Erdosain and Zedd, both of you dial it back–a lot. The personal sniping is not appropriate to this forum.
Knock it off.
Anyone else who feels compelled to wade in on one side or the other, you also need to refrain from personal comments.
Enough.
[ /Moderating ]
aye aye
Okay, but I reserve the right to defend myself from being called an anti-Semite for no discernible reason in GD. I’ll concede I could have defended myself in a more civil manner.
velosue, are you familiar with Mormonism? The “annoying younger brother” comment is a reference to a character in the Book of Mormon, who is indeed an annoying younger brother as well as being completely fictional.
As for “Jews,” I technically should have used “Israelite.” Not it makes any functional difference. Regardless, the comment was intended to show the ridiculous notion that the American continent was colonized by a small ship full of Israelites in 600 BC. I don’t see how “Jew” could possibly be taken as a slur against Jewish people without some seriously creative interpreting, but I’m open to suggestions.
Zedd, I’ll see you in the Pit, as I should have done five posts ago.
See Zedd, to get back to the original topic, you are a prime example of what the OP was talking about. You get confronted with uncomfortable truths. And your response isn’t to try and address any of them. It is to ignore them and bear your testimony, and lie about church doctrine while you are at it. I am a priesthood holder. I rail against the church. You can bet your sweet bippy the church holds I will “suffer for my criticisms.” Here is Joseph Smith’s take on people like me, “Apostates after turning from the faith of Christ … have sooner or later fallen into the snares of the wicked one, and have been left destitute of the Spirit of God, to manifest their wickedness in the eyes of multitudes.”
Nope, not a Mormon, I’m just a poor Epicopalian. But historically the word Jew has been and continues to be frequently used as a perjorative. You are right that it would have better and more accurate to have used Isrealite or even Hebrews.
I am slightly familiar with the colonization story and while I have no opinion on it specifically, I find it no more difficult to believe that the Isrealites made this trip, just as the Irish did 1600 years ago(and possibly even the phoenicians), or the vikings after them, or the Spanish after them.
Interestingly the Book of Mormon uses Jew 90 or so times. And the original “author,” Nephi, uses it to define himself:
And then shall the remnant of our seed know concerning us, how that we came out from Jerusalem, and that they are descendants of the Jews. - 2 Nephi 30:4
I have charity for the Jew – I say Jew, because I mean them from whence I came. - 2 Nephi 33:8
It uses Israelite only once. And Hebrew is also only used once, and that in reference to language not people. The preferred form in the BoM though seems to be, “house of Israel.” That is used 122 times. And even more common is the local appilations to the sub-groups Nephite, Laminite, etc.
Using the word Jew to describe a group of people from a book who describe themselves as Jews hardly seems anti-Semitic to me.
There is solid, irrefutable archeological evidence for a Viking presence in North America. As for the Spanish, well, that’s historical, of course.
There is no such evidence for an Irish, Phoenician or Israelite presence in North America. Putting any one of those in the same category as the two in my first paragraph is just factually incorrect.
I’m sorta of two minds when it comes to Mormons. On one hand the majority of people I’ve met that identified themselves as Mormon have been sincerely nice and general “salt of the earth” sorts. Their faith played a positive role in their lives and made them want to be honest, hard working and kind. For the life of me I can’t think of a reason to want to change that. On the other hand the book of Mormon speaks of steel, axles, horses and other plant and animal species being present in the new world in a time frame when they most certainly weren’t here and thus, in some ways is demonstrably false. Does the fact that the book of Mormon is clearly flawed negate the positive influence it has on many people?
I don’t know that I have anything to really add to this argument, I find Mormon history to be vaguely fascinating but doubt I’ve attained fresh insights to the issues. I suspect that “belief” is in some ways if not a mechanical process then certainly a reflexive one. At a bare minimum it functions in ways other than our rational thought processes do. So when I find myself wondering why anyone would believe what Joseph Smith Jr. wrote (or translated) it isn’t entirely about him, he only serves as an example in a larger question. That question being, why does anyone believe anything they can’t readily prove?
Permit me to add a link to the Moron Expression website. John Larsen was born into a 7th generation Mormon family and left the church. I find him to be a very intelligent and thoughtful person who questions his former faith without much in the way of spite or bitterness. He’s been holding weekly podcasts for more than two years (all linked on his site) on a wide range of Mormon related topics. If you’re interested in Mormonism you might find him worth hearing.
