurking on this board because you are starting to feel disaffection with the church, DON'T LEAVE just because you feel uncomfortable or the bishop is a jerk or the men are lording their priesthood over you or the temple ceremony feels invasive or any of the millions of reasons people have. Use your feelings as an excuse to look at the truth effectively. If you just leave in a huff you are more vulnerable to getting sucked back in especially if you're young. I've seen it countless times.
Learn the facts. You should leave because you KNOW the church is not true, not because you WANT it to be not true. You will be much more firm in your unbelief and that much safer from getting sucked back in.
Poker Face
PS: Don't get me wrong. I believe the church DOES suck and is a malevolent institution. If someone leaves for no other reason than being unhappy, it's better than staying. If someone leaves for another set of superstitious beliefs, most of them are better for their happiness than mormonism. I'd much rather see my family and friends become the laid-back, "jesus loves you so don't worry about it" kind of christians. I'm an atheist but I know that atheism is not the only route out of the church. But whatever route is taken, it's best to do the full investigation of the facts, especially if you were born and raised in the church, because the mind control is pernicious and tenacious. |
Anonymous
| | Posted on Sunday, February 09, 2003 - 10:36 am: |
|
Because of family ties, jobs, familiarity or just plain stubbornness, many of the former Mormons have decided to stay in hostile territory and try to make friends--or at least live a peaceful life in a parallel universe alongside the church.
http://www.mazeministry.com/mormonism/misc/exmormons/exmormons.htm |
Anonymous
| | Posted on Sunday, February 09, 2003 - 10:40 am: |
|
This is a good site with information about the rites practiced in the Mormon temples:
http://www.lds-mormon.com/veilworker/endowment.shtml |
Anonymous
| | Posted on Sunday, February 09, 2003 - 10:48 am: |
|
Why were the rituals changed since 1990 in the Mormon temple? The leaders must have received a lot of public pressure to do that. This is how it was practiced until 1990:
Death Penalties.
Prior to 1990, the endowment included specific "penalties" for revealing its secrets. These penalties were demonstrated by certain signs made during the ritual, and they symbolized having the throat cut, the breast cut open, and the bowels torn out. The wording was toned down in recent years, and finally removed in 1990. Knowledge of these penalties remain important to understand why Mormons were afraid to talk about the temple rituals. They could loose their lives over it! This section includes the actual wording of these oaths, as well as a photograph of a man in temple clothes demonstating the "penal signs."
http://www.lds-mormon.com/veilworker/endowment1.shtml |
Anonymous
| | Posted on Sunday, February 09, 2003 - 11:01 am: |
|
RITUALISTIC CHILD ABUSE IN THE MORMON CHURCH: RITUAL ABUSE CONFIRMED
While the sexual abuse reported above is certainly very distressing to read about, there is another form of abuse that is far worse because it includes extreme torture along with all types of sexual abuse. This is the ritual abuse of children. Although it is often referred to as satanic ritual abuse, those who participate in it do not always worship Satan. They may, in fact, be occultists who worship other gods. In addition, many of those involved in this evil practice may not even believe in the existence of any god. They simply use occultic or satanic trappings to terrify their victims.
Although we knew there was a group that broke off from the Mormon Church and committed many murders (the LeBarons), and two dissident brothers (the Laffertys) who ritually sacrificed a baby by cutting its throat, we were not aware that anything like this was going on within the Mormon Church.
In July 1991, however, we were presented with a copy of a very sensational memo written by a General Authority of the Mormon Church. It was a highly secret document authored by Glenn L. Pace, Second Counselor in the Presiding Bishopric of the church. It was dated July 19, 1990, and was directed to the "Strengthening Church Members Committee" of the Mormon Church. In the memo Pace states that he met with many victims of "ritualistic child abuse," and that "All sixty individuals are members of the Church."
This is the text:
"Pursuant to the Committee's request, I am writing this memorandum to pass along what I have learned about ritualistic child abuse. Hopefully, it will be of some value to you as you continue to monitor the problem. You have already received the LDS Social Services report on satanism dated May 24, 1989... I have met with sixty victims. That number could be twice or three times as many if I did not discipline myself to only one meeting per week.... All sixty individuals are members of the Church. Forty-five victims allege witnessing and/or participating in human sacrifice. The majority were abused by relatives, often their parents. All have developed psychological problems and most have been diagnosed as having multiple personality disorder or some other form of dissociative disorder.
"Ritualistic child abuse is the most hideous of all child abuse. The basic objective is premeditated -- to systematically and methodically torture and terrorize children until they are forced to dissociate....
"Many individuals with whom I have spoken have served missions... One individual has memories of participating in rituals while serving as a full-time missionary.... when sixty witnesses testify to the same type of torture and murder, it becomes impossible for me, personally, not to believe them....
"Children are put in a situation where they believe they are going to die -- such as being buried alive or being placed in a plastic bag and immersed in water. Prior to doing so, the abuser tells the child to pray to Jesus to see if He will save her. Imagine a seven year old girl, having been told she is going to die, praying to Jesus to save her and nothing happens -- then at the last moment she is rescued, but the person saving her is a representative of Satan. He uses this experience to convince her that the only person who really cares about her is Satan, she is Satan's child and she might as well become loyal to him.
"Just before or shortly after their baptism into the Church, children are baptized by blood into the satanic order which is meant to cancel out their baptism into the Church.... Most victims are suicidal. They have been brainwashed with drugs, hypnosis, and other means to become suicidal as soon as they start to tell the secrets. They have been threatened all of their lives that if they don't do what they are told their brother or sister will be burned, or they themselves will be killed.... They believe they might as well kill themselves instead of wait for the occult to do it.... Our priesthood leaders, when faced with such cases, are understandably at a loss of how to respond....
"I'm sorry to say that many of the victims have had their first flashbacks while attending the temple for the first time. The occult along the Wasatch Front use the doctrine of the Church to their advantage. For example, the verbiage and gestures are used in a ritualistic ceremony in a very debased and often bloody manner. When the victim goes to the temple and hears the exact words, horrible memories are triggered.... The perpetrators are also living a dual life. Many are temple recommend holders. This leads to another reason why the Church needs to consider the seriousness of these problems. In affect, the Church is being used.
"I go out of my way to not let the victims give me the names of the perpetrators. I have told them that my responsibility is to help them with spiritual healing and that the names of perpetrators should be given to therapists and law enforcement officers. However, they have told me the positions in the Church of members who are perpetrators. Among others, there are Young Women leaders, Young Men leaders, bishops, a patriarch, a stake president, temple workers, and members of the Tabernacle Choir. These accusations are not coming from individuals who think they recognized someone, but from those who have been abused by people they know, in many cases their own family members.... Not only do some of the perpetrators represent a cross section of the Mormon culture, but sometimes the abuse has taken place in our own meetinghouses.... I have met with 60 victims. Assuming each one comes from a coven of 13, we are talking about the involvement of 800 or so right here on the Wasatch Front. Obviously, I have only seen those coming forth to get help." (Memorandum written by Bishop Glenn L. Pace to the Strengthening Church Membership Committee, July 19, 1990, pages 1-5)
http://www.utlm.org/newsletters/no91.htm#RITUAL%20ABUSE%20CONFIRMED |
Anonymous
| | Posted on Sunday, February 09, 2003 - 11:02 am: |
|
Significantly, when the report by the ritual abuse investigators was released, the Mormon Church's newspaper, Deseret News, revealed a great deal about one of the three victims whose parents confessed to the practice of satanic ritual abuse. Deseret News staff writer Jerry Spangler wrote the following about this important case:
"From the time she was 3 years old until she became a young adult, Rachel Hopkins was ritualistically tortured, raped, bathed in blood and threatened that she would be killed if she ever told anyone.
"It's a story so bizarre and so terrifying that some people refuse to believe that it really happened. Hopkins (not her real name) was a victim of what is commonly called satanic ritual abuse -- a phenomenon that many psychological experts say doesn't exist.
"Rather, they argue, memories of ritualistic abuse are fantasies or false memories planted by unscrupulous therapists. 'I am sure there are cases where bogus therapists have suggested things. Of course, there are false memories,' Hopkins said. 'But that is not what happened to me.'
"Like most victims of satanic ritual abuse, Hopkins remembered the abuse many years later. But her case is significantly different from others.
"She has the signed confessions of her parents -- both of whom admitted abusing her during satanic rituals -- that corroborate every memory she has of the abuse. The confessions offer much greater detail of events Rachel could not have known.
"Hopkins' parents also confessed in detail to two investigators from the Utah attorney general's office and to leaders of the church they attended.
"Hopkins was also able to recover a photograph of herself as a child that shows bruises inflicted during the ritual abuse. Her siblings have also corroborated the events surrounding the ritual abuse.
" 'The biggest weapon they (occultists) have is secrecy,' she said. 'By our society not acknowledging that it exists, we aid in that secrecy and we refuse to allow the healing to begin.'...
"Hopkins... has met repeatedly with investigators Matt Jacobson and Mike King from the attorney general's office, who said her case was 'absolutely, concrete evidence' of satanic ritual abuse. They even requested her permission to cite her case specifically in the report and asked her to talk to the media about her experience.
" 'The truth is they (occultists) do wear black robes, they do abuse children, they do kill animals,' she said. 'It exists, and to say otherwise is to deny the facts in front of them. Our society used to deny the existence of incest, too, because we didn't want to believe it.'
"Today, Hopkins... is a mother of two children, she has been happily married for 20 years, she has just returned to college to complete her undergraduate degree and she is devoted to the LDS Church.
"Hopkins recalls how her parents and others, some of them relatives, would dress in black robes for sporadic rituals that involved terror and torture. 'I was sexually abused in every way you can conceive. I was tortured and had the bottoms of my feet cut, I was made to believe I was killing a baby, and they forced me to kill dogs and cats,' she said.
" 'I was bathed in a tub of blood and forced to look at myself in a mirror. I was tied up and hung upside down and spun. I was suffocated and electrocuted to the point of being bowed and paralyzed. Sometimes they forced me and my siblings to hurt one another. They would tell me, "now you're one of us. If you tell anybody, they won't believe you and they'll put you in a mental hospital." And they threatened to torture me until I was dead.'
"Hopkins and her siblings believe Rachel was singled out for more intensive abuse because of her blond hair and blue eyes and because she refused to submit willingly to the rituals....
"Two years and eight months ago the memories started coming back. At first, she couldn't believe it either. She had heard of satanic ritual abuse before but had never associated her memories with that behavior.
" 'The first time I called my parents up and told them I had been sexually abused and I knew they did it, they told me I was hallucinating,' she said. 'Since that time, they have written letters to each of the children confirming everything in explicit detail.'
"For Hopkins, the healing began when people started to believe her -- her husband, her therapist, church leaders and even the attorney general's investigators.
" 'It was my faith in Jesus Christ that got me through it all,' she said. 'I am at peace with this now.'... But I want those out there who may have been victimized by this kind of abuse to know that there are those who believe them. With a good therapist, they can start the healing process, too. They can break free of this and have a new life,' she said." (Deseret News, April 25, 1995)
http://www.utlm.org/newsletters/no91.htm#RITUAL%20ABUSE%20CONFIRMED |
Anonymous
| | Posted on Monday, February 10, 2003 - 7:23 am: |
|
I found a Mormon website that explains why people leave the LDS church. They do not mention the questions previously posted in this column at all. I tried to find at least one explanation that could perhaps give me an answer to the many questions that have been posted in here for clarification, for the relief of my conscience (I am now a Jack Mormon), but no response is the only response that I found.
In one part of the apologetical website, they even explain the theory of the "eternal Polygamy" as a lack of understanding in one member:
""I found a particular doctrine offensive"
Sometimes people complain that a particular doctrine is offensive. But this always means that they do not understand the doctrine.
For example, one ex-member was married in the temple, but her husband died soon after. Temple marriage means marriage for eternity, not just "'til death do us part." It is a great and wonderful thing to work towards. Now, single men in the church naturally tend to look for someone they can be with forever. As this woman was going to be reunited with her first husband in the next life, this meant that members looking for an eternal companion might decide to look elsewhere. She saw this as a "terrible stigma," that she was a second choice, a less desirable partner. She would never find a good husband!
It is very sad that she felt this way, and no doubt the pain was very real. We should not make light of her suffering. But she did not understand the doctrine. If she understood the revealed doctrine, she would know that she was in a very privileged position compared with women who do not have an eternal companion."
Well, this explanation is not really an explanation, but only a brainwashed ideology that has no other foundation than the polygamist background. The Mormons are weird!
http://www.whyprophets.com/prophets/excuses.htm |
Anonymous
| | Posted on Monday, February 10, 2003 - 7:34 am: |
|
They Ignore All the Discoveries That Support the Book of Mormon:
When the Book of Mormon was published, it contained references to many things for which there was then no evidence. (For example, a literate civilization, the use of cement, writing on metal plates, or numerous other "anachronisms.") As the years have gone by, the Book of Mormon has been proven right again and again. The list of "what remains to be discovered" is getting shorter and shorter.
http://www.whyprophets.com/prophets/antis.htm |
Anonymous
| | Posted on Monday, February 10, 2003 - 7:36 am: |
|
Did Joseph Smith Say There Were Men on the Moon?
"There is no evidence from Joseph Smith's day that he ever said such a thing. The sole source for this claim is one person's journal entry from 1881 that was published in 1892. Joseph died in 1844. Can we trust an alleged reminiscence separated by decades and unattested by anyone else? It's not the kind of thing that ought to make anyone lose an iota of faith or sleep.
"But suppose Joseph did think that people lived on the moon – so what? Many people did in the early 1800s. There had been a newspaper hoax in Joseph's day in which it was claimed that Sir John Herschel had discovered that the moon was inhabited by people. If Joseph or Brigham Young or other Church leaders believed such errant reports, does it make those men false prophets? If President Hinckley, in the course of routine conversation, describes atoms in terms of the old model with spherical electrons in fixed orbits around a nucleus, has he lost credibility as a revelator chosen by God? ... If President Hinckley as a matter of opinion says that he expects the Green Bay Packers to go to the Superbowl, should we reject him if the Packers fall short? We do not believe that prophets will have divinely guided opinions on every matter 24 hours a day, but only prophets when acting as such."
http://www.whyprophets.com/prophets/antis.htm |
Anonymous
| | Posted on Monday, February 10, 2003 - 7:39 am: |
|
Are Latter-day Saints Christian? Of course!
(Beware the hypocrisy of exclusionary definitions.)
Critics often concoct special definitions of the term "Christian" to exclude those with whom they disagree. This is especially true of anti-Mormons, who delight in propagating the myth that Latter-day Saints ("Mormons") aren't Christian. This page exposes their tactics and answers common questions about our status as Christians. As an additional resource, I also suggest the recent comments of President Gordon B. Hinckley at the April 2000 General Conference, entitled "My Testimony." Can any sincere person read those powerful words and wonder if that man is not a Christian, or if this Church is not all about following the living Christ, our Savior and Redeemer? See also the article, "Are Mormons Christians?" at the official LDS site.
