The Book of Mormon Joseph Smith and/or Moroni et. al.

Debate specific books

Moderator: Moderators

Post Reply
User avatar
sleepyhead
Site Supporter
Posts: 897
Joined: Thu Dec 17, 2009 8:57 pm
Location: Grass Valley CA

The Book of Mormon Joseph Smith and/or Moroni et. al.

Post #1

Post by sleepyhead »

Hello,

In order to be involved in this discussion/debate you must register here:
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/g ... php?g=7076

I am the group owner (so much power for one person to have). I was active LDS for about a year, inactive for a few years and presently an inactive member of the Chruch of Christ (temple lot). My posts will largely delve into certain moral teachings of the book. If others want to go through the book chapter by chapter or to only discuss the book of Ether that's also ok.
May all your naps be joyous occasions.

User avatar
The Ex-Mormon
Apprentice
Posts: 248
Joined: Mon Sep 03, 2012 4:53 pm
Location: Berne

Post #51

Post by The Ex-Mormon »

@ Stubborn, you make all honor to your name!

stubbornone
Banned
Banned
Posts: 689
Joined: Mon Oct 22, 2012 11:10 am

Post #52

Post by stubbornone »

The Ex-Mormon wrote: @ Stubborn, you make all honor to your name!
Perhaps so Ex, but I have had a very different experience with religion than you have (I am guessing). I have seen very bad religious people, indeed, as a Soldier, I have been into villages where extremists have taken over and abused the populace in the name of their religion. That was the case with Islam in that case. Yet the reality was, and indeed is, that extremists or simple human failures to not make or break a gospel.

In addition to fighting Al Qaeda, quite literally, I found that I was doing so with ... Muslims. These are people who shared openly with their faith, and, as I see here in the case with Mormonism, I often see with Islam. There are those who pray on fear and loathing, and what they see are the Prophets short comings, the lines in the Koran meant for a period of war, not peace, and they quote these and condemn. Yet they miss a few things ... things like messages of incredible tolerance, the will to subordinate your desires to God's desires in humbleness, the desire, indeed commandment, to serve your fellow man.

And so I watched, upon returning from a battlefield, as those who had never interacted with Muslims, or who had an axe to grind, smeared Muslims, focused on detracting points, and missed ... some of the most honorable men and women I have ever seen. Their children. Their hopes for a unified country free of violence. Their dreams that their children would grow up as engineers and doctors rather than Soldiers. They missed ... a lot.

And what did the detractors gain? Hatred? Derision? A false sense of superiority?

And they missed, honor, steadfastness, friendship, inclusion, sharing, warmth, etc. etc. etc.

Why would the Mormonism be any different? Why single it out so profoundly? Why focus on hating the religion so much that you demonize people to the point where you reject everything about them.

Well, I have been in a great many Churches, including Synagogues and Mosques, and that would include Mormon Churches, and in each I have found some ridiculously good people. You of all people cannot tell me that there were no good people in the Mormon church? Its Temples?

So what do you gain by slamming their gospel with non-contextual quotes that deliberately mislead? And you lose ... the fellowship of an incredibly good people.

User avatar
otseng
Savant
Posts: 18572
Joined: Thu Jan 15, 2004 1:16 pm
Location: Atlanta, GA
Has thanked: 146 times
Been thanked: 212 times
Contact:

Post #53

Post by otseng »

Moderator Comment
In this case the LDS, which stands for :
Lying
Denying, and
Stubbornness

http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 501#510501

Please avoid uncivil characterizations of any group.

@ Stubborn, you make all honor to your name!

http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 312#517312

Please avoid making any comments of a personal nature.

Please review the Rules.


______________

Moderator comments do not count as a strike against any posters. They only serve as an acknowledgment that a post report has been received, but has not been judged to warrant a moderator warning against a particular poster. Any challenges or replies to moderator postings should be made via Private Message to avoid derailing topics.

User avatar
The Ex-Mormon
Apprentice
Posts: 248
Joined: Mon Sep 03, 2012 4:53 pm
Location: Berne

Post #54

Post by The Ex-Mormon »

@ Otseng,

It was a compliment for stubborn, no insult. If I want to insult somebody, this looks different (with so-called "bad words").
What my classification of the LDS concerns, this is not only my experience, but also the experiences of many other people.. Not restricts. to the LDS, though, I think e.g. at:

JW
RCC
SBC
Pat Robertson and similar TV preachers.

