Sickening...

Remove all ads!

Amazing.

A thread on anti-homosexual behavior becomes a thread on Mormonism. But then anti-homosexual behavior can be tied to nearly every religion -- some are more tolerant than others, but most religions view homosexuality as a sin and a weakness.

The Urim and Thummim in the hat is different from the depictions I was taught in my youth. My memories of the translation was the Urim and Thummim set upon a special stand with the golden plates underneath it. A barrier was set between Joseph Smith and the scribe to prevent the scribe from viewing the plates. The difference in the tales is interesting.

Gnarf, doesn't it appear even slightly suspicious that when someone has done something good for Joseph Smith that person is guaranteed wonderous blessings in the hereafter -- yet, later in the D&C that same person becomes a vile heathen, cast out from the presence of God because thay've done something that pissed Joseph off?

It was while taking a Mormon history course, which was using D&C along with historic accounts to set the tone of what was happening at the time of the specific revelation that I really began questioning the church. Everything happened at Joseph's whim -- people that questioned ANYTHING about Joseph Smith had some revelation revealing them as spies or liars or worse. Those individuals were stripped of everything they owned (which naturally went to Joseph Smith) and cast out of the church. So many of the revelations in the D&C coincided directly with Joseph's gain in power, authority, and wealth.

You're reasoning that the church must be true because it was still around after Joseph's death is slightly flawed -- as Morgoroth accurately points out. But L. Ron Hubbard is just one example -- we can go into history to find Peter, Martin Luther and many others. All it takes is someone with charisma and determination to carry the torch.

Brigham Young was every bit as charismatic as Joseph Smith -- and just as power hungry. Young was well known to be able to imitate people, so his 'little trick' during the meeting to decide on the next prophet was quite unremarkable -- just as it is unremarkable to watch Rich Little take on the 'countenance' of Richard Nixon or Dana Carvey imitate George Bush. But to the early Mormons, they took it as a sign of God -- amazing. But then the faithful in any religion would rather believe something to be a sign of God rather than believe they were duped (and it's not restricted to religion).

 

Today, at my college, there were a group of religious fanatics standing in the middle of our courtyard holding signs declaring the evilness of homosexuals. I walked up to each and every one of them and spit a foot right in front of their feet. I barely got to the last one before the security guard grabbed me by the neck and dragged me away.

 

T2,
this reminds me of Conan Doyle's fabulous 'Study in Scarlet'.

Not that I credit Doyl'e with being accurate. It's just a great story. Maybe it's time to re-read it....

 

I didn't know that the testimony of the witnesses who signed the affidavits in the front of the book of Mormon was an anti-Mormon source. Sorry. (I'm not sorry.) Obviously, Isaac Hale's testimony would qualify as anti-Mormon (Isaac Hale refused to let Emma Hale marry Joseph Smith because he considered him a criminal) and Michael Morse's would have been neutral at best (how he felt about the Church is unclear from the research I've done), but all the other testimony I quoted was given without malice towards the Mormon church. Edward Stevenson (through whom we heard Martin Harris' testimony) was one of the seven presidents of the Seventy. Smith's wife testimony was passed on by Joseph Smith, Jr. Oliver Cowdery's testimony was given before he was excommunicated and was clearly supportive of Smith. Joseph Knight, Sr was a devout Mormon who had nothing but admiration for Joseph Smith.

David Whitmer constantly worked to prove the "truth" of the plates and of the Book of Mormon all throughout his life....even after he was excommunicated. While hostile to the Mormon church after being excommunicated for his land, he still believed that the Book of Mormon was a real and true testament. I think your definition of "Anti-Mormon" is overly broad.

Joseph Smith admitted to being a money digger in an interview printed in the "Elders' Journal" (v.1, num.2, pp.28,29) In it, he stated that he was, but it was never a very profitable job to him, as he only got fourteen dollars a month for it. Is the Elders' Journal an anti-Mormon source?

After looking through both secular and Mormon-endorsed documents about Smith, I have found no historical evidence to back up your statement about Smith even telling anyone about his first vision, let alone being persecuted for it, until he was already in the process of translating the book of Mormon. While lack of historical evidence doesn't disprove your argument, it does relegate it to the level of conjecture and speculation.

