If someone writes a book about a religion, even if they were a member of that religion for part of their life, and misrepresents the facts of the religion, misrepresents the doctrines, the teachings and the religion, then they are writing lies.
Lots of ex-Catholics who have been sucked into fundie brainwashing cults write anti-Catholic works that are chock full of lies. They’re not lying because I don’t agree with what they write, they’re lying because their positions are demonstrably false when compared, side by side, with what the Catholic Church actually teaches in its official documents.
Since we’re dealing with a fundie in your example, one can safely assume she’s as much of a liar as an ex-mormon as many brainwashed former catholics are as ex-papists.
And an old “lady” is just as likely to lie as anyone else. Particularly if she’s a fundamentalist writing a hate screed about another religion.
And in any case, why would you ever trust an “ex-” anything? Obviously they’re unreliable. They likely hate whatever it was they’re an “ex-” of and thus not a good source of information.
Would you go to a man’s ex-wife to find out what kind of person he is?
Everything I know about the Jewish religion, I learned from the Protocols of the Elders of Zion. They were written by actual leaders of the Jewish Conspiracy! Why would old people who were the head of the very culst lie?
What mostly baffles me is how this breed of literalism was ever anything but a fringe of Christianity.
I asked JerseyDiamond, now I’ll ask you. How are so certain that it’s not your ears that are itching? It seems to me that you only consult authors that confirm your existing beliefs, thus scratching your itchy ears. You refuse to read the religioustolerance.org link or any of the other links I and others have given you for a different prespective, thus avoiding any challenge to your thoughts. You are the one who has declared that you refuse to change your mind and so have become ossified and obstinate. I pity you.
You are increasingly becoming an example of what the poet Martial referred to as “a person of only one book,” tha is, someone who who has read enough to spout opinions but not enough to have acquired any real knowledge. C’mon, if actual Mormons are telling you that you are misinformed about their religion, don’t you think that maybe they are right and you are in error? I’m not saying you’re not quoting the book accurately; for all I klnow, you are. But one book, epsecially when writen from a biased point of view cannot give you a fully rounded picture of the Mormon faith.
To add more books to your reading list (are you even looking at my book recommendations?): Mormon America–slightly critical overview of the Church and its activities By the Hand of Mormon: The American Scripture that Launched a New World Religion–pro-Mormon, but a sound history of the Book of Mormon and the early days of the LDS Emma-biography of Joseph Smith’s first wife No Man Knows My History–excellent, warts and all, biography of Joseph Smith that effectively demolishes the hagiography the Church has built around Smith. The LDS HATES this book.
See, you need to read both pro-and anti-Mormon books to get a fair view and make up your own mind. But you shouldn’t take the bitter ex-Mormon “tell all” books too seriously–they come form evangelical Christian publishers who like to punch up the anti-LDS elements to please the prejudices of their readers.
It has always been a fringe, at least since the Enlightment Period of the Mid 1600s to Late 1700s. See Karen Armstrong’s The Battle for God for an excellent examination of the rise of fundamentalism within Christianity, Judaism and Islam.
H4E, Guin has stated before that she’s a Catholic type, so it’s hard to see how your statement applies to her. Guin just doesn’t like lies. Why don’t you go find some of these books that have been recommended to you, and broaden your knowlege? It won’t hurt.
Gobear, you may be interested to know that when Fawn Brodie wrote another biography, about Thomas Jefferson, using the same ‘research techniques’ as she did with Joseph Smith, she was reviled and drummed out of the circle of respectable biographers, because this time people noticed how inaccurate and shoddy her writing was. Go try to find that book in print. You’re welcome to enjoy her book, but it isn’t a good biography in any sense. But of course, I’m biased, and so you don’t have to believe me. Sure, Joseph Smith had plenty of imperfections. He was human, too. It’s still a rotten piece of writing.
From what I understand, the chief objection was that Brodie emphasized the relations between Jefferson and Sally Hemings at a time when the official view was that the relationship was a myth. Now, of course, we know that Brodie was right and her critics were wrong. Mind, I haven’t read the book myself, so I can’t give you a verdict, but I liked her writing in the Smith biography.
I’ll add that to my ever-spawning to-read list, and thank you Homebrew. Gives my embattled underdog inner optimist some hope as he spits out bits of broken teeth from the ongoing inner-cynic pounding he takes.
Why do you assert that our disagreement with you is something “automatic,” as opposed to being a legitimate difference of beliefs, based on reasoned thought?
As HOMEBREW asks, why are you so certain it is us, and not you, who have been led astray. Because it seems to me that “itching ears” could also crave to hear a simplistic message that does not demand (or even allow) deep thought. Jesus said His way is not the easy one; why do you think understanding the words and the will of God should be as easy as it is for literalists?
Do you realize how insulting it is to fellow Christians to attribute differences of opinion, even on issues as fundamental as doctrine, to the influence of Satan? I cannot overestimate to you how rude this is. And don’t bother saying “but it’s true!” As I have already said, you are not the arbiter of what is or is not the truth.