This page is one of several in a suite on "Frequently Asked Questions about Latter-day Saint Beliefs." This work is solely the responsibility of Jeff Lindsay and, in spite of my best efforts, does not necessarily reflect official LDS doctrine. Though I strive to accurately convey LDS doctrine, I must contend with my own views, biases and opinions. In other words, I may get some things wrong. Ah, mortality!
http://www.jefflindsay.com/LDSFAQ/FQ_Christian.shtml |
Anonymous
| | Posted on Tuesday, February 11, 2003 - 1:16 am: |
|
You have a right to defend your church. But no matter what you post and I have read your links, I still don't believe The Mormon church is christian. I do believe the members may believe they are. Do you realize you don't even worship the same God that christians worship? |
Anonymous
| | Posted on Tuesday, February 11, 2003 - 2:39 am: |
|
Christianity is one thing and Mormonism is something else entirely. If the beliefs are so different how can it be said both are Christian? I can't judge if a individual person is saved or not. But I can say the Mormon church is NOT christian.
Below are only a few of so many sites I couldn't post them all that say the same thing. The last one is especially interesting as it uses different writers,
but all come to the same conclusion.
http://www.bible-truth.org/christld.htm
http://www.watchman.org/lds/ministries.htm
http://www./jesuscafe.or./resources/transcripts/mormons.html |
Anonymous
| | Posted on Tuesday, February 11, 2003 - 8:09 am: |
|
Yes, but those sites are published by some Christian clergy, it is not always a good idea to use them as a norm for any normality. Who norms the Christian clergy? do you think a Catholic priest that rapes children is more Christian than a Mormon that believes in polygamy? Do you think the perverted evangelic minister that preaches to the people only as a means to make his living is more worthy of being called a Christian than the Mormon who believes he will become a God? I think you are all wrong and full of vanity. At least the Mormons have created their own economic system and don't ask the government for money, so that the taxpayers are not financing their illusions. But, in the case of the Christian clergy, we all have to pay for whatever "Jesus-Jesus!" scream they want to trademark. |
Anonymous
| | Posted on Tuesday, February 11, 2003 - 8:31 am: |
|
JESUS, JESUS...?
THE TRUTHFUL WITNESS
"If I [Jesus] bear witness of myself, my witness is not true." (John 5:31)
"I [Jesus] am one that bear witness of myself..." (John 8:18)
According to these scriptures, Jesus was a false witness.
THE GENEALOGY OF JESUS
"And Jacob begat Joseph the husband of Mary...." (Matthew 1:16)
"And Jesus himself began to be about thirty years of age, being ... the son of Joseph, which was the son of Heli..."(Luke 3:23)
WHO JESUS SAID WAS GOD
"Jesus answered them, Is it not written in your law, I said, Ye are gods?" (John 10:34)
According to this scripture, Jesus thought that the Jewish law (i.e., the Old Testament) reported that he said the Jews were gods.
THE VIRGIN BIRTH
"Concerning his Son Jesus Christ our Lord, which was made of the seed of David according to the flesh...." (Romans 1:3)
THE SO-CALLED SON OF GOD'S COURAGE
"And I [Jesus] say unto you my friends, Be not afraid of them that kill the body, and after that have no more that they can do." (Luke 12:4)
"Then took they up stones to cast at him: but Jesus hid himself, and went out of the temple..." (John 8:59)
"After these things Jesus walked in Galilee: for he would not walk in Jewry, because Jews sought to kill him." (John 7:1)
A case of do as I say, not as I do!
THE PRINCE OF PEACE
"Suppose ye that I am come to give peace on earth? I [Jesus] tell you, Nay; but rather division: For from henceforth there shall be five in one house divided, three against two, and two against three." (Luke 12:51-2)
"Think not that I [Jesus] have come to send peace on earth: I come not to send peace, but a sword." (Matthew 10:34)
"...for all they that take the sword shall perish with the sword." (Matthew 26:52)
"...and he that hath no sword, let him sell his garment, and buy one." (Luke 22:36)
And to think that these ravings are supposed to be the sayings of one some call the prince of peace.
WHOLESOME FAMILY RELATIONSHIPS
"For I [Jesus] am come to set a man at variance against his father, and the daughter against her mother, and the daughter in law against her mother in law. And a man's foes shall be they of his own household." (Matthew 10:35-6)
"If any man come unto me, and hate not his father, and mother, and wife, and children, and brethren, and sisters, yea, and his own life also, he cannot be my disciple." (Luke 14:26)
"Honour thy father and thy mother..." (Matthew 19:19)
"And call no man your father upon earth..." (Mathew 23:9)
HIS FOLLOWERS
"All that ever came before me [Jesus] are thieves and robbers..." (John 10:8)
GREAT WISDOM OF HIS TEACHINGS
"Therefore whosoever heareth these sayings of mine, and doeth them, I [Jesus] will liken him unto a wise man..." (Matthew 7:24)
"And if thy right eye offend thee, pluck it out, and cast it from thee: for it is profitable for thee that one of thy members should perish..." (Matthew 5:29)
Who in their right mind would pluck out their eye and think that it was profitable?
THE HOUR OF THE CRUCIFIXION
"And it was the third hour, and they crucified him." (Mark 15:25)
(John 19:12-18) clearly shows that he was not crucified until after the sixth hour.
SCRIPTURAL ACCURACIES
"Then was fulfilled [by Jesus] that which was spoken by Jeremy the prophet..." (Matthew 27:9)
It was Zechariah, not Jeremy, who made that prophecy. See (Zechariah 11:12)
"...that it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the prophets, He [Jesus] shall be called a Nazarene." (Matthew 2:23)
There is no mention by the Old Testament prophets that this Jesus fellow would be called a Nazarene. God was often confused when writing the Bible.
BROKEN PROMISES
"Verily I [Jesus] say unto you, This generation shall not pass, till all these things [the end of the world] be fulfilled." (Matthew 24:34, Mark 13:30, Luke 21:32)
"And all things, whatsoever ye shall ask in prayer, believing, ye shall receive." (Matthew 21:22)
The early followers of Jesus died waiting for the end of the world, and even today, over 1900 years later, some Christians still believe that the world is to end in their generation, and that Jesus will give them anything that they ask for in prayer.
RESURRECTION
His friends come to Jesus' tomb, but the doorstone is rolled away and one angel sitting on the outside gives the news to them before they go in. (Matthew 28:1-8)
His friends come to the tomb, go inside, find nobody, are perplexed, and then two men give them the news. (Luke 24:1-4)
The other resurrection stories are different as well.
WHAT IS THE BIBLE?
The Bible is one of twenty-seven books for which divine origin is claimed. Christians deny the divinity of all Bibles but their own. We deny the divinity of only one more than they do.
Out of 250 Jewish-Christian writings, sixty-six have arbitrarily been declared canonical by Protestants. The rejected books are of the same general character as those now published together as the "Holy Bible." Circumstances rather than merit determined selection.
For 150 years the Christian Bible consisted of the sacred books of the Jews. The New Testament was not formed until the latter half of the second century when Irenaeus selected twenty books from among forty or more gospels, nearly as many acts of apostles, a score of revelations and a hundred epistles. Why were these particular books chosen? Why four gospels instead of one? Irenaeus: "There are four quarters of the earth in which we live and four universal winds." The gospels were unknown to Peter, Paul, and the early church fathers. They were forged later.
The Bible did not assume anything like its present form until the fourth century. The Roman Catholic, Greek Catholic, and Protestant canons were not adopted until modern times. The Bible was recognized as a collection of independent writings. The Council of Trent (1563) determined the Roman Catholic, Protestants denounce the Catholic Bible as a "popish imposture." The Greek Catholics at the Council of Jerusalem in 1672 finally accepted the book of Revelation. Their Bible contains several books not in the Roman canon. The Westminster Assembly in 1647 approved the list of sixty-six books composing the authorized version, the one most used in America. Our Bible, therefore, is less than 300 years old.
CONCLUSION
The Christian faith is based on the belief that the Bible is indeed the word of god. If the Bible cannot be shown to be inspired, then the Christian faith could be said to be false and no more than a farce. If the Bible cannot be shown to be inspired, then Christianity can be said to be the same as any other religion that has been devised and practiced by man.
The Bible story of Jesus is a contradictory and confusing account. The Bible shows that this Jesus fellow spoke and taught many absurd and foolish things, and often believed he was having a conversation with devils. If one will read the entire Bible, one will find tales of ignorance, murder, sexual perversions, mass insanity, idiotic laws, and even cannibalism and human sacrifice. It staggers the imagination how anyone in his right mind could read the Bible and believe that it was written by a wise, just, and loving god. Christians have found biblical scriptures telling them to burn people at the stake, to justify slavery, to oppress and persecute others, and to kill and commit war in the name of their god. Unfortunately, there are some even today who would have us return to the teachings and laws found in the Bible.
We are taught in our culture that Jesus is the divine hero, but other cultures have different saviors. Religious beliefs are a function of the culture in which one lives. If we had been reared in a different culture, we would have heard the story of a different savior, instead of the Jesus story. Upon comparing the stories of the different saviors, one finds that the similarities are so striking, it is beyond a doubt that they are more than just a coincidence.
Jesus is a myth just like all the other saviors and gods of old. Atheism is the clear and rational alternative to the confusion, fear, and superstition that are offered by religion. Atheism encourages freedom of thought and inquiry, while religion by its very nature has to encourage unquestioning obedience and blind faith in doctrines. Belief in god myths has brought misery, suppression of thought and inquiry, fear, and has promoted ignorance. The human race no longer needs these myths of old. Just as little children grow up and learn the truth about the existence of the tooth fairy, the human race needs to mature and learn the truth about the existence of god.
For those interested, American Atheist Press publishes a magazine, books, and numerous articles that inquire into the god myths and offer clear alternatives to those offered by religion. Membership is offered in American Atheists, the organization that promotes Atheism, stands for complete separation of state and church, and opposes those who would take away our freedoms and place America under the laws of the Bible instead of the Constitution. The choice between religion and Atheism is yours.
All Bible quotes are from the Authorized King James Version of the Bible (Abradale Press, New York). |
Anonymous
| | Posted on Tuesday, February 11, 2003 - 4:52 pm: |
|
I thought this was a thread about Mormons and not atheists. Trying to prove there is no God and that Jesus is a myth is falling on deaf ears, with christians and even with Mormons. Your thinking as been twisted so much from the Mormon church that now you don't believe there is a God at all. Instead of listening to God you listen to man. That is a very sad thing. Anyone who uses any normal thought process can figure out something or someone planned creation. There was no big boom that made everything fall into place. There is too much of an order to things. Even an atheist or anyone with some intelligence should be able to see that. You have been exposed to part of the gospel with many lies mixed in from the Mormon church so your knowledge of God is not complete and true. The Mormon church is truly a weapon of Satan if it can take a person that believes in God and turn them into someone who doesn't believe. But let me assure you there IS a God. This is the real truth. God is most holy. Although you were created with freedom of choice. He hates sin. Every person is a sinner. Most don't want to believe this and deny it but it's true. Under God's law the wages of sin is death. That is just the way it is. So because of the things you have done lied, stole, hated, etc etc you do deserve death, we all do. But God loves you so much he devised a way to get around that. He sent his son Jesus to pay for every sin you have ever done or will ever do. Jesus himself loved you so much he willingly gave his life for you so that you could live. He suffered and died in your place. You only have to admit you are a sinner and accept the fact Jesus paid for all your sins, that he is your saviour and follow him. That is all there is to it. It's not a hard thing to do. You don't have to go through rituals, say mantras, do any other useless thing they do in the Mormon church. You don't even have to be in a church to accept Christ. I am telling you so that you will have no excuse. I have just given you what you need to know to be saved, which is the good news of Jesus Christ. If you don't accept it that is on you. But I have done what I needed to do.
As far as your rant about the bible, of course you wouldn't understand it. You have been exposed to ideas in the Mormon church that contradict what the bible says. Belief in the bible is by faith. If one was to really read it, you would see the God of the bible is not a hateful God. You are reasoning with a human mind that is not God's mind. As the book says your thoughts are not his thoughts. There are too many things you don't understand for even me to explain. I will not be coming back to this forum because I don't feel I need to justify the LORD GOD to an atheist. One thing the Bible says that is so true about some people.
.....Ever learning but never coming to the knowledge of the truth. |
Anonymous
| | Posted on Tuesday, February 11, 2003 - 6:43 pm: |
|
Gag! you must be one of the clergy to write as compulsively... Brother! You don't worry about spacing or separating paragraphs for the mental release of you readers. Yes, you have to be a Christian speecher who dances for money, otherwise you would not be talking that fast. Have you really read the things posted on Tuesday, February 11, 2003 - 08:31 am? I think it has a lot of true arguments. It is a fact that those contradictions are there in Christianity and we have been forced to swallow them and force thm on our children for centuries. Look, the good thing about having been a Mormon for that long is that you end up learning to identify charlatans when they cross your way. You are one, and no matter what you tell, your explanation is as weird and as empty as that one of the Mormons. They have their weird sides, you have yours. None should be preaching to no one. Let's turn off the light and go home now for a real rest from all doctrines and indoctrinations. |
Anonymous
| | Posted on Tuesday, February 11, 2003 - 9:52 pm: |
|
To the post dated January 11, 03 04:52 remember don't throw pearls before swine.
And to the above post, this is not an english class. If the reading is too much for you then leave!! |
Anonymous
| | Posted on Tuesday, February 11, 2003 - 11:09 pm: |
|
Hasta la vista, Baby...
Oops, it looks like someone got very mad after all the talk about the truth...
Well, as Bobby McFerrin would have said, "see you later, aligator!"
You know, it is sad to see someone leave without giving us a hug for all the good times we spent together...
However, continuing with our interesting dissertation "from Mormonism to Atheism," can anybody tell me why does the Christian clergy believe that when one leaves the freaking Mormon cult, the only default alternative will be to fall for another Christian denomination? isn't the game of Christianity already played out and almost extincted? Most of the pages that expose the weird parts of Mormonism are published by some kind of a Christian denomination in the hope that the former Mormons will then turn to whatever other denomination is available. It is a hunt for memberships, that's all. And it is disgusting. They should stop giving tax excemption to such charlatans.
