Invitation to Challange the LDS (mormon) Religion

[Technosoul]

Quote by: rez bwwahaha. Kakumei, I don't know how old you are but you need to get your ducks in a row. You don't debate atheists, you debate arguments. The arguments that Zharvaric posted were very simple logical questions. Ya know what I mean? Like if you bought a banana and put it on the table, and then the banana was missing you would ask "Where did it go"? and then of course you would go and investigate and try to find it. You don't have a reason to think ghosts took it and you damn well don't think god took it to its planet...right?

Where did the blueprints for buiding a pyramid vanish too?

Where did all the natives who built those pyramids in Centrial America vanish too without a trace?

Where did the so-called misssing links in evolution vanish too?

Where did the stone tablets of Moses vanish too?

Where did all those missing children we read about vanish too?

A lot of stuff vanishes and we cannot know the why of everything, I still have not found those car keys I lost in somewhere in 1968. Over the distance of time a lot of things can get lost or re-located and that is just a fact of reality. Not any big mystery about that. Just because you are a lost soul that does not prove that it did not exsist, or could not be later detected in the ongoing span of time.

Moses does not exsist, Jesus does not exsist to our physical eyes, nor does Tomas Jefferson or George Washington. And can you show me that actural boat that Columbus used to discover America in? Can you show me the actural scewdriver that Henry Ford used to make a Modle T Ford with? Where is Ben Franklin's printing press at? Show me the actural paint can Walt Disney used to paint the first Micky Mouse.

You are being silly to think that things are always kept. Perhaps someone melted down the gold tablet to sell it off for some food to eat, and then kept it a secret from everyone else, who knows for sure?

[Zhavric]

Quote by: Technosoul Smith did not spend all his time in Utah. He spent a lot of time in the eastern part of what is now the USA.

Eastern US not renown for it's Egyptians.

While in the east he spent a lot of time with the Native Americans who use the same style of writing as they used in Eqypt.

Techno, this is where I stopped reading. I find your posts fascinating when you go off in different directions, but when you try to claim things that are quite overtly false, then I have to draw the line. You're completely wrong in your assertion above for a variety of reasons:

1) No native American tribe developed any form of writing. Any writing they have is borrower from Europeans after the European incursion.

2) The artwork that natives created served similar purposes to the Egyptians artwork, but Egyptian writing is an actual language. Native art wasn't.

3) The natives at absolutely no time in history had any contact with Egyptians. Imlying in any way shape or form that Smith could have learned ancient Egyptian from talking to American natives is about as smart as saying that I could learn how to fire a rifle & plan sophisticaated military attacks by joining the peace corps... because peace corps and Marine Corps both have "corps" in their title.

[Technosoul]

Quote by: Zhavric Eastern US not renown for it's Egyptians. Techno, this is where I stopped reading. I find your posts fascinating when you go off in different directions, but when you try to claim things that are quite overtly false, then I have to draw the line. You're completely wrong in your assertion above for a variety of reasons: 1) No native American tribe developed any form of writing. Any writing they have is borrower from Europeans after the European incursion. 2) The artwork that natives created served similar purposes to the Egyptians artwork, but Egyptian writing is an actual language. Native art wasn't. 3) The natives at absolutely no time in history had any contact with Egyptians. Imlying in any way shape or form that Smith could have learned ancient Egyptian from talking to American natives is about as smart as saying that I could learn how to fire a rifle & plan sophisticaated military attacks by joining the peace corps... because peace corps and Marine Corps both have "corps" in their title.

It is true that the Indians did not scribe books such as the Book Of The Dead, but what they did was not always for the purpose of art or decoraton. For example they used sand paintings to tell stories with.
Often just using rocks laid out on the ground. The peacepipe might look like just a object of art but each thing on it has a long story, the clay, the wood, the feathers, and the markings. They just discovered in Fla. a rock formation put into order that is very simular to stonehenge. It is now a state park and protected. Everywhere you see cave paintings and markings on rocks that are communicating information of some sort, used perhaps in storytelling. Also, they have found evidence that people from China visited the Americas. Now the Egyptian writting are far more advanced then the picture drawings done by nearly all the tribes in the North Eastern parts of the USA. And although they built mounds they did not construct pyramids. The people who the Spanish encountered did not build pyramids eather. And yet there they are, pyramids in the jungles of the Americanas. Now no one knows how those pyramids got there but being that the construction is simular, and being that ships were used for long distant trading it is possible that the people in Egypt made a brief visit to North America, or via the Vikings, some object with scripted message could have been left there, and the Indians could have been told the meaning of that object and it's "writing" which they would remember and pass down via vocal storytelling to the next generation, and then on to Joseph Smith. Keeping in mind that the Jewish people once dwelled in Egypt the idea could tie together.

