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 #41

Post by The Ex-Mormon »

@ Stubborn,

I have never claimed that the LDS is a gang of killers. I only have said that this quotation from the BoM was used to it to justify murders. And that in the history of the LDS there were many murders
Did you e.g. know how it shut in the choice of the successor after Joseph Smith's death? Became a brother of JS there which laid claim to the job as a prophet; insidiously murders (with poison). Hosea Stout was suspicious of the deed (I have hopefully written the name correctly); under the Brigham Young chief constable in SLC. It could never cleared, who gave the order for this murder. Brigham Young and Orrin Porter Rockwell, however, belonged to the suspicious one to the circle.
Stout by the way was a Danite.

Here some information to it:

http://www.i4m.com/think/leaders/brigham_murder.htm

http://exmormon.org/d6/drupal/Poisoning ... el-H-Smith

http://article.wn.com/view/2011/02/05/L ... uel_Smith/


"Then Samuel Smith suddenly became violently ill and died on 30 July 1844. This added suspicion of murder to the escalating drama. Council of Fifty member and physician John M. Bernhisel told William Smith that anti-Mormons had somehow poisoned his brother. William learned from Samuel's widow that Hosea Stout, a Missouri Danite and senior officer of Nauvoo's police, had acted as his brother's nurse. Stout had given him "white powder" medicine daily until his death. Samuel became ill within days of the discussion of his succession right, and by 24 July was "very sick." There had been enough talk about Samuel's succession claims that the newspaper in Springfield, Illinois, reported: "A son of Joe Smith [Sr.] it is said, had received the revelation that he was to be the successor of the prophet."

Then Brigham Young said this in defense. Read between the lines. Does an innocent man defend himself in such a way?

"And William Smith has asserted that I was the cause of the death of his brother Samuel, when brother Woodruff, who is here to day, knows that we were waiting at the depôt in Boston to take passage east at the very time when Joseph and Hyrum were killed. Brother Taylor was nearly killed at the time, and Doctor Richards had his whiskers nearly singed off by the blaze from the guns. In a few weeks after, Samuel Smith died, and I am blamed as the cause of his death."
- Prophet Brigham Young, July 1857, Journal of Discourses, vol. 5, p.77
Source: http://www.godlikeproductions.com/forum ... 379788/pg1

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

Post #42

Post by stubbornone »

The Ex-Mormon wrote: @ Stubborn,

I have never claimed that the LDS is a gang of killers. I only have said that this quotation from the BoM was used to it to justify murders. And that in the history of the LDS there were many murders
Did you e.g. know how it shut in the choice of the successor after Joseph Smith's death? Became a brother of JS there which laid claim to the job as a prophet; insidiously murders (with poison). Hosea Stout was suspicious of the deed (I have hopefully written the name correctly); under the Brigham Young chief constable in SLC. It could never cleared, who gave the order for this murder. Brigham Young and Orrin Porter Rockwell, however, belonged to the suspicious one to the circle.
Stout by the way was a Danite.

Here some information to it:

http://www.i4m.com/think/leaders/brigham_murder.htm

http://exmormon.org/d6/drupal/Poisoning ... el-H-Smith

http://article.wn.com/view/2011/02/05/L ... uel_Smith/


"Then Samuel Smith suddenly became violently ill and died on 30 July 1844. This added suspicion of murder to the escalating drama. Council of Fifty member and physician John M. Bernhisel told William Smith that anti-Mormons had somehow poisoned his brother. William learned from Samuel's widow that Hosea Stout, a Missouri Danite and senior officer of Nauvoo's police, had acted as his brother's nurse. Stout had given him "white powder" medicine daily until his death. Samuel became ill within days of the discussion of his succession right, and by 24 July was "very sick." There had been enough talk about Samuel's succession claims that the newspaper in Springfield, Illinois, reported: "A son of Joe Smith [Sr.] it is said, had received the revelation that he was to be the successor of the prophet."

Then Brigham Young said this in defense. Read between the lines. Does an innocent man defend himself in such a way?

"And William Smith has asserted that I was the cause of the death of his brother Samuel, when brother Woodruff, who is here to day, knows that we were waiting at the depôt in Boston to take passage east at the very time when Joseph and Hyrum were killed. Brother Taylor was nearly killed at the time, and Doctor Richards had his whiskers nearly singed off by the blaze from the guns. In a few weeks after, Samuel Smith died, and I am blamed as the cause of his death."
- Prophet Brigham Young, July 1857, Journal of Discourses, vol. 5, p.77
Source: http://www.godlikeproductions.com/forum ... 379788/pg1

No, what you have is a bunch of non-contextual quotes and the deliberate avoidance of the discussion about the role of violence. Is it acceptable to turn your back while someone else is murdered? Or not?

