Removing Mormonism from History.

[Imperial Overlord]

4. Didn't 11 different people claim to have seen and held the gold plates, including Martin Harris and Oliver Cowdery? I'm referring to the "Testimony of Three Witnesses" and "Testimony of Eight Witnesses" that are published in the back of the Book of Mormon.

There were a bunch, (I don't recall the exact numbers). They're pretty much all shady characters, a number of them renounced the claims and several were kicked out of the church. In other words, not the best testimony in the world.

[Straha]

Wow... the thing about that that is especially interesting to me is that at every major point, it agrees with the history of the Mormons as told by the Mormons but with a different interpretation of the facts at hand.

A lot of the actual history is accepted by both Mormons and Critics. It's the details that are up for debate.

1. Where is it recorded that Smith claimed to have been visited by a being of light either called Nephi or Mormon? The only claim I've ever heard was that Smith called the being of light "Moroni." Interestingly enough, I believe that the name of the angel depicted in the statue that Mormons place atop most of their temples is named Moroni.

I screwed up and said Mormon instead of Moroni. My bad there. As for it being Nephi, it comes from Smith himself:

When I first looked upon him I was afraid, but the fear soon left me. He called me by name, and said unto me that he was a messenger sent from the presence of God to me, and that his name was Nephi. That God has a work for me to do, and that my name should be had for good and evil, among all nations, kindreds, and tongues; or that it should be both good and evil spoken of among all people. He said there was a book deposited written upon gold plates, giving an account of the former inhabitants of this continent, and the source from whence they sprang.

There are a number of other sources where he calls the angel Nephi, quite a few were published and then redacted by the Church or Church authorities. There's also some debate about the chronology of when the names were used, and some people argue that it went Moroni -> Nephi -> Moroni... but... yeah.

2. Which books did he plagiarize? I think I've heard the name of one of the authors that he was meant to have
plagiarized from but I'd never heard of there being many books.

The most prominent one was "View of the Hebrews," the Author's name I forget. The idea that Hebrews/others came to America, built a great civilization and were then destroyed was very very active in early 19th Century America during the obsession with "Mound-Builders," which was based on a very flawed idea of archaeology. If you look through the records from the time period you'll find all sorts of arguments for it, and a very believable case has been made that this was a major source of information for Smith and his disciples.

3. When was the person who took the 116 pages positively identified to Smith and the request to retranslate those pages given to him? I cannot recall having read that Smith ever knew who'd taken the pages which seems to preclude the possibility that he was asked to retranslate them.

Smith openly gave the pages to Martin Harris who then came to Joseph and say they were lost, sources say that it was Harris' wife who deliberately hid them to force Joseph's hand. D&C 3 and 10, both deal with this as does Lucy Smith's history.

6. Is the "Army of God" the same as "Zion's Camp" or are you referring to something different?

That's the one.

8. If Young's objective was to isolate the Mormons from the rest of the world, what was the origins of the "Mormon Brigade" during the Mexican-American War? Having members of the church volunteer for military service doesn't seem to be particularly isolationist.

Remember, they did about Jack and Shit during their 'service'. I think the most of a conflict that they had was where they killed some bulls. Beyond that... nothing.

I'll deal with 4,5, and 7 when I have some time.

A. What are the specific ways in which Mormons are said to depart from Christian doctrine?

1. Multiple gods.
2. Gods having flesh and blood.
3. Ascension to Godhood for devout members.
4. Temple rites, and true salvation only through endowments.
5. Completely different view on original sin.

B. Isn't having members of the sect give money a fairly common practice among all three major monotheistic religions (Islam, Christianity, and Judaism)? If yes, how is the Mormon practice different enough to be extortion?

Because the only way to get into heaven with an endowment in a temple, the only way to go to temple is with a temple recommend, and the only way to get a temple recommend is to tithe. The Catholic Church, Islam, Judaism, etc. all say you should Tithe, but don't say that in order to get into heaven you need to Tithe, the LDS church does.

C. Couldn't that be said of any religion at all? It seems that at least in America, the religious people constitute a pretty unified voting bloc which seems to mean that leaders of more than one church are exerting their religious power to gain tremendous amounts of political authority/influence.

Eh, this is a lot based around perception. There's a huge perception that the LDS church controls its membership lock, stock and barrel while other churches don't have nearly the same control over its followers.

Whether or not this is true is... debatable.

D. What's the difference between ceasing the practice and excommunicating those who refuse to stop and renouncing polygamy?

Because they've only announced that they require the practice ceased where local laws make it illegal. The original doctrines that say that Polygamy is necessary to get into Heaven are still in force.

If you have more questions, let me know. Like I said I'm doing this in the background so I'm not nearly as indepth as I could be.
Also, are you a Mormon?

[Guardsman Bass]

and a very believable case has been made that this was a major source of information for Smith and his disciples.

Not to mention a likely available source. If I recall correctly, the main "scribe" for Smith when he was dictating the Book of Mormon (he didn't actually -write- it, per se - he dictated it to someone else who wrote it down) was Oliver Cowdery, who attended "The View of the Hebrews" guy's church before meeting Smith.

Remember, they did about Jack and Shit during their 'service'. I think the most of a conflict that they had was where they killed some bulls. Beyond that... nothing.

Young probably realized that

A)they couldn't stay isolated forever -the government would ultimately catch up with them, and

B)the Mormons needed to stay on the good side of the US government, particularly after the disaster in Nauvoo.

Because the only way to get into heaven with an endowment in a temple, the only way to go to temple is with a temple recommend, and the only way to get a temple recommend is to tithe. The Catholic Church, Islam, Judaism, etc. all say you should Tithe, but don't say that in order to get into heaven you need to Tithe, the LDS church does.

If you're a fairly active Mormon, it isn't hard to get a temple recommend. Back when I still attended the church (but was mostly inactive), I could get one without being current on tithing.

As for Mormon heaven, the Mormons have a different view of Heaven than mainstream Christianity. They do sort of have a mild version of the "Heaven/Hell" dichotomy, with "spirit paradise" and "spirit prison" (the latter supposed to be depressing and dark), although those are only supposedly temporary until after the Second Coming, at which point we get into the "ultimate" Mormon Heaven.

This Mormon Heaven consists of three layers:

1)The Telestial Kingdom- basically, this is the lowest level of Heaven. It's still supposed to be pretty good compared to Earth (I remember a sunday school teacher - I grew up Mormon, although I'm an atheist now - telling me that if we could have a vision of the Telestial Kingdom, most of us would probably kill ourselves immediately), and it's where most "bad" people will end up (this is probably where you'll find Stalin, Hitler, etc).