Now if the Egyptians did in fact journey to the Americas as far north as Mexico then brief explorations to other parts further north might have been possible as well, gold seemed to play a motivational role in that, but not sure as no gold mines are known about as far as I know. All of that is unwritten history until the old world claimed to have discovered a new world. Except the lengend that the king of the pryramid culture sailed off to the east and vowed to return one day. Then apparently vanished from history. Perhaps even being forced to double back and make shore in North America? No one knows.

Now I would admit that my explaination is a bit far fetched and not strongly reinforced by known historical evidence, but I got this "huntch" that it could have happen this way. Call the huntch whatever you wish.
If a idea comes to my mind I relate it as is. That is how I personally operate. If I called it a revelation you would just discard it also as fantasy. And for all I know my explainaton might just be creative science fictional style wanderings of my imagination. But that is what came to me reguarding all this and so why not pass it on, for whatever it is worth or not worth. ( at least it was free and did not cost $12.00 as a book and so I guess you get what you did not pay for).

The thing is the Smith story is there, perhaps not made up, perhaps he did have something, perhaps a few people did see it in order to bear witness of it. Surely he would hid it to prevent theift. (although theift might be the reason it is missing now).

Note: Being I am not a Mormon my speculation does not really count.

[rez]

Quote by: Technosoul You are being silly to think that things are always kept. Perhaps someone melted down the gold tablet to sell it off for some food to eat, and then kept it a secret from everyone else, who knows for sure?

And all those questions confirm that a giant purple invisible bunny rabbit could exist? Do you understand the difference between real possibilities and low possibilities? Do you know how to weigh the two?


Do you also understand that the topic poster has not even once refuted any of the questions asked of him about his supernatural religion? These questions are silly and simple. Perhaps if he was a real Mormon he would be able to explain them away, but of course he can't. How about instead of saying his religion was just a big hoax, hes just not a real Mormon in gods eyes?

Its like what do you want from me? When I am truly enthralled into something I try with the best of my ability to understand every last bit of it. This whole thread is basically a huge mockery of the religion and the poster should be ashamed of himself for such a lame defense.

[Flip Jackson]

Quote by: rez You, my friend, are stuck in preschool. I think you are one of those newer members that don't know proper etiquette

Heh, funny that you take upon yourself to talk of "proper etiquete." You are exactly known for that. You see the irony, here?

The problem with you guys, Rez and Zhavric, is that you expect everything NOW. You guys post a ton of questions, some valid, some ridiculous, and expect all of them to be handled right now. It would be much easier to debate if you would give a few topics instead of ten pages worth. No one feels like reading that much, let alone responding to it all.

Here are a few answers. I don't recall who posted each one, but we'll do what we can to get to as many as possible.

1.) Women--Women have every right to serve missions, just as men do. No one tells them not to. I know a ton of women that served missions. However, as was stated earlier, men are expected to serve missions, while women are able to. As was already stated, men grow a lot on their missions, which help them "catch up" to the naturally more obedient and righteous women.

2.) Doctrinal "changes"--Many ideas were brought up as "changes" to the doctrine. The context with each must be understood. Just because a doctrine may not be practiced does not mean it is not believed. Just as the Law of Moses was changed when Christ came, some commandments exist depending on their need. Example:

a.) Polygamy--We do not consider polygamy wrong, even though we do not practice it. Nor was it ever practiced the way people generally think of it. Less than one percent of church members practiced polygamy, even when it was recognized in the church. Polygamy has nothing to do with getting action from lots of women. You see, many men died in this time period. Due to wars, persecutions, illnesses, and the like, much of the membership of the early church was made up of women. So men took multiple women, to help those who had been widowed or had no chance to find a husband. Thus he had the responsibility to provide for the well being of all such women and their children. This also allowed for women to have a connection with the priesthood, though I won't expound on that now.

b.) The Adam-God theory--This was never taught or believed in the church. This came from a mis-understood statement made by Brigham Young about Adam's Godhood. As we believe any individual had such potential, it is not unreasonable to believe Adam could attain such a state. If needed I can find the quote and explain the mis-understanding.

c.) The United Order--The United Order is another doctrine of the church, that is simply not practiced at the present time. The idea is that church members help each other stay out of poverty. Everyone gives all that they have to the United Order, then things are redistributed depending on the needs of each family. Obviosly, a family with more children or health problems would receive more than another family, because their need is greater. However, not all members at the time could handle this system, and it was "discontinued" until the time when we can live it. It was not useless, though. the temporary practice of the Order taught the members much, and allows current members to know what can be expected at a later time, perhaps not until after this life.