But you are not quoting multiple texts, philosophy, or even making a case one way or another. You are leering in with a a few non-contextual quotes and snide implication that Mormons, in this case (but I see the same behavior quite often in so called truth seekers and critics), are murderers or somehow support murder.

Its funny because these truth seekers, so eager to condemn Mormons for 'murder' seem to flacidly ignore say ... Sam Harris and Chris Hitchens, and their support for the recent wars in the Middle East ... a stance that seems strikingly at odds with these same critics vocal castigation, much like yours, of the religions they disagree with a uncivilized brutes prone to war.

In short, you want to judge religion by one standard and have yourself judged by another. When war or violence is justified, a case made, you simply claim the opposite, that religious people are 'murderers' and a threat to civilization. When religion preaches pacificism, its critics simply declare them cowards unwilling to stand up for anything. Not that many critics have ever made it to many battlefield to defend anything ... which is what makes the entire hyperbolistic nonsense so intellectually detestable. Chris Hitchens wrote a best seller lambasting 'religious war', and then turned around and supported two very recent and bloody war. His experience with any of them? Right, non-existent. His desire to support the consequences of his decisions? His respects paid to those who lost sons and daughters in the combat he recommended? Nil.

And that is what I find most ... dishonest. Its not a discussion about the ethical use of violence or not, its simply castigating people as murderers and turning a blind eye to even the pretense of actual discussion on the issue.

A better question? What in God's Earth to gain by hating someone based solely on their faith choice? Right, well, that is kind of the point.

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

Post #43

Post by The Ex-Mormon »

@stubborn,

One of my acquaintances; a Protestant parish priest and former JW; said once: "Where people are, it shuts humanly there". And he passed on that; we can be glad if it is not fiendish (the devils way).
I want to say with that that every religion has or finds their justifications; to justify force/violence against dissidents. This was and is so at the LDS; but also the RCC, the Islam, the orthodox Judaism, and the fundamentalist Christian.

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

Post #44

Post by stubbornone »

The Ex-Mormon wrote: @stubborn,

One of my acquaintances; a Protestant parish priest and former JW; said once: "Where people are, it shuts humanly there". And he passed on that; we can be glad if it is not fiendish (the devils way).
I want to say with that that every religion has or finds their justifications; to justify force/violence against dissidents. This was and is so at the LDS; but also the RCC, the Islam, the orthodox Judaism, and the fundamentalist Christian.

Every religion still has to live in the real world, and in the real world we have violence. Man has to deal with it. Its that simple. Some humans honestly choose pacificism, which is an incredibly difficult path to choose, and on that, when honest, I respect a great a deal. Others, such as myself, cannot stomach seeing the poor exploited and dedicate our lives to their defense. Still others see the power of threats and adopt a life of criminality and brutality.

So what do we humans do in the face of and reality of violence?

Well, that is where the gospel steps in. There is violence throughout the Gospel and contextual examination of various instances of violence - some good, some not good. And why is it there? Because anyone who has even a cursory knowledge of human history or even current events knows that humanity grapples with violence. The gospels study of violence is not about advocacy, it is about seeking truth and, ultimately, wisdom. The intent is to produce citizens and leaders who are wise, who make sound decisions or, at the very least, can acknowledge when they have made a mistake and pull themselves out of a violent situation.

However, what I see you (and lets face it, its not just you - it seems to be protracted throughout the modern atheist movement) is dearth of analysis and a google mentality to preconception. In this fascinating modern age we live in, for example:

Thesis: Americans are violent!

Proof: https://www.google.com/search?q=America ... e&ie=UTF-8

Look at that! 62 MILLION sources to back up my claim, so clearly I am right? ALL Americans are blood thirsty morons prone to excessive violence and murder ... er, including you BTW. I have 62 MILLION sources to back up that claim!

And you can pretty much do anything. Unfortunately, that is not truth seeking - its rationalization of a preconception. So when you find yourself conducting random word searches of the gospel to justify a position, you do not have expertise ... you have bigotry of that faith, a bigotry made clear when the practitioners of modern religions 'criticism' simply ignore the explanations and contextual analysis.

But I wonder how you feel knowing, by your Nationality rather than Religion, whether your standard of conduct is indeed correct? For it condemns you as violent murderess every bit as much as you do others.

I for one think that wise humans created systems of jurisprudence to use actual evidence to determine whether someone was a murderer or not, as opposed to vaccuous claims backed by one sided google searches and utter obstinance.

