Discussions toward a better understanding of LDS doctrine, history, and culture. Discussion of Christianity, religion, and faith in general is welcome.
If this is not cool to post,...please someone tell me. This is pretty negative toward the church, but its succinct and I believe its true.
I got a new book (listed in the subject). Here is a quote:
As one would expect, the current Mormon leadership are not providing the Mormon faithful with much detail of Smith’s polygamous ways. Discovery that Smith broke three of the Ten Commandments in his schemes to arrange his plural marriages (thou shall not lie, thou shall not steal, and thou shall not commit adultery) is one of the top reasons why Mormons are abandoning the Mormon Church. Many of them now call Joseph Smith, the founding prophet of the LDS, a sexual predator. 21 Even if that term is not used, some clear facts remain about Joseph Smith’s actions in relation to polygamy. He lied about it. He told others to lie about it. He used his prophetic office to pressure women into marrying him. He took the Lord’s name in vein as he made his moves on the various women. He even claimed an angel threatened his life if he did not engage in plural marriage. He broke his own wedding vows through his polygamous actions. He married women who were already married thus leading them to commit adultery. He married women under the normal age for marriage for that time period in American history. He threatened those who resisted his plans in relation to polygamy. The issue with Joseph Smith is not about polygamy per se or whether polygamy is ever right. It is about the lying, stealing, adultery, manipulation, coercion, spousal abuse and criminal behavior that Joseph engaged in while he practiced his particular brand of polygamy. It is about a so-called prophet of God using his alleged divine mantle to bed young women, including two under his own guardianship. Mormons who can defend all this can defend anything.
Beverley, James A. Mormon Crises: Anatomy of a Failing Religion (Kindle Locations 644-656). Castle Quay Books. Kindle Edition.
To be a believer in Mormonism you have to really have a literal belief in some very disturbing/unrealistic things.
An angel appeared to Joseph telling him of some buried plates with an ancient record engraved on them.
He looked into a top hat with a peep stone and the words appeared to him and he dictated the letters and words to a scribe. Never looking At the plates.
He then try's to sell the copyright of the book and fails.
He starts the church and immediately (1831) has a relationship with fanny Alger.
He has many relationships outside of his marriage and justifies it through revelation (d&c 132)
And many more suspicous circumstances that any rational person would take him as a con man.
It takes credulity to the extreme to rationalize all the issues that point to fraud and label it truth.
Yet people are still falling for it today. Knowing about the history of the church as I do now, I would never join it as an adult. It's the fraud that has gone on for nearly 200 years keeping members from damaging information.
Honestly, it's really difficult to understand how this craziness has perpetuated for so long.
While Joseph's actions might not be sanctioned by any normative social or religious mores, it must be remembered that Joseph was acting under the orders of the Angel Libido (Moroni's second cousin by marriage).
Despite getting off to a bumpy start, the LDS Church has millions of members and is probably the richest Church in the world. Members have a high birth rate and the Church's recruitment plan is still going strong. It is far from being ready to implode or dissolve.
Good faith does not require evidence, but it also does not turn a blind eye to that evidence. Otherwise, it becomes misplaced faith.
-- Moksha
moksha wrote: ↑Wed Feb 08, 2017 8:26 pm
While Joseph's actions might not be sanctioned by any normative social or religious mores, it must be remembered that Joseph was acting under the orders of the Angel Libido (Moroni's second cousin by marriage).
Despite getting off to a bumpy start, the LDS Church has millions of members and is probably the richest Church in the world. Members have a high birth rate and the Church's recruitment plan is still going strong. It is far from being ready to implode or dissolve.
Agreed. Its still in its infancy stage as far as multi level marketing schemes go. Not many will make it to the top level. But if you do you can obtain a modest living allowence. And people will will hang on your every word.
A reviewer named Joseph McNeil wrote:Poorly written case of hurt feelings
Mr Beverley was so busy trying to prove his point, that he missed the point. If you are not moved by the spirit there is no truth in anything. It is very poorly written and I would not recommend it to anyone.
