The Mormon Archeology Shuffle

[Eliza10]

Hilarious - did you make this poem up yourself? I assume it’s to the tune of HokeyPokey?

Ugh. I’d say off-topic, needlessly mocking, not funny. But I’ll give you hokey.

 

[Eliza10]

This is interesting. It would appear that Ferguson thought that his affiliation with Mormonism was more like a social club than a religion…

Yes.

I submit that many Mormons also WANT their faith to be true. But then, the same could be said for me. I definitely want my Catholic faith to be the truth. Fortunately, there is a wealth of evidence to support the truthfulness of the Catholic faith…

Endless evidence! If the Catholic Church weren’t true in ALL she teaches, I wouldn’t be Catholic. I wouldn’t have gone to the trouble and sacrifice of converting unless it were true. I knew further exploration would not possibly turn up falsehood.

…I have read accounts of people … who began to question various aspects of the Mormon faith…, Their questioning was not welcomed by church hierarchy, but instead was discouraged, and this often led to the person leaving the Mormon faith…

Yes. I sure would see it as a big red flag if someone were telling me it was wrong to question Church teachings - or any group’s teachings.

I agree with you that I could not stay in a faith that I came to conclude was based on a myth. To me it would be like living a lie. So no matter how important the social or other ties might be, once I came to believe that a faith is based on a myth, I would have to leave that faith. … I would have to go, I wouldn’t be able to do as Ferguson did…

Yes. Makes sense to me. To be otherwise is mystifying to me. Except perhaps that person has not ever experienced true faith? Ferguson perhaps thought that faith means only accepting the Mormon teachings whole and unquestioned? And maybe after disproving that all that was left was simply appreciation of the goodness of his church’s works and/or social structure, so he kept the only thing he had left and never sought more?

This guess is supported by reading of ex-Mormon’s stories on a website. I was saddened to see that many on that site who discovered that their faith was myth-based and a figment of Smith’s imagination then left and went to no faith, to agnosticism, or to a pagan life (living with a girlfreind, etc.) I was surprised. I thought they would go from a faith based on lies to a faith based on truth, like converts I had heard of. But maybe those ones never had faith to begin with.

As to whether the hierarchy of the Mormon faith advocate one thing but believe another, that’s very hard to say. It’s interesting speculation, but something we will never know, at least not in this lifetime…

I am not saying all the heirarchy - I am just saying its hard to see how some of the heirarchy would not disbelieve the Mormon myths. They, like Ferguson, would keep standing behind the myths because they, like him, sincerely believe it is doing what is necessary to perpetuate what they see is a good organization.

This is also what Sir Thomas More is inferring in this post. (Though the motives I just detailed are my own suppostion).

.One thing I can say for sure, assuming the Catholic faith is true and the Mormon faith is not, I wouldn’t want to be in their shoes when such persons come before the Lord to account for their life.

Thats how I felt, when I faced taking the plunge into what for all practical purposes in my life was an unfreindly and uninviting social structure. leaving behind myold social structure which was like a big comfortable cushion in my life. Either take that road which was All Truth, or stay with what I knew was error and lacking in the fullness of truth.

My reasoning told me that if I did not choose truth over comfort, I ought to go to hell. Because I had asked the Holy Spirit to lead me into truth. When He did, was I to say: “No thank you - this is not convenient or comfortable for me”? In my understanding, that would be like blaspheming the Holy Spirit, and isn’t that the unforgiveable sin?

That was my reasoning. However, I must give credit where it is due. Making this decision that in the eyes of the world seems excruciating was actually not because looking down that unknown road filled me with the Peace of God, the peace that passes all understanding. So I cannot say my difficult choice was so difficult, it was full of Grace.

As to those like Ferguson, I can only surmise for their sake that they never went down such a road as I, that they never had the gift of faith to begin with.

 

[Returning_Home]

I found reading it dreadful also. :yawn: So dreadful I cringe at being asked if I would “read it prayerfully”. I normally like to read, but this was SO BORING. I skimmed it and felt satisfied I knew its contents. However I don’t remeber it got easier to read at Mosiah. Thats good to know.

“Prayerfully” means with a suspension of disbelief, the kind we watch Star Wars with.

I’m glad that the books I recommended cause someone to look further into the Ferguson story. I admire the man, even though he never left the sham known as Mormonism.

 

[Returning_Home]

LOL, no it takes almost 550 pages to track down what they plagiarized from, and the cultural context in which it was written. With extra notes on how Mormonism has adversely affected American society.

Have you read it? It is dreadful, until you get to Mosiah. That is where the Spalding material starts. They lost the original beginning of the book, and had to write something entirely different, when they could have just moved Ether to the front of the book. But they wanted to prove their racist and anti-Catholic bigotry.

If it’s taking you 550 pages to make your case, you’re not going to get anyone to read it.

Yes, I’ve read it and it was awful, a cheap copy of the KJV Bible. I’ve already said that I wasn’t familiar with the Spaulding angle because it’s obvious enough that the Bible was used as a primary source of inspiration for it.

