The Truth about Mormons

[JakeStarkey]

Really. Is Dr. Thompson an atheist by any chance. Her class syllabus reads in part, "Dr. Beverly Yuen Thompson.

This course will introduce students to sociological concepts and contemporary issues within the sociological field of deviance: labeling, embodiment, identity, behaviors, and criminality. We will analyze the labeling process of behaviors that fall outside of the statistical norm and the sociological impact of being so labeled. Students will learn how to analyze academic articles, documentary film, lead classroom discussions, write critical short essays, and utilize web 2.0 tools to facilitate discussions and contribute content for the course."

And are you ignoring that Cuba, North Korea, Cambodia, North Vietnam, and China were or atheist states?

 

[numan]

'

It would be nice to live in an atheist state. Very restful and relaxing.

Canada is pretty good that way -- at least, western Canada (always with the dreadful exception of Alberta).

.

 

[Truthspeaker]

Nothing of substance to respond to here in the last month. Just a large collection of Juvenile statements

Then why do you keep coming back?

Do you really think that people who don't like your weird little cult were going to change their minds without you spewing nonsense? (Or with you spewing nonsense, for that matter.)

Nah... I just check n from time to time and do a little troll sifting and occasionally there's a decent comment from a reasonable human being to respond to

 

[Truthspeaker]

I voted that Mormons are friendly. I have always liked them. I enjoy talking to Mormon missionaries. I have read The Book of Mormon, The Doctrine and Covenants, and The Pearl of Great Price. I have also read the Bible including the Apocrypha in several English translations.

Mormonism is unique among religions in that it lends itself to a rational evaluation. The other religions base their authority on miracles that happened so long ago that they are impossible to prove or disprove. We cannot know if Jesus died on the cross, and rose from the dead three days later. We cannot know if the Angel Gabriel dictated the Koran to Mohammed.

The Book of Mormon claims to be a detailed history of pre Columbian America from about 600 B.C. to about 421 A.D. If it is such a history, there must be archaeological evidence that the events described in The Book of Mormon happened. Nevertheless, there is not. None of the cities described in The Book of Mormon have been discovered by archaeologists. There is no evidence of any of the battles.

Since The Book of Mormon was written a great deal has been learned about what was really happening in the New World between 600 B.C. and 421 A.D. There is no similarity between what has been learned and what The Book of Mormon claims was happening.

The Smithsonian Institution has written a letter that thoroughly refutes Mormon claims for The Book of Mormon. That letter can be found here.

Smithsonian Letter

Another issue is The Book of Abraham. That is part of The Pearl of Great Price. Joseph Smith bought an ancient Egyptian manuscript, and claimed to translate it into the Book of Abraham. He said that it is a first person account by Abraham of his travels in Egypt. The manuscript exists. It has been translated by reputable scholars of ancient Egypt. The true translation is in no way similar to the translation Joseph Smith claimed to make.

As much as I like Mormons I have to point out that Joseph Smith was a clever charlatan, and that the Mormon religion is built on lies.

There is ample evidence. I've posted mountains of it. But it sounds like you are not doing any REAL research of your own. Just listening to the babblings of institutions who are deathly afraid of admitting any of the mountainous evidence in favor of the Book of Mormon, which continues to be the most correct book on earth. You can go back through the thread for yourself and read what I have already posted in great detail on the subject.
I'm done repeating myself. Every point in your statement has been thrown down and explained thoroughly if you care to know.

You are a newcomer here. Perhaps you should start from the beginning

 

[Truthspeaker]

There are only two approaches you can take towards Mormonism.

1) Joseph Smith was a prophet, where do I sign up.

and

2) Joseph Smith was a pedophile con man. What a crock of shit.

There isn't a gray area on this one.

A Roman Catholic can believe that Martin Luther was sincere, but misguided. I imagine many do.

Joseph Smith was not misguided. He was not sincere. He was a deliberate liar. That can be proven beyond the shadow of a reasonable doubt. There is too much detail in Mormonism. Joseph Smith could not have imagined the golden plates. He knew they did not exist.

