Questions for Mormons..

  • Thread starter Thread starter Charlotte408
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Yes, but the Book of Mormon as described by Joseph Smith has been proven to be false, so Mormonism is false.
why me;5640516:
I will alert the Utah newspapers and they will be in touch with you for the proof.
Book of Mormon as described by Joseph Smith
He also said that the fulness of the everlasting Gospel was contained in it, as delivered by the Savior to the ancient inhabitants;the source from whence they sprang.

Book of Mormon as described by Joseph Smith is not true

Nearly all of today’s Native Americans in North, Central, and South America can trace part of their ancestry to six women whose descendants immigrated around 20,000 years ago, a DNA study suggests.
 
Didn’t JS tell people he couldn’t physically show the plates to them, or they would die?

or

Was he told not to show the plates to anyone, or they would die.

I am sure I read this somewhere, but I can’t find it now.

Any help?
 
But there are indians who are mormon. 🙂 Have you spoken with them about it? I think that you have.
I think you miss my point. Being Native, according to many Natives, is a matter of culture, rather than race. Therefore, since Mormonism is a distillation of European thinking and acting, any person who is Mormon and has native ancestry is not Native. Any who might be are so caught up in self-hatred-- just take a look at the BOM. Mutually incompatible. Sort of like claiming to be both Catholic and Mormon.
 
I think you miss my point. Being Native, according to many Natives, is a matter of culture, rather than race. Therefore, since Mormonism is a distillation of European thinking and acting, any person who is Mormon and has native ancestry is not Native. Any who might be are so caught up in self-hatred-- just take a look at the BOM. Mutually incompatible. Sort of like claiming to be both Catholic and Mormon.
Man, oh man…I believe that we need to rename the fallacy from “True Scott” to “True Native.”

Jerusha, I would hope that you would not deny Will Rogers, Jr., his Cherokee heritage because his dad was Will Rogers, one of the most famous "cowboy’ humorists in American history.

Or, perhaps…Elvis Presley?
Wayne Newton?

I understand that there might be ‘many natives’ who figure that being ‘native’ means that you can’t be anything BUT ‘native,’ but being ‘native’ is about where your roots are, not about how you leaf out.
 
I didn’t know Will Rogers Jr, Elvis Presley or Wayne Newton were Mormon.
 
I didn’t know Will Rogers Jr, Elvis Presley or Wayne Newton were Mormon.
No, m’dear.

They are native American.

Although they are not exactly known for that, nor were they ‘devout’ in their native American lifestyles or culture. They weren’t disrespectful, but they sure as shootin’ weren’t Sherman Alexie.

I don’t think that the tribes which claim them would be all that excited that you don’t think they are/were ‘really native,’ however.

By the way…given that native Americans, when the ‘whites’ showed up, were mostly shamanistic/spiritist in nature, then how is being a Catholic any more ‘native’ than being Mormon is?
 
I am amused, though, that it isn’t the Masons that object to that (even though they refused to allow any Utah Mormon to join for a very long time); it is those who dislike us both that object to it.
I actually know a Mason who is genuinely appalled by the fact… just as a remark…
 
I’m not a bit surprised that you made the remark, Janet.
Well that is his opinion… Whether or not that is representative or not I couldn’t say. I do not tend to be part of these organisations.
 
Just checking to see if I’m following the logic here
I think you miss my point. Being Native, according to many Natives, is a matter of culture, rather than race. Therefore, since Mormonism is a distillation of European thinking and acting, any person who is Mormon and has native ancestry is not Native. Any who might be are so caught up in self-hatred-- just take a look at the BOM. Mutually incompatible. Sort of like claiming to be both Catholic and Mormon.
So one can’t be A and B at the same time.
Man, oh man…I believe that we need to rename the fallacy from “True Scott” to “True Native.”

Jerusha, I would hope that you would not deny Will Rogers, Jr., his Cherokee heritage because his dad was Will Rogers, one of the most famous "cowboy’ humorists in American history.

