MovieChat Forums > September Dawn (2007) Discussion > TRUE FACTS FROM AN EX-MEMBER HERE!

TRUE FACTS FROM AN EX-MEMBER HERE!


I was born and raised in the LDS faith, and only a few years ago "quit". I'm here to tell you that the following are FACTS based upon my own experiences.

1. I've never met a nicer person than my ex-bishop.
2. Tithing, or giving 10% of your income to the church, is optional. What religion doesn't accept donations?
3. My family was very poor for a while, and the church helped us financially.
4. Mormons DO NOT have horns surgically attached to their heads... I'm just tired of hearing about this one.
5. I quit the church out of personal beliefs, and I wasn't harassed or kidnapped or anything.
6. The LDS church is NOT a cult. Get a life, people.
7. The best representation of mormonism from an outside perspective would probably be from South Park. I know, it sounds dumb, but its true!

Anybody else have anything to add? I'm sure I'm gonna get some idiots saying some crazy things, but I can handle it! I'm a big boy.

reply

I have said much of the same. Prepare for people to assume that you are in fact a regular active Mormon for posting these things. I have found that most Mormons find the South Park treatment amusing and are not all offended.

Oh Lord, you gave them eyes but they cannot see...

reply

I was actually gonna ask about that, but I thought it might be provocative.

What do you think about that South Park episode? I thought that the South Park guys liked the Mormons as people but just could not fathom what they believed.

The episode for me was just funny until I read that the event they are describing actually took place. When the wife of one of Smith's associates hid the manuscript to see if there were really plates, then Smith found "new" plates kind of like the old plates but slightly different and in more detail.

For me that is the nail in the coffin. I was wondering what Mormons thought when/if they saw the episode.




"The thing I hate about an argument is that it always interrupts a discussion."
G. K. Chesterton

reply

I was actually gonna ask about that, but I thought it might be provocative.

What do you think about that South Park episode?

The episode for me was just funny until I read that the event they are describing actually took place. Smith found "new" plates kind of like the old plates but slightly different and in more detail. For me that is the nail in the coffin. I was wondering what Mormons thought when they saw it.
The episode was recommended to me by a very active Mormon. He thought it actually would do more good than harm to Mormonism in general. Mormons often have more of a sense of humor than people imagine, even about their faith. Actually I thought somebody pondering the Mormons being a fraud would have focused more on the missing pages of the BOM and the wife of Martin Harris ("smart, smart, smart" vs. "dum, dum, dum"). But look at the end of the episode. Who came off as having the most correct and Christian attitude ? Actually I do not even remember the "new" plates bit. Was there more than one episode with Joseph Smith ?

Oh Lord, you gave them eyes but they cannot see...

reply

But look at the end of the episode. Who came off as having the most correct and Christian attitude ? Actually I do not even remember the "new" plates bit. Was there more than one episode with Joseph Smith ?


Yeah, the Mormon kid was the most mature one at the end.

No, the "new" plates wasn't in the episode. I thought the South Park guys had made it up so I read up on it. Smith was extemely angry apparently that the text was rehidden. He said that God was also angry too (for some reason, God was angry at him?) and would not allow the old plates to be used. But as a mark of mercy he gave him entirely new plates about the same story.

That's just... well, I guess if you are not Mormon... wow. I mean... wow.



"The thing I hate about an argument is that it always interrupts a discussion."
G. K. Chesterton

reply

No, the "new" plates wasn't in the episode. I thought the South Park guys had made it up so I read up on it. Smith was extemely angry apparently that the text was rehidden. He said that God was also angry too (for some reason, God was angry at him?) and would not allow the old plates to be used. But as a mark of mercy he gave him entirely new plates about the same story.
The way I remember it Joseph Smith set down as revelations in The Doctrine and Covenants the story of the lost 116 pages. The Mormons view this as scripture, where God tells Joseph not to re-translate the plates to produce what was lost because a condensed version of what was in the lost pages was contained in plates in his possession that he had not translated yet. This is in early sections of the D&C. The Mormons are actually found of this account and tell it with no reluctance at all. They feel that it is an object lesson about obeying God and I have met few that find this any sort of "coffin nail" to their faith. When I was one of the faithful this really didn't trouble me much. There are aspects of Mormonism that are far less logically explained by them.

Oh Lord, you gave them eyes but they cannot see...

reply

Geode,

Isn't that what Smith would say if he were lying though? That's what puzzles me.

It seems to be a weak derivation of "the dog ate my homework" excuse.

I guess that is just what non-Mormons would say, but to me the story definitely does not advertise Smith's credibility.



"The thing I hate about an argument is that it always interrupts a discussion."
G. K. Chesterton

reply

Isn't that what Smith would say if he were lying though? That's what puzzles me.

It seems to be a weak derivation of "the dog ate my homework" excuse.

I guess that is just what non-Mormons would say, but to me the story definitely does not advertise Smith's credibility.
Yes, one can look at it as a somewhat ingenious way around a trap that Lucy Harris appeared to be setting up. I think she concluded that Smith could not produce the same translation again and it would be markedly different. Then she could "find" and show the original pages and prove Smith to be a fraud. In this version of events Smith would remember enough so that the new condensed version he would produce would contain some of the same story and ideas. Adding revelations with God telling him to do this would be additional cover.

It probably is rather bold to take what non-Mormons consider as a blow to Smith's credibility and use it as a positive example of Smith being human, making mistakes but then seeking God's forgiveness and then being allowed to go forward in his role as God's spokesman for mankind.

Oh Lord, you gave them eyes but they cannot see...

reply

[deleted]

As I stated earlier in the thread - there are far better examples to use to discredit Smith. Smith's account of the Lost Manuscript is quite plausible. You certainly don't have to believe it but your attempts to spin it into something it may not have been just shows your bias.

reply

You guys crack me up. I am an active LDS member and I absolutely love South Park. Course I also get a good laugh everytime I read anti-mormon stuff too. Laughs all the way.

reply

The revelation is that Lucy Harris and others planned to alter the text, so even if Joseph Smith retranslated them, they could say "Aha! Look! Differences!" Not a big deal. Believe it or don't. There are plenty of other things to look at.

reply

The irony is that the text was most likely written in pen, not a pencil with an eraser (not used til after 1858, cause thats when it was patented.) So "altering" the document would be quite difficult. I mean, I guess you could add an "ing" to the end of a word, change he to she, cross out a name and change it, or black out a paragraph and say its not there.

Or I guess you could have someone forge the document and there might be a really good forger around but its unlikely. All smith would of had to do is say I didn't write that and his followers would have believed him, I mean they believed a lot worse. So really the whole "another book" thing is all for not. Just a way for Smith to add Satan to the situation and bring his followers closer to him.

reply

No it shows the use of reason, rather than being blindly led by the hand.

reply

You claim that "Smith was a believer in 'the bigger the lie you tell, the more it will be believed.'"