Nevertheless, I have difficulty believing in conspiracies lasting for a long time, and involving large numbers of people. Those who testified to have seen the the golden plates were obviously in on the hoax. I wonder about others. Did Brigham Young know? For him Mormonism meant wealth, power, and many wives, some of whom I imagine were beautiful.

The only time you can be sure of a believer's sincerity is when the believer accepts death, even a painful death, when all he needs to do to stay alive is say, "I do not really believe it."

Curious that you would say someone is sincere if they die for their beliefs but if the Prophet Joseph Smith does it, you fail to recognize his sincerity

 

[Truthspeaker]

What do Mormons believe is the sacred and proper use of the "Holy Hand Grenade of Antioch?"

No idea what that is

 

[Truthspeaker]

You simply cannot let this subject go, can you?

Do you truly hate Mormons that much?

You must lead a very sad life. You have my deepest sympathies.

I like Mormons. i wanted to become a Mormon. I was very disappointed when I learned that Joseph Smith was a fraud.

You'll shake hands with the man one day and realize he was as pure as they came

 

[JoeB131]

[]
Curious that you would say someone is sincere if they die for their beliefs but if the Prophet Joseph Smith does it, you fail to recognize his sincerity

By that same measure, David Koresh was "sincere".

Or maybe he just didn't want to give up the nice little scam he had going.

Shit, Smith had an awesome scam. Less smart people were giving him money and letting him screw their teenage daughters so they could get into the Celestial Heaven. I'm sure he "Sincerely" didn't want to give that shit up.

 

[Snookie]

[]
Curious that you would say someone is sincere if they die for their beliefs but if the Prophet Joseph Smith does it, you fail to recognize his sincerity

By that same measure, David Koresh was "sincere".

Or maybe he just didn't want to give up the nice little scam he had going.

Shit, Smith had an awesome scam. Less smart people were giving him money and letting him screw their teenage daughters so they could get into the Celestial Heaven. I'm sure he "Sincerely" didn't want to give that shit up.

You forgot Jim Jones.

 

[JoeB131]

[]
Curious that you would say someone is sincere if they die for their beliefs but if the Prophet Joseph Smith does it, you fail to recognize his sincerity

By that same measure, David Koresh was "sincere".

Or maybe he just didn't want to give up the nice little scam he had going.

Shit, Smith had an awesome scam. Less smart people were giving him money and letting him screw their teenage daughters so they could get into the Celestial Heaven. I'm sure he "Sincerely" didn't want to give that shit up.

You forgot Jim Jones.

Well, not really. I'd like to forget JIm Jones, or what Religous Crazy can do to people.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Interesting session two day's ago. Many active LDS I know adjust their belief in LDS scriptures from divinely inspired to morally inspired (look up the dif if you don't get it because I won't argue it with anybody).

One paper posited that humans know what is, almost instinctively, what is 'right and wrong'. Looking at the Bible's story of Jehovah ordering the Israelites to commit genocide of one of the hill tribes, the question arises "how does one reconcile the command with the idea of a loving God?" Or the LDS story of Nephi and Laban, "how does one reconcile that murder as a command by a loving God with 'that it is better one wicked man die than a people dwindle in unbelief'"?

One active LDS member in the audience, a member of his stake's high council, said one approach is to adopt the Catholic system that all examples are profitable for good or bad or in between. Meaning that a child asking about Nephi and Laban can be answered with sometimes writers, like Nephi, justify bad things in the name of their God, but a bad thing is still a bad thing.

 

[JoeB131]

Interesting session two day's ago. Many active LDS I know adjust their belief in LDS scriptures from divinely inspired to morally inspired (look up the dif if you don't get it because I won't argue it with anybody).

One paper posited that humans know what is, almost instinctively, what is 'right and wrong'. Looking at the Bible's story of Jehovah ordering the Israelites to commit genocide of one of the hill tribes, the question arises "how does one reconcile the command with the idea of a loving God?" Or the LDS story of Nephi and Laban, "how does one reconcile that murder as a command by a loving God with 'that it is better one wicked man die than a people dwindle in unbelief'"?