Just to make the point:

https://www.google.com/search?q=America ... 66&bih=643

Well, there are 53 million sources that claim Americans are not violent. Whichever preconception you hold ... you have your evidence.

Hence the need for actual debate and discussion rather than just random smears.

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

Post #45

Post by The Ex-Mormon »

Violent Americans:

Most people have a weapon in the USA because it is permitted
The possession of firearms is coupled with many hurdles in many European countries.
Seen most murders in the USA.
Much was started by American presidents wars the last decades to serve American economy interests.
Result: America has a force/violence problem!


Violence in religions:

If a religion has few members, they usually are not ready to be violent. If they have many members, that is power, the propensity to violence increases. Noticing in the RCC, the LDS and some Islamist states wonderfully.
The people expect of a religion that she supports justice and peace. Therefore the following points are "displeasing" for most people:

Blessing war weapons and soldiers
Looking away at child abuse of clergymen or laymen (like LDS)
The discrimination of women, homosexuals, colored persons, Jews and church critics
That churches doesn't want to adapt to themself to the modern world.

But most people do not like the hypocrisy in the churches. As we say in Switzerland: "Preaching water but drinking wine".
In every religion there are dark spots. It only depends on whether one learns from it, apologizes; and never makes the mistake again!

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

Post #46

Post by stubbornone »

The Ex-Mormon wrote: Violent Americans:

Most people have a weapon in the USA because it is permitted
The possession of firearms is coupled with many hurdles in many European countries.
Seen most murders in the USA.
Much was started by American presidents wars the last decades to serve American economy interests.
Result: America has a force/violence problem!


Violence in religions:

If a religion has few members, they usually are not ready to be violent. If they have many members, that is power, the propensity to violence increases. Noticing in the RCC, the LDS and some Islamist states wonderfully.
The people expect of a religion that she supports justice and peace. Therefore the following points are "displeasing" for most people:

Blessing war weapons and soldiers
Looking away at child abuse of clergymen or laymen (like LDS)
The discrimination of women, homosexuals, colored persons, Jews and church critics
That churches doesn't want to adapt to themself to the modern world.

But most people do not like the hypocrisy in the churches. As we say in Switzerland: "Preaching water but drinking wine".
In every religion there are dark spots. It only depends on whether one learns from it, apologizes; and never makes the mistake again!
In short, you just skipped over everything I wrote to write bland generalizations that are clearly at odds with reality.

#1 - explain Jim Jones, the Branch Dravidians, the Taliban (who are less than three decades old), Malian Extremists, and the genesis of a Islam ... which seems strikingly at odds with your claim ... especially as you are apparently trying to claim that Mormons, both relatively young (thus not violent), are actually supporters of murder? Odd choice.

#2 - Do you really think that religion is what plays a hand in humanities evil? That is causes it?

Are you telling us that atheist North Korea, devoid of religion, is actually a paragon of virtue, sexual liberty, and gender equality? In fact, you live in one of the most gender equal societies on Earth ... and it is HIGHLY religious.

In short, you are, as so many critics are, just looking to smear ... in this case, Mormons. Truth matters not at all, which is why you are both dodging the points presented, and then making random claims that actually contradict your thesis.

After all, you are telling us that Mormons support murder (obviously), but they are younger than both Buddhists and Catholics ... and we all know that Buddhism is a terribly violent religion?

Atheists.

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

Post #47

Post by The Ex-Mormon »

stubbornone wrote:

#2 - Do you really think that religion is what plays a hand in humanities evil? That is causes it?


Unfortunately, the history of mankind shows that it is that way. And I do not only talk about the murder of church critics on order of e.g. the pope; or the unpopular "sects"; also not of the witch-hunt which Roman Catholic and Protestant clergymen caused; I talk about racism and sexism also in today's time.
Colored men were not allowed to get any priesthood until 1978 at the LDS. After that it was permitted. Why? To the one because of the heavy pressure of the human right movement and the public opinion; and on the other hand because the LDS recognized itself that she took themself to the offside. And in the LDs it comes no changes without a new "revelation", so that a new "revelation" had to come.
Indian children were taken away from their parents and put into "boarding schools". Their Indian identity was taken away from them there, a fault which is visible certainly today. They became "christianizized" made them "white". The LDS also teaches in the BoM that a white skin is purer than a dark skin. And she would be pleasant in front of God. Is this not racism?
Women may get the priesthood in neither the RCC nor the LDS to this day. Therefore I mention it "penishood".
At the BYU were up to the eighties of the last century, homosexuals were treaded with electric shock and aversion therapies. At a said university there were real witch-hunts on homosexuals and some committed suicide because of this.
Many cases of child abuse in the RCC and the LDS where perpetrators were protected and the victim accused round off the picture of the religion.
Yes, religion often was and is the cause of the problem.

