Questions for Mormons..

[PRmerger]

that is (and this is evidenced in the forum rules) it’s OK for the Catholics to say and do anything they like; there is no rule that states that they must respect the beliefs of others, but there IS one, very clearly stated, that we must respect yours.

I am quite saddened that you feel this way about this forum, Diana. And I must say that I disagree. While I don’t know for certain, but I’m guessing that quite a few Catholic posters get warnings from the mods about disrespectful posts.

At any rate, neither of us would really know how many Catholic posters are reprimanded.

Also, you have been here quite a while and posted lots–so certainly must feel that you have been given the freedom to defend your faith, yes?

 

[RebeccaJ]

I am quite saddened that you feel this way about this forum, Diana. And I must say that I disagree.

Mormons need to feel persecuted. Somehow it is validating.

While I don’t know for certain, but I’m guessing that quite a few Catholic posters get warnings from the mods about disrespectful posts.

:yeah_me:

 

[dianaiad]

I am quite saddened that you feel this way about this forum, Diana. And I must say that I disagree. While I don’t know for certain, but I’m guessing that quite a few Catholic posters get warnings from the mods about disrespectful posts.

At any rate, neither of us would really know how many Catholic posters are reprimanded.

Also, you have been here quite a while and posted lots–so certainly must feel that you have been given the freedom to defend your faith, yes?

Actually, this forum is far more polite and courteous than the standard moderated usenet groups…but then I’ve already said that.

I am simply going to ask you to look at the forum rules. Rule # 1 is: Messages posted to this board must be polite and free of personal attacks, threats, and crude or sexually-explicit language, rude comments and innuendo.

And honestly, most of the time everybody is really good about this.

However, in addition to rule #1, there is rule #7: Non-Catholics are welcome to participate but must be respectful of the faith of the Catholics participating on the board.

There is no such added warning to Catholics to be respectful of the faith of the non-Catholics on the board—even for the sub-forum devoted to the discussion of non-Catholic religions.

As I have said, this is CAF. It is your forum. You have the absolute right to have, and enforce, whatever rules you wish. Indeed, if you did NOT have these rules, this forum would soon be over run with trolls, anti’s and all sorts of nasty posts by nasty people.

Nor am I suggesting that you CHANGE these rules. They are, I’m afraid, essential to the well being of the Catholics here; you have to have a safe harbor. Everybody needs one–and most moderated religious groups have very similar rules slanted their way.

I just think that it is a good idea, once in awhile, to remind everyone of what the rules actually are, and that non-Catholic posters are treated differently than Catholic ones. I do this, first, so that the Catholics don’t let the power go to their heads…you know, 'just because you can doesn’t mean you SHOULD." Mostly, you don’t.

It’s also a good idea to remind the non-Catholic posters that it is a Catholic site. True, ‘non-Catholic religions’ should be, in my totally irrelevant opinion, a little more respectful of non-Catholic faiths (those non-Catholics who post to other sub forums on this site and who get rude deserve everything they get and then some).

 

[zerinus]

I am quite saddened that you feel this way about this forum, Diana. And I must say that I disagree. While I don’t know for certain, but I’m guessing that quite a few Catholic posters get warnings from the mods about disrespectful posts.

At any rate, neither of us would really know how many Catholic posters are reprimanded.

Also, you have been here quite a while and posted lots–so certainly must feel that you have been given the freedom to defend your faith, yes?

Hi, and thank you for your comments.

I have had more than my fair share of brushes with the mods at CAF; but in all fairness I can’t say that I have any complaints—either about the standard of moderation, or the rules. The rules actually prohibit speaking disrespectfully about other religions, not just about the Catholic Church; but the mods tend not to take action unless somebody complains, which I think is a good approach. I have seen excessive use of moderation on other boards, which becomes a pain and a nuisance to everybody. I am not the complaining type myself; and I am not bothered if other people treat Mormonism unfairly. I am confident of my ability to answer them if required, or ignore them when not required. Often the best answer is actually to ignore them. At other times other answers are appropriate.