That's all I'll attempt for this post. If there is any specific concern, let it be known, as it could take a while to address them all.

[Flip Jackson]

Alright here is some more. Though in the past, people often claimed that Book or Mormon ideas are not supported by archaeological finds, such criticisms have died in recent years as new finds have come to light. Your Anti-mormon site is behind the times a bit. Here are a few of the things that have been found in recent years: ancient horses, metal tablets in other parts of the Americas, locations described in the Book of Mormon, and names that were thought to have been made up by Joseph Smith.

Zion's Camp was also misunderstood, even by many members of the time. The purpose of the camp wasn't actually to raise an army, but to teach and preppare future leaders of the church.

The idea of Blood Atonement is also misunderstood. While it is held that some sins should be paid for with one's own blood, it is not, nor ever has been, under the discretion of the church to enact punishment for these sins.

Joseph's and his brother's martyrdom is often displayed falsely as a gunfight. Considering that conditions, that is absurd. Joseph and three other men were in a jail cell when a mob came and started shooting from the door and the window, trying to kill all inside the room. Joseph did have a gun, and another man had a cane. The gun and cane were used to try to keep people from coming in the door. Had Joseph been alone with a gun, you could label this as a "gunfight." But even if he was willing to die, would he want to let all with him die without an attempot to defend them? Would you let strangers come in and kill your brother and friends, even if you were willing to die for a cause?

Joseph was by no means a known con man. People didn't like his religious beliefs, and thus concocted a number of false accusations to put him in prison a number of times. This should be seen as a violation of the Separation as Church and State, especially since he was never convicted of any of the charges. Even atheists should agree to that fact, but are too busy arguing Mormon beliefs to look at the legalities.

It should also be kept in mind that no one in the church gains anything. Work in the church is done voluntarily, so there is no profit involved. And the church is world known for the charity it gives to those in need, especially after natural disasters. Anti-mormons forget such things. That wouldn't help their case at all.

[Flip Jackson]

Some of these arguments are silly. Does it really matter if the place where God lives has a name? Why do you care where the Garden of Eden was? What does it matter to people who aren't even religious? Would you prefer that we don't give a name to stars or a location to Eden? Would that make Mormonsim more plausible for you?

How about you focus on things that actually have some sort of import?

As Technosoul pointed out, mormons aren't brainwashed or indoctrinated. In fact they are encouraged to study as much of they can of anything they can. They are strongly encouraged to go to college. They are prohibited from visiting or studying about other religions.

Simply put, accusations of brainwashing and indoctrination rolls of our backs, because mormons are often well read, inteligent people who have made their own decisions.

[Derach]

Quote by: Flip Jackson They are prohibited from visiting or studying about other religions. Simply put, accusations of brainwashing and indoctrination rolls of our backs, because mormons are often well read, inteligent people who have made their own decisions.

Is this a misprint, a typo, or a joke? Prohibiting study or visiting is a very effective method of brainwashing.

Did you mean to say they are not prohibited from visiting or studying other rel's?

[Kakumei]