EDIT: Other than Smith or his brother. This is, at least for me, entirely too shaky a source upon which to make a credible historical argument.

Wow. You really believe that? Wow. I.....don't even know where to start. Why exactly would the church have crumbled if it weren't divine? I really don't get it.


Finally, Gnarff, there is one major point I think you've missed. I stated that I had misgivings about Mormonism.....that I have a negative opinion of Joseph Smith. While I consider it far more likely that a convicted con-man who starts a new religion is just pulling another con, maybe I'm just being cynical. You don't have to agree with me. It's my opinion, and I never said you had to share it.

[ April 20, 2007, 00:27: Message edited by: Drew ]

 

Drew: The account of persecution is taken directly from the Testimony of Joseph Smith and is taught to young Mormons starting at an early age. The Testimony of Joseph Smith is a cornerstone of the Mormon faith and is taught by every missionary to every potential convert. You can find it on the LDS website:

Testimony of Joseph Smith

While you may not wish to believe such persecution occurred as it is based solely on Joseph Smith's word (although it is also corroborated by his brother Hyrum), those of the Mormon faith take the word of Joseph Smith to be inviolate.

Ragusa: It is a great story -- I thoroughly enjoyed it. As usual, putting it on the screen did not do it justice, but I even the watered down version with Jeremy Brett.

 

T2,
I'm a Sherlockian When I went to London and visited the Sherlock Holmes Museum in Baker Street I immediately, to my utter horror, found egregious mistakes and errors Them Brits should treat their true heroes with more respect I bought a t-shirt as a souvenir anyway Besides, Brett is a very good Holmes actor. I like it how he plays Holmes as obnoxious and arrogant, and I like the drug references in Brett's series.

Drew,
you're probably right about Smith being a weasel. No pun intended, Gnarff.

 

@T2: I had seen that. My problem with it is that the only testimony given regarding the persecution of Joseph Smith prior to the publishing of the Book of Mormon comes from Smith, himself, and even Smith makes no mention of any specific events....just general persecution. Further, as a convicted fraud who, even by his own admission, was a "money digger"*, I'm not inclined to trust anything he said about his past without substantial corroboration from some sort of outside source (and Smith's brother doesn't count as an "outside" source).

You are right, though. I should probably have taken the fact that everything Smith said is taken as gospel (pardon the pun) by modern Mormons into account and better qualified my statement. I updated my post to make my thoughts more clear.

* A con or a fraud in which the con man would have a "magic stone" which he would place in his hat, and then pull his hat over his face, excluding all light. The stone would then supposedly shine and the money-digger could locate hidden treasure. People would pay the money-digger to tell them where to dig, but when you got "close" to the treasure, the money-digger would usually tell you that the treasure had moved.

[ April 20, 2007, 00:24: Message edited by: Drew ]

 

The Early Mormons. They practiced Polygamy in ther early days of the church. They abandoned the practice under duress from the Government, despite your precious Bill of Rights prohibiting the Government from doing so. Gays should be told by that precident that the government will not change marriage laws, and expect them to conform go away...

Allegations made by those that would have an axe to grind against him at the time or the Church he restored since his murder.

Again, taking information from a source that exists to demean and defame a religion would at very least be questioned for accuracy. Information about Mormons would be like information about homosexuals from Reverend Phelps.

Even more Ironic that Reverend Phelps would probably hate Mormons as much as he hates homosexuals. Besides, I though the thread was Anti-religious, and that the anti-homosexual rantings of Reverend Phelps were simply one of the grounds for debate.

And this matches what I'd been taught and the depictions I had seen.

The only place I can find of anyone even catching hell in the D&C was where the Lord chastised Joseph Smith and Martin Harris over the release from their custody of the book of Lehi. The two still held a key place within the church after the incident.

I don't know what the heck Scientology is. It can't be as bizzare as that episode of South Park, can it?

Peter was one of the twelve Apostles, and a figure of authority in the church at the Time of Christ. How close to that original church is the Church that claims his legacy?

Martin Luther challenged the Pope and lived to tell about it. Wouldn't making the word of God accessable to the people in general would be a truly remarkable achievement. Remember that I am treating Christianity as basically true...

Several of them left the Church at some point. The timing of the comments may call some of them into question.

After Joseph Smith's death, Emma and her children left the main branch of the church, believing that Joseph Smith's son should be the next prophet. If this was given after that split, then her claims are suspect.