I also think that it is a mistake to “complain” about how you (or your religion) are being treated on any board, not just on CAF. It is self-defeating. People are not stupid. Unfairness is something that can be spotted by everybody, not just by me. My primary objective here is to provide correct information for those who are seeking it; and they can tell what is fair or what is unfair as well as I can. They have enough intelligence not to allow themselves not be influenced by that. As for those who just want to belittle, ridicule, or spread disinformation, very often the best answer is to ignore them; and at other times other suitable answers exist that can be given.

 

[ricko]

Mormons need to feel persecuted. Somehow it is validating.

:yeah_me:

So that’s why they whine.

 

[PRmerger]

I just think that it is a good idea, once in awhile, to remind everyone of what the rules actually are, and **that non-Catholic posters are treated differently than Catholic ones. **I do this, first, so that the Catholics don’t let the power go to their heads…you know, 'just because you can doesn’t mean you SHOULD." Mostly, you don’t.

So here’s the thing, Diana–what evidence do you have that Catholic posters are not reprimanded by the mods for being disrespectful? There is no way to know, unless a Catholic poster discloses such info, whether he was counseled. Perhaps he was, and then reforms.

If your main complaint is this:
There is no such added warning to Catholics to be respectful of the faith of the non-Catholics on the board.
well, people should be referred to Rule #1.

 

[dianaiad]

So here’s the thing, Diana–what evidence do you have that Catholic posters are not reprimanded by the mods for being disrespectful? There is no way to know, unless a Catholic poster discloses such info, whether he was counseled. Perhaps he was, and then reforms.

If your main complaint is this:
There is no such added warning to Catholics to be respectful of the faith of the non-Catholics on the board.
well, people should be referred to Rule #1.

My evidence is simple:

there is no “rule 7” that directs Catholics to be respectful of the faiths of non-Catholics.

Threads like “Mormons prey on which? Catholics or Protestants?” and “The Mormons and Jehovan’s Witnesses are Brainwashed,” “Why are people Mormon considering it is obviously fabricated?” are still up and can be posted to, whereas the knockoff…“Why are people Lutherans considering it is obviously fabricated?” was removed. Nor do I see any thread that comes close to the above in sheer disrespect for the target faith.

Now, true, I think that one poster (not Catholic) was responsible for at least two of the three Mormon threads, but the point is, they are still available for posting.

I do not, of course, have any evidence that any particular person has, or has not been, counseled by the CAF moderators. Nor am I ‘whining,’ here. I have said, several times, that it’s the Catholic Answers Forum. You may have any rules you like, and if you want a safe haven for Catholic fellowshipping, and for courteous discussion, then rules like this must be in play…and enforced.

I am simply acknowledging what they actually are. It’s a 'beware, all ye who post here: non-Catholics must be respectful of the faith of Catholics, as well as lying off the insults, threats and other way over the line stuff. Catholics, you have a slightly freer hand."

It’s not a problem as long as everybody is clear about the rules.

 

[RebeccaJ]

Guidelines for posting on religious discussions

Members are not allowed to be disrespectful of anyone’s faith or religion, whether it is Catholicism or not.

Members are free to discuss, dialogue, question, disagree with, and debate the doctrines and dogmas of both Catholicism and non-Catholic religions. However, all discourse must be civil and charitable.

 

[dianaiad]

So here’s the thing, Diana–what evidence do you have that Catholic posters are not reprimanded by the mods for being disrespectful? There is no way to know, unless a Catholic poster discloses such info, whether he was counseled. Perhaps he was, and then reforms.

If your main complaint is this:
There is no such added warning to Catholics to be respectful of the faith of the non-Catholics on the board.
well, people should be referred to Rule #1.

If Rule #1 were sufficient for all, then rule #7 would not have been required. Since there is a 'rule # 7," then obviously the writers of the rules thought that Rule #1 wasn’t deemed sufficient warning for non-Catholics. The warning to be nice had to be reinforced, specifically, and specifically aimed.

this is a problem, rhetorically; you can interpret it as: the intent is to make certain that Catholic beliefs are given more respect than non-Catholic beliefs,or an implicit permission to Catholics to behave in ways that are forbidden to non-Catholics, or as a tacit declaration that Catholics don’t require such a warning, but of course non-Catholics do.