2)The Terrestial Kingdom - better than the Telestial, this is basically where righteous non-Mormons and not-so-righteous Mormons go (I remember a Seminary teacher telling me that a lot of Mormons would probably end up here).

3)The Celestial Kingdom - the best heaven, and the only one where you get to commune with God Himself. There's three layers to this one, and in the top layer, if you are married in an LDS temple, allows you to obtain Godhood (the men, at least - women get to breed for all eternity).

There's also Outer Darkness, which is described as a kind of hell, but supposedly only the Devil and his fellow devils will end up there. Or at least, I remember hearing from my bishop back when I attended that the only way for a person to end up there was to "deny God having had a perfect knowledge of him" (meaning if Smith had denied everything after supposedly seeing God and Jesus Christ). Some other members seemed to think that especially bad people, like Hitler, might end up there, but it wasn't official.

Eh, this is a lot based around perception. There's a huge perception that the LDS church controls its membership lock, stock and barrel while other churches don't have nearly the same control over its followers.

Whether or not this is true is... debatable.

It depends on what you define as "control". The LDS church definitely sets conditions and doctrine, and there are some issues where they are really good at "rousing the base", so to speak (like on gay marriage and the like, and earlier on the ERA), but keep in mind that most active LDS members are pretty damn conservative on social issues, and they likely would support this stuff anyways.

Interestingly enough, earlier in the twentieth century there were attempts by the leadership to play a more active role in guiding the members on politics and the like. They generally didn't pan out too well (I remember reading that the LDS President urged members to vote for Alf Landon and the like in the 1936 election - at which point Utah went overwhelmingly for FDR).

Now, they generally only push hard on a narrow set of issues.

Because they've only announced that they require the practice ceased where local laws make it illegal. The original doctrines that say that Polygamy is necessary to get into Heaven are still in force.

That was certainly the case when they first called for a stop to it in the 1890s - many of the leadership continued to practice it in secret into the early twentieth century. Now, though, the LDS Church is pretty anti-polygamy (and they'd like most people to forget that it was ever an advocated practice), and they've generally been some of the biggest influences in cracking down on the "fundamentalist" LDS people (the polygamists).

[Serafine666]

I screwed up and said Mormon instead of Moroni. My bad there. As for it being Nephi, it comes from Smith himself:

When I first looked upon him I was afraid, but the fear soon left me. He called me by name, and said unto me that he was a messenger sent from the presence of God to me, and that his name was Nephi. That God has a work for me to do, and that my name should be had for good and evil, among all nations, kindreds, and tongues; or that it should be both good and evil spoken of among all people. He said there was a book deposited written upon gold plates, giving an account of the former inhabitants of this continent, and the source from whence they sprang.

There are a number of other sources where he calls the angel Nephi, quite a few were published and then redacted by the Church or Church authorities. There's also some debate about the chronology of when the names were used, and some people argue that it went Moroni -> Nephi -> Moroni... but... yeah.

That's IS pretty odd... the precise same text as appears in "Joseph Smith History" but with a different name.

The most prominent one was "View of the Hebrews," the Author's name I forget. The idea that Hebrews/others came to America, built a great civilization and were then destroyed was very very active in early 19th Century America during the obsession with "Mound-Builders," which was based on a very flawed idea of archaeology. If you look through the records from the time period you'll find all sorts of arguments for it, and a very believable case has been made that this was a major source of information for Smith and his disciples.

True enough but it sort of begs the question of who wrote the Book of Mormon. No one has ever accused Smith of being totally illiterate but the Book of Mormon seems unusually long and complex for a farm boy with relatively little eduction. To have plagiarized from it without having blatantly copied entire pages still requires a significant degree of writing ability and no one has ever proposed who actually accomplished the feat although there seem to be a multitude of theories in which it was impossible that Smith translated the book as he claimed. Ironically enough, that impossibility is regarded by Mormons as proof of the deed.

Smith openly gave the pages to Martin Harris who then came to Joseph and say they were lost, sources say that it was Harris' wife who deliberately hid them to force Joseph's hand. D&C 3 and 10, both deal with this as does Lucy Smith's history.

I know the general story and where it's mentioned in Mormon literature but that still doesn't answer the question of who demanded that Smith retranslate the 116 pages. As a personal matter, I've always been curious about what was contained in those pages and why they were never published, especially if the intent was to discredit Smith. Wouldn't it have made sense to let him make any excuse and then publish the 116 pages to show how his "material contained elsewhere" translation is inconsistent in authorship and content with the original?

Remember, they did about Jack and Shit during their 'service'. I think the most of a conflict that they had was where they killed some bulls. Beyond that... nothing.

That is true.

1. Multiple gods.
2. Gods having flesh and blood.
3. Ascension to Godhood for devout members.
4. Temple rites, and true salvation only through endowments.
5. Completely different view on original sin.

Ah, OK.

Because the only way to get into heaven with an endowment in a temple, the only way to go to temple is with a temple recommend, and the only way to get a temple recommend is to tithe. The Catholic Church, Islam, Judaism, etc. all say you should Tithe, but don't say that in order to get into heaven you need to Tithe, the LDS church does.

This is true but seems a bit shaky in that the Bible itself regards not paying tithes as "robbing God" and it seems strange that one can steal from God and still get into heaven. Maybe that's just me.

Eh, this is a lot based around perception. There's a huge perception that the LDS church controls its membership lock, stock and barrel while other churches don't have nearly the same control over its followers.

Whether or not this is true is... debatable.

Of course it is. In fact, many Christians seem to get accused of being mindlessly and slavishly believing of their church's stances on various issues. It seems like Mormons are similar to the typical Christian in that regard.

Also, are you a Mormon?

That depends... are you going to have me name names? Yes, it so happens that I am.

[Guardsman Bass]

The most prominent one was "View of the Hebrews," the Author's name I forget. The idea that Hebrews/others came to America, built a great civilization and were then destroyed was very very active in early 19th Century America during the obsession with "Mound-Builders," which was based on a very flawed idea of archaeology. If you look through the records from the time period you'll find all sorts of arguments for it, and a very believable case has been made that this was a major source of information for Smith and his disciples.

True enough but it sort of begs the question of who wrote the Book of Mormon. No one has ever accused Smith of being totally illiterate but the Book of Mormon seems unusually long and complex for a farm boy with relatively little eduction. To have plagiarized from it without having blatantly copied entire pages still requires a significant degree of writing ability and no one has ever proposed who actually accomplished the feat although there seem to be a multitude of theories in which it was impossible that Smith translated the book as he claimed. Ironically enough, that impossibility is regarded by Mormons as proof of the deed.