Where on earth did you dig that up?

State the book, the author, the publisher, and the page with the exact quote and who it was attributed to, and where the book can be purchased online.

Otherwise, please climb back under your rock and stay there because these forums are for intellectual discussion and not cheapshot, hateful accusations based on lies you conjure up.

reply

It's called "The Book Of Mormon" - it's one huge testament to Smith's belief in 'the bigger the lie you tell, the more it will be believed.'

Mormons certainly often are the nicest folks you will meet. They just believe in extraordiarily absurd bullshi*t. Which really doesn't make them that much different than most religious people...

reply

Wait, you are saying most religions don't believe in absured b*llSh*t? That's the funniest thing I have read today.

reply

It's called "The Book Of Mormon" - it's one huge testament to Smith's belief in 'the bigger the lie you tell, the more it will be believed.'
Well I'll debunk that one right now. Nowhere in that book is that mentioned. In fact the name Joseph Smith doesn't show up anywhere in the actual book. Only in the preface and historical background. And actually the Book of Mormon is a testament of Jesus Christ.

"I'm not made of airports!" - CM Burns

reply

porchfilms said:
"It's called "The Book Of Mormon" - it's one huge testament to Smith's belief in 'the bigger the lie you tell, the more it will be believed.'"

Statements like this are really sad. Vicious accusations with no factual basis made by people attacking people who have done them no harm.

"Mormons certainly often are the nicest folks you will meet. They just believe in extraordiarily absurd bullshi*t."

Well, at least what they believe motivates them to be nice people. What you believe motivates you to make mean-spirited comments about people you say are nice. Which belief system should I respect more?

reply

The episode of South Park was somewhat exaggerated to make a funnier story, but the gist of it is true. That being said, there are some things left out as well, if only because they wouldn't be funny in an episode of South Park.

Its true that mormons know this story, and have justified it by explaining that it was God's will, etc, etc. But honestly, is there any religion where there AREN'T missing parts or illogical "holes in the story" or other contradictions? That is, except Snake Handling. That one is ALL fact.

On a side note, my grandmother, who is a pretty devout mormon, absolutely loved the episode of South Park we're talking about. Its the only episode she can stand to watch.

Catholic Priest: Why am I in hell? I've been a devout catholic all my life?
Satan: I'm sorry, you picked the wrong religion.
Rabbi: But why am I here? I'm a rabbi!
Satan: Again, you picked the wrong religion. Sorry about that.
Everyone: Then which one what right???
Satan: The correct answer what the mormons. Yes, thats right, the mormons...

reply

Its true that mormons know this story, and have justified it by explaining that it was God's will, etc, etc. But honestly, is there any religion where there AREN'T missing parts or illogical "holes in the story" or other contradictions? That is, except Snake Handling. That one is ALL fact.


I will have to become a Snakeologist.

I think the thing that non-Mormons object to is Mormons saying they are doing the only right version of Christianity because Smith had a revelation.

So the entire thing hinges on Smith being credible. Therefore any serious blows to Smith's credibility to non-Mormons don't show an endearing human side to God's prophet. Rather that would suggest to them that he wasn't God's prophet.

Therefore while anyone could nitpick at any religion. This is slightly different..

"The thing I hate about an argument is that it always interrupts a discussion."
G. K. Chesterton

reply

Josef Tura-2 said:
"I think the thing that non-Mormons object to is Mormons saying they are doing the only right version of Christianity because Smith had a revelation."

Have you ever wondered why anyone would object to that? If a man said he was married to the greatest woman in the world, should every other married man object to that statement?

I fail to understand the value of belonging to a religion you *don't* think is more correct than any other you've found. If the Mormons are wrong in their position on this, why would a non-Mormon care? Who have they hurt with that belief? The Pope said something similar recently about the Catholic church. I'm not Catholic, but I respect him for saying it and I wasn't the least bit offended by it. On the contrary, I commend him for saying it.

I think it's sad when someone belongs to religion he thinks is no more correct than other religions. I think people object to those kinds of statements because they're jealous. Jealous that other people feel they have the best thing going while the people who object don't feel that way.

reply

Have you ever wondered why anyone would object to that? If a man said he was married to the greatest woman in the world, should every other married man object to that statement?


Bad metaphor.

According to Christ Christians should be one loving whole (John 13:33-35). Christ doesn't sound like he's inaugurating a club where all other clubs are okay; and just because I love my club and you love your club that means they're equal. This is attempting to follow the teachings of one man. If any group claims they are they only right way to follow Christ's teachings then they are either very right or very wrong.

My reading about Joseph Smith does not suggest to me that he was truthful at all (especially the Kinderhook plates) so I believe Mormonism is founded upon a lie - even though the people within it are not bad people. I love them, since they claim to be Christians I would love to belong to them and join, but Smith didn't tell the truth and there is plenty of evidence for it, which Mormons skip around because to face it would be to face an uncomfortable truth.

Prophets have flaws, sure, but translating plates that were forgeries (Kinderhook Plates) is not a human flaw unless Smith's flaw was dishonesty and arrogance. And if Smith's human flaw was dishonesty then who is to say he wasn't being dishonest about all his translating abilities? That flaw might make the book of Mormon a forgery and it might make all the aspects of Mormonism that are seperate from Christianity to be spurious.

reply

According to Christ Christians should be one loving whole (John 13:33-35). Christ doesn't sound like he's inaugurating a club where all other clubs are okay; and just because I love my club and you love your club that means they're equal. This is attempting to follow the teachings of one man. If any group claims they are they only right way to follow Christ's teachings then they are either very right or very wrong.


So the Catholic Church is also wrong when it says those who aren't in the Church can't get into heaven?

reply

Now you're getting the picture. I am not a Roman Catholic, but my mother was raised in that belief. My father was raised as a Methodist; amazingly, they married and became Baptists. I was raised as a Baptist, but now belong to the Anglican Communion. I do not believe that just because a person is not a Baptist, they can't get into Heaven. Most Christian denominations hold the same basic beliefs in the birth, death and resurrection of our Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ. That is the main criteria for entering into Heaven. However, the BIBLE says that Jesus said "No man cometh to the Father but by me." That means, when you pray to God, you go through Jesus Christ, not through Mary or anyone else. You do not need a priest to interceed for you; that's the job of Jesus Christ. You should go to the Father through Him and only Him. I'm not putting down Roman Catholics; I have many friends who are Roman Catholic, just like I have many friends who are Democrats. And they don't put me down for not being of their faith. We agree to disagree.

Oh Jerry,don't lets ask for the moon,we have the stars.

reply

"So the entire thing hinges on Smith being credible."

As far as I know there is no evidence of the missing plates other than the official LDS account. Why would Joseph Smith tell something he didn't need to tell if it weren't true?

Mormons would tell you that determining Joseph Smith's credibility is something you should determine

"Therefore any serious blows to Smith's credibility to non-Mormons don't show an endearing human side to God's prophet. Rather that would suggest to them that he wasn't God's prophet."

