Bashing Religions?

Remove all ads!

Gnarf: You're just repeating common rhetoric taught in Mormon Sunday School (and Priesthood meeting, and Sacrement -- I certainly don't miss all the damn meetings). The Mormons, in general, have a deep suspicion of things they can't explain directly from scripture (especially stuff like evolution, archeology, and big bang). There is a small but growing voice within the church that accepts science and these discoveries as proof that God guided the creation (that the creation followed natural laws). Mormons also have a near-neurotic suspicion of any history of Mormons not written by Mormons -- they hide behind the 'just who is writing this' and 'can we be sure of their honesty.' And yet, we find numerous instances of entirely inaccurate accounts by Mormons (does the name Huge B. Brown mean anything) -- but those are excused, after all everyone has their own free agency to do evil.

The Mormon's had the largest militia in the United States. This militia was formed while in Missouri and was fully armed by the time the Mormons occupied Nauvoo. The Mormon battalion was part of the Mexican-American war (as a concession to the United States the Mormons marched to Mexico on their way to Salt Lake). The battalion was over 5000 strong. The Mormon battalion was considered such a threat to the territories that the US put a permanant Army outpost east of Salt Lake City (Fort Douglas). In contrast to the 'peaceful' people, the militia was trained to defend against 'local threats' (and yet, the people of Missouri and Illinois still fought back...). The militia was one reason Missouri passed a law permitting citizens to shoot a Mormon on sight (repealed in the 1970's). Reading the story of Porter Rockwell sheds light on just how peaceful the Mormons were. It never really bothered me that the Mormons were aggresive at defending themselves -- but it is an annoyance to see Mormons being portrayed as Amish-types.

At SETTLEMENT, Nauvoo was the largest city in Illinois (over 15,000). It was larger than Springfield, and larger than Chicago. Nauvoo citizens represented a significant voting block -- significant enough to change the government of Illinois had they stayed long enough. There was a significant fear (justifiable in my mind) that the Mormons would use this newfound government to 'acquire' whatever was necessary to further their goals. Brigham Young certainly did this after moving to Salt Lake City. It was only the Army presence at Fort Douglas that prevented him from making the 'State of Deseret' an independant government.

Hinckley's homage to the Pope does not counter the original statement -- that Mormons believe the Catholic church the great abonimation as described in Timothy (I think, it's bee a while since I look through my bible). During seminary we were required to memorize such scriptures.

Read closely the Doctrine and Covenant. Especially while reading other books about Mormon history (even those written by Mormons). You will find the revelations given in D&C occur when most convenient for Joseph Smith. People are blessed when they help him and cast out when he's pissed at them. If anyone spoke against him -- for whatever reason -- that individual was admonished by 'the Lord.' The whole polygamy thing came out after Emma decided she wasn't going to have any more children -- only one form of birth control back then. Wow, with the prospect of no sex the Lord told Joseph Smith to take another wife ... how convenient (my great-great-grandfather had nine wives and he treated his youngest wives terribly).

Protesters at the Mormon conference are arrested quite frequently -- most of those are the ones using foul language (it is against the law in Utah -- how surprising). However, those who simply state things the Mormons don't want to hear are able to stay as long as they want (no matter how offensive those statements are as long as they refrain from using certain words). It is actually quite humorous to watch.

Bashing religions goes both ways. Looking at history, I'd say the Mormons started it.

By the way, what's the most obscene thing in Salt Lake? The Mormon Church Office Building -- a tall pointed high rise with two multi-story wings on either side. On each wing is a giant engraved globe. Just a tidbit we all learned about at the University of Utah.

 

You need to get out more.LOL! There are COUNTLESS atheist-bashing sites on the net and we do not bat an eye when a new one pops up. How any sane person could ever even imagine an America where atheists recieved preferential treatment voer religious people is beyond me!?

That is just the "No True Scotsman" again. Anyone who has not yet been caught doing anything really bad(because they do not do such things or they are just slick) is one of the "most people" who are truly practicing their faith but everyone else...