And, we are talking about the fallacies of the Mormons. But, have you seen how the Carismatics catch people's minds also? I once saw a Pentecostal talking in tongues... it was completely off the wall. The members of her church think she is holy. Nobody would tell what the heck was she talking about, because she spoke in an unknown language. It is very complicated to see that such mental cases are institutionalized and sold to the people as examples of anything good. It is false to teach such values to children. It is all just very crazy. And, look at the Baptists... It is all a game of power and control... Unfortunately, people are too frightened to understand that they are being manipulated all along. |
Anonymous
| | Posted on Wednesday, February 12, 2003 - 1:13 am: |
|
On this board there are so many arguments against the Mormon church because it professes to be "the only full gospel." Many message authors go on about how narrow minded this is. Read messages like Saturday, February 08, 2003 - 04:51 am, and Tuesday, February 11, 2003 - 04:52 pm. The authors preach their gospel as much as the Latter day Saints do... They blame the LDS church when people turn to athiesm. Yet when someone posts as an athiest they are critisized for it. I am Mormon and believe the church with all my heart. I agree with many of the Christian postings pertaining to the Bible and Christ our Saviour, but don't say that the Mormon church is being any more "closed minded" than any of you... If someone posts as an athiest or with any opinions you don't agree with, you tell them that their beleifs are wrong and preach yours because you believe them to be the only true gospel too. You are being just as arrogant as you are stating the LDS church is. |
Anonymous
| | Posted on Wednesday, February 12, 2003 - 1:27 am: |
|
To the post dated Feb 11 11:09 I was speaking to you when I said if you don't like the reading leave. I never said I was going anywhere. I already know the truth as the other person posted. I don't need your humanism. I won't even address my posts to you. As far as I'm concerned you don't exist. |
Anonymous
| | Posted on Wednesday, February 12, 2003 - 1:36 am: |
|
To the Mormon person who posted above, You are only saying what you say because of what was posted in the first place about the Mormon church. I know you don't agree with atheism. But you are being too afraid or too polite to say it.
I don't remember you saying anything to the person who proclaimed to be atheist when he spoke of Jesus being a myth and other anti God things. I know Mormons have a very high opinion of their church. But are you only going to defend your church and not GOD? |
Anonymous
| | Posted on Wednesday, February 12, 2003 - 9:08 am: |
|
I have been observing this discussion with interest. I didn’t feel like sharing ideas with others because I did not have much to say. It was very interesting to read the various explanations of the secret teachings of Mormonism and how it affects people. Today I was very sad to read the last messages of this discussion. This is my perception of the current situation:
To the person that posted on Tuesday, February 11, 2003 - 11:09 pm: I am not a “yes” person and I think it is very good that you are not a “yes” person. Although I consider myself a Christian, I can understand your logic and your arguments because I was raised among hypocrisy in a small community of Christians where the church was the only means of socialization for many. While the pastor lived a deceitful double life, you really had to watch your back a lot or you would become the target of gossipy in the neighborhood; they really liked to do that all the time, as if they thought of themselves to be "better" for being members of the church community.
I am sorry that you got so disappointed with the Mormons and changed your point of view about God. It must be very bad to be abused by the people you once trusted and to have leave them knowing that their odd and oppressive belief destroyed your faith in a higher power of perfect love and perfect compassion.
Some of my best friends are Mormons, atheists, humanists or agnostics. It does not matter to me what religion my dear friend is in, unless I was a fanatic theocrat hoping to convert the world to my own faith. Unfortunately, such is the path not only Mormons but many other Christians imagine for their perfect world.
The question of God’s existence is a discussion of many hours, sometimes years of silence and pondering in meditation. The human soul finds ways back to believe in a higher power one way or another always. Even when you don’t believe in God now, he is still around for you and for all; one day in the future you may be detached from the feelings that your association with some mind controlling groups left in your conscience. Maybe one day you will again question and ponder the existence of some form of purer being, and maybe then a new discovery of deity and immortality will become feasible for you again. I have seen an atheist changed to an oriental faith because he found a new source of peace and light in the eastern religions. I know another person that grew up as a Christian, became an atheist in his late twenties and now in his late sixties he believes in Buddhism.
My point is this: You don't have to be a Christian to be a good person, you don't have to believe in God to be a good person and you don't have to defend yourself against Christians attacking you because you are an atheist if you expressed your sincere opinion. It is a very bad behavior from Christians -especially from fundamentalist groups- to believe that they are entitled to humiliate and exclude the people who are not Christian from any public encounter. They reacted like obsessive demagogues, angry at their own incapacity to brainwash you to their own hypocritical points of view.
I won’t offend you, because God knows that I have been there myself. Someone who did not know unbelief may not know belief at all. I can see how your talk has brought the best and the worst out of some of us. This discussion was good only as everybody had the right to state why they believe this way or another, how Mormonism affected every speaker in one way or another. If Mormonism led some of us to atheism, those persons still have something to say and should not be shut down. This discussion became abusive when some started attacking others in the moment they understood how their points of view did not fit with their own. But, the denial of truth is a good and very scientific place to start, and as long as we all stay cool and do not use our language to hurt the others, there is nothing wrong in a good and substantial discussion - even when the differences may appear insurmountable.
I think –and I hope that we all will agree on this, that you have the same right to tell others that god does not exist as the Christians and other religions have the right to tell that God exists. Both groups have the right to expose their arguments, or are we all a bunch of hypocrites speaking of offering the other cheek when in reality we won’t let others say their truth? Here should be no angry responses if you came and expressed your ideas, because we all have the right to be true to ourselves. You are entitled to your opinion and it is not appropriate to ask you to leave the chat room or to threaten you with leaving you alone because your opinion differs from the opinion of others in the discussion. I have never seen an atheist doing door-to-door proselytism but I am tired to see missionaries from various denominations as they believe to have the right to intrude their religion on others. From that perspective, atheists act with more respect than many Christians do. I do not expect from you to believe the same and exact way I do. Please know that I do not have the same opinion with the person that posted a message on Tuesday, February 11, 2003 at 11:09 pm.
To the person that posted on Tuesday, February 11, 2003 - 04:52 pm; your message was very arrogant, my friend: Somebody’s thinking may not necessarily be “twisted” because he ended up leaving Mormonism without any faith in religion. You need to pray for better introspection and stop being judgmental of others. It is that same attitude that leaves people without any trust to go back to an authoritarian personality promising the pleasures of heaven while he/she threatens with the horrors of hell –if you don’t follow HIS/HER point of view in promise of total obedience to HIS/HER religious system. That’s how religious wars are always started! Haven’t you learned from history? It seems that the Atheist may have more common sense than you, because at least he is trying to be good for no reason, while you started behaving badly when you thought you could not convert an atheist to your own ways.
Back to the post from Tuesday, February 11, 2003 - 11:09 pm: Unfortunately, we Christians have too much of that control freak mentality inside our domains, and it seems that we haven’t been able to handle the problem in two thousand years of not always happy history: All that survived appears to be the most vile arrogance pretending to be humble, and the desire to destroy who can’t be converted. Shame on you, hypocrites! Jesus spoke of hypocrisy all the time, and yet some of us are nothing but hypocrites denying the power of God with each of our selfish words! It is really a “do as I say not as I do” behavior that shames the real Christian people. Being Christian does not mean to “belong” to an organized group or to attend some meetings where the main objective is not forgiveness and love unfeigned but pride and shameful arrogance that deny the power of Christ all along. To the Mormon and the ultra orthodox Christian that posted here, I am tempted to say that in the last day Jesus may say to you both that he does not know you.
I admit that some of the appreciations posted on Tuesday, February 11, 2003 - 11:09 pm, are perfectly acceptable and not offensive at all. The anti-Mormons criticize the Book of Mormon because it lacks archeological evidence but they are provoked and infuriated when others criticize the inconsistencies of Christianity the same way. Dear Atheist friends, I respectfully offer you my sincere interest in the continuing exchange of ALL our different points of view. |
Anonymous
| | Posted on Wednesday, February 12, 2003 - 1:02 pm: |
|
I enjoyed reading the last message. We all should be more tolerant of other people's differences. It is no good when people start fighting because of religious differences. The Mormons should leave behind such mental games of manipulation and fear, but the Christians are also acting like idiots in this discussion. |
Anonymous
| | Posted on Wednesday, February 12, 2003 - 2:38 pm: |
|
I think you all are a little hypocritical. When any of you have something to say that's fine. But when I express my opinion you all have something to say about it. When the atheist person first started to speak in the archives, he said he(I will call the person he) was atheist. Although I detest the belief not the person of atheism, I didn't say a word. Someone said it was an option to belief in God. I didn't say a word. Then the atheist listed some beliefs of atheists and I didn't say anything. It was his opinion. As a matter of fact I was posting to him and he was posting back, but not in a disrespectful manner. He would post links and I would read them. Some I agreed with and some I didn't. I didn't say anything about it. But when I posted links which happen to have a christian theme because I am christian, he was very rude in his opinion. That is why I got angry. Don't tell me you are all so perfect you have never gotten angry because if you did I would know you were liars.
And to the Mormon person who I believe is Ashley you don't have to worry. You can write your name in. I wouldn't bother you with any questions because I know you wouldn't know how to answer them.
I have learned so much from this board. I at one time was having very normal conversations with people. But since I am so "arrogant" to so many people here, to make you all happy I will leave for good this time. |
Anonymous
| | Posted on Wednesday, February 12, 2003 - 4:52 pm: |
|
Well, it seems that our emotions are cooling down at last. Feeling offended is a choice, forgiving is an obligation, if we believe that we are talking in the name of Christ. Or, aren't we here united in the hope that the light of goodness will inspire us all, as it may have done already? |
Anonymous
| | Posted on Wednesday, February 12, 2003 - 5:13 pm: |
|
I have to admit that two of the atheist's messages were kind of humorous, and one of us did talk like a religious fanatic when referring to the atheist postings. I would like to know if there was just one or several atheists posting in here. I am not expecting to get names or phone numbers, but some of the things that they said were very interesting. someone then wrote, "I don't need your humanism. I won't even address my posts to you. As far as I'm concerned you don't exist." Wow! that was very rude! As you treat others you will be treated, this is not just a Christian belief but it is to be traced to almost all religions in the world. How can you say you are a Christian and then ignore your brother or sister that way? Are you a Christian only to the Christians and a barbaric man to all others left? Yes, we all must have learned a set of new things in this discussion. its is too bad that both Ashley and the Atheist friends are not posting any longer. Ashley never got to respond to any of our questions, and the Atheist got mad too soon. Maybe we would have found illumination if we all got to overcome the stumbling stones [our own pride] in these communications. |
Daniel M Arnold
| | Posted on Wednesday, February 12, 2003 - 10:00 pm: |
|
Up until events that led up to the 9/11 attack I was a full faith christian. As a youth I went to summer bible school. Then in the year 1999 that faith was shaken ,the next three years were hell on earth. A cult I was unaware of previously had been watching me for years trying to draw me in. Luck had been with me and nothing the tried worked I was pretty much antisocial. But in 1999 I became more social I had not known how they had done it but every job I was taking the friggin cult members worked there they were biased to outsiders and they infested the entry level employment to management and human resources.They played their pranks I got strange phone calls at home. I contacted the police ,human resources even the local F.B.I. no help. I suffered a nervous breakdown during this .The last job I had a cult member as manager.I wish they would make this country the way it used to be were everyone carried sidearms, there was no problems with cults almost 200 yrs ago.Since then I have become an atheist any one at argument with that read the book of judges out of the bible. |
Anonymous
| | Posted on Thursday, February 13, 2003 - 3:15 am: |
|
Yup, these are difficult times. |
Anonymous
| | Posted on Thursday, February 13, 2003 - 2:49 pm: |
|
Just because you say you are a Christian, that doesn't mean you are talking in the name of Christ. It is biblical that if people are not preaching the word of God, their actions will be different even when they say they come from Christ.
The atheist message with contradictions on Bible text is simply a way of using texts out of their context. One can do that with any given book. I think that even Mormons who are doing the will of God are of Christ, and there may be Mormons who talk of it but their deeds are different from their words and then they are liars denying the truth.
The world is so wide and so full of contradictions that it is impossible to say what group is really Christian among them all. It is a Mormon arrogance to say that they are "the only true church" or to buy a street in Salt Lake City and to forbid freedom of expression in that street. It is not ethical to convert people to their religion and then to exclude the non-Mormon family members from celebrations that are basically a family event. It is hypocritical to say they are concerned about families if they are promoting family separation through their own practices.
But, the Masons do such things too and I have not yet seen as much criticism on the Masons as we have on Mormonism. Why? Maybe because the Masons did not offend the public opinion with the polygamy thing, or with the blatant exclusion of the blacks, etc.
In conclusion, it is not the rites that make Mormonism refutable to common sense, but the rejection from the public comes from the immoral and unethical practices that are part of the history of Mormonism and from the denial of all responsibility on those alarming conditions. By continuing ignoring such fundamental questions raised by ex-Mormons that experienced the temple rites in their completeness, the LDS general authorities only take upon themselves a moral conflict that has become the internal source of degeneration for the higher values that they pronounce to represent. |
Ashley Ingoldsby
| | Posted on Friday, February 14, 2003 - 3:36 am: |
|
I am Mormon. All I can say is that we believe in Jesus Christ and know that he is our Savour, we believe in God the Father, and the Holy Ghost. We believe that we can be saved through the atonement. We love our nieghbours. We are Christian. We strive to preach the word of God. We believe we are following the Lord's commandments. We believe both the Bible and Book of Mormon to testify of Christ. We believe in charity, and love. We work everyday to be better. We believe. Why are people tearing down something teaches the same basic principles and life styles that they themselves strive to follow? Whether you are Christian, Athiest, Mormon, Jewish, or anything. We are all HUMAN. We are all God's children. We all have a drive to do our best to live loving, and charitable lives. What else matters? |
Anonymous
| | Posted on Friday, February 14, 2003 - 8:34 am: |
|
Prejudices
Television and radio to some extent have bridged over this tendency of communal isolation and the perpetuating of only one's own ways and traditions. But, television and radio have also to a great extent had to bow and submit to the prejudices and biases of the country or the community or the interests which support them. It is amazing that as one travels about the modern world he finds that great numbers of people look upon certain customs they hear about or may have seen on television, and which are DIFFERENT from their own, as necessarily inferior, incorrect, or improper. Ultimately, from such prejudices, born of ignorance, derision and hate arise.
How many religionists, devout in their own faith, have ever read even a synopsis of the history and doctrines of another faith? It is common for many Christians to speak of, for example, Buddhism, Zoroastrianism, and Islam in a derogatory sense. It is as if non-Christian believers were deficient in conscience and spiritual attributes. Further, how many religionists have ever read and authoritative definition of mysticism or metaphysics? Yet, many are ready to condemn these subjects solely upon the ground that they are not of their faith.
Before we wholeheartedly support a political ideology or system, we should understand a little more of its terminology. Human needs and inherit desires are the nearest things to equality in human nature. How different is one political system from another in attaining such ends? The political ideologies today, as they have long ago, speak of the LIBERTY and FREEDOM of the individual. Yet this liberty is often so construed that the word TYRANNY would perhaps better define it. In some current political theories the state is made to appear to be the ultimate attainment to man. It is presented in a paternal sense as the benefactor of the individual. The freedom of the individual, then, is only that which is to be bestowed upon him by the state. Individual choice outside the mandatory requirements of the state is greatly restricted.