I wanted to injure nobody with my comments, I, however, wanted to be able to tell my opinion frankly. If this here is not permitted to me; than I had to leave.

stubbornone
Banned
Banned
Posts: 689
Joined: Mon Oct 22, 2012 11:10 am

Post #55

Post by stubbornone »

The Ex-Mormon wrote: @ Otseng,

It was a compliment for stubborn, no insult. If I want to insult somebody, this looks different (with so-called "bad words").
What my classification of the LDS concerns, this is not only my experience, but also the experiences of many other people.. Not restricts. to the LDS, though, I think e.g. at:

JW
RCC
SBC
Pat Robertson and similar TV preachers.

I wanted to injure nobody with my comments, I, however, wanted to be able to tell my opinion frankly. If this here is not permitted to me; than I had to leave.
Interesting.

#1 - Apologies Ex, some of the forum's atheists appear to be following and reporting everything I do ... I think you got caught up in that. I promise you thought, I did not report anything you said.

I may disagree with you profoundly, but that does not mean that I take disagreement as disrespect.

#2 - I would once again remind you to separate the gospel from the people. We are all imperfect, and none of us can claim that we have a perfect mastery of the lesson of the gospel.

Indeed, you have not found any actual message in the gospel that you disagree with. The message of the 'darkening of the skin' may appear to be offensive with our modern, and correct, sense of racial equality, but the gospel message is not to hate based on skin color. It is about avoiding those who have not just rejected God, but have been 'marked' as being beyond reason and abjectly conflictive.

In short, the message is more about not wasting time with those who have chosen evil while they are in the throws of evil, and less about skin color and modern individualism. Were God to make the same judgement about a man or a group of men today, I doubt very seriously he would employ the same choice in 'marking' as ancient tribalism is the ONLY way that such homogeneity could be maintained.

I point to groups like Ed Dekker and his 'God Makers'. He is basically ignored by the church, whose sole responses are brief publications disagreeing with him and pointing to the factual faults in his logic, and then basically ignoring him (save for warning missionaries whom he prays upon). Yet the fact of the matter is that men like Ed Dekker are extremely abusive and manipulative. He spends all his time looking for the weak to pray upon. And when he finds someone who agrees with him, he showers them in effusive praise. When people disagree with him, he demonizes them and attacks them. In short, he is a zealot who is beyond reason ... wailing ineffectively at a church that continues to grow.

However, it would be wrong to assume that all disagreement with Anti-Mormonism is of the same zealotry as Dekker's.

Conversely, Glen Beck is a very well known Mormon. I would have to try very hard to find things that I didn't disagree with him on. But it would be a mistake to think that Glen Beck represents the purity of the gospel (as opposed to President Monson), or that he reflects the reality of Mormonism. There are MANY great and honorable people I have met that are Mormon, and I see no reason to reject them and their earnest beliefs merely because ... Pat Robertson is Christian?

We are all at our own point in our journey, and we are all going to get things wrong. I would of course never attempt to force the gospel upon you, but I would strongly caution against an emotional thrusting of the gospel from your life ... at the expense of pushing people, very good people, out of your life with it.

There are Mormons who have trouble dealing with those who reject the gospel. There are others who understand that life is not easy, and are patient, understanding, kind, and ever willing to help. It they who are closer to the ideal of the gospel. Please bear them in mind rather than those who mistakenly reject, for remember, they too are on a journey of discovery and learning and are as worthy of your patience as we are of yours ;-)

User avatar
The Ex-Mormon
Apprentice
Posts: 248
Joined: Mon Sep 03, 2012 4:53 pm
Location: Berne

Post #56

Post by The Ex-Mormon »

stubbornone wrote:
#1 - Apologies Ex, some of the forum's atheists appear to be following and reporting everything I do ... I think you got caught up in that. I promise you thought, I did not report anything you said.
I may disagree with you profoundly, but that does not mean that I take disagreement as disrespect.
Whether you report me someplace or does it not, give me a shit! It is important for me to write what I think.
Something else: I never apologize in principle for my opinion. Neither direct nor indirect. I only try to explain something.
stubbornone wrote: #2 - I would once again remind you to separate the gospel from the people. We are all imperfect, and none of us can claim that we have a perfect mastery of the lesson of the gospel.
Also I separate a doctrine from the people; I know anyway; that much stands written but is done to some.
On the other hand members of the LDS do not come onto something straight away out of a mood so. So there were cases of castration and murder in Utah (by cut the throat in two) in the 19th century. The religious basis for it was the "law of the blood atonement" which was introduced by Joseph Smith. And Brigham Young did it in Utah.
Sexual child abuse in the USA of or reconciles cases in recent time; Where it was proved, that the abuser was offered protection by the church. The reason for it is an unwritten law; after what it is " more important to protect, the good reputation of the church"; but to supply a rotten rapist of his punishment.
stubbornone wrote: Indeed, you have not found any actual message in the gospel that you disagree with.
On the contrary! I have found a crowd !!! The proclamation about the family would be old-fashioned, anti-women and homophobic there. Addresses would be there general authorities who convey the same picture more variously. And certain books, such as the book of Spencer Kimball which shows me how ignorant a religion can be, would be there. And moreover full of prejudices.
stubbornone wrote: We are all at our own point in our journey, and we are all going to get things wrong.
Nobody is perfect, but we all try to be it one day.
stubbornone wrote: There are Mormons who have trouble dealing with those who reject the gospel. There are others who understand that life is not easy, and are patient, understanding, kind, and ever willing to help.
The members are all set against me in my residential area. Because I am the single umptieth person who is guilty in their eyes. Neither my oppressing husband nor the church is to blame. But only I. And why? Because I had dared to leave the church. Because I had dared to want to lead a life of my own; a life without limitation and hypocrisy.