Well, Smith dictated the book rather than writing it - and while Smith didn't exactly have a lot of educated writing abilities, there are a number of accounts describing how he was a very creative and gifted orator. One of them was from his mother, describing how he could describe and create elaborate stories about the long-lost native Americans (the Mound-builders), about what they were like and so forth - and this was before he supposedly translated the book.

Smith openly gave the pages to Martin Harris who then came to Joseph and say they were lost, sources say that it was Harris' wife who deliberately hid them to force Joseph's hand. D&C 3 and 10, both deal with this as does Lucy Smith's history.

I know the general story and where it's mentioned in Mormon literature but that still doesn't answer the question of who demanded that Smith retranslate the 116 pages. As a personal matter, I've always been curious about what was contained in those pages and why they were never published, especially if the intent was to discredit Smith. Wouldn't it have made sense to let him make any excuse and then publish the 116 pages to show how his "material contained elsewhere" translation is inconsistent in authorship and content with the original?

Keep in mind that Martin Harris' wife may not have been doing it so much to discredit Smith so much as to discourage Martin Harris from continuing with it. Or at least, that was the impression I got.

[Serafine666]

Well, Smith dictated the book rather than writing it - and while Smith didn't exactly have a lot of educated writing abilities, there are a number of accounts describing how he was a very creative and gifted orator. One of them was from his mother, describing how he could describe and create elaborate stories about the long-lost native Americans (the Mound-builders), about what they were like and so forth - and this was before he supposedly translated the book.

True enough. Still strikes me as an unusually complex work for someone with little education which is why I've always thought the "Book of Mormon was created by Joe Smith" concept was an odd theory.

Keep in mind that Martin Harris' wife may not have been doing it so much to discredit Smith so much as to discourage Martin Harris from continuing with it. Or at least, that was the impression I got.

Mine as well. I can fully understand her sentiment... if Joseph Smith is regarded as a fraud in our day and age by many, it probably would have been much more intense when there were actual frauds standing on every other street corner preaching a gospel and asking for money.

[Straha]

Remember, they did about Jack and Shit during their 'service'. I think the most of a conflict that they had was where they killed some bulls. Beyond that... nothing.

Young probably realized that

A)they couldn't stay isolated forever -the government would ultimately catch up with them, and

B)the Mormons needed to stay on the good side of the US government, particularly after the disaster in Nauvoo.

I'd put it more down to Young wanting to get in the good graces of the U.S. Government after its expansion into the West and wanting to give a reason to let the Mormons rule their own. Remember, Utah was a Mexican territory when they first settled there until the Mexican-American war. (Also, remember that it worked out for them because Young was made Governor of the Utah Territory.)

If you're a fairly active Mormon, it isn't hard to get a temple recommend. Back when I still attended the church (but was mostly inactive), I could get one without being current on tithing.

That differs a lot from Stake to Stake and even from Ward to Ward, but the very fact that salvation can only be found in the Temple and access to that can be cut off for not paying dues is damning enough in most people's eyes.

>Snip Celestial Kingdom Theology<

Thanks, but I knew all that already.

Interestingly enough, earlier in the twentieth century there were attempts by the leadership to play a more active role in guiding the members on politics and the like. They generally didn't pan out too well (I remember reading that the LDS President urged members to vote for Alf Landon and the like in the 1936 election - at which point Utah went overwhelmingly for FDR).

Now, they generally only push hard on a narrow set of issues.

And where they push they push very very well.

Actually I'd say that things are much different now than in 1936. The LDS Church has gone out of its way to control as much media as it can that gets through to its members from Deseret Books to Bonneville Communication (and the massive amount of Mormon specific movies,) the Church now permeates the lives of its members in every way. In 1936 this was not the case. In this way the Church can guide and push its members down the political/ideological paths that it would like the most, even if it's not actively perceived as doing so. The intellectually disappointing thing is that, as far as I know, no attempts to study this effect have been made since a book in the 1980s that was mainly focusing on the relationship between the LDS church and business and the wealth of the Church.

That was certainly the case when they first called for a stop to it in the 1890s - many of the leadership continued to practice it in secret into the early twentieth century. Now, though, the LDS Church is pretty anti-polygamy (and they'd like most people to forget that it was ever an advocated practice), and they've generally been some of the biggest influences in cracking down on the "fundamentalist" LDS people (the polygamists).

There's nothing there I'd disagree with. My original statement still stands though: The Church has never formally renounced the doctrine of Celestial Marriage as both valid and a precursor to entry to heaven. People will criticize it as hypocritical/lying as long as this remains true. (Also, Celestial Marriage originally only referred to Plural Marriage, only in the 20th Century did the Church change its use to refer to ALL forms of Marriage conducted in the Temple.)

That's IS pretty odd... the precise same text as appears in "Joseph Smith History" but with a different name.

That's because this is from the first printing of the Joseph Smith History, when it was published in the Times and Seasons. After its original publication it was edited and changed quite a bit. Same thing happened to D&C (look up "The Book of Commandments" if you want to see the precursor to that, also until 1900 the D&C used to include "Lectures on Faith" by Joseph Smith, it was pulled because it directly contradicted a number of Church doctrines), the Book of Mormon, and others.

True enough but it sort of begs the question of who wrote the Book of Mormon. No one has ever accused Smith of being totally illiterate but the Book of Mormon seems unusually long and complex for a farm boy with relatively little eduction. To have plagiarized from it without having blatantly copied entire pages still requires a significant degree of writing ability and no one has ever proposed who actually accomplished the feat although there seem to be a multitude of theories in which it was impossible that Smith translated the book as he claimed. Ironically enough, that impossibility is regarded by Mormons as proof of the deed.

Pick up a copy of Aesop's fairytales, or a copy of the Illiad and the Odyssey. There are huuuuge, complex, intricate stories that have been written by people of almost no education. It's argued that he (or Cowdery) heard the Views of the Hebrews hypothesis, plagiarized its base, and then spun a massive story around it. That doesn't require him to have copied entire pages, merely to have heard it discussed and understood its implications. Personally, I find the lack of imagination and realism (especially in the books set in Zarahemla) to be a very compelling proof that the Book of Mormon was written by Smith and not translated, and find the argument that this would be impossible for someone with a "Third Grade" education to be rather weak.

I know the general story and where it's mentioned in Mormon literature but that still doesn't answer the question of who demanded that Smith retranslate the 116 pages. As a personal matter, I've always been curious about what was contained in those pages and why they were never published, especially if the intent was to discredit Smith. Wouldn't it have made sense to let him make any excuse and then publish the 116 pages to show how his "material contained elsewhere" translation is inconsistent in authorship and content with the original?

