Mormonism

[Epistemologist]

I'm not saying Joseph Smith's Mormonism is necessarily wrong, but I'm not a believer in the Mormon doctrine. I have no cultural identification with the beliefs, and have never had faith in them.

I know this is an exaggeration, but perhaps it might be enriching if you watch the South Park video on Mormonism. Then comment on it specifically. Please stay on topic too, because there's often lots of lallygagging in this section.

Also, the episode starts to go in a different direction near the end. I don't necessarily agree with the opinions presented in it either.

[Athena]

It appears my computer will not accommendate the video. Do you want to pick a concept that is particularly Mormon to discuss?

[Epistemologist]

How about the Book of Mormon itself and how it documents the history of the earliest inhabitants of America, who Joseph Smith claims to be prophets of God. I think he basically said Jesus came from America. Objectively speaking, this belief has just as much chance of being the objective truth as any other, but since I'm not Mormon, I don't believe it.

Also, we can discuss how even though a religious belief may be false, the other things taught through its religion e.g. altruism, compassion, charity, etc., can be ultimately beneficial. The video I linked to alludes to this.

[Jack]

My dad's side of the family are Mormons, and I lived among them for 13 years in Idaho (which is where all the conservative Mormons live, the liberal Mormons having taken over Salt Lake City).

Their lifestyles are so squeaky clean, their appearance always nice, their children almost always so well behaved, it's really difficult not to like them. In a sense, they're what all Christians aspire to be, people who for the most part live what they believe, at home and in public.

But their theology is convoluted at best. It relies heavily on the Book of Mormon while borrowing when necessary from the Bible. They believe in being baptized for their dead relatives, which is close to the Catholic belief in intercession. They consider Joseph Smith a prophet, and his problems with the law they take in the same spirit as Jesus' troubles with the law of his time. They are very clannish, in the sense that they take very good care of their own while largely ignoring the suffering of those not of their faith.

All in all, I dismiss their beliefs as being as fantastic as any other Christian religion. But I have to admit, if I had a choice of neighbors and had to choose between a Mormon family and a Pentecostal family, I'd choose the Mormons.

<off topic note>My only resolution for 2007, which I'm kicking off early, is to capitalize all proper nouns whether I think they're valid or not. I want to comply with standard English rules of grammar free of philosophical commentary. Besides, it might drive bishop nuts, and that's always fun.</off topic>

[Epistemologist]

Quote by: Isherwood My dad's side of the family are Mormons, and I lived among them for 13 years in Idaho (which is where all the conservative Mormons live, the liberal Mormons having taken over Salt Lake City). Their lifestyles are so squeaky clean, their appearance always nice, their children almost always so well behaved, it's really difficult not to like them. In a sense, they're what all Christians aspire to be, people who for the most part live what they believe, at home and in public. But their theology is convoluted at best. It relies heavily on the Book of Mormon while borrowing when necessary from the Bible. They believe in being baptized for their dead relatives, which is close to the Catholic belief in intercession. They consider Joseph Smith a prophet, and his problems with the law they take in the same spirit as Jesus' troubles with the law of his time. They are very clannish, in the sense that they take very good care of their own while largely ignoring the suffering of those not of their faith. All in all, I dismiss their beliefs as being as fantastic as any other Christian religion. But I have to admit, if I had a choice of neighbors and had to choose between a Mormon family and a Pentecostal family, I'd choose the Mormons.

The video depicts them as very nice. I've never known a Mormon before.

Quote by: Isherwood <off topic note>My only resolution for 2007, which I'm kicking off early, is to capitalize all proper nouns whether I think they're valid or not. I want to comply with standard English rules of grammar free of philosophical commentary. Besides, it might drive bishop nuts, and that's always fun.</off topic>

That's good. It doesn't really matter much to me though.

[Jack]

One odd thing about the Book of Mormon; even though it was written around 1830, it maintains the King James convention of thee, thou, yea, etc. though it employs them improperly. So when you read passages from it, often the English being used makes little sense. Most non-Mormons consider it obvious that Joseph Smith followed that convention thinking it would make the Book of Mormon more closely resemble the Bible, and the KJV was the most popular version at that time in the U.S.

If you've never read the Book of Mormon, you might want to leaf through a copy. Some of it is downright strange.