The bias in the first two interpretations is rather obvious. In the third? Man, that’s harsh…such generalizations are, in and of themselves both discriminatory and inaccurate.

Can you think of a fourth interpretation of the rules that avoids all that? I would love to hear it.

Diana.

Again; I’m not saying you should change the rules. Frankly, I think you should keep them. They work.

I simply believe that it is important to understand them and exactly what they are. All of us need to do that.

 

[RebeccaJ]

Diana, that is a list of rules that cover all the forums. As they are all aimed at Catholics and for Catholics, with the exception of this sub-forum and the Eastern Orthodox sub-forum, that statement is in regards to participating in all of the forums.

In every sub-forum there is a pinned (“sticky”) thread at the top that has specific rules for that particular forum. In this non-Catholic forum, where you spend your time, it does in fact state what you are looking for.

 

[why_me]

Guidelines for posting on religious discussions

Members are not allowed to be disrespectful of anyone’s faith or religion, whether it is Catholicism or not.

Members are free to discuss, dialogue, question, disagree with, and debate the doctrines and dogmas of both Catholicism and non-Catholic religions. However, all discourse must be civil and charitable.

And certainly civility and charity have not existed on the mormon threads at all. Now of course, there are catholics who can be charitable but many of the catholics who post on mormon threads have been far from civil and charitable. And certainly mormonism has been dragged through the mud on numerous occasions with words such as cult and satanic used to describe the lds church.

And this begs the question: Why remove an uncivil Opening thread title about certain protestant groups but leave the uncivil and uncharitable title about mormonism up.

But this is just my observation…

 

[why_me]

Actually, this forum is far more polite and courteous than the standard moderated usenet groups…but then I’ve already said that.

I am simply going to ask you to look at the forum rules. Rule # 1 is: Messages posted to this board must be polite and free of personal attacks, threats, and crude or sexually-explicit language, rude comments and innuendo.

And honestly, most of the time everybody is really good about this.

I think that I have been attacked for claiming that I am mormon and catholic. Now I abandoned such a claim recently on this forum and I just claim being happy go lucky. My experiences now on the forum are much better and I am not attacked as much. But why such personal attacks were allowed to stay posted is beyond me when the rules are clear.

 

[why_me]

Guidelines for posting on religious discussions

Members are not allowed to be disrespectful of anyone’s faith or religion, whether it is Catholicism or not.

Calling the mormon church false and Joseph Smith a fraud is not being respectful to mormon beliefs and this is done quite often on the mormon threads. Now to debate the truth claims of the mormon church is acceptable but then labeling the mormon church false and its founder a conman is not respectful. But it is allowed on the forum.

 

[PRmerger]

If Rule #1 were sufficient for all, then rule #7 would not have been required. Since there is a 'rule # 7," then obviously the writers of the rules thought that Rule #1 wasn’t deemed sufficient warning for non-Catholics. The warning to be nice had to be reinforced, specifically, and specifically aimed.

I think the emphasis of Rule #7 was the first part: Non-Catholics are welcome to participate. If I were new to the Internet and were surfing the net and found a Mormon website, I might refrain from posting unless I realized, “Hey! non-Mormons have been invited to join!”. As for the second part, I think it’s just a little reinforcement to be polite, not slanting the tables towards who can be more disrespectful.

At any rate, dearest Diana, I won’t argue with you about this. I just piped in when I thought you felt disrespected in this forum. I feel a bit as if I’ve invited you into my home and feel badly about your discomfort here…

I do agree with you that the thread titles about Mormonism do seem inflammatory and disrespectful. I wasn’t aware of those threads until now.

And I note your acknowledgement that you’re okay with the “culture” that exists in the CAFs–you’re just pointing out what you feel is an inequity.

Finally, I will say this: I am an ethnic minority here in the US. I understand and accept the “rules”:–when I go grocery shopping I won’t find my native food items; I won’t see directions in my native language; I grin and bear it when people ask me, “Where are you from?” (I want to say: St. Louis, which is where I’ve lived for 42 years…but I understand they see my physical appearance and wonder…so I politely say where I was born.)