Or, perhaps…Elvis Presley?
Wayne Newton?
Will Rogers, Elvis Presley, and Wayne Newton are A
I didn’t know Will Rogers Jr, Elvis Presley or Wayne Newton were Mormon.
But Will Rogers, Elvis Presley, and Wayne Newton are not B
No, m’dear.

They are native American.
But they are A
Therefore A can be B?
 
Just checking to see if I’m following the logic here

So one can’t be A and B at the same time.

Will Rogers, Elvis Presley, and Wayne Newton are A
But Will Rogers, Elvis Presley, and Wayne Newton are not B

But they are A
Therefore A can be B?
(grin)

The problem, of course, is that Jerusha went back a step too far, committing a fallacy of composition as well as a “True Scott.” Remember, she wrote this: “therefore, since Mormonism is a distillation of European thinking and acting, any person who is Mormon and has native ancestry is not Native”

In other words,
SINCE N ative=/= European thinking and acting
**AND ** Mormon = European thinking and acting
**THEN ** N ative =/= Mormon

So the problem, according to Jerusha, isn’t the specific sort of European thinking and acting that Mormons have, but that Mormons have a problem because they are a combination of European thinking and acting.

So it’s the European thinking and acting (‘white’) culture that is the problem, not Mormonism specifically.

Let’s redo your equation with this in mind:

No native American who buys into European thinking and acting can be “Native.”

This makes her statement a classic “true scott fallacy,” especially since every single Native author uses European thinking/acting to express their native cultures. All of them.

I simply pointed out that there are a great many native Americans who are proudly claimed as such…among whom are Will Rogers, Elvis Presley, and Wayne Newton, and they, every single one of them, were/are very much into the modern American culture, which includes that European thinking and acting.

Diana
 
No, m’dear.

They are native American.

Although they are not exactly known for that, nor were they ‘devout’ in their native American lifestyles or culture. They weren’t disrespectful, but they sure as shootin’ weren’t Sherman Alexie.
🙂 I like Alexie. He has written some thought provoking books and made a couple of good films.

I think most people who know anything about Elvis, know he was part Cherokee.
I don’t think that the tribes which claim them would be all that excited that you don’t think they are/were ‘really native,’ however.
I never claimed any such thing. But, I do understand what Jerusha is saying.
By the way…given that native Americans, when the ‘whites’ showed up, were mostly shamanistic/spiritist in nature, then how is being a Catholic any more ‘native’ than being Mormon is?
No, but I don’t know of any Catholics, Native or otherwise, who have accepted the Mormon version of Lamanites, dark skin curses, “give this land if they live righteously”, as a replacement for true Native cultures.

To Jerusha’s point, to the memories that survive in the tribes…nothing in there that matches to mormonism. Jerusha says there are memories, however, of Viking visits.

What she is saying, is that Native who have accepted Mormonism have accepted a cultural rewrite. One that requires self hate. There isn’t anything like it anywhere, outside of Mormonism.

To put more of a fine point on it. When I was a kid, and my best friend was in the mormon Indian placement program, she was in a house that had a large collection of Native “stuff”. Weapons, textiles, pottery, paintings. Collections. Even at that young age I had the uncomfortable realization that she was part of the collection.

It is what mormonism does. Collects, but not for the sake of understanding, but for the sake of rewriting. My friend was being rewritten (it didnt’ work). Native cultures get rewritten, with a story of Lamanites and a culture that never existed.
 