Quote by: Flip Jackson Alright here is some more. Though in the past, people often claimed that Book or Mormon ideas are not supported by archaeological finds, such criticisms have died in recent years as new finds have come to light. Your Anti-mormon site is behind the times a bit. Here are a few of the things that have been found in recent years: ancient horses, metal tablets in other parts of the Americas, locations described in the Book of Mormon, and names that were thought to have been made up by Joseph Smith. Zion's Camp was also misunderstood, even by many members of the time. The purpose of the camp wasn't actually to raise an army, but to teach and preppare future leaders of the church. The idea of Blood Atonement is also misunderstood. While it is held that some sins should be paid for with one's own blood, it is not, nor ever has been, under the discretion of the church to enact punishment for these sins. Joseph's and his brother's martyrdom is often displayed falsely as a gunfight. Considering that conditions, that is absurd. Joseph and three other men were in a jail cell when a mob came and started shooting from the door and the window, trying to kill all inside the room. Joseph did have a gun, and another man had a cane. The gun and cane were used to try to keep people from coming in the door. Had Joseph been alone with a gun, you could label this as a "gunfight." But even if he was willing to die, would he want to let all with him die without an attempot to defend them? Would you let strangers come in and kill your brother and friends, even if you were willing to die for a cause? Joseph was by no means a known con man. People didn't like his religious beliefs, and thus concocted a number of false accusations to put him in prison a number of times. This should be seen as a violation of the Separation as Church and State, especially since he was never convicted of any of the charges. Even atheists should agree to that fact, but are too busy arguing Mormon beliefs to look at the legalities. It should also be kept in mind that no one in the church gains anything. Work in the church is done voluntarily, so there is no profit involved. And the church is world known for the charity it gives to those in need, especially after natural disasters. Anti-mormons forget such things. That wouldn't help their case at all.

Dont forget the use of swords, there have been quite a few found... somewhere... darn, I cant remember exactly... over in the americas before columbus's time.

[Kakumei]

Quote by: rez the poster should be ashamed of himself for such a lame defense.

Again with the personal attacks? Im not ashamed of anything, this was an excersize for me to learn what I need to study up on. If you can debate with me without attacking me, the I will ignore your posts.

[Kakumei]

Quote by: Technosoul If you use someone elses qoute (in this case it was something Jesus said) and then claim it can have more then one right interpretation, then that makes to non-effect the purpose of the saying which was quoted as a teaching tool. (to use for confirmation). Because if you have two different interpretations of a qoute that you wish to follow then you have two different Masters ( AKA - Teachers ). Which would be the same thing as having 600 Prophets running the Chruch to direct the people in 600 directions. Why? Because your interpretation would distract people from my interpretation, such that your meaning of the quote would save people form salvation, if my interpretation happened to be right, resulting in thousands of people remaining in bondage to a worldly religion. Which bondage is like keeping a baby forever in the womb attached to a "biblical cord" (note my spelling which I did on purpose). It is not liberation theology because that qoute did not offer a truth that can set one free from such bondage to cultural connections. It did not un-tie the donkey form it's old master so that the Lord ( A K A - revelation ) could have use of it. The 2nd part of what you wrote I agree with. A birds eye overview of scripture would inform us that God became softer and more gentle in the New Testiment as compared to the Old Testiment. As God got in touch with his Goddess within. A "mothering" which is interpreted as unconditional love overcame violent male domination. ( and the stoning of women ). I took permission to elaborate on what you said ( and no doubt you might not agree with that elaboration or my overview of scripture). What you said came from your own personal insight and not from your church Prophet. When I watched the news of that sub-cult of the Later Day Saints, who had their children abducted by the authorities, it was the women who came forth to speak to the cameras while the men kept out of site. Some of them spoke form their own hearts and that was very moving and it is a shame no one listened to them and they went ahead and stuck the children in foster homes. And I like your non-judgemental attitude also, which indicates to me that you are on the right track, by whatever means you got on that track, it matters not. Because you came up with that idea that women would make better mothers of culture then would men, and that men need to humble their self through such a missonary experience (they get a lot of doors slammed in their faces), then I would say that you are within the Mormon culture but not totally "of" it. And unknowingly we are in some agreement here. However do not let what I just said go to your head otherwise we will have to humble you with a "door to door" missionary trip.

Lol, No, I dont let things go to my head, I like to think im better than that... and yes, we do agree on many a topics so far, I am also sorry for the sub-cult of my church, the women and children are very right in wanting there kids back, but the men, who seem to know its wrong are making it to where the others dont know anything about reality... its very sad to see a 14 year old girl pregnant by a 50 year old man... its horrific to me...

[Flip Jackson]

Quote by: Derach Is this a misprint, a typo, or a joke? Prohibiting study or visiting is a very effective method of brainwashing. Did you mean to say they are not prohibited from visiting or studying other rel's?

Good call man. Sorry about that. Sometimes my brain goes faster than my hands. That should be that Mormons are NOT prohibited from visiting and studying other religions. My bad. I've personally studied a number of them and visited one or two.