In point of fact, as this thread consistently shows, it is not us who are refusing to listen to you, but you who refuse to listen to us. We ask you questions; you refuse to answer them. We point out why we think you are in error; you restate your original position as if you haven’t heard a word we’ve said. We encourage you – repeatedly – to think for yourself; you make no indication you have, or will. So understand this: I am listening to you. I just don’t agree with you. It’s as simple as that.
Actually, we don’t know that Brodie was right about Jefferson. We know that the Jefferson paternal line is mixed with Hemings, but Thomas Jefferson had relatives (cousins I think) who were known to have trouble with morals, and would have passed on the same markers.
The problem with Brodie’s methods is that she speculates about the characters of history instead of pursuing the facts. In Jefferson’s case, she may have been right, but only as right as Nostradamus seems to be.
I simply don’t have the time to answer every single question every single person asks me, I’d have to be on here 24/7. And I doubt my answers would satisfy you anyway. Okay, so you don’t agree with me, that’s fine. Wer’e even, I don’t agree with you either. Yes, I do take note of all the books you’ve mentioned. Those also are too numerous to read all plus I’d have no idea where to find them all. Next time I’m at the Bible book store I may look up the classic Mere Christianity as someone has suggested. I’m willing to be amicable and agree to disagree. I’m not going to change your minds, you’re not going to change mine. You’re entitled to your opinion, I’m entitled to mine. Let’s leave it at that.
H4E, I wish you would take a couple days off of this thread, compose some answers to some questions, and come back and re-join the discussion. I know how hard it is to debate with some of these folks…they’re VERY smart, and VERY good at debating. But you don’t have to be an off-the-cuff debator to make your point. Take all the time you need. Use reference materials. Copy quotes from your favorite magazines. Do whatever you need to do to defend your stand in a meaningful way. Putting your fingers in your ears just isn’t cutting it.
You’re not entitled to your opinion if it’s based on lies, if it leads you to misrepresent the nature of gay people, and gay Christians, if it leads you to spread lies about Mormonism, Islam and Catholicism. Nowhere in this world does it say you have a right to hold whatever opinion you want. And certainly not one that causes substansive harm to others.
I don’t know where you live, but I’m sure there is a public library nearby. Your local library should have at least some of the books I’ve mentioned, including Mere Christianity. (See, I’ve saved you some money!) Any books your library doesn’t have you should be able to request through Inter-Library Loan.
Other books to consider: Why I am not a Christian, by Bertrand Russell The Demon-Haunted World, by Carl Sagan (No, it’s not about demons–it’s about using science as a tool to sort out truth) Flim-Flam-James Randi Fads and Fallacies in the Name of Science, by Martin Gardner The Blind Watchmakerand Unweaving the Rainbow, by Richard Dawkins
Oh, sure she is. Nowhere in this world is there any basis for declaring you can dictate what other people think – and how could you do that anyway?
We, in turn, are free to conclude that an individual’s opinion is based on ignorance (willful or not) and discount that opinion accordingly. We are also free to contradict that opinion as being both ill-formed and flat-out wrong, whenever the individual chooses to air it. Indeed, I would argue that other Christians have not only the right but the duty to do so.
But clearly she can think whatever she wants. And so can the rest of us, thank God. I would only say to you, His4ever that you ought to be a little less free with your opinions if you are both unable and unwilling to defend them. As I have said, to whack someone with your judgmentalism and then run is not an act of witnessing; it is an act of cowardice.
And H4E, I would gently remind you that several of the people encouraging you to think through why you believe what you believe, are Christians. So don’t mistakenly think that this thread has just been a bunch of unbelievers pouncing all over you. It’s not, really.
I think a few days off to consider things might do us all a bit of good.
Fundamentalism is a cowardly religion. The Rapture, because they’re afraid of the Apocalypse. OSAS because they’re afraid of their own fallibility. “My Pal Jesus” Christology, because they’re afraid of his divinity. “WWJD” buttons, stickers, bracelets, etc, because they’re afraid of giving any moral situation actual thought.
It’s not necessary that the author be lying in order for the book to contain a lot of incorrect statements about official Mormon doctrine.
It may be that the author was raised by Mormons who weren’t very careful about making sure that their particular beliefs were completely in keeping with the official position of the Mormon church.
Or it may be that after she stopped being a Mormon, she decided to dig up as much dirt as she could on the Mormon church – so that whenever she stumbled across a document that cast the Mormons in a bad light, she believed it without question and didn’t bother to research said document’s authenticity (so long as it didn’t directly contradict things she’d learned about the Mormon church back when she was a Mormon). As a former “true believer” in a couple of things that I now strongly disagree with, I know from my own personal experience that Hell hath no fury like a former true believer.
Sure, Joseph Smith had plenty of imperfections. He was human, too. It’s still a rotten piece of writing.
Yes, I do take note of all the books you’ve mentioned. Those also are too numerous to read all plus I’d have no idea where to find them all. Next time I’m at the Bible book store I may look up the classic Mere Christianity as someone has suggested. I’m willing to be amicable and agree to disagree. I’m not going to change your minds, you’re not going to change mine. You’re entitled to your opinion, I’m entitled to mine. Let’s leave it at that.