One active LDS member in the audience, a member of his stake's high council, said one approach is to adopt the Catholic system that all examples are profitable for good or bad or in between. Meaning that a child asking about Nephi and Laban can be answered with sometimes writers, like Nephi, justify bad things in the name of their God, but a bad thing is still a bad thing.

Wow, Jake, are you finally coming out of the closet and admitting you are LDS?

The problem with the bible is that in that time period, genocide was considered moral, as was homophobia, slavery and religous intolerence.

And thankfully, today, we are more civilized, but we need to find excuses as to why this is still in the Holy Books.

Now, for the Book Of Mormon, or as I like to call it, "Bad Bible Fan-Fic", Smith should have known a lot of this stuff was immoral, but he tried to justify it anyway.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Interesting session two day's ago. Many active LDS I know adjust their belief in LDS scriptures from divinely inspired to morally inspired (look up the dif if you don't get it because I won't argue it with anybody).

One paper posited that humans know what is, almost instinctively, what is 'right and wrong'. Looking at the Bible's story of Jehovah ordering the Israelites to commit genocide of one of the hill tribes, the question arises "how does one reconcile the command with the idea of a loving God?" Or the LDS story of Nephi and Laban, "how does one reconcile that murder as a command by a loving God with 'that it is better one wicked man die than a people dwindle in unbelief'"?

One active LDS member in the audience, a member of his stake's high council, said one approach is to adopt the Catholic system that all examples are profitable for good or bad or in between. Meaning that a child asking about Nephi and Laban can be answered with sometimes writers, like Nephi, justify bad things in the name of their God, but a bad thing is still a bad thing.

Jake, are you . . . admitting you are LDS?

I said I was at conference. It was a Sunstone history conference held at UofU (look it up on the web), which has atheists to religious believers of all sorts offering papers on matters of conscience and religion and non-religion for that matter about Mormonism. I am not LDS, never have been.

Some who have been former Mormons, such as the questioner above, have real trouubles with the faith that they have left.

 

[Christopher]

10 bat shit crazy mormon beliefs. Top 10 Craziest Mormon Beliefs | Top 10 Craziest Mormon Beliefs

Did you even visit your own link? There are more than 10 beliefs claimed as Mormon beliefs on that site and it is open to anyone to add to the list. Here is one of them:

They believe in being honest, true, chaste benevolent, virtuous, and in doing to all men; indeed, they may say that they follow the admonition of Paul-they believe all thing, they hope all things, they have endured many things, and hope to be able to endure all things

that's funny

Yes, funny that some people don’t even verify their sources.

It often reveals someone’s bias and/or prejudice.

 

[Uncensored2008]

'

It would be nice to live in an atheist state. Very restful and relaxing.

North Korea awaits you, sparky.

You'll fit right in.

 

[Avatar4321]

'

It would be nice to live in an atheist state. Very restful and relaxing.

North Korea awaits you, sparky.

You'll fit right in.

No he won't. He's well fed

 

[numan]

'

It would be nice to live in an atheist state. Very restful and relaxing.

North Korea awaits you, sparky.

You'll fit right in.

No he won't. He's well fed

· · · ·

Good point !! I should have written, "rational and/or non-corrupt" atheist state.

Since no human society has ever been, or is ever likely to be, rational or non-corrupt, I am pretty well safe from ever being disillusioned!! · ·

.

 

[Uncensored2008]

· · · ·

Good point !! I should have written, "rational and/or non-corrupt" atheist state.

There's never been one - and never will be.

Since no human society has ever been, or is ever likely to be, rational or non-corrupt, I am pretty well safe from ever being disillusioned!! · ·

.

Atheists are especially nasty - butchering more in the first 50 years of the 20th century than all other "isms" combined, in all of history.

 

[daws101]

How Many Were Killed by Communists in the Name of Atheism & Secularism?