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

Post #48

Post by stubbornone »

The Ex-Mormon wrote:
stubbornone wrote:

#2 - Do you really think that religion is what plays a hand in humanities evil? That is causes it?


Unfortunately, the history of mankind shows that it is that way. And I do not only talk about the murder of church critics on order of e.g. the pope; or the unpopular "sects"; also not of the witch-hunt which Roman Catholic and Protestant clergymen caused; I talk about racism and sexism also in today's time.
Colored men were not allowed to get any priesthood until 1978 at the LDS. After that it was permitted. Why? To the one because of the heavy pressure of the human right movement and the public opinion; and on the other hand because the LDS recognized itself that she took themself to the offside. And in the LDs it comes no changes without a new "revelation", so that a new "revelation" had to come.
Indian children were taken away from their parents and put into "boarding schools". Their Indian identity was taken away from them there, a fault which is visible certainly today. They became "christianizized" made them "white". The LDS also teaches in the BoM that a white skin is purer than a dark skin. And she would be pleasant in front of God. Is this not racism?
Women may get the priesthood in neither the RCC nor the LDS to this day. Therefore I mention it "penishood".
At the BYU were up to the eighties of the last century, homosexuals were treaded with electric shock and aversion therapies. At a said university there were real witch-hunts on homosexuals and some committed suicide because of this.
Many cases of child abuse in the RCC and the LDS where perpetrators were protected and the victim accused round off the picture of the religion.
Yes, religion often was and is the cause of the problem.
The Mark of Cain is the Bible as well. Somehow, only the BoM is racist? And you do realize that this is a common claim found on random Mormon hating web sites? This point has been raised and rebutted repeatedly ... why waste the breath here?

Now, lets take a look around the world and see how many of the wars out there are actually caused by religion shall we?

El Salvatore ... no religious war.

Columbia's counter-insurgency against the FARC ... no religion there.

Nepal's Moaist revolution against ... royalism and authoritarianism.

The Taliban, Afghanistan. There enemies, as it has been in Afghanistan for hundreds of years are ... from the same religion.

Sri Lanke ... right ethnic war.

Arab Spring? Hmmm ... all the same religion.

And the list goes on and on and on ...

In fact, this is a great example of what Chris Hitchen's did in his non-peer reviewed (i.e. basically fiction) work God is not Great. He simply listed wars where religion was a factor, and ignored everything else. Including, mind you, the fact that secularism rose out of a religious war - specifically the 30 years war, a concept that has virtually eliminated religion from the wars of the West.

Do you know what Mormons call this type of deliberate exclusion of evidence? A lie of omission.

And they happen to have that analysis right.

So, what do you gain by having an incomplete knowledge of history, deliberately apparently, in order to call someone else a murderer based solely on their faith choice?

Right, nothing.

Has putting others down based on a faith choice alone EVER made anyone else actually feel better? Made them more rational?

Do you really think abuse ONLY happens in the lds church? That leaving the gospel will ride the world of abuse? Yep, some Mormons are bad. Many are not, but you toss those right out with the proverbial bath water. And you gain?

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

Post #49

Post by The Ex-Mormon »

stubbornone wrote: And you do realize that this is a common claim found on random Mormon hating web sites? This point has been raised and rebutted repeatedly ... why waste the breath here?
All of us have to check a source. And, a photocopy from church publications from that time is found in many books, e.g. the book "Changing world of Mormonism", which was written by Jerold & Sandra Tanner (you can have a free copy at the internet).
Here is the link:

http://www.mormonoutreach.org/pdf/changingworld.pdf

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

Post #50

Post by stubbornone »

The Ex-Mormon wrote:
stubbornone wrote: And you do realize that this is a common claim found on random Mormon hating web sites? This point has been raised and rebutted repeatedly ... why waste the breath here?
All of us have to check a source. And, a photocopy from church publications from that time is found in many books, e.g. the book "Changing world of Mormonism", which was written by Jerold & Sandra Tanner (you can have a free copy at the internet).
Here is the link:

http://www.mormonoutreach.org/pdf/changingworld.pdf
You can just as easily google the church response. Which you have failed to do entirely. Hence several posts about using google not to seek truth or do actual research in search of the truth, but to confirm preconceptions. And when we do that, its called a lie of omission.

You can find a free copy of the BoM on line too ... and see just how much more is addressed than a simple one liner that you are offended by. Its like hating Earnest Hemingway because of one sentence in one of his books.

No one familiar with Hemingway would consider that a valid position. It isn't for Mormonism either.

Post Reply