On the other hand, other systems under various names, in their political philosophy, stress individual freedom to the extent of its being almost absolute and a form of permissiveness. Consequently, such a system offers no binding factor which could compose a state.
In subscribing to a political [religious] philosophy, one should first make a study of the semantics of the basic principles which it expounds. What, for example, do such words in their doctrines actually mean? Further, do such fundamental meanings harmonize with the manner in which the words are used in the political [religious] ideology? We hear and read of the atrocities dictators imposed upon their people. Such inhumanities, such crimes against humanity have been authoritatively substantiated. but, aside from reading the emotional outpourings against such acts, how many persons have ever sought to investigate, in the historical sources available, what made it possible for such individuals to ever gain the power they had? The lack of knowledge of such history by most persons makes them susceptible to all kinds of propaganda, much of which is false and harmful to them.
Provincialism also often causes persons not to know or care about economic conditions prevailing outside their own area or country. It is such indifference to conditions and circumstances other than in their own community, which often prevents men from taking necessary measures for their own welfare. If, for example, one knows something and of a nation's natural resources and it exports upon which it depends for a livelihood, he would be adverse to severe tariffs being imposed upon this nation's products.
We hear, for further example, of the flood of imports from Japan. The provincialist will exhort his legislators to impose severe tariffs against such products. In doing so he does not realize that Japan, for instance, actually buys from the United States raw materials and machinery of greater dollar value than she sells to it. A restrictive tariff placed upon her would result in economic retaliation that would be a greater economic hardship upon the citizen than the influx of Japanese goods.
In the Vietnam War there were many protesters and demonstrators who marched about with placards. In questioning a number of them, it was found that some of the most vociferous could not even point out on the map just where South Vietnam was located. They were perhaps justified protesters, but they were grossly ignorant of some of the basic facts on the subject.
We could never be a brother in every aspect of our being to all other humans -- nor should we try to be. But, it is necessary to understand our differences, which makes for a greater degree of tolerance and less susceptibility to those who would manipulate our ignorance to their advantage.
-Excerpts from a speech in San Jose, California. |
Anonymous
| | Posted on Saturday, February 15, 2003 - 10:51 am: |
|
Mormon Royalty
Our family has moved a fair amount as a result of job promotions involving relocations to other cities. One of the things that we have noticed is that each ward and stake has it's own royalty as well as a middle class and of course the "less fortunate fringe". When you move into a strange ward, you are quickly classified into one of the groups and there is little chance of ever being elevated to another group although downgrading is possible. Any outward indication or confession of a personal or family problem justifies immediate downgrading. To achieve royalty status, one needs to have at least several of the following traits in their favor:
1. Personal Wealth (tithing numbered in minimum 5 digits preferred)
2. Pedigree (Descendants of polygamous ancestors)
3. University Education (BYU grads score top points here)
4. Professional status (Doctors, dentists, lawyers, or Church Education System...CES types can be forgiven their lack of wealth)
5. Utah like grooming and accent
6. Large gregarious family
7. Evidence of embarrassing fully Mormon culture...language, tardiness, music, dress standards, FHE
8. Relatives or at least friends in high places
9. An LDS Track record: Mission, temple marriage, etc.
10.Absolutely no hint of being a real person with real problems
11.the ability to sound incredibly sincere and to bring tears to your eyes almost at will.
The Mormon Middle class may have some of the traits of Mormon Royalty, but are marred with such horrible defects as:
1. Witnessed drinking cola in public
2. Rooted for the University of Utah over BYU
3. Once received Church welfare or worse still public welfare
4. Stayed home to watch the Superbowl instead of attending Church meeting
5. Wife works outside the home
6. Kids don't attend seminary
7. Too many non member friends
8. Failure in a church calling
9. Unglamorous employment (factory worker, tradesman, sales clerk, etc.)
10.Convert of less than 10 years
11.Loud laughter
Then of course we have the fringe element, the poor bastards that everyone else can look down on thank God that they are so much better than the they are. The following are some qualifying traits:
1. Low economic status regardless of reason
2. Lack of formal education
3. Too much formal education coupled with independent thinking thus qualifying as a hated intellectual
3. Facial hair, unconventional hair cut, or the dreaded tattoo
4. A foreign accent
5. any hint of homosexuality
6. Mormon Fundamentalist views or sympathies
7. Read the SL Tribune instead of Deseret News
8. Non traditional modes of dress, men with ear rings or women with piercing in nose, eyelid, etc.
9. Buy lottery tickets
10.Question authority or ask embarrassing questions in a church class
It's interesting that as you move around that you can be perceived and categorized differently but there is almost no chance of any elevation if you stay in one place.
Royalty usually serve as Stake Presidents, Relief Society Presidents, Bishops, etc. The Middle Class are the ward clerks and Primary teachers, while the fringe are entrusted with such Holy responsibilities as Ushering. Occasionally a sincere Church leaders experiments with calling persons to positions above their class level and usually discover that they do just fine. However, the royalty types are generally very uncomfortable with the practice so it is seldom resorted to by those in authority.
A former Bishop from Canada |
Anonymous
| | Posted on Monday, February 17, 2003 - 5:26 am: |
|
Polygamy: The All True Church Handbook says, about Sealing of a Husband & Wife:
Living Women
A living woman may be sealed to only one husband. If she is sealed to a
husband and later divorced, she must recieve a cancellation of that
sealing from the First Presidency before she may be sealed to another man
in her lifetime.
Deceased Women
A deceased woman may be sealed to all men to whom she was
legallymarried during her life. However, if she was sealed to a husband during her
life, all her husbands must be deceased before she can be sealed to a
husband to whom she was not sealed during life.
Living Men
If a husband and wife have been sealed and the wife dies, the man may
have another woman sealed to him if she is not already sealed.
If a husband and a wife have been sealed and later divorced, the man
must receive a sealing clearance from the First Presidency before another
woman may be sealed to him. A sealing clearance is necessary even if
the previous sealing has been cancelled.
Deceased Men
A deceased man may have sealed to him all women to whom he was legally
married during his life if they are deceased or if they are living and
not sealed to another man.
End of quoting. Men can apply for sealing clearances, that will allow
them to be sealed to more than one female. Women can apply for sealing
cancellations if they want to get it on with another man. |
Anonymous
| | Posted on Tuesday, February 18, 2003 - 8:41 pm: |
|
My faith was shaken on 911 too. Until 911 i was Mormon too. However, i am no longer affiliated with the Mormon church. Today it is hard for me to believe that Jesus walked the Americas, or any of that stuff. Jesus must have been a regular guy from the middle east, and there is no sense in the christian religion any more because the religions are all collapsing since money and Mammon are the real gods of all. |
Ashley Ingoldsby
| | Posted on Tuesday, February 18, 2003 - 10:12 pm: |
|
I'm sorry to hear you lost your faith. I don't want to like preach to you but I just want to remind you of one thing. "D&C 1:1 O GOD, where art thou? And where is the pavilion that covereth thy hiding place?" -Joseph Smith. This world's greatest men have seen much tribulation. |
Anonymous
| | Posted on Wednesday, February 19, 2003 - 3:55 am: |
|
Except Joseph Smith is not great. |
Ashley Ingoldsby
| | Posted on Wednesday, February 19, 2003 - 9:03 pm: |
|
Jesus Christ is greatest person to have ever walked this earth, and he suffered more than any. Job, Joseph (of Egypt), Moses, Mary, Daniel, Elijah... you look at any person from the Bible, or any person who you admire, most of them have suffered greatly. |
gary alan williams
| | Posted on Tuesday, March 04, 2003 - 3:27 pm: |
|
i have never seen so much rath directed at an optional by choice organization in my life.if its not for you don't do it! so much vitriolc nonsense.there are credible scholars on both sides.and no all "christians" don"t worship the same God, or interpret the bible the same way.neither do the moslems.i believe in free thought and speech but all of this hate is not of God. many of these comments exhibit what they complain about with the mormons, lack of good will, free thought, strength and independance. what an incredible waste of energy. |
gaw
| | Posted on Tuesday, March 04, 2003 - 3:31 pm: |
|
and no the mormons haven't been perfect.nor is any other group comprised of imperfect men. |
Anonymous
| | Posted on Thursday, March 06, 2003 - 7:13 am: |
|
I live in Utah. In this state I have learned that the solution of foster parenting is not always good. Look for example at the problem of that young lady: She was taken off the custody of her single mother, brought to foster parents. The foster father prostituted her for years until she got pregnant. For two times he forced her to abortion and he kept prostituting her. The girl was running to her real mother and the mother tried all she could to bring her back home, but the state of UT is very strange about kids that have been removed to foster care and they would not listen to the mother. Finally, the girl was pregnant a third time and the mother advised her to keep the baby. Finally the foster father was sent to custody and the girl was given an apartment and lives alone now with her baby. Nobody likes to talk about these things in UT. Not even about the unspoken arrangements of the Mormon church to place children in foster homes even without legal papers. Some of those children are then raped by the illicit foster parents and the church does not say a word about the bishop that kept molesting the child for a number of years. Once the child starts speaking out, the church leaders can’t be investigated by the DCFS (all run by Mormons) because there are no papers of any official foster parenting taking place.
Many lazy or dysfunctional Mormons decide to do foster care because it is a safe and unfailing source of income. If they take African-American or Native-American children in foster care, they are paid more per child because of the children’s “special needs.” Once the real parent has lost their real children to that system, a whole bureaucracy starts working on its own while the foster kids become too much a source of income for too many parties to be taken back to their poor mothers. Even poverty is a reason for the state of UT to take children to foster care: If the mother lives from welfare and the money –as usually- is not enough for her family to survive and eat properly with a roof on their heads, foster care becomes the state’s solution. I kept asking why isn’t it feasible in UT to increase the welfare assistance for the impoverished single mothers as to leave the kids with their moms instead of taking the kids to a foster home because the mothers are not able to live and to work (sometimes a newborn baby impedes them to go on) while instead the state would be paying five and six hundred dollars to the foster parents for each child they take into their homes. When six children are removed from one mother because she is poor, the state of UT ends up paying 3,000 dollars to the foster parents, but it would be cheaper from the beginning to pay one thousand dollars of additional welfare assistance to make sure that the poor mother can keep their kids at home. It seems that the problem is how to maintain a bureaucracy that lives from DCFS legislation in UT. |
Anonymous
| | Posted on Thursday, March 13, 2003 - 10:30 pm: |
|
This post is to Gary Allen Willians. People have a right to speak their mind here regardless of if you want to hear it or not. The Mormons are going to defend their position. And people against the Mormon beliefs are going to express their opinions.
So if you don't like the "rath" (I think you meant wrath) shown here, you don't have to visit this forum.
There is one statement you made that is not true. You said all 'christians don't worship the same god or interpret the bible the same way." All Christians may not interpret the bible the same way but all true Christians certainly do worship the same GOD. Otherwise they wouldn't be Christian. |
Anonymous
| | Posted on Saturday, March 15, 2003 - 1:39 am: |
|
Now the media is discussing how bizarre of a lifestyle her captor lived. Elizabeth’s uncle "told a small group of reporters, 'I think maybe she has been wildly converted to a weird thing.'"
…as opposed to, say... Mormonism?
"Mitchell was described by his stepson, Derrick Thompson, as a 'weird' man who had talked to God in the desert after taking 10 hits of LSD."
...don't you mean; 40 years of LDS?
"Dinse said the girl was kidnapped June 5 by Mitchell, a street preacher who believed in polygamy and thought he was a prophet..."
...unlike a normal polygamous prophet named Joseph Smith?
"Dinse said that Mitchell was a 'self-proclaimed polygamist' and had left behind a manifesto spelling out his unconventional beliefs."
...like the unconventional beliefs advocated by the founders of the Church?
http://eric.everydaylies.com/ |
Anonymous
| | Posted on Saturday, March 15, 2003 - 3:52 am: |
|
Mitchell, an ex member of the Mormon Church
See what a wonderful influence the Mormons are. |
Anonymous
| | Posted on Saturday, March 15, 2003 - 9:52 am: |
|
Well, the fact that their influence is all that "bad" does not make your influence all that "good." The sad truth is, that we have to seek the middle in all things. It is indeed a crazy idea to live in UT, where the whole system is run in such a tragical level of religious fanaticism (the expropriation of public streets for the suppression of the freedom of expression is one example), but I am sure that you will agree that most of us still have a lot of hipocrisy to ban from our own backyards. |
ashley ingoldsby
| | Posted on Saturday, March 15, 2003 - 8:36 pm: |
|
Mitchell, an EX member of the Mormon Church.... EX being the key word. He was excommunicated. The church has nothing to do with what this twisted man did and yet, people will still judge the church by what he did, even though he is not a member. |
Anonymous
| | Posted on Saturday, March 15, 2003 - 10:11 pm: |
|
Well, Ashley... I don't mean to contradict you but... in reality someone does not need to be a "bad person" or be "excommunicated" to be an ex-member of the Mormon Church. After several decades of devoted service to the church, I simply presented a letter of resignation while having a good temple recommendation to attend the temple. My reasons for leaving the LSD cult were not that I was immoral or that someone in the bishopric had decided to let me go because of my bad behavior. I am a nice law abiding individual with a good sense of ethic and morality; I simply asked for my name to be removed from the freaking records because I could not continue to agree or to support the dogmas taught and imposed by the church. |
Anonymous
| | Posted on Saturday, March 15, 2003 - 10:21 pm: |
|
How to have your name taken off the Mormon church records (You don't need to wait until they excommunicate you):
There seems to have been some change lately as people have been mentioning to me that their names are not being removed as quickly as they have requested. The Handbook of Instructions given to Mormon leaders is supposed to be followed. Some bishops and branch presidents may need to be reminded of the church policy and, if you live in the United States, reminded there is freedom of religion. Other countries should have an identical policy. I have a copy of the handbook from 3 years ago. This is all you should have to do. Many times a follow-up letter with a threat of publicity or use of legal counsel is required if the local church leadership does not do what it is supposed to do within 30 days of your initial request. This is what I did in March of 1994.
Be sure to use your own words and preferably do so in a handwritten letter. If you use a computer, be sure it does not look like any kind of form letter.
1. State you want your name removed from the records.
2. State that you understand what you are requesting.
3. State a reason why you want your name removed. (optional)
4. State you will not participate in a church court as you have done nothing wrong. You simply do not want to be a member anymore. You are exercising your freedom of religion. You are asking for a simple administrative procedure.
5. State you do not want any contact by anyone except by mail confirming your name has been removed from the records. This includes no home teachers, visiting teachers and church leadership trying to visit you.
6. Have everyone in the family who are leaving sign the letter, including your children.
Use certified or registered mail to the HOME address of the bishop and the stake president. Do not mail to the local ward or branch meeting house address. It is important that you mail to the correct home address and not to the church address.
This part is optional and highly effective.
State that if you do not hear from the church within 30 days, you will write to the local paper announcing you wanted to have your name removed from the church records and they would not comply with your request. The LDS church hates publicity like that and it will respond quickly. You could use this as part of your follow-up letter instead if you do not hear something after thirty days of the first letter.