It also makes no mention to putting the Urim and Thummim in a hat and shoving his face into it.

Plates which were taken by the Angel Moroni afther the translation was completed. Producing the plates would be an even bigger coup...

Blatantly contradictory to Church doctrine regarding religion and it's rights of Dicipline:

Doctrine and Covenents 134:10 explicitly states:

I have never heard of this publication. Are you sure which branch of the Church it's from? And not only are you suggesting that he was a con artist, but that he wasn't a very good one?

Joseph Smith-History, 1:21-22 tells how he told a Methodist Preacher about the First vision, his Chastisement and the persecution that had been stirred up.

It is defaming a key figure in a religion. It would be on par with such things said about Mohammed...


[Edited to remove multiple reiterations of the exact same stuff - dmc]

[ April 20, 2007, 16:51: Message edited by: dmc ]

 

Gnarff, would you please edit your posting? You repeated yourself about four times in it.

 

Wow Gnarf, why so defensive?

You dont seem to get it - listing facts about a religion does NOT equal hate. The source does not exist to demean your religion, you only take it as such because it disagrees with your beliefs.

I hate to say this, but... grow up. Not everyone you meet in life will agree with your beliefs, but that doesnt mean they hate you. It is possible for someone to not agree with you and not hate you. It is possible for someone to have some reservations towards joseph smith but not hate mormonism. it is possible, I promise. stop being a martyr, you arent hated and your faith isnt hated, but you need to accept that what you know, might not be all there is to know.

even if joseph smith was a conman, does that mean his religion is false? does that mean the joy it brings to peoples lives is false? is it impossible for him to have been a conman, and then found god and turned his life around? if it were you, would you be ashamed to admit what you had done?

is it not possible that other people might not be lying, might not be trying to demean your faith, and still hold a different view of the facts?

 

Gnarff: Just how many times did you hit paste? Please fix that as it is quite difficult to find all your arguments.

Your lack of proper editing really weakens any argument you have, it shows you really do not care how you present yourself.

As far as your repeated comments that you have never heard of the particular argument point -- I certainly can believe that. Just because you have not heard a particular point does not mean it is false -- in fact, many of the points brought up can be verified by simply going to www.lds.org and searching. Gnarf, you have passion for your church, but not a very extensive knowledge of it. There are many things that you have repeatedly argued on SP about the church and your interpretation of the doctrine which are not accurate. I would really recommend you read more about the church and take some institute courses (I actually think you would really enjoy them -- I did while I was active). I really can't tell how many books from the church you've read, but by the time I was 19 I had read all the scriptures (at least once), had four years of seminary, two years of institute, and had read 30-35 books written by general authorities. When I visit my family I have access to ~500 volumes of works written by general authorities (including the complete journals of Brigham Young). Nothing Drew has said is contrary to things I have read. He may not be interpreting it the same way the church does, but he does have the facts.

By the way, how do YOU define the man who has the biggest and best built home in town, has furnishings to match, and has enough money to cover every conceivable expense? That WAS Joseph Smith in Nauvoo. I would call him wealthy. Those members who were excommunicated from the church were forced to leave the area, their lands were then taken by the community (i.e., LDS church) and resold with all proceeds going to the church (i.e., Joseph Smith). This was also done in Salt Lake City and happened to my ancestors when my g-g-grandfather pissed off Brigham Young (he wasn't excommunicated, just driven out of Salt Lake City).

 

Of course. It would have to be applied across the board. In order for anyone to have a "marriage" it would have to be performed by a member of the clergy of a particular faith (and by partuclar, I mean any faith will do - I don't mean particualr as in a specific faith). If you go to a JotP, you get a civil union, or whatever the heck you want to call it, regardless of the sexes of the people involved.

Well, it wouldn't have to be decided by the highest court in America. In fact, presently, the Supreme Court cannot hear any case regarding marriage, as marriage rights are currently under the control of individual states. Unless a Consitutional amendment is passed stating something to the affect of, "marriage is the union between a man and a woman" or something of the like, the Supreme Court cannot rule on this matter.

However, that reply dodges rather than answers your question. State Supreme Courts CAN hear this case, so we can just reinerpret your initial question and replace "highest court" with "local highest court" and go from there. My answer to that would be that it represents an improvement.