Actually, no. There is and never has been any Christian belief that a prophet must be infallible. Moses was punished for his arrogance. Peter denied knowing Jesus. Jonas tried to run away to avoid doing what God told him to do. There are many such accounts. People who claim that someone can't be a prophet because he isn't perfect are just looking for an excuse to avoid accepting that someone is a prophet. People don't want to believe in prophets. Disobeying the teachings and counsel of a prophet is considered very bad in Christian belief. People don't want others to tell them what to do. They don't mind ignoring the nice ideas of a minister, but disobeying a prophet is considered serious business, so if there are no prophets they're more or less free to do what they want.

reply

I've read through this thread and I don't see the entire story being told with respect to the "lost manuscript". I'm sure some will disagree with the LDS version of it but you can't put forward the South Park version as a more reliable source either. :)

As the story goes, Martin Harris was pressured by his wife, Lucy to provide something to prove that what Joseph Smith was doing was valid. Not an outlandish request by Lucy since her husband was assisting Joseph. Martin asked, Joseph prayed and received and answer of "no". Later, Martin asked again, same reply. The third time Martin asked, Joseph prayed and the Lord told him to let Martin take the 116 pages of manuscript but on condition that he only show them to Lucy. (Note: Martin took the 116 pages of translated manuscript, NOT the actual plates which remained in Joseph's possesion.)

In the end Martin & Lucy showed them to others and somehow "the others" got them and kept them. (No account of the details of how the others got them is available to the best of my knowledge.) When Martin returned and told Joseph what had happened, Joseph took the matter back to the Lord. The answer he received was that he was NOT to re-translate that part of the plates again because the men who had the manuscript had altered it so that even if he translated it exactly as before, they would still attempt to discredit him.

What was lost is what we believe to be the book of Lehi. Lehi's son Nephi kept a similar record and so the Lord explained to Joseph that Nephi's record would suffice. So as you begin reading the Book of Mormon you will note that Nephi is telling the story of his father Lehi, rather than reading it in Lehi's words.

Now - many of you will likely see this as more evidence of Joseph Smith as a con man. But, to me, this story actually makes sense. There are much better ones if you are looking to discredit him.

reply

In the end Martin & Lucy showed them to others and somehow "the others" got them and kept them. (No account of the details of how the others got them is available to the best of my knowledge.) When Martin returned and told Joseph what had happened, Joseph took the matter back to the Lord. The answer he received was that he was NOT to re-translate that part of the plates again because the men who had the manuscript had altered it so that even if he translated it exactly as before, they would still attempt to discredit him.

I don't believe I have heard many people that think that "others" got hold of this manuscript. I think the concensus view is that Lucy probably destroyed the pages herself, or at least hid them as they were never seen again by Smith or anybody else that went on record. I think it is known that the pages were shown to more than just the few individuals that Smith had told Harris he could show them to other than Lucy. This may have fueled what many feel was the case, that Joseph Smith believed that they might appear in altered form, assumed that this would be the case, and did not produce a re-translation from the original again because there was no original in the first place and he could not match what was in the 166 pages unless he had a perfect memory. In my opinion his action prevented anyone from producing the original pages, which was far more likely than them producing an altered version. There was simply no point to do either after the alternative condensed version was used offically in the BOM, its use backed by a "revelation" no less. In the D&C Section 10 Joseph relates what he set forth as a revelation from God that such alteration had taken place.

10 And, behold, Satan hath put it into their hearts to alter the words which you have caused to be written, or which you have translated, which have gone out of your hands.

11 And behold, I say unto you, that because they have altered the words, they read contrary from that which you translated and caused to be written;

12 And, on this wise, the devil has sought to lay a cunning plan, that he may destroy this work;

13 For he hath put into their hearts to do this, that by lying they may say they have caught you in the words which you have pretended to translate.

14 Verily, I say unto you, that I will not suffer that Satan shall accomplish his evil design in this thing.

15 For behold, he has put it into their hearts to get thee to tempt the Lord thy God, in asking to translate it over again.

16 And then, behold, they say and think in their hearts—We will see if God has given him power to translate; if so, he will also give him power again;

17 And if God giveth him power again, or if he translates again, or, in other words, if he bringeth forth the same words, behold, we have the same with us, and we have altered them;

18 Therefore they will not agree, and we will say that he has lied in his words, and that he has no gift, and that he has no power;

19 Therefore we will destroy him, and also the work; and we will do this that we may not be ashamed in the end, and that we may get glory of the world.

20 Verily, verily, I say unto you, that Satan has great hold upon their hearts; he stirreth them up to iniquity against that which is good;

21 And their hearts are acorrupt, and full of wickedness and abominations; and they clove darkness rather than light, because their deeds are evil; therefore they will not ask of me.

22 Satan stirreth them up, that he may blead their souls to destruction.

23 And thus he has laid a cunning plan, thinking to destroy the work of God; but I will require this at their hands, and it shall turn to their shame and condemnation in the day of judgment.
http://scriptures.lds.org/en/dc/10

Oh Lord, you gave them eyes but they cannot see...

reply

And, behold, Satan hath put it into their hearts to alter the words which you have caused to be written, or which you have translated, which have gone out of your hands.


I don't know if this has already been asked. But why did Joseph Smith translate into an accent that wasn't his own?

Of course when the King James Version was written that was the conventional speech of the educated at that time. They made huge alterations from the Latin vulgate because they wanted the KJV to be understood by their countrymen. Why would Smith have translated (I am here assuming he did) from an ancient language into an only slightly less ancient vernacular?

It's puzzling to me. Although I must credit him; he has the cadence of the KJV down perfectly.

"The thing I hate about an argument is that it always interrupts a discussion."
G. K. Chesterton

reply

JosefTura,

Here's my take on your question:

We know that he was raised studying the Bible. So to him, that was the "dialect of scripture". I don't know how his process of translating went, but I believe the Lord speaks to us in a language that we understand. So, if you assume with me for a moment that he did translate through a spirit of revelation, wouldn't the Lord give it to him in a language or dialect that seemed correct to Joseph (and those that would read the book as a compliment to the Bible)?

reply

It's puzzling to me. Although I must credit him; he has the cadence of the KJV down perfectly.
seemed correct to Joseph (and those that would read the book as a compliment to the Bible)?
I think since the Book of Mormon was termed to be an additional testament of Christ by Joseph Smith that it made perfect sense to translate the Book of Mormon into the same style of language as the Bible in wide use. That is really what both of you have indicated in different ways.

Oh Lord, you gave them eyes but they cannot see...

reply

Slightly off topic, but from your comments and general demenor I wondered if you might welcome this rabbit trail...

I am reading a very wonderful book by Don Miller called "Blue Like
Jazz", (one of my new top favorite books of ALL time. And much easier to
read than Kiekegaard). If you don't mind, I will quote him
verbatim starting on page 202:

-- - -- - -- - -- - -- - -- - -- - -- - --

"You cannot be a Christian without being a mystic.