(grin)

The problem, of course, is that Jerusha went back a step too far, committing a fallacy of composition as well as a “True Scott.” Remember, she wrote this: “therefore, since Mormonism is a distillation of European thinking and acting, any person who is Mormon and has native ancestry is not Native”

In other words,
SINCE N ative=/= European thinking and acting
**AND ** Mormon = European thinking and acting
**THEN ** N ative =/= Mormon

So the problem, according to Jerusha, isn’t the specific sort of European thinking and acting that Mormons have, but that Mormons have a problem because they are a combination of European thinking and acting.
I was just trying to follow the logic. I don’t think you understand the ‘no true scott’ fallacy or the fallacy of composition. And even if you did; we don’t know enough about Jerusha’s position to know if there is a fallacy. I could just as easily assume she meant:
SINCE N ative= Native culture
**AND ** Book of Mormon = Racism against Natives
**THEN ** N ative =/= Mormon

Maybe you could humbly ask her to clarify her position instead of telling her what her position is.
 
SINCE N ative= Native culture
**AND **Book of Mormon = Racism against Natives
**THEN **N ative =/= Mormon
Much more accurate. Lets’ not forget Jimi Hendrix 😦

Most tribes do not want to disenroll their Mormon members. Because most of them were victims of the Lamanite Placement program, they did receive the benefit of a good education. They would rather rehabilitate them, through cultural re-integration. 🙂 After all, they were only victims of a program that attempted to pick off the best and finest.

There are many aspects of Catholic culture that are compatible with Native culture. And Native culture is adaptable. Take the best of Native culture and European technology and culture, and you still have Native culture, changed, but still Native. Particularly when the language is still used.

I really don’t want to sit with a grinding stone and grind corn, or chew hides for leather, would you? No, natives no longer live in tipees and hide behind trees with bows and arrows, contrary to the antiquated beliefs of some.
 
🙂 I like Alexie. He has written some thought provoking books and made a couple of good films.

I think most people who know anything about Elvis, know he was part Cherokee.

I never claimed any such thing. But, I do understand what Jerusha is saying.

No, but I don’t know of any Catholics, Native or otherwise, who have accepted the Mormon version of Lamanites, dark skin curses, “give this land if they live righteously”, as a replacement for true Native cultures.
Rebecca, go back and read Jerusha’s post. She didn’t say that native Americans who were Mormon were not native because they were Mormon, (though that right there is as glaring a true scott fallacy as can be imagined). She claimed that because Mormonism is mostly “European thought and action,” that this is why no Mormon native American can truly be 'native."

So you need to leave specific Mormon thought out of it. She did. 😉

Quite frankly, as to it being specifically Mormonism being the difficulty, that is a problem; no other religion, other than their own ‘native’ beliefs, addresses native American culture/history specifically, or respects it, or the people who live it. Every other belief simply wants to replace it…and that includes Catholicism, by the way.

So of course you don’t know any Catholic Native Americans who accept the LDS idea of Nephites and Lamanites, because they have replaced their culture with Catholicism. That is, after all, a function of their Catholicism, not of their ‘native Americanism’ As an example of a “Four-term fallacy.” I’m keeping it.
To Jerusha’s point, to the memories that survive in the tribes…nothing in there that matches to mormonism. Jerusha says there are memories, however, of Viking visits.
I see…so because some natives around Manhattan have a legend of Cornhair and men in longboats (and the Vikings visited about 400 years before Columbus did…) then this means that no legends from Indians can possibly be traced any further back to Book of Mormon times?

In spite of the fact that there are quite a few that, uhm, do?

True, stories like “Three days of Darkness” and “why the Grand Canyon was made” from the Paiutes could as easily be referring to something else, they are not inconsistent with BoM peoples and beliefs.
What she is saying, is that Native who have accepted Mormonism have accepted a cultural rewrite. One that requires self hate. There isn’t anything like it anywhere, outside of Mormonism.
Except that it isn’t self hate, Rebecca. Pride? yes. the only hate involved is imposed from outside. You have forgotten the many stories in the BoM where the Lamanites were the righteous ones and the Nephites were the wicked group, and you seem to have forgotten that at the end of the book, well…the Lamanites actually won.