To begin with the second part first: D&C 10 beginning with Verse 20 deals with people asking him to re-translate and Smith saying "No, the original pages have been changed, and you're going to switch over to the Plates of Nephi now." And if you look at the first section of 1 Nephi it often seems likes it's written in a very very very vague way so as to prevent there being any conflict between the two, the most galling thing being that the King who succeeded Nephi is not named in some of the most awkward verbage I've ever read.

To the first part: I'll have to consult some of the books I've got, but I'll get back to you when I do. I'll gladly admit I may have remembered the details of this part of the story wrong. Interesting as I find the 116 Pages I'm much more interested in other things LDS.

This is true but seems a bit shaky in that the Bible itself regards not paying tithes as "robbing God" and it seems strange that one can steal from God and still get into heaven. Maybe that's just me.

Lots of things in the New Testament are clear on the fact that you can get away with not tithing, and that it's personal faith that matters the most. Also look at Luther where the thing that matters the utmost is your own personal contrition and desire for salvation.

Of course it is. In fact, many Christians seem to get accused of being mindlessly and slavishly believing of their church's stances on various issues. It seems like Mormons are similar to the typical Christian in that regard.

See above.

Mine as well. I can fully understand her sentiment... if Joseph Smith is regarded as a fraud in our day and age by many, it probably would have been much more intense when there were actual frauds standing on every other street corner preaching a gospel and asking for money.

She had even more of a concern: Joseph Smith was asking her husband to mortgage their house to pay for publishing the Book of Mormon. She didn't want to risk herself merely for someone she perceived to be a charlatan and wanted to prove him wrong before her husband took out said mortgage. A Mortgage that was taken and which they later had to default on because they did not, in fact, make their money back.

[Serafine666]

That's because this is from the first printing of the Joseph Smith History, when it was published in the Times and Seasons. After its original publication it was edited and changed quite a bit. Same thing happened to D&C (look up "The Book of Commandments" if you want to see the precursor to that, also until 1900 the D&C used to include "Lectures on Faith" by Joseph Smith, it was pulled because it directly contradicted a number of Church doctrines), the Book of Mormon, and others.

I'm not sure how much changing one name in the text is "quite a bit" of editing and changing but that's sensible enough.

Pick up a copy of Aesop's fairytales, or a copy of the Illiad and the Odyssey. There are huuuuge, complex, intricate stories that have been written by people of almost no education. It's argued that he (or Cowdery) heard the Views of the Hebrews hypothesis, plagiarized its base, and then spun a massive story around it. That doesn't require him to have copied entire pages, merely to have heard it discussed and understood its implications.

I accept your point but I'm not sure that referencing epics transmitted by professional storytellers (like the Illiad and the Odyssey) are the best example of a gifted storyteller inventing hundreds of pages of material without a formal eduction.

Personally, I find the lack of imagination and realism (especially in the books set in Zarahemla) to be a very compelling proof that the Book of Mormon was written by Smith and not translated, and find the argument that this would be impossible for someone with a "Third Grade" education to be rather weak.

Can you give me examples of what you mean by "the lack of imagination and realism"? As to the "third grade" education... I would have no idea the precise level of education Smith had except that it was somewhere below a college education.

To begin with the second part first: D&C 10 beginning with Verse 20 deals with people asking him to re-translate and Smith saying "No, the original pages have been changed, and you're going to switch over to the Plates of Nephi now." And if you look at the first section of 1 Nephi it often seems likes it's written in a very very very vague way so as to prevent there being any conflict between the two, the most galling thing being that the King who succeeded Nephi is not named in some of the most awkward verbage I've ever read.

You must be talking about a different book because nowhere in 1 Nephi does it say that there was a king named "Nephi." I believe that Zedekiah is mentioned as is some sort of administrator/general/captain named Laban but the only Nephi in that book isn't a king.

To the first part: I'll have to consult some of the books I've got, but I'll get back to you when I do. I'll gladly admit I may have remembered the details of this part of the story wrong. Interesting as I find the 116 Pages I'm much more interested in other things LDS.

So'm I but I already satisfied my curiosity about the other things LDS.

Lots of things in the New Testament are clear on the fact that you can get away with not tithing, and that it's personal faith that matters the most. Also look at Luther where the thing that matters the utmost is your own personal contrition and desire for salvation.

Yes... not by works but by faith alone. Luther, however, was just one of the countless philosophers of protestantism although he was the first that advocated (in the eyes of the Catholic church) heretical ideas and wasn't burned at the stake. That's why I asked you earlier what the tenets of Christianity that Mormonism violated were: I've never been clear about what points both the Catholics and all the other Christian sects agree on universally.

See above.

There are Christian bookstores, Christian television, televangelists, Christian radio stations, Christian movies... yet where are Mormon bookstores, a Mormon television station, and Mormon movies and this departs significantly from the widespread Christian practice of starting media outlets and businesses that cater to people of their faith? I'm not quite following you.

She had even more of a concern: Joseph Smith was asking her husband to mortgage their house to pay for publishing the Book of Mormon. She didn't want to risk herself merely for someone she perceived to be a charlatan and wanted to prove him wrong before her husband took out said mortgage. A Mortgage that was taken and which they later had to default on because they did not, in fact, make their money back.

I was never under the impression that Martin Harris believed that he'd make the money back nor that Joseph Smith promised him that he would.

[Guardsman Bass]

I was never under the impression that Martin Harris believed that he'd make the money back nor that Joseph Smith promised him that he would.

That's not what I remember reading. The accounts I've read (one of the best ones is Dan Vogel's The Making of a Prophet) very clearly indicated that Harris and Smith believed that the Book of Mormon would sell, and sell well. Harris was pretty depressed when it didn't turn out that way.

[TimothyC]

You should talk to someone like Stuart of Sea Skimmer for all the reasons why the plan Would Not Have Worked, but the main political force against it was the Church of Jesus Christ and Latter Day Saints, and it's a huge testament to their political clout and ability that they are able to kill plans like that dead in their tracks.

Stuart explained back in '08 at the convention, that the issue that Rail Mobile MX had was two fold.

1. It's a very unique looking train (not just the missile, but the C3 systems the missile needs, and maintenance equipment need to be on the train), and thus is easier to target.

2. Safety. One you put the trains out there, and start to move them around (otherwise you just have a bunch of missile silos without the silos), the safety requirements for the trains locks up the entire US rail network within a couple of days.