You can, 30 days after your request was mailed to the local authorities, call the Mormon church records office in Salt Lake. The phone number is 801-240-3500. Tell them you made a formal written request to your bishop or branch president more than 30 days ago and he has not acted on your request. They can verify if your membership has been removed. If they find it is still there, they will contact your local leaders and tell them to act upon your request.
Possible complications:
1. The local leaders do not know you and/or they do not have your records locally. If you think this is likely then include in your letter your date and place of birth. That will be used to find your records back in Salt Lake. Have the signature of your letter notarized before sending it.
2. The local bishop or branch president says you must have an "interview" or attend a "court".
There is no point in having an interview unless you feel you want to tell him that it is all a fraud. If you get called saying this is a requirement, tell him you were very explicit in your letter about contact from the church and you may take legal action if you are contacted again. The church has been successfully sued, so it is very sensitive about your rights to leave. Just make it clear your decision is final and tell him you are waiting for the confirmation in the mail that your name has been removed.
3. The bishop is worried about your "eternal future".
I know of many bishops who delayed these requests for this reason. That is not to be accepted. Send a follow-up letter within 30 days of the first, if you have not received a notice, threatening publicity by having a letter to the editor published or a classified ad purchased. Have your attorney send the follow-up letter if you have an attorney.
I think the most important thing is to not to get discouraged over how the church handles your membership. Just relax and don't worry about it. I have gotten many letters from people who were very distressed because the church did not respond quickly or at all to their kind requests and they had to make threats to get their names removed. Don't let them trouble you emotionally. You had enough of that already. Stay calm and realize you are dealing with an authoritarian organization that can make its own rules as it goes along. Let it go emotionally and get on with your life. Your membership records will eventually be destroyed. |
Anonymous
| | Posted on Saturday, March 15, 2003 - 10:24 pm: |
|
Example of an Exit Letter
President R G. C.
______ Stake
______, WA
Dear President ____,
This letter is being sent to inform you that we are officially requesting that our names, and the names of our children, be removed from the records of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints. This request is being made after many years of soul-searching, and studying on our part. We did not easily come to this decision, and in fact have found it to be one of the most difficult decisions of our lives. We have a deep love and gratitude for many friends and family that are still members of the church, and wish to make it very clear that we are not leaving because of hurt feelings, or being offended by anyone in the church. We have had to base our decision on our faith in the Lord and Savior Jesus Christ, and our intellect. This decision is being made freely on our part, and with a full knowledge of what the LDS church teaches the consequences of making a decision like this are.
We insist that our records, and the letter notifying us that our names have been removed from the church records, show that the only reason why our names have been removed, is that we requested it to be so. We also insist that the word excommunication not be used in the church records, or in the letter notifying us of this action. We would not hesitate to take legal action against the church if anything is done to slander our good names, or if members of this stake are given the impression that we left because of immorality.
Please understand that we are taking this action because it has been proven to us that Mormonism is false, and does not teach correct doctrine according to the gospel of Jesus Christ. Some of the doctrinal problems we have investigated are:
1. We do not believe that Joseph Smith was a prophet of God, or that he received direct revelation from God. We also believe that we will be judged someday according to our faith in the Savior, not Joseph Smith. We believe that he taught false doctrine, and that he has led many good people astray, and away from the true teachings of Jesus Christ that are taught in the Bible.
2. We are convinced that the Book of Mormon is not of divine origin, except for the verses that are plagarized from the Bible. We do not believe that Joseph Smith translated any part of the Book of Mormon, and that it is nothing more than a contrived document.
3. We are convinced that the Pearl of Great Price (particularly the Book of Abraham) is a pure work of deceit and fraud. It became apparent to leaders of the church that the papyrus that Joseph Smith translated into the Book of Abraham, was nothing more than Egyptian funeral documents, yet they continued to claim that the book was of divine origin. This fact has been hidden from members of the church for many years.
4. We are certain that the Doctrine and Covenants is also false, and has been changed and rewritten so many times, that Saints today have no clue what some of the false doctrines that Joseph Smith taught really were.
5. We are convinced that polygamy is a wicked principle that is taught by the church, and that it is demeaning and devastating to women. We are also convinced that it was an excuse for Joseph Smith to commit adultery, since he practiced it for at least 10 years prior to the 1843 "revelation".
6. We are convinced that, on the whole, the LDS church has made serious and substantial changes to all of their scriptures, and most of church history. We believe that this has been done to satisfy and comfort its members, to hide doctrinal errors, and to protect some leaders from exposure to their moral failures.
7. We are convinced that men and women are not treated equally in the LDS church, that women's issues are ignored, and that women are truly made to feel like second class citizens. LDS doctrine is completely offensive to women, and could not possibly be pleasing in God's eyes. We are also convinced that depression among women in the LDS church is rampant, and always ignored by church leaders. The impression is given that any LDS woman who is depressed, must not be living the gospel.
8. We believe that the the often quoted statement, "The glory of God is intelligence", is completely contradictory to what the church truly teaches about members increasing their intellect. Free thought is discouraged, and members are told what to read, when to pray, how to pray, and what to think.
9. We do not believe that God was once a man, that he lived on a planet similar to Earth, and that through his righteousness he became a God. Furthermore, we do not believe that men on this Earth can someday become Gods. According to the bible, God has always been God, and is "from everlasting to everlasting".
These are just a few of our major issues with the doctrine of the LDS church. We could write many more pages of other problems that we have with the doctrine, but I'm sure that our point has been made very clear. WE DO NOT WISH TO REMAIN MEMBERS OF A CHURCH THAT IS BASED ON FRAUD AND LIES!
In closing, we wish to tell you our greatest reason for leaving the LDS church. Our six beautiful children! We do not want our children to grow up in an oppressive religion that dictates every aspect of their lives, and teaches them that men are superior to women. We know that we can raise good, moral children outside of Mormonism, and teach them integrity and the most important of Christ's teachings: The love of their fellowman. The LDS church does not own the patent to teaching these important values. Our greatest hope in doing this, besides our own happiness, is the goal of having our children reach their full potential. If our daughters reach their full potential in this life, and our sons become better men, who respect and treat women with the dignity that they deserve, then our goal will be accomplished.
We ask that you please respect our request to have our names removed immediately, and be aware that we will not welcome any visits from missionaries, home teachers, visiting teachers, bishopric or stake presidency members. Our decision is final in this matter, and any missionary efforts on the part of the LDS church, will be considered an invasion of our privacy.
With Respect,
____________
____________
CC - Bishop _______ |
Anonymous
| | Posted on Saturday, March 15, 2003 - 10:32 pm: |
|
IMPORTANT QUESTIONS THAT HAVEN'T BEEN ADDRESSED:
WHY IS THE CHURCH NOT HONEST WITH ITS HISTORY, SPECIFICALLY WITH REGARD TO THE LDS PRACTICE OF POLYGAMY AND THE DENIAL THEREOF?
WHY IS THE CHURCH NOT MORE OPEN WITH ITS OWN HISTORICAL DOCUMENTS? WHAT DOES THIS SAY ABOUT ITS CONFIDENCE IN ITS OWN HISTORY, SPECIFICALLY AS RELATED TO THE CHURCH'S INCREASINGLY RESTRICTIVE ACCESS TO ITS ARCHIVES BY HISTORIANS AND MEMBERS ALIKE?
WHY IS THE CHURCH NOT MORE OPEN WITH ITS OWN HISTORICAL DOCUMENTS, SPECIFICALLY AS RELATING TO THE REFUSAL OF THE CHURCH TO ACKNOWLEDGE THE EXISTENCE OF, OR SHARE WITH LAW ENFORCEMENT AUTHORITIES, THE MCLELLIN PAPERS DURING THE HOFMANN INVESTIGATION?
WHY IS THE CHURCH NOT HONEST WITH ITS HISTORY, SPECIFICALLY IN REGARD TO BRIGHAM YOUNG'S TEACHINGS ON BLOOD ATONEMENT?
WHY IS THE CHURCH NOT HONEST WITH ITS HISTORY, SPECIFICALLY WITH REGARD TO BRIGHAM YOUNG'S TEACHINGS ON ADAM-GOD?
WHY IS THE CHURCH NOT HONEST WITH ITS HISTORY, AS RELATING TO JOSEPH SMITH'S PERSONAL DISREGARD FOR THE WORD OF WISDOM, IN THAT HE OCCASSIONALLY USED, OR CONDONED OTHERS' USE OF, ALCOHOL AND TOBACCO?
WHY IS THE CHURCH NOT HONEST WITH ITS HISTORY, SPECIFICALLY WITH REGARD TO JOSEPH SMITH'S VARYING ACCOUNTS OF THE FIRST VISION?
WHY IS NOT THE CHURCH HONEST WITH ITS HISTORY, IN NOT PUTTING INTO ITS MANUALS AND TEACHING MATERIALS ALL OF THE DIFFERENT VERSIONS OF THE FIRST VISION, SO THAT MEMBERS OF THE CHURCH DO NOT HIT UPON THEM ON THEIR OWN, ARE THUS CONFUSED AND DO NOT HAVE THE BENEFIT OF HAVING OBTAINED THIS KNOWLEDGE THROUGH OFFICIAL CHURCH CHANNELS?
WHY IS THE CHURCH NOT HONEST WITH ITS HISTORY, SPECIFICALLY WITH REGARD TO THE PUBLISHED ACCOUNT IN THE DOCTRINE AND COVENANTS OF JOSEPH SMITH'S VISION OF ALVIN SMITH IN THE CELESTIAL KINGDOM, IN WHICH HIS WITNESS OF EXCOMMUNICATED MEMBERS OF THE QUORUM OF THE TWELVE DWELLING IN THE HIGHEST DEGREE OF GLORY IS EDITED OUT?
WHY DOES NOT THE CHURCH OFFICIALLY ADDRESS PROBLEMS CONCERNING JOSEPH SMITH'S ABILITY TO TRANSLATE ANCIENT RECORDS, SPECIFICALLY REGARDING THE CONSPICUOUS PARALLELS BETWEEN THE BOOK OF MORMON AND SOLOMON SPALDING'S "MANUSCRIPT STORY"--IN TERMS OF STORY OUTLINE, DISCOVERY OF EACH RECORD, ANCIENT AMERICAN LIGHT- AND DARK-SKINNED INHABITANTS, SEA CROSSINGS, ARTS AND SCIENCES, CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY, A WHITE GOD FIGURE, THE USE OF SEER STONES, WARS OF EXTERMINATION BETWEEN TWO NATIONS WHICH DESCENDED FROM THE SAME FAMILY, WORD COMBINATIONS, GEOGRAPHY AND PLACE NAMES?
WHY DOES NOT THE CHURCH OFFICIALLY ADDRESS PROBLEMS CONCERNING JOSEPH SMITH'S ABILITY TO TRANSLATE ANCIENT RECORDS, SPECIFICALLY AS RELATING TO THE GLARING LACK OF PRIMARY, EXTERNAL ARCHAEOLOGICAL EVIDENCE INDEPENDENTLY AUTHENTICATING THE BOOK OF MORMON?
WHY DOES NOT THE CHURCH OFFICIALLY ADDRESS PROBLEMS CONCERNING JOSEPH SMITH'S ABILITY TO TRANSLATE ANCIENT RECORDS, SPECIFICALLY WITH REGARD TO THE WHOLESALE BORROWING OF KING JAMES OLD AND NEW TESTAMENT VERSE IN THE BOOK OF MORMON, INCLUDING MUCH WHICH HISTORICALLY POST-DATED THE TIME THEY ARE SAID TO HAVE BEEN WRITTEN ON THE BOOK OF MORMON PLATES?
WHY DOES THE NOT CHURCH OFFICIALLY ADDRESS PROBLEMS CONCERNING JOSEPH SMITH'S ABILITY TO TRANSLATE ANCIENT RECORDS, SPECIFICALLY WITH REGARD TO HIS INITIAL ACCEPTANCE AS GENUINE, AND LATER ERRONEOUS TRANSLATION OF, THE FRAUDULENT KINDERHOOK PLATES?
WHY DOES NOT THE CHURCH OFFICIALLY ADDRESS PROBLEMS CONCERNING JOSEPH SMITH'S ABILITY TO TRANSLATE ANCIENT RECORDS, SPECIFICALLY REGARDING FUNDAMENTAL INCOMPATIBILITIES BETWEEN JOSEPH SMITH'S VERSION OF THE BOOK OF ABRAHAM AND THE TRANSLATABLE EGYPTIAN HIEROGLYPHICS ACTUALLY FOUND IN THE PAPYRI (THE ORIGINAL PARCHMENTS PROVING TO BE COMMON FUNERARY TEXTS FROM AN ERA DATING LATER THAN THE TIME OF ABRAHAM AND COMPLETELY UNRELATED TO THE STORY PRODUCED BY JOSEPH SMITH)?
WHY DOES THE CHURCH CITE FULFILLED PROPHECIES WHILE IGNORING THOSE PROVEN TO BE MISTAKEN, SPECIFICALLY RELATING TO JOSEPH SMITH'S PREDICTION THAT A TEMPLE WOULD BE BUILT IN MISSOURI BEFORE THOSE LIVING IN HIS GENERATION PASSED AWAY; BRIGHAM YOUNG'S PROPHECY THAT THE UNITED STATES WOULD NOT SURVIVE THE CIVIL WAR; BRIGHAM YOUNG'S AND SUBSEQUENT CHURCH LEADERS' DECLARATION THAT BLACKS WOULD NOT RECEIVE THE PRIESTHOOD UNTIL THE REST OF ADAM'S POSTERITY HAD BEEN GIVEN THE OPPORTUNITY TO HEAR THE GOSPEL; AND THE TEACHINGS OF BRIGHAM YOUNG AND OTHERS THAT THE SUN AND MOON WERE INHABITED BY INTELLIGENT BEINGS AND THAT LORENZO SNOW WOULD BE CALLED TO PROSELYTIZE EXTRATERRESTRIALS WHILE IN THE FLESH?
WHY HAS THE CHURCH DISHONESTLY MANIPULATED THE PUBLIC'S PERCEPTION OF PRESIDENT EZRA TAFT BENSON'S DECLINING PHYSICAL AND MENTAL HEALTH? |
Anonymous
| | Posted on Sunday, March 16, 2003 - 12:18 am: |
|
Well Ashley I expected you to jump in and defend the Mormon Church. I said ex member that is true. But do you think everything Mitchell learned in the Mormon church was forgotten? I think not. Oh are you going to answer the questions this time or are you going to pretend to leave again?