@ No one in particular:

The thing that religious people who play the "persecution card" tend to forget is that many of the core doctrines of their very religous beliefs are attacks or "bashing" someone else. For fundemtnalist Christians(protestants) it can be homosexuals, atheists, liberals, punk rockers, artists, or any number of other peoples.
For Catholics it can be(and usually is) anybody who has anything to do with sex or reproduction(including doctors at fertility or family planning clinics, people who have sex(especially if they are not married and not doing so with the express purpose of having more children) aside from a Catholic parent and most of the ones that fundie protestants attack/bash. For radical muslims it can be women who allow any flesh to be seen, atheists, christians/jews, "westerners", etc.

But all of these people want to be exempt from what they call "bashing".

Sorry but I will stop "bashing" youy guys when you decide to join us here in the 21st century.

 

The protesters must have permits, and they cannot interrupt the conference itself.

Do you remember what we are taught about Satan? His name translates to "the Liar". As such, he would try to spread lies everywhere he can--including into Science. Can a Scientist be wrong? Of course they can. They, like everone else, are human. And where science contradicts scripture, Satan may well be the culprit, helping scientist spin elaborate theories that sound really good, but are really

Again, history is written to glorify the writer's side. Had the Germans won WWII, they would have downplayed the mass extermination of the Jews and any others that they felt were unfit to live, and made Their leaders out to be the good guys. I would imagin that if the Natives could write their version of history, it wouldn't look the same as the History text books you learned from in school. I've never heard of Hugh B. Brown. Even we are prone to make mistakes, and may, at times, be less than honest. Beyond Scripture and what's approved by the church, I would have to be careful in my readings...

As was their right under the United States Constitution. People that likes to drink, smoke or gamble or do other things that were considered sins wouldn't like that, no...

Ah yes, xenophobia in action. Perhaps the claims to the Area around Salt Lake City were part of the deal with the US in the Mexican American war...

How about the 12th Article of Faith? It reads:

12 We believe in being subject to kings, presidents, rulers, and magistrates, in obeying, honoring, and sustaining the law.
(Pearl of Great Price | Articles of Faith 1:12)

or Doctrine and Covenents section 134?

5 We believe that all men are bound to sustain and uphold the respective governments in which they reside, while protected in their inherent and inalienable rights by the laws of such governments; and that sedition and rebellion are unbecoming every citizen thus protected, and should be punished accordingly; and that all governments have a right to enact such laws as in their own judgments are best calculated to secure the public interest; at the same time, however, holding sacred the freedom of conscience.

(Doctrine and Covenants | Section 134:5)

It was against our Doctrine to secede as you claim that they feared we would.

But what if some practices of "Christian" churches contradict scripture? If the Scriptures are given of God, and clearly lay out what is right and what is wrong, and how he wants his church and kingdom established, then who are we to contradict that? For the most part, I believe the people and leaders of the Roman Catholic Church to be honest and good people. However the organization has changed over the last two thousand years and some of these contradictions have snuck in in the absence of proper authority. It has also given those who would seek to discredit them too much ammunition...

At times when the membership needed to hear them, or when Joseph Smith thought to ask the question.

Just like the nation of Israel in the Old Testament or the Nephites in the Book of Mormon?

10 I, the Lord, am bound when ye do what I say; but when ye do not what I say, ye have no promise.
(Doctrine and Covenants | Section 82:10)

The Lord blesses us for obedience, and is bound to nothing when we aren't obedient.

It seems that's where the law draws the line. If you curse or otherwise violate the peace, you're out. If you keep the peace, you're free to say what you will. It might be fun to watch those protesters that cross the line get hauled away...

I have seen this building, as well as 9 different Temples. The Line often repeated is "Nothing is too good for the Lord." I fail to see what's so bad about the office building. Do you think that Pope Benedict XVI doesn't have a staff?

I'm not surprised that there are these sites that you mention, but I really don't go looking for them. As the Mormons have in the Articles of Faith...

11 We claim the privilege of worshiping Almighty God according to the dictates of our own conscience, and allow all men the same privilege, let them worship how, where, or what they may.

(Pearl of Great Price | Articles of Faith 1:11)

You're free to believe or not believe as you please. We believe that we are commanded to share our beliefs with all who will listen. I spout off here, partly to contribute to the discussions, but partly to share my beliefs in hopes that someone will listen...