[Simon_Jester]

True enough but it sort of begs the question of who wrote the Book of Mormon. No one has ever accused Smith of being totally illiterate but the Book of Mormon seems unusually long and complex for a farm boy with relatively little eduction. To have plagiarized from it without having blatantly copied entire pages still requires a significant degree of writing ability and no one has ever proposed who actually accomplished the feat although there seem to be a multitude of theories in which it was impossible that Smith translated the book as he claimed. Ironically enough, that impossibility is regarded by Mormons as proof of the deed.

Well, Shakespeare is often accused of coming from too ignorant a background to have written magnificent plays, and yet no one I'm aware of has actually managed to present a convincing alternative. Some people are just better writers than they "ought" to be, especially in a style they're very familiar with (and any American of the early 19th century, literate or otherwise, would be very familiar with the 'biblical' style).

This is true but seems a bit shaky in that the Bible itself regards not paying tithes as "robbing God" and it seems strange that one can steal from God and still get into heaven. Maybe that's just me.

Curious. Would you mind citing chapter and verse?

Of course it is. In fact, many Christians seem to get accused of being mindlessly and slavishly believing of their church's stances on various issues. It seems like Mormons are similar to the typical Christian in that regard.

Well... typical for the Christians who have a very organized church. Not all do. Some just schism at the drop of a hat, and others have a central organization that doesn't dictate conscience to any serious degree.

>Snip Celestial Kingdom Theology<

Thanks, but I knew all that already.

Third parties, however, did not. So I appreciate it.

It actually makes more sense than the standard Heaven/Hell dualism, because it escapes the question "how is it just to condemn everyone who isn't a saint to a lake of fire for eternity?" The only thing that's messed up with it is the part where you're supposed to behave in ways endorsed by the Mormon church, which are themselves messed up...

[Serafine666]

Well, Shakespeare is often accused of coming from too ignorant a background to have written magnificent plays, and yet no one I'm aware of has actually managed to present a convincing alternative. Some people are just better writers than they "ought" to be, especially in a style they're very familiar with (and any American of the early 19th century, literate or otherwise, would be very familiar with the 'biblical' style).

This is true but the Book of Mormon is the only instance where I've ever heard of someone believing that a single person, even with help, successfully wrote a book of scripture 531 pages long utilizing a writing style very similar to the Bible. Moreover, I've never heard of someone attempting to replicate the feat to prove that it is possible for a single person to do so in an attempt to prove that Smith was a fraud which, to me, is a curious omission considering how many critics of Mormonism believe that the BoM was written by Smith and maybe a couple loyal conspirators.

Curious. Would you mind citing chapter and verse?

Leviticus Chapter 27, Verses 30-33.
Numbers Chapter 18, Verses 26-32.
And I'll just quote in full the specific place in the Bible I was referring to.
Malachi Chapter 3:
8. "Will a man rob God? Yet ye have robbed me. But ye say, Wherein have we robbed thee? In tithes and offerings."
9. "Ye are cursed with a curse: for ye have robbed me, even this whole nation."
So not only does the Bible refer to withholding tithes as robbing God, in several places it sets the amount of tithe at 10%.

Well... typical for the Christians who have a very organized church. Not all do. Some just schism at the drop of a hat, and others have a central organization that doesn't dictate conscience to any serious degree.

True enough. Admittedly, the level of organization the Mormons have is rare among Christian churches but it's not completely unique.

It actually makes more sense than the standard Heaven/Hell dualism, because it escapes the question "how is it just to condemn everyone who isn't a saint to a lake of fire for eternity?" The only thing that's messed up with it is the part where you're supposed to behave in ways endorsed by the Mormon church, which are themselves messed up...

It seems only natural that the Mormons would believe that their particular behaviors are the ones that get you into heaven; every single religion or sect thereof teaches that only by adherence to certain behaviors can you get to heaven or achieve nirvana or be reincarnated as the highest form of existence or whatever. However, if you don't mind the question Simon, which behaviors that the Mormon church expects do you regard as "messed up"?

[Imperial Overlord]

Well, Shakespeare is often accused of coming from too ignorant a background to have written magnificent plays, and yet no one I'm aware of has actually managed to present a convincing alternative. Some people are just better writers than they "ought" to be, especially in a style they're very familiar with (and any American of the early 19th century, literate or otherwise, would be very familiar with the 'biblical' style).

This is true but the Book of Mormon is the only instance where I've ever heard of someone believing that a single person, even with help, successfully wrote a book of scripture 531 pages long utilizing a writing style very similar to the Bible. Moreover, I've never heard of someone attempting to replicate the feat to prove that it is possible for a single person to do so in an attempt to prove that Smith was a fraud which, to me, is a curious omission considering how many critics of Mormonism believe that the BoM was written by Smith and maybe a couple loyal conspirators.

This is just silly. The Bible was one of the most widely read books of the period and of course it was the model for Smith's work. It's not like he wouldn't have access to one. The Bible's general style is not hard to duplicate. Smith didn't even write the damn thing, he dictated it. As for length, that's just a function of time and work put into it. If you're dictating a long fake history in crappy faux biblical style then its going to be long.

[Spoonist]

This is just silly. The Bible was one of the most widely read books of the period and of course it was the model for Smith's work. It's not like he wouldn't have access to one. The Bible's general style is not hard to duplicate. Smith didn't even write the damn thing, he dictated it. As for length, that's just a function of time and work put into it. If you're dictating a long fake history in crappy faux biblical style then its going to be long.

Point in question: Martinus Thomsen wrote over 3000 pages with his "third testament" being at ~1100p and he worked as a milkman.
Now to his followers they are divinly inspired to others quite deranged.

I think there are more examples but that is one of the more prolific that I know of.

[Simon_Jester]

This is true but the Book of Mormon is the only instance where I've ever heard of someone believing that a single person, even with help, successfully wrote a book of scripture 531 pages long utilizing a writing style very similar to the Bible. Moreover, I've never heard of someone attempting to replicate the feat to prove that it is possible for a single person to do so in an attempt to prove that Smith was a fraud which, to me, is a curious omission considering how many critics of Mormonism believe that the BoM was written by Smith and maybe a couple loyal conspirators.

I've seen people write shorter passages in Biblical style, including at least one distinctly mediocre fantasy author; I see no reason why someone couldn't write a longer one given time and incentive. Writing just isn't that hard, not hard enough to justify anyone having to make an extraordinary effort to show that it can be done. It's like saying that Smith could have walked from New York to Illinois without needing some kind of magic transportation miracle- difficult and time-consuming, but obviously possible.