This will be the response from the believers in your life. It is also a summary off most of the responses we get from friends and family when we reveal our own faith transitions.
I'm not seeing anything new at this point. But, it does get it all bound together in a neat format: has good quotes (usual ones), referenced well, and pulls main points together that are pretty diverse out there.
I've met Sandra Tanner and found her a nice "grandmother" type woman. She isn't stupid and she isn't a horrible devil (which I was led to believe). She is interested in truth.
Why are TBM so afraid of truth?....they talk about it, but its just words.
Anyway, there difference between this book and the Quinn one is significant. I am, however, enjoying the read. It is a good summary level job, and I think it was worth like the $10 or so I spent for a kindle version.
A few LDS academics picked up the challenge to do their own work in Egyptology. One was Ed Ashment who went to the University of Chicago to learn Egyptian to defend his faith in the Book of Abraham. In an interview with PBS, his wife Nancy described the life-changing day when her husband sat down to translate Facsimile 2 and discovered what the text actually says: So he was busy working in the study, and I was in the kitchen fixing dinner; the boys were napping. And I heard funny sounds coming out of the study, and pretty soon I hear him in there just ranting and raving. I can tell he’s very upset and I can’t imagine what on earth he’s upset about. So I went in and he had the Book of Abraham open on the desk in front of him and he had papers and he’s translating, he’s got dictionaries out. And he looks at it and he says: “This is not what they say it is at all. This has nothing to do with Abraham. This is about a little girl who died. I mean, it’s a papyrus that was put under her head, and it has nothing to do with Abraham.”
Beverley, James A. Mormon Crises: Anatomy of a Failing Religion (Kindle Locations 1363-1370). Castle Quay Books. Kindle Edition.
Some of this stuff is just very interesting to me.
Regardless of language skills, some things are patently obvious as proof that Smith was either deluded or lying about the Book of Abraham. Consider illustration seven in facsimile 2. Joseph Smith claimed that the picture there represents God giving revelation about the restoration of the priesthood. Smith is totally wrong. The image given on the papyrus is the Egyptian god Min who, with erect penis, is being approached by a snake, also with an erect penis. Smith obviously knew nothing about pagan Egyptian religion. Mormon scholars know this detail and engage in torturous arguments to defend Smith at all costs. The Church even altered the facsimile in one edition of the Book of Abraham so that no penis was shown. 18
Beverley, James A. Mormon Crises: Anatomy of a Failing Religion (Kindle Locations 1409-1414). Castle Quay Books. Kindle Edition.
I would like to see the comparison of the pictures, the one with the phallus and the one without side by side, just to see what he's talking about. I want proof of this one,...so will probably check out the footnote listed.
That is ... err ... lying. But it happens all the time anyway....right?
Nephi wrote: ↑Fri Feb 10, 2017 11:01 am
Another very interesting quote:
A few LDS academics picked up the challenge to do their own work in Egyptology. One was Ed Ashment who went to the University of Chicago to learn Egyptian to defend his faith in the Book of Abraham. In an interview with PBS, his wife Nancy described the life-changing day when her husband sat down to translate Facsimile 2 and discovered what the text actually says: So he was busy working in the study, and I was in the kitchen fixing dinner; the boys were napping. And I heard funny sounds coming out of the study, and pretty soon I hear him in there just ranting and raving. I can tell he’s very upset and I can’t imagine what on earth he’s upset about. So I went in and he had the Book of Abraham open on the desk in front of him and he had papers and he’s translating, he’s got dictionaries out. And he looks at it and he says: “This is not what they say it is at all. This has nothing to do with Abraham. This is about a little girl who died. I mean, it’s a papyrus that was put under her head, and it has nothing to do with Abraham.”
Beverley, James A. Mormon Crises: Anatomy of a Failing Religion (Kindle Locations 1363-1370). Castle Quay Books. Kindle Edition.
Some of this stuff is just very interesting to me.
I love those moments of WTF?!?!?!