stubbornone
Banned
Banned
Posts: 689
Joined: Mon Oct 22, 2012 11:10 am

Post #57

Post by stubbornone »

The Ex-Mormon wrote:
stubbornone wrote:
#1 - Apologies Ex, some of the forum's atheists appear to be following and reporting everything I do ... I think you got caught up in that. I promise you thought, I did not report anything you said.
I may disagree with you profoundly, but that does not mean that I take disagreement as disrespect.
Whether you report me someplace or does it not, give me a shit! It is important for me to write what I think.
Something else: I never apologize in principle for my opinion. Neither direct nor indirect. I only try to explain something.
stubbornone wrote: #2 - I would once again remind you to separate the gospel from the people. We are all imperfect, and none of us can claim that we have a perfect mastery of the lesson of the gospel.
Also I separate a doctrine from the people; I know anyway; that much stands written but is done to some.
On the other hand members of the LDS do not come onto something straight away out of a mood so. So there were cases of castration and murder in Utah (by cut the throat in two) in the 19th century. The religious basis for it was the "law of the blood atonement" which was introduced by Joseph Smith. And Brigham Young did it in Utah.
Sexual child abuse in the USA of or reconciles cases in recent time; Where it was proved, that the abuser was offered protection by the church. The reason for it is an unwritten law; after what it is " more important to protect, the good reputation of the church"; but to supply a rotten rapist of his punishment.
stubbornone wrote: Indeed, you have not found any actual message in the gospel that you disagree with.
On the contrary! I have found a crowd !!! The proclamation about the family would be old-fashioned, anti-women and homophobic there. Addresses would be there general authorities who convey the same picture more variously. And certain books, such as the book of Spencer Kimball which shows me how ignorant a religion can be, would be there. And moreover full of prejudices.
stubbornone wrote: We are all at our own point in our journey, and we are all going to get things wrong.
Nobody is perfect, but we all try to be it one day.
stubbornone wrote: There are Mormons who have trouble dealing with those who reject the gospel. There are others who understand that life is not easy, and are patient, understanding, kind, and ever willing to help.
The members are all set against me in my residential area. Because I am the single umptieth person who is guilty in their eyes. Neither my oppressing husband nor the church is to blame. But only I. And why? Because I had dared to leave the church. Because I had dared to want to lead a life of my own; a life without limitation and hypocrisy.

Well, let me ask you a couple of quick questions:

#1 - Do Mormons practice the law of blood atonement? Do you know any ideology that does not have some ... indiscretion in its closet? After all atheists have Stalin and Moa do they not? They have modern North Korea do they not? And are really claiming that no atheist has ever abused anyone?

#2 - What happens if you disagree with the homosexual community?

Say for example, that sexuality is not a immutable quality? That there are plenty of people whose sexual identity, both from straight to gay and from gay to straight, changes over the course of time? Indeed, it happens so often that the community itself coined the term ... hasbian.

So, it is really discrimination to disagree with the homosexuals communities presentation of sexual identity as immutable for legal purposes when we know that is not the case?

And what happens when you disagree with the homosexual community about that?

Right, just like Dekker, if you agree blindly with the homosexual community you are heaped with praise - any criticism of their position and you are the devil himself.

If you are against abusive tendencies, then clearly you are against such sophistry and attempts at intellectual bullying correct?