(All quotes from lds.about.com)
Translation from Gold Plates: Joseph Smith was given, by the Angel Moroni, a set of gold plates which he translated by the power of God. These gold plates contained the history of an ancient civilization who lived upon the American continent and is called The Book of Mormon.

History Begins with Nephi: This history begins in 600 B.C. with the record of a man named Nephi, who writes: "I, Nephi, having been born of goodly parents, therefore I was taught somewhat in all the learning of my father; and having seen many afflictions in the course of my days, nevertheless, having been highly favored of the Lord in all my days; yea, having had a great knowledge of the goodness and the mysteries of God, therefore I make a record of my proceedings in my days" (1 Nephi 1:1).

People Leave Jerusalem for the Americas: Nephi recorded an account of his father, Lehi, who as a prophet of God was commanded to leave Jerusalem with a small group of people and travel to the Americas. The people grew into a great civilization called the Nephites and were taught by men called of God to be prophets. The prophets taught the people the commandments of God, His plan of salvation, and the mission of Jesus Christ.

Christ Visits the Americas: Over 600 years later, Jesus Christ, as a resurrected being, appeared to the people of Nephi on the American continent: "And it came to pass that he stretched forth his hand and spake unto the people, saying: Behold, I am Jesus Christ, whom the prophets testified shall come into the world. And behold, I am the light and the life of the world; and I have drunk out of that bitter cup which the Father hath given me, and have glorified the Father in taking upon me the sins of the world, in the which I have suffered the will of the Father in all things from the beginning" (3 Nephi 11:9-11).

Christ Calls Disciples: Christ taught the people His gospel, organized His church among them, and called twelve disciples to lead the people after He returned to Heaven.

Mormon Abridges Words of Prophets: Almost 400 years after Christ's appearance, the Lord commanded a prophet, named Mormon, to make an abridgment of all the records of the prophets of the American continent. Mormon carved his abridgment onto plates made of gold in Reformed Egyptian, and it is he for whom The Book of Mormon is named.

Gold Plates Buried with a Promise: The great civilization of people on the American continent became wicked, killed the prophets and all those who would not deny the Christ. There came a great apostasy, or falling away from the truth. The last prophet, Moroni the son of Mormon, was commanded to hide the gold plates in the ground where they laid undisturbed for over a thousand years. Before the plates were buried Moroni wrote a promise to us (Moroni 10:3-5) that if we would read, ponder, and pray about "these things" (the Book of Mormon) that we would know by the power of the Holy Ghost that they are true.

Angel Moroni Visits Joseph Smith: Then in 1823 A.D. Moroni, as a resurrected being, appeared to Joseph Smith who was called of God to be a latter-day prophet. Moroni instructed Joseph Smith where to find the gold plates, which Joseph translated and then published in 1830. The Book of Mormon also contains the fulness of the gospel of Jesus Christ and is a companion to the Bible.

[Epistemologist]

Okay, thanks for the information. Now I know more about it.

[Jack]

It also seems Smith thought that Jesus was a member of the Christ family. "Behold, I am Jesus Christ..." He seemed to miss the point that while Jesus is a name, Christ is a title. Much the same way some now say the name Leonardo da Vinci (Leonardo di ser Piero da Vinci) without appreciating that his "last name" indicates his hometown.

There are a lot of little things like that scattered throughout their book.

[Epistemologist]

Did the video work on your computer? It didn't really represent Mormonism as correctly as it should have, but it explains some of it. If you can't watch the whole thing, skip to 00:05:10 and there's the first explanation. There are further explanations throughout the video. It initially mocks Mormonism, but then in the final minutes it reveals another side of the issue.

[Athena]

Quote by: Epistemologist How about the Book of Mormon itself and how it documents the history of the earliest inhabitants of America, who Joseph Smith claims to be prophets of God. I think he basically said Jesus came from America. Objectively speaking, this belief has just as much chance of being the objective truth as any other, but since I'm not Mormon, I don't believe it. Also, we can discuss how even though a religious belief may be false, the other things taught through its religion e.g. altruism, compassion, charity, etc., can be ultimately beneficial. The video I linked to alludes to this.