I was talking to a homeless man at a laundrymat recently, and he said
that when we reduce Christian spirituality to math we defile the Holy.
I thought that was very beautiful and comforting because because I
have never been good at math. Many of our attempts to understand
Christian faith have only cheapened it. I can no more understand the
totality of God than the pancake I made for breakfast understands the
complexity of me. The little we do understand, that grain of sand our
minds are capable of grasping, those ideas such as God is good, God
feels, God loves, God knows all, are enough to keep our hearts
dwelling on his majesty and otherness forever.

Here is one of the coolest things I ever did: this past summer I made
a point to catch sunsets. I would ride my motorcycle up Mount Tabor
and sit on the steps of the resevoir to watch the sun put fire in the
clouds that are always hanging over Portland. I never really wanted to
make the trip; I would always want to watch television or make a
sandwich, but I made myself go. And once I got up there, I always
loved it. It meant something to me to see beauty right there over my
city. My first sunset this year was the most spectacular. Forest fires
in Washington State blew a light nearly unnoticeable haze through
Portland, and the clouds were low enough to catch the full reflection
of red and yellow. I thought to myself 'this is something that happens
all the time'. All that beauty happens right above the heads of more
than a million people who never notice it.

Here is what I've started thinking: All the wonder of God happens
right above our arithmetic and formula. The more I climb outside my
pat answers, the more invigorating the view, the more my heart enters
into worship.
*
I think we have two choices in the face of such big beauty: terror or
awe. And this is precisely why we attempt to chart God, because we
want to be able to predict him, to dissect him, to carry Him around in
our dog and pony show. We are too proud to feel awe and too fearful to
feel terror. We reduce him to math so we don't have to fear Him and
yet the bible tells us fear is the appropriate response, that it is
the beginning of wisdom. Does this mean God is going to hurt us? No.
But I stood on the edge of the Grand Canyon once, behind a railing,
and though I was never going to fall off the edge, I feared the
thought of it. It that big of a place, that wonderful of a landscape.
*
I like that scene in the movie "Dead Poets Society" in which Mr.
Keating, an English instructor at an elite preparatory school, asks
his students to rip out the "Introduction to Poetry" essay from their
literature textbooks. The essayist had instructed students in a method
of grading poems on a sliding scale, complete with the use of a grid,
thus reducing art for the heart into arithmetic for the head. The
students looked around at each other in confusion as their teacher
dismissed the essay as rubbish and ordered them to rip these pages
from their books. And at their teachers loud prodding, the students
began to rip. Dr. Keating paced the isle with a trash can and reminded
the students that poetry is not algebra, not songs on American Idol
that can be rated on a scale from one to ten, but rather that they are
pieces of art that plunge the depths of the heart...

Too much of our time is spent trying to chart God on a grid, and too
little is spent allowing our hearts to feel awe. By reducing Christian
spirituality to formula, we deprive our hearts of wonder.

When I think about the complexity of the Trinity, the three-in-one
God, my mind cannot understand, but my heart feels wonder in abundant
satisfaction. It is as though my heart, in the midst of its euphoria,
is saying to my mind "There are things you cannot understand, and you
must learn to live with this. Not only must you learn to live with
this, you must learn to enjoy this.

I want to tell you something about me that you may see as a weakness.
I need wonder. I know that death is coming. I smell it in the wind,
read it in the paper, watch it on television, and see it on the faces
of the old. I need wonder to explain what is going to happen to me,
what is going to happen to us when this thing is done, when our shift
is over and our kids' kids are still on the earth listening to their
crazy rap music. I need something mysterious to happen after I die. I
need to be somewhere else after I die, somewhere with God, somewhere
that wouldn't make any sense if it were explained to me right now.

At the end of the day, when I am lying in bed and I know the chances
of any of our theology being exactly right are a million to one, I
need to know that God has things figured out, that if my math is wrong
we are still going to be okay. And wonder is that feeling we get when
we let go of our silly answers, our mapped out rules that we want God
to follow. I don't think there is any worship better than wonder."

"The thing I hate about an argument is that it always interrupts a discussion."
G. K. Chesterton

reply

Too much of our time is spent trying to chart God on a grid, and too
little is spent allowing our hearts to feel awe. By reducing Christian
spirituality to formula, we deprive our hearts of wonder.

When I think about the complexity of the Trinity, the three-in-one
God, my mind cannot understand, but my heart feels wonder in abundant
satisfaction. It is as though my heart, in the midst of its euphoria,
is saying to my mind "There are things you cannot understand, and you
must learn to live with this. Not only must you learn to live with
this, you must learn to enjoy this.
Yes, you are correct, I do agree with this. Thanks for posting it.

Oh Lord, you gave them eyes but they cannot see...

reply

Chello!

Better than the South Park episode....go to youtube and search for "cartoon banned mormon"

Hilarious...and a good explantion of Mormon beliefs....although I'll let the Mormons out there correct me if that's a wrong statement on my part.

Rose

reply

Yeah...pretty much that is it.

Some of it though is wrong, and it obviously wasn't made by the Mormons.

Mormons at one time or another believed almost everything in that cartoon.

The part about Eloheim going to earth from "The Starbase Kolob" was pretty funny.

Edit: Also the part about Joseph Smith saying that he had done more for mankind than even Jesus is wrong too. He always said that he did more for mankind except for Jesus.

reply

Did somebody steal your account info elpony? You are usually on the ball, but you seem a bit off.

Also the part about Joseph Smith saying that he had done more for mankind than even Jesus is wrong too. He always said that he did more for mankind except for Jesus.


Joseph Smith never said either. John Taylor said that.

Mormons at one time or another believed almost everything in that cartoon.


Wrong again. Everything in the cartoon is based on speculation some folks have given, but never doctrine. It'd be like me taking the apocrypha and saying "here's what Christians believe" all the while ignoring the canon scriptures of the Bible.

reply

Wrong again. Everything in the cartoon is based on speculation some folks have given, but never doctrine. It'd be like me taking the apocrypha and saying "here's what Christians believe" all the while ignoring the canon scriptures of the Bible.
There is precious little in this cartoon that was ever Mormon doctrine. It is not a good source for a study of Mormon beliefs. I am tired of people saying that this is the place to start in investigating Mormonism.

Oh Lord, you gave them eyes but they cannot see...

reply

John Taylor vs Joseph Smith

It was an honest mistake. You are definitely right, it was John Taylor.

Although, about the video, Mormonism is presented very badly in the video, no doubt, but really, most of the stuff was true. The spin on the beliefs is what I disliked.

What parts of the video am I wrong about? I know quite a bit about Mormon beliefs and practices. When I was a member I completely ate up every bit of doctrine that I could get my hands on.