User avatar
The Ex-Mormon
Apprentice
Posts: 248
Joined: Mon Sep 03, 2012 4:53 pm
Location: Berne

Post #58

Post by The Ex-Mormon »

stubbornone wrote:
#1 - Do Mormons practice the law of blood atonement? Do you know any ideology that does not have some ... indiscretion in its closet? After all atheists have Stalin and Moa do they not? They have modern North Korea do they not? And are really claiming that no atheist has ever abused anyone?
The LDS had practiced the law of blood atonement over many decades. And it is also practiced in some LDS sects sometimes. I only remind of the murder Laferty, as it was described in the book "under the banner of heaven from Krakauer.
If the LDS would stand to their faults in the past, she would admit that this law was wrong. But they can't do this! But the LDS must do this for their reliability!!!
stubbornone wrote: #2 - What happens if you disagree with the homosexual community?

Say for example, that sexuality is not a immutable quality? That there are plenty of people whose sexual identity, both from straight to gay and from gay to straight, changes over the course of time? Indeed, it happens so often that the community itself coined the term ... hasbian.
So, it is really discrimination to disagree with the homosexuals communities presentation of sexual identity as immutable for legal purposes when we know that is not the case?
And what happens when you disagree with the homosexual community about that?
If I would have another opinion as the majority of the homosexuals; I could spread it just the same, how other their opinion. This is democracy! Only if somebody claims a little what contradicts to the facts has one the right to say this publicly.
An example:

If I would say in the homosexual community; that homosexuality is a curable illness; although much scientific knowledge does not prove this; would I spread a lie. And I would see that these statements would be criticized as wrong.
Something else: What does concern it a church or somebody else, how I live?? As long as I do not break any laws, that one of nobody tackles something!
stubbornone wrote: If you are against abusive tendencies, then clearly you are against such sophistry and attempts at intellectual bullying correct?
Holding his opinion offensively; and reject wrong statements and accusations; is no bullying. It is democracy! Strange: Why homophobic Christians may do homosexuals bullied, but not homosexuals homophobic Christians?

stubbornone
Banned
Banned
Posts: 689
Joined: Mon Oct 22, 2012 11:10 am

Post #59

Post by stubbornone »

The Ex-Mormon wrote:
stubbornone wrote:
#1 - Do Mormons practice the law of blood atonement? Do you know any ideology that does not have some ... indiscretion in its closet? After all atheists have Stalin and Moa do they not? They have modern North Korea do they not? And are really claiming that no atheist has ever abused anyone?
The LDS had practiced the law of blood atonement over many decades. And it is also practiced in some LDS sects sometimes. I only remind of the murder Laferty, as it was described in the book "under the banner of heaven from Krakauer.
If the LDS would stand to their faults in the past, she would admit that this law was wrong. But they can't do this! But the LDS must do this for their reliability!!!
And gay people used yo eat children! OK, that is deliberately hyperbolistic. What someone used to do is less important than what they do now. Catholics used to have sin eaters ... that doesn't make Catholicism wrong, it makes what man does wrong.

In short, it appears that you are more interested in continually finding something to harp about then you are with finding fault with the actual message of the BoM.

After all, the main message is one of atonement, sacrifice, and faith under incredibly difficult circumstances. Its not the message you disagree with, it seems, to be blunt, more about finding revenge for some reason - as if kicking the church is kicking or God?
If I would have another opinion as the majority of the homosexuals; I could spread it just the same, how other their opinion. This is democracy! Only if somebody claims a little what contradicts to the facts has one the right to say this publicly.
An example:
Whether or not sexuality is immutable or not is not a vote, its not a popularity contest, and its not a matter of opinion. Skin color is immutable, there is known genetic marker that indicates skin color, eye color, hair color, etc. These are known as immutable human characteristics, and it is upon that basis that legally rests the ability to not discriminate. A man cannot change his skin color.

Sexuality is different, people can and do change their sexual orientation. Religion is another example. You could pound on some people, torture them, and they will not renounce their faith. That doesn't mean their faith is immutable however, as we all know, we choose our faith - or not.

Homosexuality cannot be both immutable and mutable. So if the legal premise of non-discrimination rests upon immutable human qualities, what happens when Ellen DeGeneres is divorced by Ann Heche because she realizes that she is not gay? Hmmmm.... seems the basis of that marriage was not immutable after all ... and that is a problem.

[strike]If I would say in the homosexual community; that homosexuality is a curable illness; although much scientific knowledge does not prove this; would I spread a lie. And I would see that these statements would be criticized as wrong.
Something else: What does concern it a church or somebody else, how I live?? As long as I do not break any laws, that one of nobody tackles something![/strike]

WHo said anything about treating homosexuality as an illness? I said it wasn't immutable.


Holding his opinion offensively; and reject wrong statements and accusations; is no bullying. It is democracy! Strange: Why homophobic Christians may do homosexuals bullied, but not homosexuals homophobic Christians?
In short, if you opinions agree with me, you are good. If not - I hate you.

A very different attitude than the church you seem to hate so much.