The Hau De No Sau Nee, or Six Nations of Iroquois, relate a story about a Peacemaker and the translation of their constitution means "Great Laws of Peace". Another thread speaks people around the world becoming aware of something at appromizately the same time. Jopseph Campbell speaks of this when he explains myths. Around the world myths share common themes and seem arise at the same time, although there is no connection between the people who have this "spontaneous awareness", as Joseph would call it.

We could probably make great progress if we sought to know the consciousness people share in common. I hold it possible a God like consciousness does become known to humans, and this is the foundation of mythology. My biggest disagreement with religious people, is this idea that a God has favorites and did not speak with everyone all around the world.

I do not believe in the gold tablets that disappeared after Joseph Smith copied them, but do think there is a spiritual and technological commoness.
Check out the pyraminds in south America. What is false in religious teaching, is the idea that any people are God's favorite people, or that a small group are the only ones visited by God's prophets and therefore the only ones to hold morals truths, not known to all of humanity.

[Zhavric]

Some interesting reading...

The "First Vision" story in the form presented to you was unknown until 1838, eighteen years after its alleged occurrence and almost ten years after Smith had begun his missionary efforts. The oldest (but quite different) version of the vision is in Smith's own handwriting, dating from about 1832 (still at least eleven years afterwards), and says that only one personage, Jesus Christ, appeared to him. It also mentions nothing about a revival. It also contradicts the later account as to whether Smith had already decided that no church was true. Still a third version of this event is recorded as a recollection in Smith's diary, fifteen years after the alleged vision, where one unidentified "personage" appeared, then another, with a message implying that neither was the Son. They were accompanied by many "angels," which are not mentioned in the official version you have been told about. Which version is correct, if any? Why was this event, now said by the church to be so important, unknown for so long?

Careful study of the religious history of the locale where Smith lived in 1820 casts doubt on whether there actually was such an extensive revival that year as Smith and his family later described as associated with the "First Vision." The revivals in 1817 and 1824 better fit what Smith described later.

In 1828, eight years after he supposedly had been told by God himself to join no church, Smith applied for membership in a local Methodist church. Other members of his family had joined the Presbyterians.

Contemporaries of Smith consistently described him as something of a confidence man, whose chief source of income was hiring out to local farmers to help them find buried treasure by the use of folk magic and "seer stones." Smith was actually tried in 1826 on a charge of moneydigging. NOTES It is interesting that none of his critics seemed to be aware of his claim to have been visited by God in 1820, even though in his 1838 account he claimed that he had suffered "great persecution" for telling people of his vision.

The only persons who claimed to have actually seen the gold plates were eleven close friends of Smith (many of them related to each other). Their testimonies are printed in the front of every copy of the Book of Mormon. No disinterested third party was ever allowed to examine them. They were retrieved by the angel at some unrecorded point. Most of the witnesses later abandoned Smith and left his movement. Smith then called them "liars."

Smith produced most of the "translation" not by reading the plates through the Urim and Thummim (described as a pair of sacred spectacles), but by gazing at the same "seer stone" he had used for treasure hunting. He would place the stone into his hat, and then cover his face with it. For much of the time he was dictating, the gold plates were not even present, but in a hiding place.

The detailed history and civilization described in the Book of Mormon does not correspond to anything found by archaeologists anywhere in the Americas. The Book of Mormon describes a civilization lasting for a thousand years, covering both North and South America, which was familiar with horses, elephants, cattle, sheep, wheat, barley, steel, wheeled vehicles, shipbuilding, sails, coins, and other elements of Old World culture. But no trace of any of these supposedly very common things has ever been found in the Americas of that period. Nor does the Book of Mormon mention many of the features of the civilizations which really did exist at that time in the Americas. The LDS church has spent millions of dollars over many years trying to prove through archaeological research that the Book of Mormon is an accurate historical record, but they have failed to produce any convincing pre-columbian archeological evidence supporting the Book of Mormon story. In addition, whereas the Book of Mormon presents the picture of a relatively homogeneous people, with a single language and communication between distant parts of the Americas, the pre-columbian history of the Americas shows the opposite: widely disparate racial types (almost entirely east Asian - definitely not Semitic, as proven by recent DNA studies), and many unrelated native languages, none of which are even remotely related to Hebrew or Egyptian.