...and yes, it is me :)

Edit: Let me at least tell you of the things that I already think are bogus.

- Tons and tons of celestial sex in heaven to make spiritual babies. That one is just silly.

- Starbase Kolob... another one that made me laugh.


- The whole "Eloheim grew up on another planet and was born to human parents" thing is more implied than actually taught.

- There is no head of the mormon gods, there is only the trinity



Everything else seems to be pretty on, if not presented in an unfair light.

reply

I'm not going to sully my mind by watching that movie again. The only other thing that comes to my mind is when it says God came down and had sex with Mary to conceive Jesus. There is no official doctrine about that, though some have implied it. Others have commented on the movie in other threads you may be able to find.

reply

Yes, that is another one that isn't official doctrine. Nonetheless, the majority of the movie is correct

Although, I am sad that you couldn't take up the challenge and actually look at the video again. Whatever, that is weak. I'm not sure if you refuse to prove me wrong because you know you can't or because you really don't want to watch it.

However, I do think that Brigham Young, besides other prophets, have said that God did in fact have sex with Mary, but that it was a good thing. I'm not 100% sure on that though.

reply

You are correct, it is weak. I've watched it again and here's what I've got:

1) Trillions of worlds ruled by countless gods who once were humans like us.

Is that official? There are worlds many, and there are other gods. However, we don't know that they once were human (cite it) or that they rule other worlds (citation again). Doctrine clearly states that God, our father, rules over countless worlds inhabited by his children and Christ atoned for worlds without number. Please cite doctrine that states otherwise.

2)"Many goddess wives"
There is no doctrine about whether God has many wives or not. The movie implies that everyone has more than one wife, especially God and his "parents" (since the parents part is also not quite official doctrine).

3)Lucifer is one of God's eldest sons.
We know Lucifer means "light bearer" and that he was in authority in the presence of God. We don't know anything else about him. Christ is the first born of God.

4)Lucifer planned to force everyone to become gods.
This is not doctrine. Lucifer said he would save everyone so no soul would be lost/damned. Many have speculated this means we would all be forced to be good and thus be saved because we would never be able to choose good. Doctrine also said he sought to take away the agency/choice of man. We don't know what this means because we can't become gods if we can't choose good.

5)"The vote that followed approved the plan"
While we may have agreed with the decision, it's God's plan and God's decision. It's not like God is beholden to majority rules or it's a democracy. There was no "vote" in the democratic sense. There were those who agreed with God's plan and those who didn't.

6)"Those neutral in the battle were cursed to be born with black skin".
Speculation. Nowhere in the doctrine of the Church is this approved of or agreed on. McConkie said his previous comments about black people was crap when the revelation came that black people could get the priesthood.

7)Valiant people are born to Mormon families and are "white and delightsome".

Same as #6. Not doctrine. Why are Jews always called the covenant people? And the 12 tribes are the ones blessed above all others, though gentiles are adopted into the tribes and receive all the blessings.

8)God and his wife came to earth as Adam and Eve.

Are you understanding why this is crap yet? All this false doctrine before even 3 minutes. OK, I'm done. You do realize that the lies outweigh the truth? Why shouldn't I hate something that's full of lies? Apparently, Mormons are racist (not sure how we explain all the other races out there) because black people are evil, whites are good, God became mortal to be Adam and was deceived by his son Satan? If you think that is true doctrine, then you don't know anything about the Church. And they make it seem like we're obsessed with polygamy. And you wonder why I didn't want to watch it again? There's nothing remotely praisworthy about this movie, and less true doctrine than false.

reply

Hey hey hey, don't get angry. I am only having a discussion. I don't think the movie is fair at all, only that it reflects the doctrine. No, Mormons aren't racist now, but the doctrine circa 1970 did specify that black people were colored because of their indifference in the pre-existence. Also, Mormons were, at one time, very much obsessed with polygamy. I'm not saying that they are now, only that they once were.

If you will allow me some time to prepare, I'll let you know where all of those doctrines were mentioned and taught.

Also, about official doctrine vs non-official doctrine. There are a lot of things that were taught by the prophets and believed by the people that aren't considered 'official doctrine.' Now, I understand that the church only believes now in what is official, and I have no problem with that. However, I will be attempting to show you that some of this stuff was taught and believed. I do not imply that it is believed today, ok? :)

BTW, you are right, the cartoon is not praiseworthy. It doesn't really make me mad, but it certainly does make me chuckle.

reply

Sorry if I come across angry, that's not my intention, especially towards you. I am annoyed at the movie since there are all kinds of lies therein. I will admit that I am slightly annoyed at you since you seemed to endorse the movie in previous posts. Nothing explicit, but you agreed that it was full of true Mormon doctrine, when the opposite is true.

I would like you cite sources of the doctrines I said aren't true. However, you will have hard time convincing me that it is "doctrine" as opposed to apocryphal speculation by early Saints and Bruce McConkie (whose son, I feel, continues his fault in teaching doctrine based on his own beliefs instead of actual doctrine). Also be aware that even if most members of the church believed a false doctrine, it's still false. I'm familiar with most of these lies in the movie and where they come from, but they are not official. Joseph Smith was the only prophet with the right to speak doctrine without approval from the Quorum of the 12 since he was THE seer. While people try to apply this standard to Brigham Young, it's pretty obvious that he speculates when his words disagree with what Joseph said and what is in scripture. As far as I'm aware, no other prophet declared doctrine without approval of the 12.

In the end, I declare that any objective observer would admit even the true doctrine in the video is twisted just enough to make it sound crazy. It taints it enough for me to believe that those who made this are strangers to truth. They even lie about things they don't even need to lie about. They can't help themselves because their lies control them now. I've seen it happen to real people. You can tell people who have become addicted to lying because they can't even tell the truth on simple things. It's a sad day for anyone to be caught defending them, or trying to vindicate them.

reply

translating something does not leave much room for your own interpretation, thats why its called translating, not interpreting.

reply

[deleted]

You're right. I see this as proof he is a con man. You didn't convince me at all. Sorry.

reply

> Isn't that what Smith would say if he were lying though?

What kind of logic is this? Isn't this what someone would say if he wanted to make Joseph Smith sound like a liar? Does denying you committed a crime mean you're guilty because guilty people deny their guilt? These kinds of insinuations prove nothing. They're the kinds of things people who care nothing for the truth say when they want to discredit someone.

> but to me the story definitely does not advertise Smith's credibility.

The missing pages have never surfaced as far as I know, so why would Joseph Smith make all this up? There's nothing about the story of the missing pages that damages Joseph Smith credibility unless you're looking for excuses to doubt his credibility. His account doesn't conflict with any other verifiable account or historical fact, so how can it damage his credibility? If you don't believe the Book of Mormon is what Mormons claim it to be, that's your choice, but it's not because of any credibility issue over the missing pages.