User avatar
The Ex-Mormon
Apprentice
Posts: 248
Joined: Mon Sep 03, 2012 4:53 pm
Location: Berne

Post #60

Post by The Ex-Mormon »

stubbornone wrote: Sexuality is different, people can and do change their sexual orientation.
The sexuality cannot be changed. Not only scientific researches do say this; even people say that who were a part of this programs. Here an example:

The sharp increase in homophobic discourse, policy, and politics in the mid-70s rankled Gay Mormons. Informal social networks were effective on an individual basis, but as a few strong and courageous people gave up their "Gay shame", they realized that something more formally organized and lasting was needed in order to respond to the misconceptions and disinformation being spread by LDS and BYU leaders. In early 1977, a group of Gays started meeting quietly on the BYU campus. However, "after hearing about all the suicides taking place" among Gay Mormons (especially the suicides of Gay BYU professor Carlyle Marsden, and of two men who had gone through electric shock "therapy" at BYU the year prior with Ford Mcbridge and Dr. Eugene Thorne), the group decided to take more formal action. One of this group, 22-year old Gay convert from Davis, California, Stephen James Matthew Price (going by first by Matthew Price and then a later alias of Stephan J. Zakharias), "became very enthused at the idea of a national organization of gay LDS people and began to promote it with gusto." As Zakharias told The Advocate in the November 1977 issue, "We have said 'We've had enough.' Gay people are not second-class citizens. We are children of God. We are important people and we have just as much worth as our heterosexual brothers and sisters in the church." (http://www.connellodonovan.com/abom.html)
stubbornone wrote: Religion is another example. You could pound on some people, torture them, and they will not renounce their faith. That doesn't mean their faith is immutable however, as we all know, we choose our faith - or not.
In history of mankind there was and there is enough examples of people;which denied their faith to save their life. Or these did not want to have the mouth within a religion forbidden to themselves. As Eugen Drewermann, the Roman Catholic theologian, or Hans Küng's, both Swiss. If somebody adheres to a faith although the evidence is overwhelming, is not faith strong but stubborn.
stubbornone wrote: Homosexuality cannot be both immutable and mutable. So if the legal premise of non-discrimination rests upon immutable human qualities, what happens when Ellen DeGeneres is divorced by Ann Heche because she realizes that she is not gay? Hmmmm.... seems the basis of that marriage was not immutable after all ... and that is a problem.
Anne Heche wasn't perhaps not a lesbian and perhaps neither a bisexual? Perhaps she loved just this person, Ellen who was female? Or she thought it would be good for her career? As Kinsey and others sexual scientists proved; there are heterosexuality and homosexuality as the two Poles (which are unchanging); much which can change between the two Poles. Nobody can, however, make 100% homosexuals to heterosexual ones.
stubbornone wrote: In short, if you opinions agree with me, you are good. If not - I hate you.
I never had a problem with another opinion. She only must be founded. A "because the bible tells it so"; is not acceptable to me.
stubbornone wrote: A very different attitude than the church you seem to hate so much.
I do not hate the LDS! I "hate" only what sometimes the LDS do. If she refuses people their civil rights or humiliates and discriminates a part of their members.

In YOUR Church Handbook of Instructions (Vol. 1, Issue 1999 or 2006) you can find THIS statement:

Homosexual Behavior
Homosexual behavior violates the commandments of God, is contrary to the purposes of human sexuality, distorts loving relationships, and deprives people of the blessings that can be found in family life and in the saving ordinances of the gospel. Those who persist in such behavior or who influence others to do so are subject to Church discipline. Homosexual behavior can be forgiven through sincere repentance. If members have homosexual thoughts or feelings or engage in homosexual behavior, Church leaders should help them have a clear understanding of faith in Jesus Christ, the process of repentance, and the purpose of life on earth. Leaders also should help them accept responsibility for their thoughts and actions and apply gospel principles in their lives. In addition to the inspired assistance of Church leaders, members may need professional
counseling.
Source: p. 195, PDF

Or here:

Same-Gender Marriages
The Church opposes same-gender marriages and any efforts to legalize such marriages. Church members are encouraged "to appeal to legislators, judges, and other government officials to preserve the purposes and sanctity of marriage between a man and a woman, and to reject all efforts to give legal authorization or other official approval or support to marriages between persons of the same gender" (First Presidency letter, 1 Feb. 1994; see also "Homosexual Behavior" on this page).
Source p. 196 PDF

Your church discriminates against us. your church claimed homosexuality is ill and must be cured. And your church does not want that we may get married. This is old-fashionedly, stubbornly, unchristianly and in the eyes of some Americans also un-American.

Post Reply