I don't think that "persecution" or "bashing" of certain groups or individuals is the intent of the Bible, it's just how it's been interpreted by some groups on either side of the equation. It's one thing to teach that it is a sin to have sex with someone of the same gender as you are. It's another thing to get in their face to inform them that "God Hates them and they're going to Hell". The first is teaching the faith, the second is bashing. There has to be a line between actively opposing sin and persecuting the sinners. One of the key principles of Christianity is in the mission of Jesus Christ.

16 ¶ For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.
17 For God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the world; but that the world through him might be saved.

(New Testament | John 3:16 - 17)

A person's sins are their own business, just as their own faith. Whether I condemn you for your sins, or you condemn me for my faith, it is still the same sin. The position that the Mormons take on homosexuality is that we do not hate them, but we don't agree with what they do. We can't force you to agree with us, but we ask that you not hate us.

And what do you require of us to "join you in the 21st Century?" Do you ask us to abandon our moral code because you feel it is outdated? Do you ask that we cease to withdraw from the rest of the world for one day each week to worship because you don't believe it? Ought we reject the histories we've been taught because they conflict with what "so called experts" are telling us? I would rather tolerate the contempt of one man than abandon God. However, I have the same right to ask that you stuff a sock in it as you have to ask me any of the above...

 

...well, it would be a good start, wouldn't it?

BTW, I wish I hadn't told you how to do the thingy...

and

And you don't see the contradiction there? I'm not surprised...

Last, not least:

I've yet to see an interpretation that doesn't lead to persecution or bashing. Yours certainly cannot claim to be the one.

 

This is such a slippery slope to go down. It was the one that finally turned me away from the Mormon church. I did not understand how EVERY SCIENTIST could possible be evil and influenced by Satan. In fact, if you count the archeological record as a lie, then God himself must have mastered that deception for it is beyond Satans power to create (according to the teachings I had) -- I simply could not swallow that and wouldn't believe it.

It is not surprising that you have not heard of Huge B Brown, you may not have heard of Boyd K Packer either. One was a member of the Quorum of the Twelve, the other in the Quorum of the Seventy -- both were caught in lies. Lies told during general conference, during sessions as guest speakers, in books, and in discussions with other general authorities. One item of interest, the church historian at BYU that caught the lies of Brown was excommunicated.

So very few things change in the Mormon church. You are using the same circular logic used when I was attending. The same arguements which only make sense to 'the faithful.' Ideas and evidence presented that oppose Mormon beliefs are obviously lies, after all, Satan is using his profound influence to destroy the Saints. It's truly sad that the Mormon church spends so much time and effort turning the membership against objectively viewing all sides of an issue and making an informed decision -- as I said very few things have changed.

You can quote the 12th AoF and D&C 134, but I doubt you have read the Journals of Brigham Young (all 26 volumes). He was trying to establish his own government. Read his own notes.

You missed the point of the Church office building -- it is the single largest phallic symbol I've ever seen.

 

Phallic symbol? Get your mind out of the gutter, T2Bruno!

T@Bruno is an excellent example of the most effective and aggravating opponent of any group -- the former member of said group with access to a great deal of information -- information that is often rather amusing. Just to address one: It is certainly not official Mormon position that all scientists are inspired by Satan. Many prominent Mormons are scientists, engineers and doctors. I have no idea where you pulled that one from.

In any event, external challenges can serve to strengthen any group, so "bash" away!

 

Going off topic here. The description of the building intrigued me, but I have to say it's no more phallic than any other tall building. Now take Fosters Gerkin...

http://www.greatbuildings.com/buildings/30_St_Mary_Axe.html

 

LKD: That's what I said in this post:

In the Mormon Doctrine by Bruce R McConkie he states that the theory of evolution is an evil doctrine that basically is influenced by the devil. McConkie goes on to state that the animals are exactly now as they were when God created them, they have never changed and will never change. Of course this flies in the face of science and even the evolutionary changes we see in cheetahs. Although this is not the official church stance (fortunately due to the strength of men like Eyring) it IS a common belief among the non-scientists in the Mormon church (which includes general authorities as the example above indicates -- BTW, McConkie was a member of the quorum of the twelve, the son-in-law of Joseph Felding Smith and was widely regarded as the church scriptorian after JFS's death).

Of course that is going off topic -- my initial statement that Mormons are bashed because they bash other religions on a regular basis still stands. Being the self-proclaimed 'only true church of god' opens up the flood gates.