Leviticus Chapter 27, Verses 30-33.
Numbers Chapter 18, Verses 26-32.
And I'll just quote in full the specific place in the Bible I was referring to.

This sort of thing is problematic because the same book also forbids stuff like eating cheeseburgers; the question of whether the Old Testament-defined "tithe" can reasonably be applied is a thorny one in Christianity. And when there's so much debate over whether the church has the right to take a 10% tax at all, it's hard to justify saying that it's a sin to not pay.

It seems only natural that the Mormons would believe that their particular behaviors are the ones that get you into heaven; every single religion or sect thereof teaches that only by adherence to certain behaviors can you get to heaven or achieve nirvana or be reincarnated as the highest form of existence or whatever. However, if you don't mind the question Simon, which behaviors that the Mormon church expects do you regard as "messed up"?

Superficially, things like the tithe, or the missionary work, or (in another era, which they may or may not have truly renounced depending on who you ask) the polygyny. I have more respect for religions that tell you what kind of person you should be to go to Heaven than I do for ones that tell you what to do to go to Heaven in concrete terms that, generally, benefit the religion.

Also, on a more basic level, the part where you have to listen to them. And that's a general-case objection: I have the same problem with Catholicism. The very existence of a religious hierarchy with the presumed right to dictate to the conscience of its followers bugs me. Most of them just aren't that good at it, and often have a rather dark history of abusing the trust of their followers, or instructing them to do things on the basis of false premises.

I don't concede moral authority to institutions that I don't think I can trust with it.

[Serafine666]

I've seen people write shorter passages in Biblical style, including at least one distinctly mediocre fantasy author; I see no reason why someone couldn't write a longer one given time and incentive. Writing just isn't that hard, not hard enough to justify anyone having to make an extraordinary effort to show that it can be done. It's like saying that Smith could have walked from New York to Illinois without needing some kind of magic transportation miracle- difficult and time-consuming, but obviously possible.

This is true enough; as Spoonist points out, there are little-known examples of people writing their own "Bible" although without having read the works of this Martinus Thomsen person, I obviously can't make any sort of comparison. I'm actually more surprised that I've never heard the gentleman cited as evidence that of course Joe Smith wrote/dictated the Book of Mormon himself; it's not as if I've met a dearth of people who're convinced that Smith was a fraud and Mormonism is a cult.

This sort of thing is problematic because the same book also forbids stuff like eating cheeseburgers; the question of whether the Old Testament-defined "tithe" can reasonably be applied is a thorny one in Christianity. And when there's so much debate over whether the church has the right to take a 10% tax at all, it's hard to justify saying that it's a sin to not pay.

You're probably right but my point wasn't that it was easily justified, just that the Mormons didn't invent the concept of it being a sin not to pay tithing. At worst, they do the typical Christian thing of deciding which parts of the Bible are important and which are not.

Superficially, things like the tithe, or the missionary work, or (in another era, which they may or may not have truly renounced depending on who you ask) the polygamy. I have more respect for religions that tell you what kind of person you should be to go to Heaven than I do for ones that tell you what to do to go to Heaven in concrete terms that, generally, benefit the religion.

Technically, the only thing thing I can think of that directly benefits the Mormon church would be tithes and offerings. Perhaps the missionary work as well although you can argue that any religion (or pretty much any ideology) that gains adherents benefits from its members recommending their beliefs to others. Other than that... undergo a couple ceremonies? Attend a 3-hour meeting every week? Occasionally visit a temple? Get married? I'm not sure that those things provide all that much of a benefit to the church except in the sense that it encourages continued activity.

Also, on a more basic level, the part where you have to listen to them. And that's a general-case objection: I have the same problem with Catholicism. The very existence of a religious hierarchy with the presumed right to dictate to the conscience of its followers bugs me. Most of them just aren't that good at it, and often have a rather dark history of abusing the trust of their followers, or instructing them to do things on the basis of false premises.

Well, my personal view is that in every stage of life you have to listen to someone. When you're a kid, it's the parents or some other authority figure. When you're a student, it's the general institutions of education. As a citizen, there are certain people you're required to listen to lest you incur negative consequences. The local representative of a church's hierarchy is just one more person among a list of others and so long as you don't get into a mode of doing exactly what you're told solely because the person telling you has a pretty title, it's fairly harmless.

I don't concede moral authority to institutions that I don't think I can trust with it.[/quote]
Nor would any reasonable person. Mormons generally concede moral authority to their church because they regard it as an institution that can be trusted with that moral authority.

[Gil Hamilton]

This is true enough; as Spoonist points out, there are little-known examples of people writing their own "Bible" although without having read the works of this Martinus Thomsen person, I obviously can't make any sort of comparison. I'm actually more surprised that I've never heard the gentleman cited as evidence that of course Joe Smith wrote/dictated the Book of Mormon himself; it's not as if I've met a dearth of people who're convinced that Smith was a fraud and Mormonism is a cult.

Problem is that Joseph Smith is about the only option for authorship, even amongst his followers. There aren't too many options for authorship besides him.

You're probably right but my point wasn't that it was easily justified, just that the Mormons didn't invent the concept of it being a sin not to pay tithing. At worst, they do the typical Christian thing of deciding which parts of the Bible are important and which are not.

Out of curiousity, why does God need money? Not to pull a Captain Kirk here, but if anything is post-scarcity, then its an almighty entity; after all, its not like the supposed Creator of the Universe needs anything. That seems more like something that priests who need their lifestyles supported would call a sin, not any sort of God.

[Straha]

I'm not sure how much changing one name in the text is "quite a bit" of editing and changing but that's sensible enough.

Because there was quite a bit more editing done. Names were changed all over the book of Mormon, Grammar re-jiggered, wording altered, etc. A similar process happened to both the Book of Commandments which became the Doctrine and Covenants and the Joseph Smith - History.

I accept your point but I'm not sure that referencing epics transmitted by professional storytellers (like the Illiad and the Odyssey) are the best example of a gifted storyteller inventing hundreds of pages of material without a formal eduction.

What's the real difference?

Can you give me examples of what you mean by "the lack of imagination and realism"? As to the "third grade" education... I would have no idea the precise level of education Smith had except that it was somewhere below a college education.

For me the most egregious example is the Stripling Warriors from the end of the Book of Alma. 2,000 people overpower a massive evil force without taking a single casualty? Sounds to me like a schoolyard tale, or a story from a Saturday Morning Cartoon show.

You must be talking about a different book because nowhere in 1 Nephi does it say that there was a king named "Nephi." I believe that Zedekiah is mentioned as is some sort of administrator/general/captain named Laban but the only Nephi in that book isn't a king.