I've always said that money and sex make people's brains go out the window. Apparently so does talking about religion.

reply

They've never been found. If they had been, you can bet they would be locked away in some vault in the Church Office Building in SLC. Right next to the Salamander letter.

You're right, discussing religion is futile.

reply

so what you are saying then is that moses was lying when we destroyed the first set of commandment and came down the mount with a new set? same difference is it not he had 15 different commandments the first time and 10 diffrent commandments the second time which we for the most part all go by now!

reply


Joseph Smith's handling of the lost 116 pages just showed how quick-witted he was.

Smith knew he could not reproduce verbatim the missing pages so he made up a very convenient cock and bull story that, to this very day, gullible mormons lap up with a spoon.

I get tired of the mormons portraying Smith as an uneducated farm boy who could not possibly concocted the Book of Mormon. In truth and fact, he and his confederates worked on it for some years beforehand. Smith was a clever con-man well versed in taking advantage of naive, backwoods folks who were steeped in superstitious traditions.


reply

If Smith and his confederates worked on it for some years beforehand, wouldn't they have a backup copy of the 116 pages? Seems it would be easy for him to reproduce verbatum.

reply

First of all they were not plates that Martin Harris took. They were pages that Joseph Smith translated and Martin Harris wrote down. After martin showed them to his wife, Joseph Smith told Martin Harris that God was angry at him and martin and that he could not translate the plates again because God would not be mocked. Additionally martin Harris was no longer able to participate in the greatest work of the world, translating the book of Mormon. Some things may sound peculiar, strange, or downright crazy, but those things are not important. Also, what story in the bible doesn't sound crazy? A burning bush that spoke with the voice of God? I believe it because I believe the bible, just like I believe the martin harris story because I believe the BOM. It is all about faith. God does not work in black and white and the proof is never tangible.

here is what the church of Jesus Christ of latter day saints believes

1 We believe in God, the Eternal Father, and in His Son, Jesus Christ, and in the Holy Ghost.
2 We believe that men will be punished for their own sins, and not for Adam’s transgression.
3 We believe that through the Atonement of Christ, all mankind may be saved, by obedience to the laws and ordinances of the Gospel.
4 We believe that the first principles and ordinances of the Gospel are: first, Faith in the Lord Jesus Christ; second, Repentance; third, Baptism by immersion for the remission of sins; fourth, Laying on of hands for the gift of the Holy Ghost.
5 We believe that a man must be called of God, by prophecy, and by the laying on of hands by those who are in authority, to preach the Gospel and administer in the ordinances thereof.
6 We believe in the same organization that existed in the Primitive Church, namely, apostles, prophets, pastors, teachers, evangelists, and so forth.
7 We believe in the gift of tongues, prophecy, revelation, visions, healing, interpretation of tongues, and so forth.
8 We believe the Bible to be the word of God as far as it is translated correctly; we also believe the Book of Mormon to be the word of God.
9 We believe all that God has revealed, all that He does now reveal, and we believe that He will yet reveal many great and important things pertaining to the Kingdom of God.
10 We believe in the literal gathering of Israel and in the restoration of the Ten Tribes; that Zion (the New Jerusalem) will be built upon the American continent; that Christ will reign personally upon the earth; and, that the earth will be renewed and receive its paradisiacal glory.
11 We claim the privilege of worshiping Almighty God according to the dictates of our own conscience, and allow all men the same privilege, let them worship how, where, or what they may.
12 We believe in being subject to kings, presidents, rulers, and magistrates, in obeying, honoring, and sustaining the law.
13 We believe in being honest, true, chaste, benevolent, virtuous, and in doing good to all men; indeed, we may say that we follow the admonition of Paul—We believe all things, we hope all things, we have endured many things, and hope to be able to endure all things. If there is anything virtuous, lovely, or of good report or praiseworthy, we seek after these things.

Joseph Smith

These are the articles of faith and they can be found along with other important
scripture at www.lds.org

reply

Where do you guys come up with 'new plates'?

Smith translated the Book of Mormon by dictating it to Martin Harris (In an earlier post, I said Oliver Cowdry, I was incorrect, it was Harris.) Harris took 116 pages home to show to his wife. The pages he brought home were, (according to the church), lost or stolen. The Lord rebuked Smith and he lost the ability to translate for about 3 months. The lost 116 pages were the Book of Lephi. Somehow, that never got 're-translated.'

Personally, I believe the BoM was plagiarized by Sidney Rigdon from another book similar to the BoM...

reply

Where do you guys come up with 'new plates'?

Smith translated the Book of Mormon by dictating it to Martin Harris (In an earlier post, I said Oliver Cowdry, I was incorrect, it was Harris.) Harris took 116 pages home to show to his wife. The pages he brought home were, (according to the church), lost or stolen. The Lord rebuked Smith and he lost the ability to translate for about 3 months. The lost 116 pages were the Book of Lephi. Somehow, that never got 're-translated.'

Personally, I believe the BoM was plagiarized by Sidney Rigdon from another book similar to the BoM...

reply

What happened with the 116 pages is that Mormon, the historian to compiled all the seperate books in the BOM, had abridged the accounts of several of the books, including the 116 pages. Thus, although the BOM does not have a detailed account, the general idea of the lost pages are in there. Also, God was angry at Smith because he let Harris translate the book even though God had said no.

reply

To tell you the truth, as a Mormon, watching South Park makes me feel guilty. I'm not too fond of the vulgarity that makes the show famous. So, I don't watch it anymore.

reply

I was wondering what Mormons thought when/if they saw the episode.
As for the historical musical part of the episode I was a little bothered at the way it was represented because the obvious intent was to make it sound ridiculous. But hey it is South Park whatcha gonna do? But I did like that they were able to show that the Mormon kid was just like any other kid except he just had different religious beliefs. And I love how the family was so perfect and all the South Park kids wanted to hang with the Mormon dad more than their own dads mainly because this is an over exaggeration but then again I don't know how other religions view Mormon families. So yeah historically it was kind of disappointing but I'll get over it but overall not too bad. Its not like other religions don't have ridiculous sounding beliefs depending on how you represent them and also whether or not you believe them. I have to admit that I always have to stifle my amusement when the Jehovah's Witnesses set in telling me why I'm going to Hell.

"I'm not made of airports!" - CM Burns

reply

Josef Tura-2 said: "The episode for me was just funny until I read that the event they are describing actually took place. When the wife of one of Smith's associates hid the manuscript to see if there were really plates, then Smith found "new" plates kind of like the old plates but slightly different and in more detail. For me that is the nail in the coffin."

I think this is kind of funny. If you can accept any part of the Joseph Smith story and the translation of the plates then logically I don't see how this one aspect could kill the whole deal for you. It makes no sense to judge any religious story solely on the basis of fact and logic. I say that because I've never heard a single account of a spiritual event that had any physical proof, so it's never made sense to me to try to hold a story like this up to some standard that says this part sounds reasonable but that part doesn't.

reply

Previous Quote by Josef Tura-2:"I thought that the South Park guys liked the Mormons as people but just could not fathom what they believed."