To the post timed 9:52 AM March 15, I am not trying to influence anyone. I'm also not going around saying I'm a messenger of God. My my such hostility here. What's up with that? |
ashley ingoldsby
| | Posted on Sunday, March 16, 2003 - 3:29 am: |
|
having your named removed and being excommunicated are 2 different things |
Anonymous
| | Posted on Sunday, March 16, 2003 - 7:01 am: |
|
Ashley is back to escaping questions through her posting of arguments that are not relevant in the discussion. Well, one can't expect a mormon to respond to such questions, but if there are enough ex-Mormons in this discussion, is there any other person who may have the maturity and integrity to deal with the posted questions about the Mormon cult, without evading direct responses? |
Anonymous
| | Posted on Sunday, March 16, 2003 - 7:56 am: |
|
To Question 1:
WHY IS THE CHURCH NOT HONEST WITH ITS HISTORY, SPECIFICALLY WITH REGARD TO THE LDS PRACTICE OF POLYGAMY AND THE DENIAL THEREOF?
I can see that the story of that kidnapped girl in Utah is again one of the resulting consequences of the indignities that the church maintains, among other wrong behaviors, by teaching polygamy in the secret while disconnecting from the consequences of such teachings in the public.
Why is the church not honest with its history, specifically with regard to the LDS practice of polygamy and the denial thereof? Well, some of it may have to do with the genetic problems that are already there as a result of the polygamist habits of Brigham Young's generation. Many families in Utah today are genetically identical due to having had a same grandfather in the polygamist periods of the church history. Many Mormons may be so influential today that they feel strong enough to show how large families they have and how blessed they have been with money and power, but not too many would be very happy to look into the problem of their own family's genetic degeneration as the reason why so many babies in the family are born with Down Syndrome or similar degenerative characteristics. Instead, they keep marrying and getting married quite irresponsibly by denying or keeping silence around the question of the genetic problem that was caused by polygamy.
The church is not sincere enough regarding this question because a direct approach for honest answers would endanger the message that the church has set upon the market not only using faith but mainly millions of dollar$ in advertising for the worthiness of the Mormon way of life. It is embarrassing to address these problems that exist within the church, if you are being commanded (by the gods, by the prophets, by your bishops, by the general authorities, by your church friends, by your relative Mormons, by the media in Utah, etc.) to go and convert the world to the Mormon dogmas. Who would then convert to the dogma of the LDS church if the Mormons-to-be knew the whole repulsive story from the beginning?
The church will approach the problem of telling the truth [at least as partial truths], to the people only after they have already been caught into the Mormon system as "members in good standing" (the process of receiving a temple recommendation is mainly a "say yes to all" situation that comes upon the unexperienced new convert), and through mostly mind manipulation and unfair means of social pressure, the new convert is then obligated to stay silent and never to reveal the nonsense that the church is then forcing him to believe, to teach to his family -and to spread around in the non-Mormon world.
Yes, there are strong links between the actions performed by Mitchel and the teachings that Ashley's father is still receiving in the temple. Both men were taught through repetition and pressure to remain silent and do not divulge what they learned, that they were going to become polygamists in an unknown future. Both men were also taught that the polygamist life of Brigham Young and Joseph Smith was "holy" and "clean" in all ways leading to "become Gods." Both men have come to the conclusion that they have been given "they keys" from god and that they have "powers" of supernatural origin and that through those powers they once will "replenish the earth" in a super power to get millions of women pregnant. The Mormons have invented a mental Viagra that they repeat often enough in the secrecy of the sunday school for men and in the more strict secrecy of the freaking temple sessions. It happens all the time: The Mormon Church teaches men that they are going to become super machos in eternity, with the capacity to engender babies with millions of women goddesses - if they only stay faithful to the nonsense in this life. The church repeats the program of brainwashing men into that condition for years until they believe in it with all their hearts.
It is very hypocritical that the church then evades responsibility on the consequences of such teachings, like in this case they wash their hands by saying that he was ex-communicated for being a polygamist. It is as bad teaching a child at school and at home that murder is good and will make him godly, until he really growns up to kill someone, only to then withdraw from him and say he was a "bad" guy all along for having killed.
The Mormon Church dogma is in reality a neurotic compost of ideological nonsense and careless blindness to the moral and ethical responsibilities involved, if you haven't noticed it yet. |
Anonymous
| | Posted on Monday, March 17, 2003 - 1:04 am: |
|
I noticed. And I noticed Ashley completely ignoring what I asked of her as she has done many many times before. It is very obvious she will just pretend she didn't see the question and hope it's not asked again. Or just post under anonymous as to not draw attention to herself. But I thank you (the above post) for answering the first question that I think you posted yourself.
I suppose if a member of the Mormon church answered the questions truthfully it wouldn't look very good for the church. Or they may just not know the answers. If not they should. I certainly would make an attempt find out if I were a member of such a group. |
ashley ingoldsby
| | Posted on Monday, March 17, 2003 - 7:06 pm: |
|
In the early days of the church polygamy was practised by its members... the church admits this. Where is the lie in admitting something that truly happend? |
ashley ingoldsby
| | Posted on Monday, March 17, 2003 - 7:13 pm: |
|
In the early days of the church polygamy was practised by its members... the church admits this. Where is the lie in admitting something that truly happend? |
Anonymous
| | Posted on Monday, March 17, 2003 - 9:12 pm: |
|
The church does not admit publicly that polygamy is still taught as a dogma of the LDS temple rites. The church teaches polygamy as a secret doctrine that the believers are supposed to believe and accept, but when they freak out and start practicing it now - as opposed to wait for the resurrection, where all the saved ones will be polygamists - the church pretends not to have anything to do with the beliefs of that person. The kidnapper was taught polygamy in the LDS church before he became a polygamist. The church teaches polygamy in the secret, but it does not take responsibility for the social consequences of that teaching. This is the lie. |
Anonymous
| | Posted on Monday, March 17, 2003 - 9:24 pm: |
|
Here is another hint: Ashley may not necessarily be a "she" but a "they" in the army of missionary efforts to silence the "unbelief" of the world. I honestly doubt that a fifteen year old young woman would be as foolish and to remain in such an insane position of ignorance and indifference to objective reasoning. If Ashley would be real, she would manifest reality; the most possible thing is that a group of LDS elders are posting in this discussion under the pseudonym of a harmless young woman. |
Anonymous
| | Posted on Monday, March 17, 2003 - 11:29 pm: |
|
Well that's something I had not thought of.
But I have to admit all of Ashley's posts sound the same to me. Even when she posted as anonymous I knew it was her. So if it is more than one person answering it sounds like only one is actually posting the answer but I could be wrong.
Ashley you said "Where is the lie in admitting something that truly happened?"
There is no lie in that.
You have at least attempted to answer a direct question. I respect that alot more than you ignoring or dodging questions. That only casts suspicion on you and the Mormon chuch. Since you have stated you belong to the Mormon church you should be aware that alone will spark questions.
Answer the questions truthfuly and to the best of your knowledge. If you don't know the answer then admit it. Not everyone is going to agree with you and some will point that out to you. But that is what makes a discussion. Answers, questions and opinions are why we are here. |
Anonymous
| | Posted on Monday, March 17, 2003 - 11:37 pm: |
|
Ashley don't leave out parts of the answers just to make them sound good. |
Craig
| | Posted on Tuesday, March 18, 2003 - 10:55 am: |
|
Come on, Anonymous, no one is going to waste their time on such loaded questions. Here's a question for you:
DO YOU STILL BEAT YOUR WIFE? |
Anonymous
| | Posted on Tuesday, March 18, 2003 - 7:01 pm: |
|
Wait Craig, methinks that the questions are good and not a waste of time in any manner. But, you seem to be disturbed at the disclosure of so much indignity practiced in the secret by the Mormons. Instead of writing silly things, make up your mind and start to think about the discussed topics, as they are very intersting to others. If you don't find them interesting, then why are you still in the discussion? |
ashley ingoldsby
| | Posted on Tuesday, March 18, 2003 - 7:29 pm: |
|
I AM a fifteen year old Mormon girl... if i wasn't then maybe i would be more knowledgable... if you dont believe me that's fine... but you're thinking way too much if you think that i'm not really me... instead i'm some kind of Mormon conspiracy at work... are you sure its the Mormons with crazy ideas? |
Anonymous
| | Posted on Tuesday, March 18, 2003 - 11:13 pm: |
|
Craig the questions asked are not loaded. I think they are questions that deserve an answer. Why do you think they are loaded?
If you were asked if there was ever a U.S. president that resigned because he was accused of a cover up, would you think that was a loaded question? You may not like the answer but it's not loaded. It's just a question, just like the questions asked here. The reason the questions are directed to Ashley is because she has stated she is a member of the Mormon church. Since the questions are about the Mormon church she would be the perfect person to ask. Unless you want to give it a go.
And to answer your question, "DO YOU STILL BEAT YOUR WIFE?" The answer to that is no since I am a woman and don't have a wife.
Why would you ask that? It has nothing to do with the topic. Try and keep up. |
Anonymous
| | Posted on Wednesday, March 19, 2003 - 6:16 am: |
|
The Mormons have come up with crazy ideas from the beginning. For example, polygamy, damnation of the blacks, exploitation of women, teaching that every insider will become a god, etc... Now the news are telling that Mitchel raped the girl right after he kidnapped her. The LDS Church keeps telling that he was excommunicated. Nobody mentions that the guy learned the basics of polygamy in his regular sunday school in the time he still was "a Mormon in good standing." Ashley, if you are a young woman and appreciate your own safety and your own body, how in the world can you approve a religion that implants the seeds for weird thinking in men while it forces women to be "obedient" to such a twisted dogma? |
Anonymous
| | Posted on Wednesday, March 19, 2003 - 4:41 pm: |
|
Ashley I understand you wanting to stand up for the Mormon church but in my opinion your defenses has fallen short. The Jehovah Witnesses has Charles Russell and the Watch Tower Society. The Seventh Day Adventists have Ellen White. And the Mormons have Joseph Smith. Each group teaches differnt things but each group also states they are the ones with the truth. How is that?
I don't think you are using common sense here. You have been given questions and facts have been presented to you but you still act as if you can't see or understand what is being said to you. At the least you should research it. You have stated you might know more if you were not just fifteen years old. I say you might know more if you pulled your head out of the sand and looked for answers.
If you are fifteen I know you have to do what your parents say. I also know it's hard to question something you have been taught since you were born. I am not saying forget about your belief in GOD. But try and use the intelligence you have and think about the information that has been given to you. |
Craig
| | Posted on Wednesday, March 19, 2003 - 4:45 pm: |
|
Anonymous,
I think my question is good, too. But, you seem to be disturbed at the disclosure of so much indignity practiced in secret, so I understand why you’re avoiding the question.
Anonymous,
I think my question deserves an answer, too.
“If you were asked if there was ever a U.S. president that resigned because he was accused of a cover up, would you think that was a loaded question?”
Of course not, because it isn’t. But Anonymous’ questions are. Can you tell me why? |
Craig
| | Posted on Wednesday, March 19, 2003 - 4:59 pm: |
|
"But try and use the intelligence you have and think about the information that has been given to you."
Excellent advice! Now if only we could get anti-Mormons to do that! |
Anonymous
| | Posted on Wednesday, March 19, 2003 - 7:12 pm: |
|
Craig you are really brainwashed by the Mormon blinders and no matter what we discuss in here, you will only launch opposition, because you try to justify the unacceptable. |
Anonymous
| | Posted on Thursday, March 20, 2003 - 5:17 am: |
|
Craig you may want to go about life with your head in the clouds but other people may want to know these things.
When I asked the question, If you were asked if there were ever a U.S. president that resigned because he was accused of a cover up. Would you think that was a loaded question.
You said "Of course not, because it isn't."
But Anonymous' questions are. Can you tell me why?
No, you tell me. I don't think the questions regarding the Mormon Church are loaded. You do.
I knew the question about the president was not a loaded question. I said it purposely to show you just because there are questions with not so pleansant answers, it does not mean they are loaded. They are just questions. Just like the questions here.
As the other anonymous stated you seem to
be disturbed at the disclosure of some of the Mormon's secrets. If you don't want to answer the questions yourself you know you don't have to. But you CAN'T stop others from asking. If the discussion disturbs you that much maybe you should try another forum. |
Anonymous
| | Posted on Thursday, March 20, 2003 - 4:53 pm: |
|
Question 2
Why is the church not more open with it's own historical documents? What does this say about it's confidence in it's own history specifically as related to the church's increasingly restrictive assess to it's archives?
Anyone? I don't know the answer to this but I would like to know. |
Anonymous
| | Posted on Thursday, March 20, 2003 - 6:33 pm: |
|
Mormons are not even open with their own family histories. Do you think they feel happy to show that they are inter-related through polygamy in ways that today are clearly demonstrable as scientific aberration? Will they admit such errors in the morality of their ancestors and then still say that it was blessed and a holy thing coming from the gods? They would blame themselved publicly like crazy freaks. That's why it is so hard for them to revive all the past. |
ashley
| | Posted on Thursday, March 20, 2003 - 7:28 pm: |
|
The church keeps a lot of family history... Even groups who aren't Mormon use the church's records to find their family histories. Journal writing and scrapbooking are highly recommended in the church. Yes... there was polygamy in the church. But when you say that Mormons are dishonest... I'm wondering. How many LDS people do you actually know? |
Anonymous
| | Posted on Thursday, March 20, 2003 - 9:40 pm: |
|
Family history is not Church History Unbiased. There is a difference. Ashley the church is not ready to talk openly about the papers. Please look at question three:
WHY IS THE CHURCH NOT MORE OPEN WITH ITS OWN HISTORICAL DOCUMENTS, SPECIFICALLY AS RELATING TO THE REFUSAL OF THE CHURCH TO ACKNOWLEDGE THE EXISTENCE OF, OR SHARE WITH LAW ENFORCEMENT AUTHORITIES, THE MCLELLIN PAPERS DURING THE HOFMANN INVESTIGATION?
Possibly you do not know anything about that, and in that case it would be on you to investigate and figure out what the hell is going on with a church that keeps telling you that all is well in Zion while things like that story are being blatantly suppressed. You may want to read the so called Zalamander letter, then make up your mind and figure out if all is really well in that psychotic version of Zion that is being sold to you in all the ignorance of your good willing faith. There is no real danger for someone to go and investigate history - real history as opposed to mythological stories - in order to find out that the real danger in this is, that you may find out that the prophets, seers and revelators of the Mormon church are not all that unfailing as everybody told you, and the same way they had to admit publicly that they were fooled by the forged documents provided by Mark Hoffman, that same way their ancestor prophets, seers and revelators could have been fooled by the lies and misguidance of Joseph Smith and Brigham Young.