The infants on thrones have some good anecdotes about the book of abraham. Some traveling mummy salesman finds JS and Co. The salesman is trying to get rid of the last of his inventory. JS says "this is the book of abraham!" The salesman smiles - yes , yes it is! Ca-ching! So the last few mummies and scrolls of poorest quality are left over and this guy scores a jackpot by selling it to some ignorant religious back-hills bumpkins that are self appointed ancient text translators.
If you read the scriptures, and find a quiet place to really study and ponderize the words, you can still hear Mike Chandler laughing.
moksha wrote: ↑Wed Feb 08, 2017 8:26 pm
While Joseph's actions might not be sanctioned by any normative social or religious mores, it must be remembered that Joseph was acting under the orders of the Angel Libido (Moroni's second cousin by marriage).
Despite getting off to a bumpy start, the LDS Church has millions of members and is probably the richest Church in the world. Members have a high birth rate and the Church's recruitment plan is still going strong. It is far from being ready to implode or dissolve.
Agreed. Its still in its infancy stage as far as multi level marketing schemes go. Not many will make it to the top level. But if you do you can obtain a modest living allowence. And people will will hang on your every word.
Hey, not cool man! He's totally qualified for that job, and most certainly would have got it if his brother(I think brother, Dad maybe?) weren't in the Q15. It's like Gordo said when his son happened to be called into the Q70, "Don't blame him because of where his dad is!" (Or something to that effect).
Neo: What are you trying to tell me? That I can dodge bullets?
Morpheus: No, Neo. I'm trying to tell you that when you're ready, you won't have to.
I would add this book to my shelf, but alas, it is broken. I am working a redesign rather than a repair.
JK. Sounds interesting. Maybe I will get to it before I become bored of it all. You shouldn't beat a dead horse. There isn't as much fun in that. Yet I do like having lots of advice in case my dream moment where DW and family ask for my pile of evidence and I can just lay it all out for them.
I do think that the polygamy essays will be identified as a turning point for the worse.
It wasn't all the alarming, unsavory revelations about the past, it was modern men (the husbands, fathers and grandfathers of modern women and girls), turning a blind eye and tin ear to it all. Justifying it all because it birthed babies and built the kingdom. If there was a single word in there about the horse-trading of women being wrong, or about Section 132's caustic threats, I missed it.
And it's a shame. It didn't need to be that way. They could have bridged the gap.
Charlotte wrote: ↑Sat Feb 11, 2017 2:33 am
I do think that the polygamy essays will be identified as a turning point for the worse.
It wasn't all the alarming, unsavory revelations about the past, it was modern men (the husbands, fathers and grandfathers of modern women and girls), turning a blind eye and tin ear to it all. Justifying it all because it birthed babies and built the kingdom. If there was a single word in there about the horse-trading of women being wrong, or about Section 132's caustic threats, I missed it.
And it's a shame. It didn't need to be that way. They could have bridged the gap.
Hi Charlotte. One of the most neglected admissions is the "horse trading" you mentioned. I read something by Heber C. KImball where he likened a wife to having a cow or horse--property. It was really really cruel...and this man was an example of being a representative of God?
The pain of the women made to live in that arrangement is one of the untold stories of reality. There are some who have tried to share it--the only one I know at the moment is the "19th Wife" book I read a while ago. But, has the church really EVERY acknowledged that it caused generational pain and sorrow?
Rob4Hope wrote: ↑Sat Feb 11, 2017 7:23 pmHi Charlotte. One of the most neglected admissions is the "horse trading" you mentioned. I read something by Heber C. KImball where he likened a wife to having a cow or horse--property. It was really really cruel...and this man was an example of being a representative of God?
The quote was "I think no more of taking a wife than I do of buying a cow". While this was allegedly said by Kimball in the tabernacle, the only source comes from Ann-Eliza Young's book "Wife No. 19", which is considered an anti-Mormon polemic by apologists (what isn't?), so doesn't carry the weight it might if it came from a source recognized by the church. Such as Brigham Young's statement: "Shall I tell you the law of God in regard to the African race? If the white man who belongs to the chosen seed mixes his blood with the seed of Cain, the penalty, under the law of God, is death on the spot. This will always be so." which comes straight out of the Journal of Discourses. Kind of hard to argue with that!