“Anti-Catholic?” You’re begininng to sound like a Momron apologist. The only thing I can see that could be considered such is the part about infant baptism, which, in a way, has its points. I understand why Catholicism does it, but at the same time, you never see anyone but a willing adult getting baptised in the Bible. You can also make the case for the ‘abominations’ references in 1 Nephi 13 and 14, but it’s also referring to all churches on earth; not one is singled out specifically.

Racist? Sure, but Smith wasn’t vehemently so; he wasn’t any more so and anyone else in his day, judging by the written material he left behind.

 

[LongJourney]

If it’s taking you 550 pages to make your case, you’re not going to get anyone to read it.

It is overkill, I know. I wanted it to be overkill, more to prove that the essence and core of Mormonism is a malignancy, than that it is just a false religion. And I don’t expect everyone who reads it to read every word. There is some very entertaining material in it.

I’ve already said that I wasn’t familiar with the Spaulding angle because it’s obvious enough that the Bible was used as a primary source of inspiration for it.

.

Yes, the Biblical material alone is adequate to prove the BoM as a plagiarized document.

You can also make the case for the ‘abominations’ references in 1 Nephi 13 and 14, but it’s also referring to all churches on earth; not one is singled out specifically.

The abominations sections there are typical of the commonly used anti-Catholic rhetoric of the early 19th century.

Racist? Sure, but Smith wasn’t vehemently so; he wasn’t any more so and anyone else in his day, judging by the written material he left behind

Yes, Smith was less racist than many of his co-conspirators-- that is the reason why many modern theorists say it was a team effort. The racism may have come from Rigdon.

Thank you for your criticism, sight unseen.

 

[TikiTokiguy]

Yes, Smith was less racist than many of his co-conspirators-- that is the reason why many modern theorists say it was a team effort. The racism may have come from Rigdon.

Rigdon sounds more fascinating every day. I get the feeling he was the heart and one that truly created the LDS church. His brother said he was never the same after getting dragged by a hoarse and hitting his head on the ground repeatedly. Are there any good books that focus on Rigdon?

 

[LongJourney]

Probably the best source for material on Rigdon is Dale Broadhurst’s websites. This is mostly primary sources. As a S/R theorist, he has collected MANY documents which attest to the importance of Sidney Rigdon in the whole mess.

 

[twopekinguys]

Probably the best source for material on Rigdon is Dale Broadhurst’s websites. This is mostly primary sources. As a S/R theorist, he has collected MANY documents which attest to the importance of Sidney Rigdon in the whole mess.

I agree, including the stuff where Rigdon issued an extermination order a full 3 months before Gov. Boggs did.

Yet all the lds can talk about is the Boggs order.

 

[MelanieAnne]

If it’s taking you 550 pages to make your case, you’re not going to get anyone to read it.

I’m reading it! But with everything else that’s on my plate right now, it’s going to take me a while!

 

[TikiTokiguy]

I’m reading it! But with everything else that’s on my plate right now, it’s going to take me a while!

You might want to skip 2nd Nephi. As someone told me. A man put a Book of Mormon in his jacket pocket on his his chest. We was in a store on day and a criminal shot him with a gun. Luckly the bullet hit the Book of Mormon and did not pass through. The bullet stopped in 2nd Nephi. Proof nothing gets through 2nd Nephi!

 

[LongJourney]

The BoM is not worth reading unless you start with Mosiah. If you start with Mosiah and skip III Nephi, you will have covered the best of the book. Then you can read the parts you skipped before, if you want, but it is generally not worth the time you spend on it, Sort of like the dissertations on the whaling industry in Moby Dick.

 

[MelanieAnne]

You might want to skip 2nd Nephi. As someone told me. A man put a Book of Mormon in his jacket pocket on his his chest. We was in a store on day and a criminal shot him with a gun. Luckly the bullet hit the Book of Mormon and did not pass through. The bullet stopped in 2nd Nephi. Proof nothing gets through 2nd Nephi!

Sorry Tiki, I probably wasn’t clear. My mistake!

I read the Book of Mormon a long time ago, I no longer have a copy, and I don’t intend to read it ever again. I have plenty of fiction that I can read (or re-read) if I choose to.

The work I am reading at the moment comes from Long Journey ABOUT Mormonism. It’s a lengthy work, and since I have a lot of challenges in my life right now it will no doubt take me a long time to get through it.

 

[LongJourney]

Any book that contains radically different ideas can take a long time to digest.

 

[MelanieAnne]

Any book that contains radically different ideas can take a long time to digest.

That’s correct, and that “long time to digest” is true even under normal circumstances.

My current life circumstances are not quite normal (just as an example ~ my Father was recently put into Hospice care) so the attention that I used to devote to various areas of my life has correspondingly decreased, and this will be so for the foreseeable future. That’s not the only “extenuating” circumstance in my life, but it’s the big one.

So I expect my time to absorb this information will take longer than most. I appreciate being given the gift of the information.

 

[LongJourney]

Thanks. I am pretty well done with the subject, and looking forward to returning to real $$ work. It was necessary therapy for me.

 

[Returning_Home]

It is overkill, I know. I wanted it to be overkill, more to prove that the essence and core of Mormonism is a malignancy, than that it is just a false religion.