Let's use an example. Say you lived in Boston and wanted to hitchhike across the country to Los Angeles. So you got a cardboard sign with the name "Los Angeles" on it, stuck your thumb out and started walking on the highway. After some time a truck stops, and the trucker says "I'm bound for Salt Lake City. Want a lift?" (Sorry, but I couldn't resist using Salt Lake City as the trucker's destination.) Now, technically, going with the trucker would not get you to where you wanted to go, but it would get you a heck of a lot closer than you presently are. I don't know about you, but I would accept the ride.

You have a point here. And you're right that a law shouldn't take a religious position into account. Unfortunately, they aren't just Christians - they are voting Chrisitians. If you are representing an area with a high number of Christians, are you going to piss them off and risk not getting re-elected?

Of course precedents can be overturned. Heck, even constitutional amendements have been overturned. Look at the consumption of alcohol. Legal from the inception of the US up until the early 20th century when an amendment to the constitution made it illegal to produce, buy, sell, and consume alcoholic beverages. A few years later, it was overturned (and the Supreme Court didn't even have to get involved in that).

Even in Supreme Court cases, it is possible to overturn a previous ruling. The standards are higher than ruling on something for the first time though. In order for the Supreme Court to reverse a precedent, it would have to show that the original interpretation of the law was invalid - i.e., that the original justices who ruled used flawed reasoning, or (more likely) that new laws have been passed since the first ruling, making it necessary for the Supreme Court to take on a similar case.

But that does bring up an interesting point. To my knowledge, there was never a court case banning the Mormon practice of polygamy. For reasons I outlined earlier, there definitely wasn't a Supreme Court case. Rather, abandoning the practice of polygamy was a condition to Utah gaining statehood. It's not like the Mormons had no choice. It's just that Utah would have remained a territory for a while longer. Eventually Utah *would* have gained statehood, because the Mormon faith would have become very much a minority opinion as more non-Mormons moved into the territory, and the Mormons would have been forced to abandon the practice in the face of a huge majority of non-polygamists. The moral of this story is using court cases to show why homosexual unions should be disallowed by a court is really barking up the wrong tree.

 

Any church figure who can officiate a wedding and have it be legally binding afterwards is already a Justice of the peace. For the "civil union" solution to actually work, it will have to be impossible to get a "Marriage" license. In other words, it's a marriage according to your church, but the legal documentation will still say "civil union" in all cases.

Actually, it really depends on whether or not what you are saying about Mohammad has a factual basis. Calling Mohammad a pedophile, for example, wouldn't qualify as defamation because he did actually marry a 9 year old girl.....something Wahabi Muslims (a very extreme brand of Islam exported by Saudi Arabia) often bring up as evidence that marrying a pre-pubescent girl is permissible in Islam. Likewise, calling someone who admitted to making his living as a "money digger" (a known con) and was even convicted in court for running the con a fraud or a con-man doesn't qualify as defamation.....since the statement is derived from factual information. If I called Joseph Smith a necrophiliac or a lawyer (to the best of my knowledge, Joseph Smith was not a necrophiliac or a lawyer), that would be defamation of character.

[ April 20, 2007, 22:35: Message edited by: Drew ]

 

On topic: This group plans to demonstrate at the funeral of one of the VT students:
Smoking gun article

 

Jack Funk, that is just sick. Seriously, if I ever saw one of those people on the street, I might really do something regrettable...

 

Jack, you'll see these creeps wherever they can get some publicity in the US. Go to their website and listen to Phelps' two sermons on mp3 there from briefly fter 9/11. It'll turn your stomach.

 

These people are disgusting. I agree with your sentiments, Goli.

 

First, I would like to apologize for the repetitive nature of the post. It was late and I had no clue of what happened there until I was PM'd by dmc today to inform me of this.

SO you admit that Reverend Phelps is a legitimate source of information on homosexuals? Further, I believe that perhaps only part of the story is told (the part favouring the arguement against my religion). Some of these groups actually protest LDS events (like Phelps groups plan to protest the service at Virginia tech if I have my extremist groups right).

Conspicuous by their abscence:

Any conviction of ANY criminal offence.

Any mention of "Elders' Journal".

Any of the defamatory things said about Joseph Smith.