Trey Parker of South Park fame was raised Mormon, so I'm quite certain he knows what they believe. Maybe more than a lot of still-active members.

And in response to the girl who started this post, they DO tell you that tithing is optional, yes, but every time I would miss a couple weeks tithing, although I was a teenager making nearly nothing, I was called into the bishop's office because my "records" showed an inconsistency and he wondered why, and what problems was I dealing with that would cause me to stop paying? So the "optional" thing is not QUITE that. And I was pretty offended that they kept records of my "optional" donations.

It's great that they help out families in need, also, but that depends on how you look at it. From experience I have seen families (my own as well) give their full tithing that they really can't/shouldn't spare, with the assurance that they will be blessed if they do so. Once in awhile, some of the members will hand-deliver these blessings/good deeds for these poor families by giving them food, helping with payments, giving them hand-me-downs & thrift items if Christmas ends up being difficult... which all sounds lovely, giving, and kind, yeah. But... if they weren't giving so much of their money to this "blessing fund", they'd have that money for Christmas, food, and necessary payments, right?... So these blessings aren't coming from God, but from the sympathetic members around them. Reminds me a bit of the story Robin Hood, because that church is already insanely rich. One of the richest. Why do they have to pressure the people that are living paycheck to paycheck to give give give?
Then again, I guess they wouldn't have gotten that rich by sitting around being compassionate. Struggling businesses should take a few notes.

And yes, some Mormons are really nice. But so are non-Mormons. Doesn't really say whether or not their religion or lack of religion is positive or negative.

reply

Wikipedia says Parker was raised a Buddhist, not a Mormon. And I don't know who your bishop was, but in my youth (and adulthood) I was never asked about tithing except in temple interviews. Sounds to me your experience is outside the norm.

reply

I'm Mormon , and I haven't seen the Southpark episode about Joseph Smith and the First Vision, but I've read the script , and it's about 99% accurate . the only thing I could find that was not accurate was the portrayal of JS as an adult at the time of the First Vision: he was 14 . Also, I'm pretty sure he wasn't platinum blonde , either.

reply

Trey & Matt love mormons, they are making them boatloads of money.

BTW, Oliver Cowdry transcibed most of Joseph Smith's 'dictation' of the Book of Mormon. (Smith held a hat over his face and looked at a seer stone when translating the Book of Mormon.) Cowdry convinced Smith to let him take home the first translated pages to show his wife. The following account of what happened is cloudy, but, ultimately, the pages were lost.

Smith 're-dicated' the first pages of the BoM to Cowdry, while looking into the seer stone in his hat. There were no 'new plates.'

reply

I'm a mormon and the South Park episode was HILARIOUS!! All the mormons I know thinks so, too. Almost as funny as Make Love, Not Warcraft.

reply

Geode,

Curious about your reaction to the Warren Jeffs scandal. What is your take: is he a victim or a victimizer?

"The thing I hate about an argument is that it always interrupts a discussion."
G. K. Chesterton

reply

Why do mormons feed off the blood of elderly hispanic people?

reply

Not all Bishops are bad some are good and actually help people, some abuse kids, most are somewhere in between. Everybody experience with the church is different the quality of the local leaders is a big factor.
I assume you did not serve an LDS mission the mission is the church at its most cult like. Just your experience with the LDS was good does not mean it was that way for the rest of us.

reply

Yes, I understand there are good mormons and bad mormons, just like there are good and bad catholics, protestants, clowns, pediatricians, german shephards, and politicians. Well, maybe not so many politicians. I wasn't trying to say that all mormons are great. I was simply trying to defend mormons against those that say they are all evil or brainwashed.

Its true that I did not serve an LDS mission, but all my best friends did. How is it like a cult, may i ask? It might seem strange that the LDS faith actively looks for members. I can't speak about the motives of the heads of the church (as I'm sure others might try to), but I can speak about how my friends felt about serving a mission. Its not to recruit new members for money, power, or whatever. They do it because they truly want to share their feelings about what they believe is the true church of god, and don't have any ulterior motives.

reply

Most serve a mission because they are pressured into it from Ward leaders , girlgriends ,family, etc. Cult asspects of the mission
Brainwashing
No free time
No free thinking
interupted sleep
comunal living
no money for food , healthcare , etc
all we did was serve the cult

reply

Are you sure its the mormons you're thinking of? I've lived in 3 different mormon communities while in the LDS church, and I've never experienced any of what you just listed. Its this kind of backwards thinking that gives birth to all different types of bigotry.

reply

I served a mission but was not pressured into it. Of the aspects that you mentioned, the only one that I experienced in my two years was communal living (and I was doing that in college anyway).

reply

actually my impression is that some missions are more like being in the military. Perhaps Dutcher chose the correct title his film, "God's Army" ?

Oh Lord, you gave them eyes but they cannot see...

reply

[deleted]

[deleted]

God, I hope you guys have lives outside of bashing the LDS faith on the internet. Isn't there anything better to do where you are?

reply

[deleted]

Dutcher goes to church no more. I guess that man was just to intelligent and talented to limit himself to the Mormon church.
I hadn't heard this before, but went to his webpage and found out that he has made his inactivity public. This was in a piece published in a Utah paper about the state of "LDS Cinema" at the present time in his opinion.
Family films? Forget that nonsense. There are so many well-behaved people of every religion on the planet who are eager and capable of producing such films. Mormons have something different, unique, vitally important to offer. Dedicate yourselves to making substantial films of elevated craft, undeniable artistry and potent themes.

In my experience, those who wave the flag of "family films" are usually those who have discovered that they lack anything valuable to say, the talent to say it, and the ability to compete in the marketplace. They are looking for a popular cause to compensate for (and to excuse) their lack of ability.

Concentrate on the presence of positives in your films, not merely the absence of negatives. Focus more on the presence of good acting, writing and cinematography and less on the absence of profanity, women's breasts and gunfights. Passionately adhere to the guideline that it is better to tell an R-rated truth than a G-rated lie.

Stop trying to make movies that you think the General Authorities would like. General Authorities buy very few movie tickets. Make films that the rest of the human family will enjoy. Stop being afraid that if you put something "edgy" in your films then maybe you won't get any important callings. Who cares? Someone else can be in the bishopric or the Relief Society presidency, but no one else can make those films, those very personal films, that only you can make.

Communities don't create great artists. Great artists, like great businessmen, are self-made. Recognize this. It will strengthen you against your community's occasional lack of understanding.

Grasp your potential. Begin the exploratory marriage of Mormonism and film. Combine the unknown depths of Mormonism with the untapped potential of film. The result will be the films the world needs.

I cannot tell you how much I have cared, and still care, about this movement. My love for the future of Mormon cinema has driven me to a passion that has expressed itself not only in my films, but (as you know) in bouts of public anger at filmmakers who, I believed, were killing a beautiful, unprecedented opportunity and a limitless potential. Miraculously, that opportunity and that potential still exist. It's just a little harder to see right now.