Edit -- @Carcaroth: The church office building is a 30 story building with wings built on either side ~4 stories high. The front wall of the wings have no windows but a giant globe, several stories in diameter, is etched on each wing. It is the presence of the globes which the students at the University of Utah would comment most on....

[ June 15, 2005, 19:46: Message edited by: T2Bruno ]

 

Not to pile on but...

Ooh! I got one! How about this: Satan would try to spread lies everywhere he can - including into the Mormon Church. Can a Mormon be worng? of course they can. They, like everyone else, are human. And where a Mormon is wrong, Satan may well be the culprit, helping the Mormon spin elaborate tales that sound really good but are really .

You see, the problem with that reasoning is you can put any person or occupation in the place of "scientist" and it reads exactly the same way (with some minor corrections). Try substituting "scientist" with "doctor", and "science" with "medicine", and you get the same thing. Or switch "scientist" with "lawyer" and "science" with "law" and you get the same thing. Or switch... well you get the idea.

 

You might have something with the lawyer switch....

 

Could it be possible that such rejection of moral codes ss a step backwards, towards the barbaric states of the past? If everyone rejected such moral codes, then no freedom could exist. You couldn't enjoy property because you'd have to fear that someone else could bonk you on the head and take it from you. There would be no human rights. Criticize it if you want, but just remember that without morality, there is no freedom...

It's one thing to say "Thou Shalt not commit Adultery". Whether the person told to do so obeys or not is none of our business, unless we are involved in the act (ie, me or my significant other involved). Simply stating that Adultery is sin is preaching. Going into a cheap motel to pull a man and a woman outside and berating them for their dscision (assuming that you aren't married to either of them and that they are not married to each other) is persecution of the adulterers. No contradiction there.

Read Matthew 5 to 7. That's the Sermon on the Mount. It's got lines like "Blessed are the Meek" and "Judge not, lest ye be judged". None of that authorizes the Persecution of sinners. I don't think that any place in the New testament advocates persecution of sinners.

The Archaeological record is the interpretation of things found, is it not? Once you go beying the fact that you found broken pieces of pottery or whatever, you are prone to error, and where Satan may tempt you with a wrong answer that makes sense. Over time, these wrong answers become generally accepted. It doesn't make them right...

The accusation is presented, but no evidence to back it up. I do know of Boyd K. Packer. He is the acting president of the Quorum of the twelve Apostles. If he were guilty of deception, God would have him removed.

Satan wants to destroy ALL of us. He convinces people of lies ranging from denial of God to telling people that it's okay to sin a little here or there and nothing will be harmed...

The Articles of Faith and Doctorine and Covenents 134 are actual Church Doctrine. Furthermore, establishing his own government does not necessarily mean rebellion or sedition. He may well have been trying to prepare Utah for Statehood. the lise spread from people in Illinois and Missouri especially may have lead people in power to think otherwise, but that doean't mean it's true...

Ah yes, Freud. Freud's theories detail the Natural man very well, and the temptations and weaknesses that need to be overcome. If all you think about is sex, then that's what you might think. I consider the fact that I didn't think of that to be a sign of personal progress...

 

Good on yer, Cyborg!

Two things I have to point out that seem to be hard to grasp for any religious person. First of all, abandoning your moral code because of it being outdated is not the same as abondoning all moral code. I don't see how abandoning Mormon doctrine would lead to turning into a criminal - although what I read out of LKD's post is that someone who abandoned LDS has forfeited the right of being taken seriously in a discussion. Amusing information. Right.

Secondly, I don't have to read the Bible to see whether bashing and scolding is advocated there. I said that there is no interpretation that does not lead - sooner or later - to persecution or bashing. There reason being, if you have an asserted interpretation, you have dogma. If you have dogma, you can't question it. If you can't question something, your thoughts are not free anymore. If your thoughts are not free, you are used to accept rules and standards (morals? huh!) without giving a second glance. In short: you are prone to persecuting and bashing because of the mere existence of someone thinking differently. Because the mere existence of different standards puts the dogma into question - a thing that cannot be allowed for various reasons.

I don't claim that this has to happen with every dogma - I just claim that it has happened with all dogma we know of.