Stalin, Mao, Other Communists Killed Millions on Behalf of Atheism

By Austin Cline, About.com Guide

Myth:
How many people in Communist Russia and China have been killed because of atheism and secularism?

Response:
None, probably.

How can that be? After all, millions and millions of people died in Russia and China under communist governments — and those governments were both secular and atheistic, right? So weren't all of those people killed because of atheism — indeed, in the name of atheism and secularism?

No, that conclusion does not follow. Atheism itself isn't a principle, cause, philosophy, or belief system which people fight, die, or kill for. Being killed by an atheist is no more being killed in the name of atheism than being killed by a tall person is being killed in the name of tallness.

People were killed in communist nations for a lot of different reasons. Some were communists who disagreed with those in power and were killed because of that. Some were anti-communists opposed the government and were killed for that. Some were simply in the way or inconvenient and were killed for that. These are political disagreements that people were being killed over, not murder in the name of atheism.

But weren't a lot of people killed because they were Christian? Certainly — but not simply because they were Christian. Communists typically regarded religious organizations as a hinderance towards the creation of a worker's paradise. Some religious groups also opposed the communists. Once again, we are generally looking at political issues, not a question of atheism.

Even if some people were killed simply because they followed a religion, it does not follow that they were killed in the name of atheism. Why? Because atheism is not inherently opposed to religion: it is possible to be both an atheist and religious and some religions are themselves atheistic. Atheism also isn't a belief system or ideology which can, by itself, inspire people to do things — good or bad.

To understand this better, consider times in the past when religion has been involved with violence — the Inquisition would be good. How many people were killed during the Inquisition in the name of theism? None. Those doing the killing acted not because of theism, but rather because of Christian doctrines. The belief system is what inspired people to act (sometimes for good, sometimes for ill). The single belief of theism, however, did not.

Similarly, communism certainly inspired people to act and gave them motivations to do certain things, but atheism — which is the absence of a belief and not even a belief itself — did not. The assumption that people in Russia and China were killed merely on account of atheism is based upon two other myths: first, that atheism is itself some sort of philosophy or belief system which can motivate people, and second that atheism is somehow interchangeable with the actual belief system of communism. It also pretends that all the various elements of communist totalitarianism were irrelevant to what happened — which is utter nonsense.

The aforementioned parallel explains why this response is not one which religious theists can use to deny their religion's responsibility for violence in the past. Atheism and theism may not themselves be sufficient to justify violence and murder (or good behavior, for that matter), but belief systems which incorporate them are more than sufficient. Communism (or at least certain forms of it) can be blamed for communist violence; Christianity (or at least certain forms of it) can also be blamed for Christian violence. As a belief system with specific doctrines that were openly held up as justifying or sanctioning violence, religion must be held responsible for the violence committed in its name.

Whether theism can be slightly more culpable than atheism is a matter of dispute. Not being any belief at all, atheism can't motivate anyone in any direction to do anything. Theism is a belief, however, so at least the potential for some sort of motivation in some direction exists. It's been argued, for example, that monotheism is inherently more prone to violence because of the way it tends to be exclusivist — unlike polytheism, which tends to be more tolerant of cultural and religious differences.

It's difficult to say, though, how many of these problems are really inherent in the type of theism and how many are cultural products of the religious belief systems that incorporate them. Whatever culpability theism itself might have, it's likely small enough to dismiss, allowing us to treat it and atheism as functionally equal in this context.
How Many Were Killed by Communists in the Name of Atheism & Secularism? Stalin, Mao, Other Communists Killed Millions on Behalf of Atheism

 

[numan]

'
"Magic words of 'Poof-poof Piffle!!'"

History shows that neither religion nor non-religion has much effect on what people actually do. Ideology is just window-dressing to disguise human behavior.

If political "leaders" have been more satanic in recent times, it merely shows that we have "better" and more efficient means to be dirty, filthy monsters than Genghis Khan or Ivan the Terrible had at their disposal.

[I've read that Ivan the Terrible was very religious -- or superstitious, as would be my way of putting it]

.

.