Any description of the translation process.

Any accounts of members being excommunicated for their land/property.

Therefore I must demand links to where these claims came from. I think you'll find that the sources may not be quite accurate or honest...

When certain allegations include direct violations of scriptural principles by Prophet's of the Lord, I begin to get skeptical.

Well, if the saints worked together on building the homes, they would likely have pitched in and built a nicer home (and nicer furniture) for their beloved Prophet. If the accounts I've heard about the number of wives (and likely the number of offspring), he would need that big of a house. As for covering the expenses, I believe that the early church would have had the resources to cover such expenses for anyone. The fact that he was the Prophet would mean that he would draw the majority of such expenses...

This is a DIRECT violation of Doctrine and Covenents 134:10, which says that yes, they can excommunicate unruly members, but they have no right to confiscate property or worldly goods.

Secondly, at what point did the saints actually gain ownership of property in Utah? If I remember correctly, the Church owned the land and the members were given stewardship over areas of that land.

Several of the early saints were prosecuted for the practice. By prosecuting them, the definition of Marriage was upheld.

Secondly, they did have a choice. It is mentioned as an addendum to Official Declaration 1. http://scriptures.lds.org/en/od/1

Please provide a site link to where that information came from, as well as this "Elders' Journal" that you claim he confessed in. This still sounds suspicious to me.

This is repulsive. Allegedly one student gave his life in hopes of saving the lives of one or more fellow students, and he's posthumously condemned because he was a homosexual. This actually does not mesh with the teachings of Jesus Christ. First, it misrepresents the atonement of Jesus Christ, by denying him forgiveness of his sins. Secondly, Christ also said in Matthew 10:39 "He that findeth his life shall lose it: and he that loseth his life for my sake shall find it." Later he also says "Inasmuch as ye have done it unto the least of these, my brethren, ye have done it unto me". By giving his life that others may have a better chance to live, he may have found forgiveness of his sins. Reverend Phelps seems to ignore or forget this.

The frightening thing about this group, and others like it, is that they seem to thrive on a reactionary basis. The more homosexuals take a prevalent position in society, the more they harvest the backlash against them. When even a Christian view involving a non-endorsement of this behaviour is deemed politically incorrect, some Christians may become more sympathetic to such groups. Where in society is the place for the Christian that doesn't agree with them, but has better things to do than harrass and harm gays? Can we stand up for our beliefs without being called bigots or worse? If not, I fear that such backlash will swell the ranks of these groups...

 

Groups such as Phelps' are reprehensible because they are not followers of the teaching of Jesus. Unfortunately we hear about the evil people do and seldom about the good. So people make generalised judgements based on what they hear or see.

I see a big difference between what Phelps teaches and what churches such as the Mormon teach. I may not agree with the Latter Day Saints but I can respect their viewpoint. I abhor and despise groups such as Phelps. To me they are terrorists in the guise of religion just as much as any Islamic fanatic.

 

Go here. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elders'_Journal Unfortunately, the hyperlink won't work (I assume) because there's an apostrophe in the link. I was actually able to find a full copy as well, but the Wiki article goes straight to the pertinent part of the FAQ and answers the question. Here.
The full interview that I cited isn't there, though, as No. 2 doesn't appear to be available online (I linked you to no. 3, which answers the question about Joseph Smith having been a money digger in its FAQ). You can, however, find No.2 at your local library, in all likelihood. I found it at mine.

Regarding other things you didn't find on lds.org, I'm not going to hold your hand. I gave you the facts, but could really care less if you want to look at them or not....or how you choose to interpret them. If you really want to check, just use google . As T2 pointed out, these are factual items that I brought up, whose sources I even cited. Just run a search for the item in question (an example of a good google search would be Joseph Smith Arrest 1826). Don't be afraid to look at sites you consider "anti-mormon", either. These sites cite their sources and will usually have hyper links which will guide you to the horses mouth if the source is available online (a lot of good, scholarly sources won't be available online, but will be cited on a well written page and the sources are usually available at your local library). You should be able to find sensible, well cited information even if you use the "I feel lucky" feature on your search. Just be prepared for what you find.

Your point? Churches break their own rules all the time. The people that run them are, after all, people. Even Joseph Smith.

[ April 21, 2007, 22:47: Message edited by: Drew ]