The people of the Book of Mormon were supposedly devout Jews observing the Law of Moses, but in the Book of Mormon there is almost no trace of their observance of Mosaic law or even an accurate knowledge of it.

Although Joseph Smith said that God had pronounced the completed translation of the plates as published in 1830 "correct," many changes have been made in later editions. Besides thousands of corrections of poor grammar and awkward wording in the 1830 edition, other changes have been made to reflect subsequent changes in some of the fundamental doctrine of the church. For example, an early change in wording modified the 1830 edition's acceptance of the doctrine of the Trinity, thus allowing Smith to introduce his later doctrine of multiple gods. A more recent change (1981) replaced "white" with "pure," apparently to reflect the change in the church's stance on the "curse" of the black race.

Joseph Smith said that the Book of Mormon contained the "fulness of the gospel." However, its teaching on many doctrinal subjects has been ignored or contradicted by the present LDS church, and many doctrines now said by the church to be essential are not even mentioned there. Examples are the church's position on the nature of God, the Virgin Birth, the Trinity, polygamy, Hell, priesthood, secret organizations, the nature of Heaven and salvation, temples, proxy ordinances for the dead, and many other matters.

It goes on and on...

[Epistemologist]

Quote by: Athena What is false in religious teaching, is the idea that any people are God's favorite people, or that a small group are the only ones visited by God's prophets and therefore the only ones to hold morals truths, not known to all of humanity.

It's not necessarily false; it just might seem misguided, particularly from a more unbiased viewpoint. Still, it's natural for people to keep this sort of exclusivity within their cultures, yet they are also naturally encouraged to spread their teachings to all of humanity, because of course they would think they are right. As philosopher of religion Morris Cohen says, when we don't share our beliefs, it might seem as if we have doubts in them.

Even within a religion, exclusivity may occur. For instance, people who have James' mystical experience undergo an enlightening vision or trance that their fellow followers don't experience. This even applies to the situation of Joseph Smith, since only he supposedly saw the appearances of the prophets.

Nonetheless, any of these groups could be correct. What's correct for you, though, depends on what group you belong to. Regardless of whether or not you view strong atheism as a religion, the concept even applies to it as well.

Thanks for all the responses, and thanks for the link and writing, which gave nice information.

[Athena]

Quote by: Epistemologist It's not necessarily false; it just might seem misguided, particularly from a more unbiased viewpoint. Still, it's natural for people to keep this sort of exclusivity within their cultures, yet they are also naturally encouraged to spread their teachings to all of humanity, because of course they would think they are right. As philosopher of religion Morris Cohen says, when we don't share our beliefs, it might seem as if we have doubts in them. Even within a religion, exclusivity may occur. For instance, people who have James' mystical experience undergo an enlightening vision or trance that their fellow followers don't experience. This even applies to the situation of Joseph Smith, since only he supposedly saw the appearances of the prophets. Nonetheless, any of these groups could be correct. What's correct for you, though, depends on what group you belong to. Regardless of whether or not you view strong atheism as a religion, the concept even applies to it as well. Thanks for all the responses, and thanks for the link and writing, which gave nice information.

You bring up another paradox- is God universal or does he have favorites? The problem Christianity had to resolve, was if someone uncircumsized could be considered within the coventient of God. The God of Abraham is not a universal God, until Hellism and New Testament. The bible clearly says, the Hebrews can own slaves and pass them down as inherited property, the laws for harming a slave are equal to the laws of harming cattle. Only the Hebrews who have special coventient with God, can not be slaves. Further more these people must restrict their food carefully, and they are to pass on the food that is outside this restriction to those who are not Hebrew. The God of Abraham is not a universal God.

There would be no need for a new religion, if the religion were not so changed between the old and new testament. The Hebrew world view did not divide reality into the extremes of a supernature, good God and supernatural, evil Satan, as Christians have done. The Christians picked up the demonology and mystical life after death concepts of the East.