I would find it pointless to point out these “inequities” to my elected officials because I understand that I am a minority here and I wouldn’t expect the entire culture to bend just because of my sensitivities.

 

[Dchsknight]

Now I have some questions. Some questions that will be hard to answer.

In the Book of Mormon, they state that there were Horses here in the USA in ancient times…It is what the book of Mormon says, but History and EVERY other source of Information states that Horses did not appeared here in the USA until the White man(Europeans) showed up. The earliest recorded note of White men comeing to the USA was in 989 by the Vikings and they settled in Greenland. Not the USA, The only other earliest recorded History Proven beyond a shadow of Doubt was in 1000AD at the earliest in Canada also by vikings.

Jamestown colony was not founded until 1607 and Christopher Columbus did not show up in the NAmerica until 1492 and that was in Caribbean After that John Cabot explored Canada. So how do Mormons explain their book and how the book says certain things happened here in North America when it is proven that they did not happen, never did and that in fact quite different things happened.

What do mormons do when you ask Indians here in North America, and you ask them about horses and steel and such and you ask them if they had it in their history or if they ever saw it and their answer compliments history, that none of it existed before the white man came and any of it that did exist was from Norsemen.

 

[dianaiad]

I would find it pointless to point out these “inequities” to my elected officials because I understand that I am a minority here and I wouldn’t expect the entire culture to bend just because of my sensitivities.

Thank you for the kind words, and you are correct; being a minority in a culture is always going to cause different treatment; it is simply the way people are.

My purpose, in bringing the subject up, is not to complain about it, or whine; as I have already said, CAF is one of the most courteous venues I’ve found.

However.

I have noticed that even the most courteous and well meaning people have a problem with unconscious assumptions that may not be based on fact, and I believe that the only way we CAN improve such things is to be awake to fact. Sometimes, as in the case of CAF, “what is” is necessary for the operation to work. CAF is not neutral territory. It wasn’t designed to be neutral territory. It’s not supposed to be neutral territory. I don’t have a problem with the fact that it is not neutral territory.

The only problem I have, if it could be called a problem, is that sometimes people who are living in a safe haven forget that it is a safe haven, and assume that the people they are being protected from are allowed the same ‘arms’ as the defenders. They are aware of the differences, of course, on some visceral level, because while they ignore some of the stuff aimed at those with whom they disagree, they react with some heat to similar stuff aimed at them.

My mentioning of it isn’t to rail against the rules; they are fine. It is to get people here to think about them, understand them, and to think a bit before they post; just ask yourselves one question; if what you are about to write were aimed at Catholics, would it feel disrespectful?

If, for instance, you would be offended at “Why are there Catholics since their religion is so obviously fabricated?” or “Who do Catholics prey on, Mormons or Protestants?” then you might want to consider that Mormons would be offended by “Why are there Mormons…” or “Who do Mormons prey on…?”

It’s just a thought.
…and my final thought on the matter, at that.

 

[dianaiad]

Now I have some questions. Some questions that will be hard to answer.

Never assume that such questions would be ‘hard to answer,’ sir. You think we haven’t been asked these questions over, and over, and over, and over, and over…???

In the Book of Mormon, they state that there were Horses here in the USA in ancient times…It is what the book of Mormon says, but History and EVERY other source of Information states that Horses did not appeared here in the USA until the White man(Europeans) showed up. The earliest recorded note of White men comeing to the USA was in 989 by the Vikings and they settled in Greenland. Not the USA, The only other earliest recorded History Proven beyond a shadow of Doubt was in 1000AD at the earliest in Canada also by vikings.

Unfortunately for those critics who like to yell at us for this, the only mention of horses in the Book of Mormon were by the Jaredites, who lived something like 2500 years BC. Well, according to at least one archeological find in Canada, there were horses at that time.

As well, we have several pictographs than would be difficult to interpret as anything BUT horses, or close enough to be named horses—including one pictograph of a man riding one. These are dated as ‘ancient…’ but not by any means 10,000 years ancient; more like fifteen hundred years.