[Flip Jackson]

Quote by: rez Do you also understand that the topic poster has not even once refuted any of the questions asked of him about his supernatural religion? These questions are silly and simple. Perhaps if he was a real Mormon he would be able to explain them away, but of course he can't. How about instead of saying his religion was just a big hoax, hes just not a real Mormon in gods eyes? Its like what do you want from me? When I am truly enthralled into something I try with the best of my ability to understand every last bit of it. This whole thread is basically a huge mockery of the religion and the poster should be ashamed of himself for such a lame defense.

This is why I stopped debating regularly. People make ignorant comments like this, pretending they want answers. Then when answers come, they run and hide. Many of the questions have been addressed, but obviously, people like Rez and Zhavric have no interest in actually debating or looking into answers. They just throw out random garbage mixed with insults against people they don't agree with.

If people would just confront and try to understand the way other people see things, we'd all be a heck of a lot smarter and happier. Instead, we take rumors, blow them out of proportion, and label anything different from our own ideas as stupid, silly, brainless, or whatever other all-inlusive insult can be formed.

[RealRockingham]

In any case, who cares about the factual accuracy of the faith? Its the practical effect that it has that matters. And Mormonism, as far as I'm concerned, has had a net positive effect on the world.

If the faith didn't have a positive effect on its followers lives, they wouldn't so vehemently seek converts, or adhere to it so rigorously- more rigorously then most Christians follow their own faith. And don't anyone come up with any BS about childhood indoctrination- even if it is so, the benefit from a faith in which families manage to hold together rather then having a 33% chance of divorce, or whatever the average is, far outway that.

I myself am agnostic, but as an impartial observer, having met 4 Australian Mormon families, Mormonism seems to have a lot of what much of modern society seeks but lacks- mutual respect, love and communalism. Of course, like all faiths, it has some negative aspects- its attitude to homosexuality comes to mind- but its not as if agnosticism and atheism don't have negative aspects themselves.

Zavric and Rez, you display the very fanaticism and intolerance that you claim as your basis for a dislike of Mormonism, and I PRESUME faith in general. Your hypocrisy is abominable.

Zavric, you criticize the fact that ONE Mormon can't quickly rebut the entirety of the arguments concocted by a large number of anti-Mormons over a period of time. Need I point out the fallacy of this?

[Hurt]

Quote by: RealRockingham In any case, who cares about the factual accuracy of the faith? Its the practical effect that it has that matters. And Mormonism, as far as I'm concerned, has had a net positive effect on the world. If the faith didn't have a positive effect on its followers lives, they wouldn't so vehemently seek converts, or adhere to it so rigorously- more rigorously then most Christians follow their own faith. And don't anyone come up with any BS about childhood indoctrination- even if it is so, the benefit from a faith in which families manage to hold together rather then having a 33% chance of divorce, or whatever the average is, far outway that. I myself am agnostic, but as an impartial observer, having met 4 Australian Mormon families, Mormonism seems to have a lot of what much of modern society seeks but lacks- mutual respect, love and communalism. Of course, like all faiths, it has some negative aspects- its attitude to homosexuality comes to mind- but its not as if agnosticism and atheism don't have negative aspects themselves. Zavric and Rez, you display the very fanaticism and intolerance that you claim as your basis for a dislike of Mormonism, and I PRESUME faith in general. Your hypocrisy is abominable. Zavric, you criticize the fact that ONE Mormon can't quickly rebut the entirety of the arguments concocted by a large number of anti-Mormons over a period of time. Need I point out the fallacy of this?

Negative aspects of atheism/agnosticism? Elaborate, please.

[rez]

Quote by: RealRockingham In any case, who cares about the factual accuracy of the faith?

Joseph Smith and all the people that bought into it.

Its the practical effect that it has that matters. And Mormonism, as far as I'm concerned, has had a net positive effect on the world.

Mormonism did not have an positive effect on the world. People and their own personal desires and convictions had a positive effect on the world.

Zavric and Rez, you display the very fanaticism and intolerance that you claim as your basis for a dislike of Mormonism, and I PRESUME faith in general. Your hypocrisy is abominable.

Sorry sir, but people make claims and don't back them up with reasons I am going to laugh at them.

Zavric, you criticize the fact that ONE Mormon can't quickly rebut the entirety of the arguments concocted by a large number of anti-Mormons over a period of time. Need I point out the fallacy of this?

Strawman. Please read the thread over again. Zharvic does not care how quick someone replies.