At a mere 26 pages more than Mormonism: Shadow or Reality?, again, it’s just too lengthy to sit down and read. I haven’t read all of the above, instead, using it as a reference when I need something specific, usually minutia that fits into the larger framework to support the broader conclusions.

And if I’m not mistaken, you chastised me a bit for the tone I take, but I’ve never used the term malignancy to describe it, not that I disagree, but I’m not willing to go quite that far. I think that’s a tad hypocritical, don’t you?

The abominations sections there are typical of the commonly used anti-Catholic rhetoric of the early 19th century. .

I can’t confirm or deny that, but the phrase ‘church founded by Satan’ encompasses more than just Catholicism in its proper context. Smith clearly intended that to be everyone but his church.

Yes, Smith was less racist than many of his co-conspirators-- that is the reason why many modern theorists say it was a team effort. The racism may have come from Rigdon.

Thank you for your criticism, sight unseen.

I agree about this being something of a team effort; Smith was of average or even above average intelligence, but it seems a stretch to say that he alone created this entire culture before his death.

I probably will request your work but frankly, I have no idea when I’d be able to get into it. I’m reading the Bible, several books about Mormonism, and one about the Black Dahlia.

If you produced it for your own sake, exorcising old demons or what have you, more power to you. As a critical work, however, you’ll likely never get a Mormon who’s questioning his or her faith to actually read and digest it. That’s the reason that if you’d like to make your argument resonate, you have to make it quickly; cut to the bone with one stroke.

 

[LongJourney]

And if I’m not mistaken, you chastised me a bit for the tone I take, but I’ve never used the term malignancy to describe it, not that I disagree, but I’m not willing to go quite that far. I think that’s a tad hypocritical, don’t you?

One must be very careful, to distinguish the professors of that faith, many of whom are good people, from the negative aspects of that faith. That is why I wrote an examination of the roots of Mormonism, and how they adversely affect Mormon culture, and those who come in contact with LDS culture. If I had written an autobiography, some would not believe it, because they have not come in contact with one malignant aspect of Mormonism, that of intergenerational feud.

That’s the reason that if you’d like to make your argument resonate, you have to make it quickly; cut to the bone with one stroke.

I disagree. One does not “apostatize” because of being confronted with one undeniable fact. It is a process. You know, prepare the ground, sow the seed, cultivate, water, etc. He who harvests does not deserve all the praise.

 

[Returning_Home]

One must be very careful, to distinguish the professors of that faith, many of whom are good people, from the negative aspects of that faith. That is why I wrote an examination of the roots of Mormonism, and how they adversely affect Mormon culture, and those who come in contact with LDS culture. If I had written an autobiography, some would not believe it, because they have not come in contact with one malignant aspect of Mormonism, that of intergenerational feud.

I agree and I’ve done exactly that. I don’t make personal attacks and I go out of my way to condemn those that have persecuted Mormons. I’ve said time and again that Smith was murdered in cold blood. There’s no debating that point so you’re not telling me anything that I don’t know.

While I was never LDS, I probably know as much as you do about the early church and its doctrines versus what it now teaches as fact. It’s the personal experience I lack so I don’t question your conclusions about that aspect because I wasn’t there.

I disagree. One does not “apostatize” because of being confronted with one undeniable fact. It is a process. You know, prepare the ground, sow the seed, cultivate, water, etc. He who harvests does not deserve all the praise.

That’s fine but I have to qualify what I said because I didn’t think to include it at the time; what I should’ve said was that in an arena like this, websites, forums, and such, one needs to make the point fast and accurately. In person you can do a lot more with body language and intonation and in print, you can get your thoughts more organized and take your time. Each method has its benefits and detriments. The way I approach Mormonism in face-to-face contact is obviously much different than what I do here.

 

[LongJourney]

I’ve said time and again that Smith was murdered in cold blood. There’s no debating that point so you’re not telling me anything that I don’t know.

I agree. He should have stood trial for his crimes. The locals were just too angry to wait.

The way I approach Mormonism in face-to-face contact is obviously much different than what I do here.

I avoid face-to-face contact with them about Mormonism, altogether.

what I should’ve said was that in an arena like this, websites, forums, and such, one needs to make the point fast and accurately.

I don’t practice marksmanship on the internet. I respond to their points of concern.

 

[Returning_Home]

I agree. He should have stood trial for his crimes. The locals were just too angry to wait.

Agreed.

I avoid face-to-face contact with them about Mormonism, altogether.

I don’t do it too often, but I’ve known a few people who were LDS and when the topic came up, I had to handle it gingerly. You never know where God will present an opportunity to give someone the facts about salvation. I won’t get into a discussion with more than one or two people because being ganged up on isn’t condusive to getting the message about Jesus’ sacrifice out there.

I don’t practice marksmanship on the internet. I respond to their points of concern.

I do what I feel I can in the brief amount of time I’m in contact with someone. Maybe it works and maybe it doesn’t; there’s no way to know what people take away from a conversation but I do know that my efforts haven’t been totally fruitless, however, so I’ll keep doing things this way.