…and I find it ironic that a Catholic Indian would criticize a Mormon Indian for 'accepting a cultural rewrite."
To put more of a fine point on it. When I was a kid, and my best friend was in the mormon Indian placement program, she was in a house that had a large collection of Native “stuff”. Weapons, textiles, pottery, paintings. Collections. Even at that young age I had the uncomfortable realization that she was part of the collection.
It couldn’t possibly be that these things were an attempt to honor and respect that heritage, could it? Your perception of this couldn’t possibly have been, oh…WRONG, could it?
It is what mormonism does. Collects, but not for the sake of understanding, but for the sake of rewriting. My friend was being rewritten (it didnt’ work). Native cultures get rewritten, with a story of Lamanites and a culture that never existed.
your opinion is noted. It is absolutely incorrect, but noted.

There is no ‘rewriting’ of Indian history or culture by Mormonism. If we provide a different beginning for those stories, that doesn’t negate the stories, or the culture, or the very real success they had in this land.

I have been in the homes of both LDS and Catholic native Americans, as well as those who have kept their traditional beliefs.

From what I have seen, the LDS and traditional peoples complement each other, and their religions live peacefully together; one can be a Mormon and honor his traditions.

The same cannot be said for Catholicism. At least from what I have seen. Whether that is a bad thing or a good one is debatable, but I do find the irony of a CATHOLIC giving Mormons grief for 'replacing native culture" incredibly ironic.
 
I was just trying to follow the logic. I don’t think you understand the ‘no true scott’ fallacy or the fallacy of composition. And even if you did; we don’t know enough about Jerusha’s position to know if there is a fallacy. I could just as easily assume she meant:
SINCE N ative= Native culture
**AND ** Book of Mormon = Racism against Natives
**THEN ** N ative =/= Mormon

Maybe you could humbly ask her to clarify her position instead of telling her what her position is.
We’ve been around this before, Stephen. I point out the fallacy, show you exactly how it works, and you respond by telling me that I don’t understand the fallacy. Well, you are quite right. I don’t understand your understanding of it. I do, however, understand how they work as they are described by everybody else, including the rhetoricians who identify and name them.

As to your example, above, (grin) non sequitur, begging the question…wow.

I’m quite certain, however, that you could assume anything you like. I’m not about to tell you what you won’t assume.
 
Much more accurate. Lets’ not forget Jimi Hendrix 😦

Most tribes do not want to disenroll their Mormon members. Because most of them were victims of the Lamanite Placement program, they did receive the benefit of a good education. They would rather rehabilitate them, through cultural re-integration. 🙂 After all, they were only victims of a program that attempted to pick off the best and finest.

There are many aspects of Catholic culture that are compatible with Native culture. And Native culture is adaptable. Take the best of Native culture and European technology and culture, and you still have Native culture, changed, but still Native. Particularly when the language is still used.

I really don’t want to sit with a grinding stone and grind corn, or chew hides for leather, would you? No, natives no longer live in tipees and hide behind trees with bows and arrows, contrary to the antiquated beliefs of some.
I see. So your quarrel with the Mormons is that we gave the ‘best and finest’ a good education? Therefore, it’s OK to keep them?

How very…kind…of you.
 
Diana, your mormon prejudices are flashing like a neon sign. Perhaps you should study, rather than pretend, to know what you are talking about.

Not to mention the diversion, as usual. Someday you might actually address something.
 
Diana, your mormon prejudices are flashing like a neon sign. Perhaps you should study, rather than pretend, to know what you are talking about.

Not to mention the diversion, as usual. Someday you might actually address something.
I have to agree; lots of irrational diversions. All I can assume at this point is there is no American Indian lore of horses and working with steel before the arrival of Europeans.
 
Didn’t JS tell people he couldn’t physically show the plates to them, or they would die?

or

Was he told not to show the plates to anyone, or they would die.

I am sure I read this somewhere, but I can’t find it now.

Any help?
I’m going to post this again. Is anyone familiar with this, or did I imagine it?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top