[Epistemologist]

Quote by: Athena You bring up another paradox- is God universal or does he have favorites? The problem Christianity had to resolve, was if someone uncircumsized could be considered within the coventient of God. The God of Abraham is not a universal God, until Hellism and New Testament. The bible clearly says, the Hebrews can own slaves and pass them down as inherited property, the laws for harming a slave are equal to the laws of harming cattle. Only the Hebrews who have special coventient with God, can not be slaves. Further more these people must restrict their food carefully, and they are to pass on the food that is outside this restriction to those who are not Hebrew. The God of Abraham is not a universal God. There would be no need for a new religion, if the religion were not so changed between the old and new testament. The Hebrew world view did not divide reality into the extremes of a supernature, good God and supernatural, evil Satan, as Christians have done. The Christians picked up the demonology and mystical life after death concepts of the East.

Yeah, maybe a God/Gods or alternative within a culture is not considered truly universal. But often when proselytism becomes a priority for cultural expansion, that God/Gods is then said to be universal.

Then again, a group could also say that their God/Gods is universal while still favoring them by saying that other groups who aren't recognized by their God/Gods are not even people (or are inferior), but that's a somewhat different issue. In fact, the concept of God/Gods isn't what causes this differentiation to occur.

[Athena]

Quote by: Isherwood My dad's side of the family are Mormons, and I lived among them for 13 years in Idaho (which is where all the conservative Mormons live, the liberal Mormons having taken over Salt Lake City). Their lifestyles are so squeaky clean, their appearance always nice, their children almost always so well behaved, it's really difficult not to like them. In a sense, they're what all Christians aspire to be, people who for the most part live what they believe, at home and in public. But their theology is convoluted at best. It relies heavily on the Book of Mormon while borrowing when necessary from the Bible. They believe in being baptized for their dead relatives, which is close to the Catholic belief in intercession. They consider Joseph Smith a prophet, and his problems with the law they take in the same spirit as Jesus' troubles with the law of his time. They are very clannish, in the sense that they take very good care of their own while largely ignoring the suffering of those not of their faith. All in all, I dismiss their beliefs as being as fantastic as any other Christian religion. But I have to admit, if I had a choice of neighbors and had to choose between a Mormon family and a Pentecostal family, I'd choose the Mormons. <off topic note>My only resolution for 2007, which I'm kicking off early, is to capitalize all proper nouns whether I think they're valid or not. I want to comply with standard English rules of grammar free of philosophical commentary. Besides, it might drive bishop nuts, and that's always fun.</off topic>

The Book of Mormon was too sexist and racist for me to read very far into it.
The book actually says dark skinned people have been cursed by God for their sins. From there some claim dark skinned people become lighter skinned when they are good practicing Mormons. This thinking is so poisonous, I am not in favor of promoting it. Too bad, because I like the way the Mormons support the family social unit.

[Epistemologist]

Quote by: Athena The Book of Mormon was too sexist and racist for me to read very far into it. The book actually says dark skinned people have been cursed by God for their sins. From there some claim dark skinned people become lighter skinned when they are good practicing Mormons. This thinking is so poisonous, I am not in favor of promoting it. Too bad, because I like the way the Mormons support the family social unit.

Well, remember that such thinking isn't motivated by the cultural extension religion more than it is by cultural differences themselves. And those occur everywhere, regardless of what religion or even if religion is involved

[Athena]

Quote by: Epistemologist Yeah, maybe a God/Gods or alternative within a culture is not considered truly universal. But often when proselytism becomes a priority for cultural expansion, that God/Gods is then said to be universal. Then again, a group could also say that their God/Gods is universal while still favoring them by saying that other groups who aren't recognized by their God/Gods are not even people (or are inferior), but that's a somewhat different issue. In fact, the concept of God/Gods isn't what causes this differentiation to occur.

Now you boggled my mind. Only Jews can not be slaves, and only they must follow a restricted diet, and God's prophets spoke only to them. How is this a universal God?

[Epistemologist]

Quote by: Athena Now you boggled my mind. Only Jews can not be slaves, and only they must follow a restricted diet, and God's prophets spoke only to them. How is this a universal God?

Well, I mean for them He could be considered universal (in relation to humanity per se) in that the Gentiles might be considered inferior (to what qualifies as "human" to the Jews) and therefore unable to realize God's truth anyway. But that's just one possible explanation that relies more on cultural differences i.e. the Jews were culturally different than the Gentiles.

So, according to this perception, God could be considered universal in a certain frame of reference and special in another.