You're right, my bad, it's been a while since I read the Book of Mormon. It's the first two chapters of Jacob. (And this can easily be cross-applied to the point above.)

There are Christian bookstores, Christian television, televangelists, Christian radio stations, Christian movies... yet where are Mormon bookstores, a Mormon television station, and Mormon movies and this departs significantly from the widespread Christian practice of starting media outlets and businesses that cater to people of their faith? I'm not quite following you.

Because there's no central controlling of "Fundamentalist Christian" bookstores/television stations/etc. Each one is largely independent from the others, even if they agree on a number of core tenents. By contrast Deseret Books (both the publisher and the book stores)? Owned by the LDS Church. Bonneville Communications and all its subsidiary Radio and Television Stations? Owned by the LDS Church. The Deseret News? Owned by the LDS Church. Heck, even the largest real estate agency in Salt Lake City? Owned by the LDS Church.

The complete control that the LDS church has over its members access to both media and other economic standards is, in some ways, awe inspiring. Further, this allows the LDS Church to throw its weight around even with companies it doesn't directly own, like the brou-ha-ha between Deseret Books and the Seagull and Book Tape stores.

I was never under the impression that Martin Harris believed that he'd make the money back nor that Joseph Smith promised him that he would.

See the earlier reply. Also, why would Harris put a mortgage on his house knowing he'd have to default on the debt? If he knew he'd never get his money back why not just sell the property?

[Simon_Jester]

This is true enough; as Spoonist points out, there are little-known examples of people writing their own "Bible" although without having read the works of this Martinus Thomsen person, I obviously can't make any sort of comparison. I'm actually more surprised that I've never heard the gentleman cited as evidence that of course Joe Smith wrote/dictated the Book of Mormon himself; it's not as if I've met a dearth of people who're convinced that Smith was a fraud and Mormonism is a cult.

The proposition that someone can write a novel-length document in Biblical language isn't exactly shaky or in desperate need of proving, I'd say. The idea that it would require some kind of extraordinary miracle for such a thing to happen seems far more improbable to me. Again, it's like arguing that Smith must have had miraculous endurance for walking from New York to Illinois or something: it's very much physically possible for people to do that, so there's no need to invoke divine intervention to explain how he could have done it.

Technically, the only thing thing I can think of that directly benefits the Mormon church would be tithes and offerings. Perhaps the missionary work as well although you can argue that any religion (or pretty much any ideology) that gains adherents benefits from its members recommending their beliefs to others. Other than that... undergo a couple ceremonies? Attend a 3-hour meeting every week? Occasionally visit a temple? Get married? I'm not sure that those things provide all that much of a benefit to the church except in the sense that it encourages continued activity.

Stuff that makes you feel locked into the religion (not in the sense of "I'm trapped," but in the sense of "I'm a part of it and it's a part of me") very much benefits the religion.

Religions are, if you'll excuse my invocation of an overused term, memes. Some of them are strongly self-serving memes; believing in the meme will reinforce it over time, until it becomes almost impossible to leave. The meme also tells you to strengthen institutions tied to the meme, by donating resources and time, and by participating in large, specially designed ceremonies that increase the apparent size and universality of the institutions.

Other religions are less self-serving: they have adherents, they do try to spread, but they don't try to restructure their members' entire lives around being part of a big religion-spreading engine. The less a religion does that, the more I respect it, as a rule. But that's a personal thing; it's hard for me to explain.

Well, my personal view is that in every stage of life you have to listen to someone. When you're a kid, it's the parents or some other authority figure. When you're a student, it's the general institutions of education. As a citizen, there are certain people you're required to listen to lest you incur negative consequences. The local representative of a church's hierarchy is just one more person among a list of others and so long as you don't get into a mode of doing exactly what you're told solely because the person telling you has a pretty title, it's fairly harmless.

But there's a difference between people it is wise to listen to because they can punish you and people it is wise to listen to because they are qualified. There are lots of people who can punish you, but to my way of thinking there are very few people who are actually qualified to lecture the average person on morality. Even fewer institutions- and a person who gets their qualifications by virtue of being part of an institution can't claim to be more qualified than the institution is.

Nor would any reasonable person. Mormons generally concede moral authority to their church because they regard it as an institution that can be trusted with that moral authority.

Since I don't trust it any farther than I can throw the Salt Lake Tabernacle... let's just say you won't be running into me at church any time in the foreseeable future.

Out of curiousity, why does God need money? Not to pull a Captain Kirk here, but if anything is post-scarcity, then its an almighty entity; after all, its not like the supposed Creator of the Universe needs anything. That seems more like something that priests who need their lifestyles supported would call a sin, not any sort of God.

Yes. Thing is, in most religions, if the religious activity of the priests and churches collapses, Bad Things start happening (convenient, no?)... things bad enough that if you helped make them happen, you've done something crappy enough to legitimately tick off God.

[Mayabird]

I was going to stay out of the dogpile, but I just can't help saying this.

As someone who has read that horrible book, it is NOT Tolkein or Shakespeare. It's not like Joseph Smith suddenly started channeling Milton or anything. The Book of Mormon reads like a bad Bible fanfic* written a yokel. Whatdayaknow?


*Actually, that may be redundant as it's hard to say whether there could be such a thing as a good Bible fanfic.

[Crossroads Inc.]

(Out of curiosity, why is this thread here and not in History?)

A number of things would happen.

First, Abraham Lincoln might never have become President. He got his start as an Illinois politician, and the Mormon Church under Joseph Smith founded, built up, and controlled Nauvoo, Illinois, which was the largest city in the state. Prominent politicians like Stephen Douglas and others went to Nauvoo to court the favor of Smith because of the large bloc vote they were guaranteed to get. They were very influential to getting a number of politicians elected, and completely changed the political dynamic in the state.

I am surprised no one has contemplated the above.. Since the OP of the thread Was contemplating the elimination of the Mormon church... I wonder if there is a way to Ensure Lincoln continues down his normal political Path without the church, OR, an easy way to eliminate it after He begins to run in Washington. Going over things, I wonder how effective targeting Brigham Young and his group while en-eroute to Utah would have been, perhaps pay off several Indian Tribes to eliminate them.

[Serafine666]

Out of curiousity, why does God need money? Not to pull a Captain Kirk here, but if anything is post-scarcity, then its an almighty entity; after all, its not like the supposed Creator of the Universe needs anything. That seems more like something that priests who need their lifestyles supported would call a sin, not any sort of God.