There is one interesting find, which, if authenticated, would prove that horses were here before the Nazca lines in Peru, since it was found beneath them: a carving of a horse pulling something.

But…wait; we really haven’t FOUND any evidence of horse bones, etc, so they weren’t there, right?

Well…we haven’t exactly been inundated with the fossilized remains of the horses of the Huns, either—and we know for a fact that they had hundreds of thousands of them; their culture revolved around them–and we don’t have a whole lot of evidence now that horses were anything but a figment of their imagination.

You MIGHT, just might, have a point if the Book of Mormon peoples (the Nephites and Lamanites, anyway) wrote about horses, used their imagery in poetry, used them in battle…but they didn’t. All mention of horses ceased after about the first century AD, and fairly sparingly before that. There is no indication that the Book of Mormon peoples were as addicted to horses as the Huns—but I’ll bet you aren’t going to assume that the Huns did not have horses because we don’t find THOSE bones, are you?

Jamestown colony was not founded until 1607 and Christopher Columbus did not show up in the NAmerica until 1492 and that was in Caribbean After that John Cabot explored Canada. So how do Mormons explain their book and how the book says certain things happened here in North America when it is proven that they did not happen, never did and that in fact quite different things happened.

Specify, please?

JWhat do mormons do when you ask Indians here in North America, and you ask them about horses and steel and such and you ask them if they had it in their history or if they ever saw it and their answer compliments history, that none of it existed before the white man came and any of it that did exist was from Norsemen.

Well now, that depends entirely upon whether the Indian you ask happens to be a Mormon or not. Quite a few are, y’know.

Diana

(standard disclaimer) None of what I say proves the Book of Mormon to be true…I’m just telling you that your ‘proof’ that the Book of Mormon is false…isn’t. Proof, that is.

 

[why_me]

Now I have some questions. Some questions that will be hard to answer.

In the Book of Mormon, they state that there were Horses here in the USA in ancient times…It is what the book of Mormon says, but History and EVERY other source of Information states that Horses did not appeared here in the USA until the White man(Europeans) showed up. The earliest recorded note of White men comeing to the USA was in 989 by the Vikings and they settled in Greenland. Not the USA, The only other earliest recorded History Proven beyond a shadow of Doubt was in 1000AD at the earliest in Canada also by vikings.

fairlds.org/Book_of_Mormon/AshHorse/

First, it is important to recognize that the Book of Mormon never states or implies that horses roamed the New World in large numbers–in fact, horses are mentioned very infrequently. If small pockets of horses lived in pre-Columbian America, it is possible that they would leave little if any trace in the archaeological record. We know, for example, that the Norsemen probably introduced horses, cows, sheep, goats, and pigs into the Eastern North America in the eleventh century A.D., yet these animals didn’t spread throughout the continent and they left no archeological remains.51 According to one non-LDS authority on ancient American, the Olmecs had domesticated dogs and turkeys but the damp acidic Mesoamerican soil would have destroyed any remains and any archaeological evidence of such animal domestication.52

Even in areas of the world where animals lived in abundance, we sometimes have problems finding archaeological remains. The textual evidence for lions in Israel, for example, suggests that lions were present in Israel from ancient times until at least the sixteenth century AD, yet no lion remains from ancient Israel have ever been found.53

The fact is, however, that there does appear to be archaeological support that horses existed in pre-Columbian Mesoamerica. In 1957, for instance, at Mayapan (a site corresponding to Book of Mormon lands/times) horse remains were discovered at a depth considered to be pre-Columbian. Likewise, in southwest Yucatan, a non-Mormon archaeologist found what may likely be pre-Columbian horse remains in three caves. Excavations in a cave in the Mayan lowlands in 1978 also turned up horse remains.56

1. Attila the Hun.In the Bible we read that Abraham had camels while in Egypt, yet archaeologists used to believe that this was an anachronism because camels were supposedly unknown in Egypt until Greek and Roman times. More recently, however, some researchers have shown that camels were used in Egypt from pre-historic times until the present day.54 In the 4th & 5th centuries AD, the Huns of Central Asia and Eastern Europe had so many horses that estimates suggest that each warrior may have had up to ten horses. Horses were the basis of their wealth and military power. According to a non-LDS leading authority on the zoological record for central Asia, however, we know very little of the Huns’ horses, and not a single usable horse bone has been found in the territory of the whole empire of the Huns.55 Based on the fact that other–once thriving–animals have disappeared (often with very little trace), it is not unreasonable to suggest that the same thing might have happened with the Nephite “horse.”