By the way: what is the answer to Aldeth's excellent point you ignored? Mormons are protected by god from the power of satan's lies, devout believers that they are? Mormons never fail? I will get myself a mormon accountant if that's the case.

 

Always funny to read, how atheists think they understand more than religious people... ...

False ! You can always have doubts. That's what a religious community is for (among other things) - to help each other to believe, to overcome problems and doubts.
And there is a complete freedom of thoughts...you can say whatever you like to God while you pray. Be true, and God will help. No matter what - you can pray while you are sad, furious, happy, depressed, whatever...only be true.

 

I think this is on topic so... what do you think of 'Wicca'?

My opinion is that this is a very hollywood 'religion' as it combines Irish/Christian/Egyptian/Greek and countless others. Morrigan would be horrified (if she was a 'real' goddess) that Buffy and Charmed fans put her above Danu as the 'Mother goddess' not to mention her jealousy of Bast, Hecate worship etc.

 

And what fun I have being such an obvious idiot!

For a start, it would be nice to read "I disagree" or "I don't think so" once instead of the flaring "False!" or "Wrong!"; someone who lives in the world of absolute Right and Wrong is, aha, a wee bit on the dogmatic side, don't ya think?!

I was not talking about what goes on in your head - unless you are a roboter who suppresses his thoughts about sex when encoutering phallic symbols (sic!) you are bound to have any kind of thought that's not in line with current doctrine. I was talking whether or not you should build logical arguments and moral codes on facts because they are "god-given" rather than because they are true. For me, funny little atheist that I am, god-given and true are not equal in any way. More often you will find, that precisely because certain facts are god-given the question whether they are true as well is not even posed.

And a dogma is by definition not changeable by the religious community.

 

Strange...I only said that it's logically cohesionless...I didn't say anything about "absolute Right and Wrong"...you did...don't put words in my mouth...please...

Then...sigh...could you make up your mind...?..
What are you talking about ? I questioned first quote (freedom of thoughts), you answered with the second. Any connection ?

 

That's why I'm going to law school this fall. I enjoy doing the work of the devil, and as we all know, all lawyers are in the Devil's employ.

Darkthrone hasn't responded to the last quote yet, so I'll jump on first to try to clarify his point, and also because I have a similar question.

If something according to your religion is dogma, then I think by definition it cannot be changed - and changing it cannot even be discussed. It's carved in stone so to speak. So how could any true believer question the dogma of their religion without questioning their entire faith? I think that's what Darkthrone is getting at, and I'm curious as well.

Let me draw an analogous example with the Catholic Church, as I'm far more informed about that than the Mormon Church. Catholic priests are not allowed to marry. However, that is not part of Catholic dogma, and so, theoretically, this can change. In fact, for about the first millenia or so, priests were, in fact, allowed to marry. It's a rule, but it isn't a rule that has been elevated to dogma, so even though it is very unlikely to change, it theoretically could.

On the other hand, women cannot become priests, and this IS part of Catholic dogma. To Catholics, a priest should be the representation of Christ, and therefore, should be male. I attended a Jesuit University and some of the aspiring priests I talked to believed very strongly that only men should become priests (so this isn't all from the old school priests). As this is dogma, it cannot be questioned, and cannot ever be changed. Therefore, it is infinitely more likely (albeit still very remote) that we see a married priest before we see a female priest.

Btw Gnarff - any response to my question above?

 

I think you are wrong Adleth, Sinead O'Connor was ordained as a priest.

Yes priests were allowed to marry at one time, but this changed to save the Church money - a pention does not have to be paid to the priest wife. It was not for spiritual reasons (bring married to God etc).

[ June 16, 2005, 15:04: Message edited by: Cesard the Fir Bolg ]

 

There is no way that Sinead O'Connor is an ordained Catholic priest. The Pope would never allow such a thing. She could be an ordained eucharastic minister (there are thousands of them the world over). I'm not sure of all the differences between a priest and a eucharastic minister, but I know there are powers the former have that the latter do not. EM are allowed, for example, to give communion, but they do not hear confession. There are others as well, this is just one example.

 

Thanks Aldeth. Although I believe it would have done Arendil good to figure this out for himself.

Sinead O'Connor is no priest of the Roman Catholic Church; not in this life.