Does this book list any demographic signs of the decline of the LDS church? I am interested in the conclusions of this book its predictions for the future of the LDS church.
Corsair wrote: ↑Mon Feb 13, 2017 8:38 am
Does this book list any demographic signs of the decline of the LDS church? I am interested in the conclusions of this book its predictions for the future of the LDS church.
Not that I have seen yet. In fact, there is nothing really original or new in the book. It is a conglomeration of some of the high level things people struggle with--like polyandry--and it pulls quotes together that are some of the better referenced ones while it builds it case.
Its a high-level review of some of the broader cases. I will keep reading and report as I go. It was worth $10, but it hasn't shared anything I didn't already know about. It just pulls it together in a concise and readable way. Its a FAST read.
There is a section on heretical teachings and how the church is moving to distance itself away from things that break with mainstream Christianity. An example is this:
On this matter, simply stating that Lorenzo Snow’s famous couplet is not in Mormon scripture is a truth with little relevance as long as LDS material continues to teach the view he famously espoused. In a January 2013 dialogue between Richard Mouw, Fuller Seminary president, and Bob Millet, the famous LDS scholar, Mouw mentioned that Snow’s couplet was “not canonical.” He then quoted Hinckley saying it is not taught anymore. Well, Hinckley was wrong and Mouw needs to press Millet and other LDS scholars for clarification. In fact, it would be helpful if LDS General Authorities and even the current prophet himself would announce that Lorenzo Snow’s couplet is false and heretical.
Beverley, James A. Mormon Crises: Anatomy of a Failing Religion (Kindle Locations 1625-1629). Castle Quay Books. Kindle Edition.
We all remember when Hinckley, on TV, lied. The church splits hairs--it sais on one side: "Oh, this is not scripture that God was one a man and we can become like God...we don't have this in any of our scriptures." This is a true statement--it isn't in the scriptures. BUT!!!! It sure is in teaching manuals, is talked about over the pulpit, and is certainly discussed as "doctrine".
IMO, that wasn't the biggest lie Pres Hinckley said on national television. When asked why the church doesn't release financial information, he said that information belongs to those who pay tithing. We all know that's a load of horse crap - that information belongs to a very small cadre of insiders at the very highest level of the church hierarchy, and no one else.
Rob4Hope wrote: ↑Mon Feb 13, 2017 9:59 amWe all remember when Hinckley, on TV, lied. The church splits hairs--it sais on one side: "Oh, this is not scripture that God was one a man and we can become like God...we don't have this in any of our scriptures." This is a true statement--it isn't in the scriptures. BUT!!!! It sure is in teaching manuals, is talked about over the pulpit, and is certainly discussed as "doctrine".
But,...Oh, this is not scripture......really?
Plausible deniability.
In an effort to show me the true way, my TBM sister wrote an email to the church (customer service? Whatever it was called) and they responded with denial about people becoming Gods. In my email to sis, which she forwarded intact to the church, I quoted three profits, Brigham Young, Spencer Kimball, and IIRC, Joseph F. Smith was the third, each making specific remarks about becoming Gods. LDS customer service responded that "just because 2 or 20 Mormons believe something doesn't make it doctrine". To this day I wish I had responded to that official idiot and copied my sister instead of just responding to her. It's called the law of eternal progression. Or at least it was, anyway. Lying for the Lord indeed.
The pain of the women made to live in that arrangement is one of the untold stories of reality.
True. I think another untold story was the men that were left out. Obviously Henry Jacobs having his wife stolen from him is one example, but my thought is if a few guys are hoarding wives (census records show there was no meaningful difference between the populations of the two genders in Mormondom at the time) how many others had to go without? Just like Warren Jeff's and the polygamy cults of today. If the offspring are (roughly) 50% boys vs girls and Warren and whoever have 50 or 60 wives, what about the 50 or 60 men that have none???
When an honest man discovers he is mistaken, he will either cease being mistaken, or cease being honest. - Anonymous
Say what you want about the sweet miracle of unquestioning faith, I consider a capacity for it terrifying. - Kurt Vonnegut