 

[PaulDupre]

Unfortunately for those critics who like to yell at us for this, the only mention of horses in the Book of Mormon were by the Jaredites, who lived something like 2500 years BC. Well, according to at least one archeological find in Canada, there were horses at that time.

Diana, you should really read the BoM some time. It says:

25 And it came to pass that we did find upon the land of promise, as we journeyed in the wilderness, that there were beasts in the forests of every kind, both the cow and the ox, and the *** and the horse, and the goat and the wild goat, and all manner of wild animals, which were for the use of men. And we did find all manner of ore, both of gold, and of silver, and of copper.

• 1 Ne 18:25 (About 589 B.C.)

21 And it came to pass that the people of Nephi did till the land, and raise all manner of grain, and of fruit, and flocks of herds, and flocks of all manner of cattle of every kind, and goats, and wild goats, and also many horses.

• Enos 1:21 (Between 544 and 420 B.C.)

9 And they said unto him: Behold, he is feeding thy horses. Now the king had commanded his servants, previous to the time of the watering of their flocks, that they should prepare his horses and chariots, and conduct him forth to the land of Nephi; for there had been a great feast appointed at the land of Nephi, by the father of Lamoni, who was king over all the land.
10 Now when king Lamoni heard that Ammon was preparing his horses and his chariots he was more astonished, because of the faithfulness of Ammon, saying: Surely there has not been any servant among all my servants that has been so faithful as this man; for even he doth remember all my commandments to execute them.
11 Now I surely know that this is the Great Spirit, and I would desire him that he come in unto me, but I durst not.
12 And it came to pass that when Ammon had made ready the horses and the chariots for the king and his servants, he went in unto the king, and he saw that the countenance of the king was changed; therefore he was about to return out of his presence.

• Alma 18:9-12 (about 90 BC.)

22 And it came to pass in the *seventeenth year, in the latter end of the year, the proclamation of Lachoneus had gone forth throughout all the face of the land, and they had taken their horses, and their chariots, and their cattle, and all their flocks, and their herds, and their grain, and all their substance, and did march forth by thousands and by tens of thousands, until they had all gone forth to the place which chad been appointed that they should gather themselves together, to defend themselves against their enemies.

• 3 Ne:3:22 (Between A.D. 16 and 17)

4 Therefore, there was no chance for the robbers to plunder and to obtain food, save it were to come up in open battle against the Nephites; and the Nephites being in one body, and having so great a number, and having reserved for themselves provisions, and horses and cattle, and flocks of every kind, that they might subsist for the space of seven years, in the which time they did hope to destroy the robbers from off the face of the land; and thus the eighteenth year did pass away.

• 3 Ne 4:4 (Between A.D. 18 and 22)

1 And now it came to pass that the people of the Nephites did all return to their own lands in the *twenty and sixth year, every man, with his family, his flocks and his herds, his horses and his cattle, and all things whatsoever did belong unto them.
-3 Ne 6:1 (Between A.D. 26 and 30)

No Jaredites here. These are all reports of Nephite horses throughout the BoM.

 

[Jerusha]

Well now, that depends entirely upon whether the Indian you ask happens to be a Mormon or not. Quite a few are, y’know.

.

That depends on how you define “Indian”. Are they a race, or a multiplicity of cultures?

As for checking out the story told in the BOM, the only commonality between that and what they know about their history (especially east coast US and Canada and Great Lakes tribes) can be vaguely seen in the Viking/Norse history. I know, because I have discussed this thoroughly with people more in tune with their Native heritages than myself.