From my secular view I see 4 main aspects to Mormonism:
History
Mythology
Modern Life Style
$40 billion corporation
LDS history is checkered and strange. The mythology is without foundation. The modern life style is admirable. The corporate aspect is of concern.
LDS has always been highly politicized. The goal of LDS is to restore the Kingdom of Zion - a socialist theocracy with the LDS organization at it’s head. Reinstating the United Order would make it a communist (small c) state.
LDS apologists use agonizing rationalizations to separate LDS doctrine from communism. Economically the United Order is the purist form of communism. Mormonism predates the term as well as Marx, Lenin and communist political movements. However, LDS and the Soviet Union were the two most successful of the 19th and early 20th century communal utopian societies.
LDS is communism that retains the opiate of Religion for it’s masses.
So, do Mormons lie? Perhaps not, but they do a lot of rationalizing.
Are Mormon politicians a danger to the US? They are if they actually believe the stuff about restoring the Kingdom of Zion and have corporate dollars supporting their candidacies.
Crane
Post #170 has commingled certain aspects of LDS beliefs for what will happen after the Second Coming with what the LDS church’s goals are before said Second Coming. It also has a political comment itself not based on the reality of the faith group under discussion.
Monty,
Please enlighten me. Where am I in error?
Crane
Then the issue here is do Mormons lie.
That poses the problem of knowledge and intent.
It is easy to demonstrate that the mythology in the Book of Mormon is not based on actual events. The origins of native Americans are sufficiently known to disprove the tale in the Book of Mormon.
We also know that Smith’s ‘translation’ of a later ancient document (that I believe became The Pearl of Great Price) is pure fantasy. I assume Smith believed his words were inspired, and perhaps they were, but the document has been translated elsewhere and Smith was incorrect.
So is it a lie for LDS faithful to present known false information as fact?
Crane
Well, as a Mormon critic, I think it’s unfair to say that a socialist theocracy is a goal of the Mormon church. Would they welcome a theocracy that they were at the head of? Sure, what authoritarian church wouldn’t? And we shouldn’t forget that they already had their own theocracy on American soil for decades. But they’ve largely abandoned that mindset and are thoroughly committed to mainstreaming and becoming super-patriotic, more American than America. They know that theocracy just isn’t viable or realistic in the modern world.
As for communism/socialism, yes, Joseph Smith did try to institute a rudimentary form of it and failed badly. And, yes, in the temple, we all swear an oath to give all our time and possessions to the church. However, it’s understood that this isn’t an imminent thing and will probably only be invoked in extreme circumstances. In the parlance to the church, “we just aren’t ready to live this higher law right now.” Add to that the influence of far-right wackos like Ezra Taft Benson on the church, and you have an extremely conservative, right-wing, Republican church that would never institute communism in any form, even though the concept is still technically on the books.
In the words of the wise, immortal George Costanza, it’s not a lie if you believe it. And they do believe it. In the face of overwhelming evidence, it’s true, but still.
Edited to add
It should go without saying that while theocracy isn’t a current goal of the Mormon church, they certainly don’t have any qualms about marshaling their money, members, and influence to enact their largely anti-gay legislative agenda.
It is clear to me that Joseph Smith was not delusional: he was a religious charlatan. I define a religious charlatan as one who uses religious beliefs he does not share in order to win temporal rewards. As the result of the religion he started Joseph Smith won fame, power over his followers, more wealth than he probably could have achieved honestly, and a harem of women.
The people who said they had seen the golden plates obviously lied. I wonder how far beyond them the scam extended. What about Brigham Young? Was he in on it, or did he really believe?
I have read some of Hugh Nibley’s efforts to rationalize the fraud of The Book of Abraham. They are interesting. I suspect that as a linguist who could read what The Book of Abraham manuscript really said, he must have known the truth.
I doubt that Mormon missionaries lie. The ones I have talked to seem like naive believers in an elaborate hoax.
The witnesses are an interesting point. Were they conspirators?
We do not know what they were shown. They were called to bear witness to a miraculous event. They must have been in awe of their situation. Perhaps they saw the tablets in a spiritual sense. They may not have lied.
Crane
While the motivations of the iron age authors are unknown, the one who penned the industrial era one certainly are known and found to be lacking. The guy was a charlatan.
Do you really know that they were lying or do you just know that what they claimed was untrue?
Every religion says all the others are at the least wrong and at the worst evil abominations. I don’t personally put any stock in any of it anymore.