This is why they won't encourage you to read the real history of the Mormon church. And, they make you believe to be giving the right answers by telling us some advertising idea about the genealogical work of the Mormons, while the real historical evidence is being silenced also in your mind, through the Mormon's despereate intention to rewrite history as quick and silently as possible. Baby you are being brainwashed, and you don't even notice it. |
Anonymous
| | Posted on Thursday, March 20, 2003 - 9:53 pm: |
|
Whole story here:
http://www.xmission.com/~country/reason/hof1.htm
HOFMANN TALKS!
by Jerald and Sandra Tanner
(This article originally appeared in The Salt Lake City Messenger, Issue No. 64 January, 1987)
The Mormons keep telling that Lighthouse ministry is a bunch of "apostates" because they publish history unchanged. |
ashley
| | Posted on Thursday, March 20, 2003 - 10:25 pm: |
|
Don't think that I am narrow minded. The fact that I post on this site, shows that I'm willing to listen to what you have to say... I do read about church history, and try to obtain info from both LDS and non-LDS sources. Have you read the Book of Mormon? I mean I'm not trying to totally preach to you... don't think that. But I truly do believe Moroni's promise and I believe that before you tell me that I'm looking at this from a one sided perspective make sure that you are seeing both sides. |
Anonymous
| | Posted on Friday, March 21, 2003 - 4:38 pm: |
|
Ashley is it true that the Mormon church discourages it's members from reading or listening to anything that is anti Mormon?
I can appreciate you listening to what's being said here but if the above is true, aren't you doing something the church teaches against?
The following website is one of many I found that was written by a Mormon. If none of this material in it is true then why is it I see so many ex Mormons saying the same things. In this forum, on other websites in books and on tv. I hear them all say the same things over and over. Read this site and let me know what you think.
http://god_is_great.tripod.com/hide.html |
Anonymous
| | Posted on Sunday, March 23, 2003 - 9:41 pm: |
|
On Wednesday, March 19, 2003 - 04:59 pm, Craig wrote:
["But try and use the intelligence you have and think about the information that has been given to you."
Excellent advice! Now if only we could get anti-Mormons to do that!]
Here is my question for you, Craig: Why do you believe that anyone asking a question about the weird practices of the Mormon Church is an anti-Mormon? I am a Mormon asking legitimate questions and I won't take the insulting name of Anti-Mormon only because I am asking logical questions to situations that the Church as an organization decides to set up as taboos while refusing to take a stand on the explanation of many odd parts of the gospel that should have been clarified since decades. Instead, the church simply evades communication on the topic(s).
I see that you have a problem with the perception of who is the enemy of the church. In such case, the enemy for someone who has "real faith" in Mormonism would be anyone asking questions. Such way of thinking is crazy and obscene; only suitable for a mind that is way out of control, in a fanatic form of conditioned thinking.
I can have faith in some aspects of Mormonism and still question other aspects that have not been clarified after all. Having faith does not need to mean following blindly only because the guy on top tells us that this is the right thing to do. mormons of the world are continuously building up the new form of mormonism that is going to survive the scrutiny of the freedom of information that we are enjoying now here and everywhere else. There is no hidden action that will be perpetuated as "holy" if people keep asking "why" and if leaders start to see that they owe fair explanation to the sincere seekers of the truth. otherwise, the church would be a liar with all the authorities lying against the truth, God. |
Anonymous
| | Posted on Wednesday, March 26, 2003 - 7:13 pm: |
|
Is Mormonism Christian?
The question above actually can be phrased in several ways:
'Is the Mormon church a Christian denomination?' NO. Mormonism is not Christian because it denies some of the essential doctrines of Christianity, including: 1) the deity of Christ, 2) salvation by grace, and 3) the bodily resurrection of Christ. Furthermore, Mormon doctrine contradicts the Christian teaching of monotheism and undermines the authority and reliability of the Bible. The evidence for these statements is documented in section 3 below.
'Are Mormons Christians?' LIKELY NOT, if they believe the major doctrines of their church.
'Can a Mormon be a Christian?'. POSSIBLY. Only God knows what each person believes (and why) regarding His Son, Jesus Christ. But as a person stays in the Mormon church, absorbs and accepts Mormon teaching, doctrine and 'latter-day revelation', the chances of answering the question in the affirmative approach zero. The key question Mormons must answer is 'WHO is the Jesus they believe in'?
Read it all:
http://www.leaderu.com/offices/michaeldavis/docs/mormonism/mormonism.html |
Anonymous
| | Posted on Thursday, March 27, 2003 - 11:14 pm: |
|
That means a Mormon can be a Christian in according to the condition of his conscience regarding God. The same way, a so called Christian can be a liar and only be using the label for whatever personal reasons. The truth through this all is that there are good Christlike Mormons in the world, and there are good Christlike Christians from other denominations on the world. The people should never be blamed for the lack of integrity coming from their leaders. It is the leadership that needs to be held accountable for their silence and suppression of clarification, while cornering individuals is not very fair. I think that perhaps we are all forgetting that Ashley may be a good Christian girl who happens to believe in Christ no matter how much the leadership in that organization defuses serious aspects of the theology that has changed and continues changing at every step. The BoM has changed a lot since it was created, maybe one day it will be understood that the book is not really that important because the people are important and Christ is important if you want to be considered a part of his team. the falsity of D&C and the BoM will sooner or later be completely exposed and understood while the good sides of Mormonism may prevail and save the organization. One can't blame the people for their origins, they can't help being born in something like that. all they can do is become better every day since that is all they have been given to their free choice. |
Anonymous
| | Posted on Friday, March 28, 2003 - 1:37 am: |
|
Ashley may very well be sincere. She sounds as if she is. Although I still don't believe Mormon beliefs and Christian beliefs as the same, I don't believe anyone can truly say one is not saved because only God really sees the heart. And it's true Ashley can't help being born in a particular organization. And it's also true she can't be blamed for the lack of integrity of her leaders. But when she is presented with a valid question or inconsistency of her beliefs it seems she would at least acknowledge it. Her answer to the questions is to not answer at all. None forced her to post here. She did so willingly.
The post above said "....all they can do is become better everyday since that is all they have been given to their free choice."
That is true until they are given other options and information to expand their choices. That is what people are trying to do here.
When you are willing to show yourself Ashley I'm still waiting for your response to the site I posted. |
ashley
| | Posted on Friday, March 28, 2003 - 6:49 pm: |
|
the link to the site you posted:
http://god_is_great.tripod.com/hide.html
doesn't work... although I'm not sure if this is the one you're talking about because different people are under anonymous. |
Anonymous
| | Posted on Saturday, March 29, 2003 - 2:52 am: |
|
The link works fine for me. Perhaps you should simply cut and paste it to your browser and then hit "go." I am another anonymous in the list  , and I have read that page for some time. the creator of that site is evidently another ex-Mormon who got fed up by the unreasonable theories imposed by the church, and he made up his own mind for answers to many of the fundamental questions not addressed by the church. It makes me wonder how long some people take to understand the nature of the evil lie sold by the general authorities in the name of true religion. It is very offensive to see how they treat their own people like if they were brain-dead imbeciles by ignoring their legitimate questions while denying the fairness of straight answers. That's why the ex-Mormons are so angry at the church; it has to do with some form of mental and emotional abuse. |
Anonymous
| | Posted on Saturday, March 29, 2003 - 3:04 am: |
|
Anonymous, on Friday, March 28, 2003 at 01:37 am you wrote:
The post above said "....all they can do is become better everyday since that is all they have been given to their free choice."
That is true until they are given other options and information to expand their choices. That is what people are trying to do here.
--------------------------------------------
The problem that you don't seem to understand is that this discussion is by no means an alternative to the very supportive social system that a Mormon is in while active in the church. I highly doubt that Ashley would leave the comfort zone that she is in, where she regularly meets with members of her ward, stake, young women organization, missionary preparation meetings, social events in the Mormon Church, temple sessions, general conferences, visiting teachers, hometeachers, etc. to become a part of this virtual discussion with a few opponents of the LDS church that actually are not even real people since all appear as anonymous in a website of continuous criticism of all and everything that has to do with religion and freedom of conscience. You are too optimistic if you hope that FACTNet will be in any manner an alternative or exit choice for a Mormon out of the social pressure that the church has already imposed on him/her. for that, we are all too weak and "anonymous." That's why ex-Mormons tend to continue organizing in flocks, with meetings and activities of all kinds in order to replace the lack of socialization that the termination of their church membership brings upon their lives. |
Anonymous
| | Posted on Saturday, March 29, 2003 - 4:58 am: |
|
People who post as anonymous are obviously real people. Words can be understood even if names are not attached to them.
I am very aware of the fact this board does not compare to the actual church as far as influencing it's members. Ashley is not going to give up her way of thinking after a few weeks of reading these posts. It would be stupid to think otherwise. But Ashley is here and she is reading. And who knows who else is here that is a member of the church. They or she may disregard all of this now. But years down the line she may began to remember and hopefully she will begin to think. Regardless if she agrees or not she has been exposed to facts she may not have heard before. And we all have the right to express our opinions here.
Ashley sorry the link didn't work for you. Maybe if you try the cut and paste as suggested it will work. |
Anonymous
| | Posted on Saturday, March 29, 2003 - 10:13 am: |
|
Yes, years down the line, perhaps. The process of cleansing up your own mind from Mormonism is always lengthy and not without pain. Church and social structures in Utah make it difficult to leave, and you have to face danger of ending up an outsider in your own hometown. Retaliation is always a tool of social pressure. I knew of Mormons that were harrassed at work by their Mormon employers for leaving the church. Their jobs had nothing to do with Mormon beliefs, since the industry transferred a lot of technical positions (customer service, software, etc.) to UT for cheap labor. It is common to see layoffs that are never clearly explained as to the reasons why the Mormon supervisor is letting someone go, after that person leaves the church. The pressure continues in very infamous ways for the ones who leave the church; brainwashed family members make it even more painful for the leaving soul to live normal. Some leave the city, some leave the state; often you will see people that leave after a whole life of mind control, but they see no other choice than to stay and play the Mormon Temple farse only not to lose contact to their family members, that are already infested by the insane beliefs and social pressure coming from church and social order in Utah. It is a sad situation and no matter what you do, you lose one way or another. Only new converts have it easier to leave as long as they don't have extended family members lost to Mormonism. This is the sad truth. |
Anonymous
| | Posted on Saturday, March 29, 2003 - 4:48 pm: |
|
That sounds like the communist regime, where people had to pretend they agreed, only to keep their jobs and privileges in the communist social order. |
ashley
| | Posted on Saturday, March 29, 2003 - 8:21 pm: |
|
I'm sorry. I get a "Server not found" message when I try and get to that website, even copying the address and pasting it in my address bar. The thing is, is that so many ex-Mormon stories that I hear, for example the examples from:
Saturday, March 29, 2003 - 10:13 am
aren't really peoples conflicts with the church. They're conflicts with other people. I cannot justify the actions of members who are judgmental and unkind, all that I can say is that those things aren't what the church teaches. I am trying to be like Jesus, and I try to be kind to all the people I know. I'm sorry for the members who have done things that Christ would not have, but I encourage you to think about whether your reasons for being angry at the church, are really the church and its docterines, or whether you are simple mad at its members... because we are just human. |
Anonymous
| | Posted on Saturday, March 29, 2003 - 9:50 pm: |
|
The members would not act that way if they weren't instigated by the fascist beliefs taught by the organization. Ashley, you only need to listen to the biased talks given by the 1st Presidency in their yearly events, to know that they are teaching cultism. Any church that teaches you that they are the "only ones" is a cultic organization. |
Anonymous
| | Posted on Saturday, March 29, 2003 - 9:57 pm: |
|
Ashley maybe you are on a restricted internet service provider that won't let you read anti-Mormon literature on the web? Here is the website's information that you cannot connect with your browser:
How the Mormon Church Hides the Truth From its Members
The Mormon church is very good at hiding things it has done and there is more or less what you would call a "Mormon culture" that prevents members from looking into the church. There is a general attitude held by the members that people who are against the church are working for Satan and are only creating lies about the church.
For example, I also had that impression of people who were talked bad about the Mormon church. I thought they misquoted and stretched the truth. With that idea in mind I was never open to really looking at the claims against the church.
People who left the church and started talking bad about the church are just said to be bitter. I am not bitter at the church at all. I was told that people who left the church could not keep the commandments or rules of the church and gave up. Look at the comments in guest books of people having pages similar to mine. There is a theme there. I left the church not because I couldn’t keep the commandments, but because the church was wrong. Anyone who would call someone else a sinner really should look at their own lives and decide whether you should be saying that to ourselves because we all fall short and need the grace of God. This thinking prevents members of the Mormon church from looking at the church.
Not all Mormons are like this, but there is an encouragement of sorts to associate more with members of the church. Most of my friends were Mormon. They may be friends or casual acquaintances with nonmembers, but this friendship for the most part is pretty limited. Right now I have no contact with many of my old friends. I am sure they have been told that they need to stay away, but I don't know so I am only making assumptions about that. The Mormon Church has it all figured out.
As a member of the Mormon Church, members are told not to look at anti-mormon literature and if they do they are asking for trouble. Leaders of the church for example have said that we should not see the movie "The God Makers" and say that even the most faithful member could lose the spirit and fall away. Now why would they encourage the members not to see this movie unless they have something to hide? Are the members mindless robots who can't make decisions for themselves? Couldn't they see the movie and see how false it is? I think it is because they do know that the movie is stating facts about the church that they would rather not have the members know.
There is also an idea that when we look at the history of the church or details of change in the Book of Mormon, ect, that we are looking at religion in more of an intellectual or scientific way. They say that religion can't be proved by science or facts. "You have to go by what you feel inside." Well, for years growing up I believed in Santa Claus and I knew inside that Santa Claus was real and I even wrote him letters asking for presents and would get letters back. Of course we know that Santa Claus is not real, but just because I had a feeling that it was doesn't make it correct. Looking at the facts, we know that Santa is not real. We can stay up late and see our parents putting the Santa gifts by the tree. In that same way we can also put two and two together and see that it doesn't equal five. There is nothing wrong with looking at the religion you belong to and questioning. You will not "lose the spirit" and if anything you may gain from it.
I think one of the best examples of how the Mormon church hides the truth from its members is found in their Sunday School manual where they discuss the teachings of Brigham Young. In the beginning of the book there is a place telling the instructor that they do not need to look for any additional information to teach the class and should not look at the source of the quotes. How much clearer could this be? They do not want people looking at these quotes by former prophets and only want to use the extracts that are "robot approved." On that same line, the church does not make the available resources to really study these things because once it is not "robot approved" it will not be printed and is left out. For example, the Discourses of Brigham Young is a collections of talks in General Conferences, etc and there are many things in there that the church would rather the members not see as can be seen in the Sunday School manual. Today those quotes are not easily available, but you can get a cleaned up condensed version of the book. Many things are hard to find and if they are found the book's validity is then questioned. What a bunch of BS?
How is the Mormon church hiding the truth you may ask. Well, how are they sharing with their members the teaching by Brigham Young that "Adam is our God"? Are they taking the time to explain the parts of the Book of Mormon, D&C and Pearl of Great Price that have changed? Are they explaining changes made in the temple? These things are not talked about. One of the most not talked about subjects in the Mormon church is the temple. They are afraid of the topic because of covenants they make in the temple not to tell or talk about it. Because of this idea they do not openly question and grow to accept the temple.