If you're going off that logic, why does God need a Jew to burn animals to repent? Why does He tell them not to eat certain foods (there's no rational reason He would care what His followers eat)? Why do ceremonial washings matter to Him? Why a tenth part if He doesn't need so much as a breadcrumb? I generally chalk up all these rituals that would make no rational difference to a deity as demonstrations of faith but there IS a reasonable explanation. If we assume that there is a God, we can assume a deity with at least some level of rationality who recognizes that a building cannot be constructed with faith nor a priest able to choose a lifetime of preaching without some way to eat and be clothed and housed. Certainly, God might provide all these things by magic but no culture has ever believed that a god will magically make everything without them having to do anything but bow down. There is certainly a rational reason to believe that specifics about food and donations are a cynical attempt by clergy to get rich off gullible people but there IS a reasonable explanation for why God would expect mortals to do something (such as supply the physical needs of the church) without hand-holding.

[Serafine666]

Because there was quite a bit more editing done. Names were changed all over the book of Mormon, Grammar re-jiggered, wording altered, etc. A similar process happened to both the Book of Commandments which became the Doctrine and Covenants and the Joseph Smith - History.

Fair enough.

What's the real difference?

To me, there is at least some difference between an epic poet with formal training in that profession and a gifted amateur essentially copying the style of a written work he has on hand. But maybe you're right about the difference being very slight.

For me the most egregious example is the Stripling Warriors from the end of the Book of Alma. 2,000 people overpower a massive evil force without taking a single casualty? Sounds to me like a schoolyard tale, or a story from a Saturday Morning Cartoon show.

In the Bible, Gideon took a few hundred warriors and destroyed an army by scaring them into fighting each other. God supposedly stopped the Earth from rotating for Joshua so he could kick ass. During the Exodus, Aaron and another fellow held up Moses' arms so the Jews could beat their foes. 2000 warriors waging a picture-perfect battle without any of them dying isn't exactly the most implausible event in scripture. I mean... all the firstborn sons in Egypt died instantly in a single night and Moses stuck a stick in the water and parted the Red Sea. How is that vastly more implausible than the 2000 stripling warriors? I'm not trying to argue that the story is realistic, mind you... just that it's not unprecedented in the Judeo-Christian scriptural tradition.

You're right, my bad, it's been a while since I read the Book of Mormon. It's the first two chapters of Jacob. (And this can easily be cross-applied to the point above.)

No problem. It's only because I obsessively re-read the same thing over and over again out of occasional boredom. Incidentally, you're right about those first two chapters... the way it's worded sounds as if the people decided to call every king "Nephi" which would mean they probably beat France for the greatest number of kings by the same name.

Because there's no central controlling of "Fundamentalist Christian" bookstores/television stations/etc. Each one is largely independent from the others, even if they agree on a number of core tenents. By contrast Deseret Books (both the publisher and the book stores)? Owned by the LDS Church. Bonneville Communications and all its subsidiary Radio and Television Stations? Owned by the LDS Church. The Deseret News? Owned by the LDS Church. Heck, even the largest real estate agency in Salt Lake City? Owned by the LDS Church.

The complete control that the LDS church has over its members access to both media and other economic standards is, in some ways, awe inspiring. Further, this allows the LDS Church to throw its weight around even with companies it doesn't directly own, like the brou-ha-ha between Deseret Books and the Seagull and Book Tape stores.

I accept the point; that is mildly awe-inspiring. I honestly didn't realize how much the Church owned although I'm generally aware of most of the non-media holdings.

See the earlier reply. Also, why would Harris put a mortgage on his house knowing he'd have to default on the debt? If he knew he'd never get his money back why not just sell the property?

Point taken. I'm just surprised that Harris or anyone would honestly expect a religious book that garnered official disapproval of the dominant religious sects in the area would sell like hotcakes.

[Serafine666]

The proposition that someone can write a novel-length document in Biblical language isn't exactly shaky or in desperate need of proving, I'd say. The idea that it would require some kind of extraordinary miracle for such a thing to happen seems far more improbable to me. Again, it's like arguing that Smith must have had miraculous endurance for walking from New York to Illinois or something: it's very much physically possible for people to do that, so there's no need to invoke divine intervention to explain how he could have done it.

I concede the point of course. I'm just surprised that the possibility is so well-established.

Stuff that makes you feel locked into the religion (not in the sense of "I'm trapped," but in the sense of "I'm a part of it and it's a part of me") very much benefits the religion.

Religions are, if you'll excuse my invocation of an overused term, memes. Some of them are strongly self-serving memes; believing in the meme will reinforce it over time, until it becomes almost impossible to leave. The meme also tells you to strengthen institutions tied to the meme, by donating resources and time, and by participating in large, specially designed ceremonies that increase the apparent size and universality of the institutions.

Other religions are less self-serving: they have adherents, they do try to spread, but they don't try to restructure their members' entire lives around being part of a big religion-spreading engine. The less a religion does that, the more I respect it, as a rule. But that's a personal thing; it's hard for me to explain.

It's not overused for me; I've never actually heard someone explain what a "meme" is. But given what I've seen of you in your comments and other things I'm not at all surprised that you distrust and dislike religions that sort of psychologically bind a member into the religion.

But there's a difference between people it is wise to listen to because they can punish you and people it is wise to listen to because they are qualified. There are lots of people who can punish you, but to my way of thinking there are very few people who are actually qualified to lecture the average person on morality. Even fewer institutions- and a person who gets their qualifications by virtue of being part of an institution can't claim to be more qualified than the institution is.

That's more or less what I meant when I said that it's bad if you begin to listen to and obey someone solely because they're your priest or whatever.

Since I don't trust it any farther than I can throw the Salt Lake Tabernacle... let's just say you won't be running into me at church any time in the foreseeable future.

I would hardly expect otherwise, Simon. Beyond, of course, that I think you live a significant distance away from me.

[Serafine666]

I was going to stay out of the dogpile, but I just can't help saying this.

To be perfectly fair, Maya, it's not too much of a dogpile when the discussion is reasonably pleasant and polite so don't feel any hesitancy.

As someone who has read that horrible book, it is NOT Tolkein or Shakespeare. It's not like Joseph Smith suddenly started channeling Milton or anything. The Book of Mormon reads like a bad Bible fanfic* written a yokel. Whatdayaknow?

*Actually, that may be redundant as it's hard to say whether there could be such a thing as a good Bible fanfic.

Yeah, I'm not thinking there's many Bible fanfics that'd pass muster but I sort of like skimming through the Book of Mormon on a lark when I've little else to do. I'm largely the same way about the Bible and many other non-religious books: after reading through it once, I skip to my favorite parts.