Quote by: Quote by: Kakumei View Post Oh, thanks, I love your overdeveloped sence of pride and abitlity to believe everything you are told about the LDS religion to be true. Im not even going to find the not good arguments, they are pointless. Even more sadly, you basically used your comments from an anit-mormon site to attack me, my question is, do you even really know what you quoted?

Kakumei's post was right after Zharvic posted all those questions. Kakumei, wanted to debate about his religion and he totally avoided it. Nobody made him have to respond to every single one of those posts right away. 3 years ago Kakumei would of been booted from this website because of his lack of debate.

Quote by: Zharvric Let's pretend, for a moment, that this is a debate site. Let's pretend that you didn't completely prove me right by ignoring the lion share of text that I quoted. Let's pretend that there isn't tremendous irony in you accusing me of believing everything I'm told... Let's pretend all that and have you actually show up to this debate by address at least some of the points raised on exmormon. Which I understand quite clearly. It accurately provides an explanation for the origin of your bizarre and false religion.

[rez]

Quote by: Hurt Negative aspects of atheism/agnosticism? Elaborate, please.

No. Invitation to Challange the LDS (mormon) Religion. Stay on topic.

[Hurt]

Quote by: rez No. Invitation to Challange the LDS (mormon) Religion. Stay on topic.

Well, if he wants to say that the mormon religion instills better values than atheism and agnosticism, I'd like to know where he's coming from.

[RealRockingham]

Quote by: Hurt Negative aspects of atheism/agnosticism? Elaborate, please.

Well, they don't belong to one bloc, so you can't evaluate them as a whole(for example, vegeterianism, humanism, communism, nieztchesm are all very different)

Quote by: rez 1)Joseph Smith and all the people that bought into it. 2)Mormonism did not have an positive effect on the world. People and their own personal desires and convictions had a positive effect on the world. 3)Sorry sir, but people make claims and don't back them up with reasons I am going to laugh at them. 4)Strawman. Please read the thread over again. Zharvic does not care how quick someone replies. 5)Kakumei's post was right after Zharvic posted all those questions. Kakumei, wanted to debate about his religion and he totally avoided it. Nobody made him have to respond to every single one of those posts right away. 3 years ago Kakumei would of been booted from this website because of his lack of debate.

Quote by: Hurt 6)Well, if he wants to say that the mormon religion instills better values than atheism and agnosticism, I'd like to know where he's coming from.

1)OK, I'll rephrase that- "why does it matter if the religion is factually accurate"? The truth ain't always great.

2)Well, by that logic, neither did Christianity, or atheism/agnosticism for that matter.

But I think one cannot totally ignore the beliefs of someone when considering the contributions and actions of its adherents. Not all Mormons would spend a huge time on missionary activity, improving the lifes of others, if they weren't Mormons. Just like many Christians would have no issue with polygamy, or Muslims with alcohol, if they didn't adhere to a faith that forbid it.

3)What has Kakumei not backed up?

4)Yes he does care, hes complaining about the fact that Kakumei has not replied now.... his quote in your post proves it.

5)He responded to SOME of them, and may respond to the rest of them. Their were a lot of questions, and Zhavrics post is not the only one on the thread

6)Their a numerous forms of atheism and agnosticism. All with their own strengths and weaknesses, much like Mormonism.

And I never said Mormonism instilled better morals, merely that it had good aspects. I would not be so arrogant, myself, to try to fit reasonable belief systems and faiths onto a scale in terms of "better" and "worse"( Mayan sacrificial faith, Scientology, and the like don't fit in my term of reasonable though, so don't criticise me by applying that standard to them)

[Kakumei]

Quote by: RealRockingham Well, they don't belong to one bloc, so you can't evaluate them as a whole(for example, vegeterianism, humanism, communism, nieztchesm are all very different) 1)OK, I'll rephrase that- "why does it matter if the religion is factually accurate"? The truth ain't always great. 2)Well, by that logic, neither did Christianity, or atheism/agnosticism for that matter. But I think one cannot totally ignore the beliefs of someone when considering the contributions and actions of its adherents. Not all Mormons would spend a huge time on missionary activity, improving the lifes of others, if they weren't Mormons. Just like many Christians would have no issue with polygamy, or Muslims with alcohol, if they didn't adhere to a faith that forbid it. 3)What has Kakumei not backed up? 4)Yes