I have a funny temple story. You go through the temple to do the endowment session the first time for yourself and then you do it for the dead on subsequent visits. On my first time it was very strange. If you don't know what it looks like I am sure there are pictures out there of the whole getup. Anyway, I did the whole washing and anointing thing before and got my new name and thought how special my name must be. After the endowment session and we were in the Celestial room with my parents and my dad's parents, I looked down at my grandpa's hands and I saw my name (Levi) written on his hand. I knew you weren't supposed to tell anyone except at the veil at the end of the endowment session your name and somehow he knew it. I thought about it for a while and finally was told by someone that everyone in the temple has the same name for the whole day. I still remained active at that time though and put it in the back of my mind that it didn't matter. Does it really matter? Should we just put these thoughts in the back of our mind and forget them? That's what the Mormon church suggests.
In summary, the church has many ways of keeping the members from learning about the truth. Through changes in scripture, temple ceremonies or books the members have a hard time finding things wrong with the church. Any church that keeps its members from looking for the truth in any way does so because it has something to hide. This page is not directed at the Jehovah's Witnesses, but they have been discouraged from using the internet because of the availability of material there. Isn't the internet great?
http://god_is_great.tripod.com/hide.html |
ashley
| | Posted on Sunday, March 30, 2003 - 3:35 am: |
|
No church will encourage its members to study teachings that are against it... Would a Christian church tell its members to search out Anti-Christ docterine to test their faith? No... they would encourage them to read the Bible, to learn of Christ. How is that different? We are encouraged to read the scriptures to test our faith in God, as are all other Christian faiths...
Part of the movie, "The God Makers" was actually shown to my parents at a church activity when it was released... so much of it is absolutely fake... I mean, there is a scene where the primary children (3-12 year olds) are singing a song called "pop corn popping" that has hand gestures in the way many kids songs do... (ex. i'm a little teapot, the itsy bitsy spider... etc) WELL... the scene is shot of the kids performing this song and the singing is taken off so you just see the kids doing the actions... the people who made the movie said that they were being taught spells or some stupid idea like that... SERIOUSLY people... you are saying Mormons take in everything they are told without even thinking? If you believe that the little kids in "The God Makers" are doing spells... who are the people believing everything that they are told?
Yes some people believe that they can "prove" the Book of Mormon false... but if you were willing to believe that everything needed scientific proof, than the entire concept of God has been "proven" false by many scientists who point the world's creation to some coincidental giant BOOM, and man just a form of evolution's course.
This isn't the best site but it has some stats about the Book of Mormon:
http://www.comevisit.com/lds/bom-evid.htm#xvii
Proverbs 3:5 "Trust in the LORD with all thine heart; and lean not unto thine own understanding."
I'm not saying to follow blindly... I'm simply saying that not everything has scientific proof. I'm not trying to be ignorant... All I am saying is that I am trying to listen to what you are saying... I just believe this... not because i've been "brainwashed" or anything... i really sincerely do. |
Anonymous
| | Posted on Sunday, March 30, 2003 - 4:47 am: |
|
To the post dated March 29 9:57 PM thank you for taking the time to type out the material on that website.
Ashley I do believe that you are sincere when you speak of what you believe. And not too many 15 year olds are so articulate regarding their faith. But I do have a question.
I really don't understand how you use the bible. I could quote a verse here and I know you wouldn't agree with it. But when you quote verses you say them as if you truly believe them. How can you tell which verses are giving you correct information and which ones are not. And if you think even one verse is incorrect why would you bother with the bible at all? |
ashley
| | Posted on Sunday, March 30, 2003 - 2:08 pm: |
|
We believe the Bible to be the word of God. Couldyou please give me an example so that I can see what you are saying? |
Anonymous
| | Posted on Sunday, March 30, 2003 - 3:34 pm: |
|
Ashley, I am NOT the same anonymous that posted on Sunday, March 30, 2003 - 04:47 am, so please don't expect me to respond more directly to your question regarding exact Bible quotations. But, your response brings me to some conclusions that I respectfully ask you to consider:
One of the articles of faith of the Mormons is to say "We believe that the Bible is truth - as long as it is translated correctly." My question is, who guarantees that the Book of Mormon was translated correctly, if the BoM as we know it today differs so much from the original translation that Joseph Smith made of that book?
Since you seem to have trouble opening links, I would like to share a web explanation of the changes that have been done in the book of Mormon. It is up to you to conclude when and why would something be called a "correct" translation of a non-existing document (no original evidence of the existence of the BoM has been ever proved in America).
--------------------
SIGNIFICANT CHANGES IN THE BOOK OF MORMON
For most of the LDS church's 150 year history, it was staunchly maintained by the church leaders that there were no changes in the Book of Mormon of a doctrinal nature. Indeed, Joseph Fielding Smith warned in 1961 that:
...there was not one thing in the Book of Mormon or in the second edition or in any other edition since that in any way contradicts the first edition, and such changes as were made were made by the prophet Joseph Smith because under those adverse conditions the Book of Mormon was published. But there was no change of doctrine. Now, these sons of Belial who circulate these reports evidently know better. I will not use the word that is in my mind."The Improvement Era, Dec.1961, pp.924-925.
Although there are 3,913+ changes in the Book of Mormon; not all of them are minor. Although the recent "line" on the changes in the Book of Mormon from the LDS church is that all the changes are unimportant; actual examination does not bear this out, especially when one considers the contention by Joseph Smith himself (see Saint's Herald, November 15, 1962, p.16.) that the golden plates were supposedly translated letter-by-letter "by the power of God." (HISTORY OF THE CHURCH, i, p.54-55)
Typos are one thing, profound changes in doctrine, major errors in consistency and common sense are quite another. (Changed parts are highlighted)
DOCTRINAL PROBLEMS:
1) Title page: (both versions)
1830: "...by Joseph Smith, jr., author and proprietor"
Today: "translated by Joseph Smith, jr."
2) First Book of Nephi, p.25 (1830): "Behold, the virgin which thou seest, is the mother of God, after the manner of the flesh."
Today: 1 Nephi 11:18: "...is the mother of the Son of God."
3) First Book of Nephi, p.25 (1830):."...behold the Lamb of God, yea, even the Eternal Father!"
Today: 1 Nephi 11:21: "yea, even the Son of the Eternal Father!"
4) First Book of Nephi, p.26 (1830): "And I looked and beheld the Lamb of God, that he was taken by the people; yea, the Everlasting God was judged of the the world..."
Today: 1 Nephi 11:32: "...yea, the Son of the Everlasting God was judged of the world..."
5) First Book of Nephi, p.32; (1830): "...that the Lamb of God is the Eternal Father and the Saviour of the world."
Today: "..the Lamb of God is the Son of the Eternal Father and the Savior of the world."
6) Second Book of Nephi, p.37; (1830): "..and the mean man boweth down, and the great man humbleth himself not..."(cf. Is.2:6-9)
Today: 2 Nephi 12:9: "and the mean man boweth not down and the great man humbleth himself not..."
7) Second Book of Nephi, p.117; (1830): "and many generations shall not pass away among them, save they shall be a white and delightsome people."
Today: 2 Nephi 30:6: "and many generations shall not pass away among them, save they shall be a pure and delightsome people."
8) Book of Alma, p.236; (1830): "I know that Jesus Christ shall come; yea the Son of the only begotten of the Father..."
Today: Alma 5:48: "I know that Jesus Christ shall come; yea the Son,[?] the only begotten of the Father..."
9) Book of Alma, p.303; (1830): "yea, I know that he allotteth unto men, yea, decreeth unto them decrees which are unalterable,.according to their wills.."
Book of Mormon (1950):Alma 29:4:"yea, I know that he allotteth unto men [?].according to their wills.. "
Today: Alma 29:4: "yea, I know that he allotteth unto men, yea, decreeth unto them decrees which are unalterable,.according to their wills.. "
10) Book of Alma p.315; (1830): "But behold, as the seed swelleth and sprouteth and beginneth to grow, and then ye must needs say, That seed is good; for behold, it swelleth and sprouteth and beginneth to grow."
Today: Alma 32:30: "But behold, as the seed swelleth and sprouteth and beginneth to grow, and then ye must needs say, That seed is good; for behold, it swelleth and sprouteth and beginneth to grow. And now behold, will not this strengthen your faith? Yea, it will strengthen your faith: for ye will say that I know that this is a good seed; for behold, it sprouteth and beginneth to grow."
11) Book of Alma p.328; (1830): "yea, and that ye preserve these directors."
Today: Alma 37:21: "yea, and that ye preserve these interpreters."
12) Book of Alma p.328; (1830): "And now my son, these directors were prepared that the word of God might be fulfilled..."
Today: Alma 37:24: "And now my son, these interpreters were prepared that the word of God might be fulfilled..."
MAJOR ERRORS IN LOGIC, CONSISTENCY OR GRAMMAR:
1) Book of Mosiah, p.200; (1830): "...on learning from the mouth of Ammon that king Benjamin had a gift from God..."
Today: Mosiah 21:28: "...on learning from the mouth of Ammon that king Mosiah had a gift from God..."
2) Book of Mosiah, p.214; (1830): "My soul was wrecked with eternal torment..."
Today: Mosiah 27:29: "My soul was racked with eternal torment..."
3) Book of Alma, p.260; (1830): "Behold, the Scriptures are before you; if ye will arrest them, it shall be to your own destruction." (also p.336)
Today: Alma 13:20: "Behold, the Scriptures are before you; if ye will wrest them, it shall be to your own destruction."
4) Book of Alma, p.270; (1830): "And it came to pass, when they had arriven in the borders of the land..." (also p.443)
Today: Alma: 17:13: "And it came to pass, when they had arrived in the borders of the land..."
5) Book of Alma, p.278; (1830): "the multitude beheld that the man had fell dead..." (also p.310)
Today: Alma 19:24: "the multitude beheld that the man had fallen dead..."
6) Book of Alma, p.299; (1830): "Now when Ammon and his brethren saw this work of destruction among those who they so dearly beloved, and among those who had so dearly beloved them..."
Today: Alma 27:4: "Now when Ammon and his brethren saw this work of destruction among those whom they so dearly beloved, and among those who had so dearly beloved them..."
7) Book of Alma, p.351; (1830): "...he went forth among the people, waving the rent of his garment in the air, that all might see the writing which he had wrote upon the rent..."
Today: Alma 46:19: "...he went forth among the people, waving the rent part of his garment in the air, that all might see the writing which he had written upon the rent part..."
8) Book of Alma, p.353; (1830): "to remove the cause of diseases which was subsequent to men by the nature of the climate"
Today: Alma 46:40: "to remove the cause of diseases to which men were subject by the nature of the climate"
9) Book of Alma, p.388; (1830): "For behold, Ammon had sent to their support..."
Today: Alma 57:17: "For behold, Ammoron had sent to their support..."
Many other citations could be given, but "out of the mouths of two or three witnesses..." it is evident that although the Lord supposedly dictated the Book of Mormon letter by letter, he could not spell, keep doctrine or characters straight, and even had serious problems with grammar and logic. What is even more bizarre, is the fact that still in the Book of Mormon, after all of these changes, there are still many just plain strange things like:
1) Jacob 7:27: "and to the reader I bid farewell, hoping that many of my brethren may read my words. Brethren, adieu." What is a French word doing in a document supposedly written by a Hebrew in America around 421 BC?
2) Helaman 9:6: "...when the judge had been murdered, he being stabbed by his brother by a garb of secrecy..." How can one be stabbed by a garb (garment)?
3) Alma 13:1: "...my brethren, I would cite your minds forward to the time when the Lord God gave these commandments unto his children..." How can you "cite" someone's mind "forward" to something that happened in the past?
4) Alma 24:19: "...they buried their weapons of peace, or they buried the weapons of war for peace." What is a weapon of peace, and can it be the same as a weapon of war?
5) Alma 43:38: "they being shielded from the more vital parts of the body,..." How does one shield oneself from the vital parts of one's own body?
6) Ether 15:31: "And it came to pass that after he had smitten off the head of Shiz, that Shiz raised up on his hands and fell; and after that he struggled for breath, he died." And we are asked to believe that God wrote this?
This brief study does not even take into account the many scientific impossibilities, anachronisms, and logical contradictions which yet remain in the Book of Mormon. Please see our booklet, "A Biologist Looks at the Book of Mormon" for exceptional references on those items. |
Anonymous
| | Posted on Sunday, March 30, 2003 - 4:54 pm: |
|
Ashley I am the post that ask you about how correct the bible verses are how do you determine which ones are correct.
There are scriptures throughout the bible that warn of addding or taking away from what is already written. There are no exceptions. The Mormon doctrine does exactly that. If you believe the bible is the word of God why would the meaning of what is already written be changed? Why would it have to be improved?
One situation in particular as it pertains to your church is in Mark chapter 12. The Pharisees were trying to trick Jesus. They asked him about a woman that was married to one of seven brothers. Her husband died without a heir and she married the next brother. He also died and the same was repeated until she had married the seventh brother. He also died. And the woman died.
The Pharisees asked Jesus (Mark 12:23) In the resurrection therefore when they shall rise, whose wife shall she be of them?
for the seven had her to wife.
24 And Jesus answering said unto them, Do ye not therefore err because ye know not the scriptures, neither the power of God?
25 For when they shall rise from the dead they neither marry nor are given in marriage but are as the angels which are in heaven.
Now those verses are very easy to understand don't you think? If the bible is really the word of GOD how can it change? You admitted yourself once GOD is the same today as he was yesterday. But the Mormon church teaches something entirely different. Why is that? |
ashley
| | Posted on Sunday, March 30, 2003 - 8:40 pm: |
|
The verse you are talking about that says things should not be added or taken away from the Bible, is actually talking about the specific book of Revelation...
Rev 22:19 "And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book."
If this weren't so, than, because the Bible isn't set in chronological order, all the books written after Revelations would be an addition to the Bible that existed, and those books would then be false.
I will read Mark 12 later tonight. |
Anonymous
| | Posted on Sunday, March 30, 2003 - 9:10 pm: |
|
The book of Mormon has changed definitions also in regards to the damnation of the blacks. In the older version (I believe until the late nineties), the BoM referred to the curse as a "skin of blackness" given by god to a group of people as a punishment for their sins. Only after the NCLU and other human rights organizations persisted to approach the LDS church about the clear discrimination and racism referred to in that curse, the BoM's new version changed once again, and now you can find the curse as "the skin of darkness." In their recent explanation they refer to this as different kind of curse, that relates to spiritual darkness as opposed to the racial blackness that was meant in the original translation. I see that as long as they could get away with racism (slavery was institutionalized in the times of Joseph Smith), they kept the old version. Only in recent times, with the influence of affirmative action and the intervention of human right oriented minority representations, the Mormons have officially abandoned the first translation on this serious issue. Again, they seem not to respect the word that their prophet, Joseph Smith, alegedly received as the inspired "translation" f | |
Closed: New threads not accepted on this page