If this sounds like a farewell address ... well, it is.

Mormon doctrines are powerful and beautiful and have given great meaning to my life for more than 30 years. I'm sure they will always continue to inform not only my future work as a filmmaker, but also my private spiritual journey. But it does not appear that it will be my honor to make some of these films that the LDS community so desperately needs.

As many of you know, I am no longer a practicing member of the church. The private answers to the questions I have asked in my prayers, and in my films, have led me on an unexpected journey, a spiritual path which may ultimately prove incompatible with Mormon orthodoxy. This understanding has brought me some of the most profound surprises and also the deepest sadness of my life. It is very hard for me to say goodbye to something that I love.

Who knows? Maybe, like Oliver Cowdery (to whom I've always felt an uncommon kinship), my travels will someday lead back to Mormonism and to this effort. Such an end would be beautiful and, in a strange way, an answer to my prayers. But I don't know. One fundamental thing I have learned over the past few years is a genuine humility regarding my spiritual beliefs.

I know that some of you will not understand my decisions. Please know that I will always be not only a great friend to the Mormon community, but also one of its strongest defenders.

My brothers and sisters, I respectfully leave Mormon cinema in your capable -- and now seasoned -- hands. I hope that someday I will hear a few of your names mentioned in the company of the handful of filmmakers who have dared to explore human spirituality in film: Bergman, Bresson, Tarkovsky, Dreyer, Ozu, etc. One of my greatest hopes, of course (in true competitive spirit), is that one day my name will be at the very top of that list.

May God bless you in your individual and collective efforts. And may Mormon cinema one day achieve its powerful and beautiful potential. May it be "the praise and glory of the whole earth."
http://www.heraldextra.com/content/view/217694/1/

What can I say ? I came to a similar point in my life as Richard Dutcher and like him I guess it will be noticed that I will still defend Mormons when I feel they are being treated unfairly. I understand that Keith Merrill attempted to take Dutcher to task for some his comments. I will have to look these up, but quite frankly Merrill's efforts that have shown in the Joseph Smith building are not particularly powerful or good...as Dutcher mentions here. President Hinckley charged Merrill with making the best possible films, but they are hamstrung by Mormon policies. Merrill is not really a particularly good director despite his Academy Award and his scripts are definitely lacking.
Look at the movies that play on the screen of the theater in the Joseph Smith Memorial Building. These films are the introduction of Mormonism to hundreds of thousands of people from across the globe. Shouldn't these be the most powerful films on the face of the earth? For whatever reason -- nepotism, ignorance ... who knows? -- this opportunity is squandered. Why not share with visitors the beauty and power of Mormonism, rather than treating them to polite, remedial and not-so-factual recitations of Mormon History and scripture? Viewers should leave those films weak in the knees, their minds reeling, their spirits soaring. Film has the power to do that.


Oh Lord, you gave them eyes but they cannot see...

reply

Great comments by Duther. I really love his films and perspective on things.

Thanks for posting that Geode!

reply

Mormonism desperately needs excellent filmmakers who understand the language of cinema, the eloquence of images.

As for commercial Mormon cinema, LDS artists sometimes complain that more church members should support their efforts. Nonsense! Mormon film should not be supported. It must not and cannot exist on the charity of the audience. And certainly not on the charity of investors.

No art should have to be supported. If it is high quality, if it is compelling, if it is something that people want, they will buy it. They will seek it out. If Mormon cinema has to be supported in order to survive, it shouldn't survive.

A few parting words: I urge you to put the moronic comedies behind you. If you're going to make comedies, at least make them funny. Perhaps you should leave the mockery of Mormons to the anti-Mormons. They've had a lot more experience and, frankly, they do a better job.

Reach higher. Don't just "make a movie." Make the movie. If you knew you only had two years to live, and that you could only make one more movie, what movie would it be? What do you want your children to understand? What do you want to understand before you die?
Yes, he has really grown as a fimmaker with each film that he made. He has turned into a fine director, but is also a gifted writer. The funny thing is that of all the talents he excels at, I think his best is as an actor.

Oh Lord, you gave them eyes but they cannot see...

reply

Although I have had a DVD copy for months I have not gotten around to watching "States of Grace"....for which I saw a couple of stunning reviews. I would guess that it is in fact his best film to date. I guess Dutcher was being rather open about his activity way back last year.

My wife and kids predominantly attend the LDS church, but I'm so busy that I'm really not active in that community any more. I travel so much, and I find myself just choosing whatever service appeals to me that week. When I'm in Burbank, I attend a Catholic church. And I've recently noticed a Greek Orthodox church across the street, so I'll probably hit that too.
http://www.christianitytoday.com/movies/interviews/richarddutcher.html

Oh Lord, you gave them eyes but they cannot see...

reply

ok. i know to some people on here they will be mad at my comments either thinking i am brainwashed or if you are defending mormons, thinking i am naive. but this is the short and simple truth according to me.
religion is not necessarily a group activity. i mean i love that i can go to church on sunday and activities during the week and there are people there who believe the same thing as me and we can stand together. but it is a personal relationship with our heavenly father, and the savior. now as i said before, i'm pretty sure i will get attacked in some form or another, but just hear me out. listen.... I AM MORMON. i love being mormon. it has brought some of the greatest joys and blessings and promises my heart could enjoy. i am humbled to believe in something so wonderful and beautiful, whether you do or not. you make think i am brainwashed, well, fine. i don't think i am brainwashed, but go ahead you have your own opinion. IMHO, i believe that this world has totally been brainwashed by the media and the belief and "public standard" of what is acceptable to the public. in this world. it's ok to kill people and sleep around and have an afair on your spouse in movies music and everyday news. why is this ok? why is this normal to everyone? who decided that this is how the world should be and that it has become a form of entertainment. i don't think it's funny when i guy shoots his wife or when anyone kills for that matter. or any of the things i above mentioned. and i know, you're all gonna say i'm too sheltered and... again "brainwashed". so what. whats wrong with not drinking or smoking/ doing drugs. whats wrong with not swearing, being vulgar, or gossiping. whats wrong with waiting to have sex until you're married, and only having sex with that your spouse. whats wrong with wanting a mom a dad and children. you guys seem to think that we are all crazy zealots that have no choices and believe in "rediculous" doctrine. doctrine aside. we are good people who live good lives. we have families, children, we as adults and married couples try to stick together and not divorce like most of the nation for stupid things. we don't drink or smoke, we try hard not to talk bad about others. of course we are not perfect. and i don't know a single mormon who would tell you they were. WE ARE NOT POLYGAMISTS ANYMORE. yes we were. i would never try to pretend like it didn't happen. i have been LDS my whole life and have never even met a polygamists. in personally don't want my husband to have more than me as a wife. but we beieve in the doctrine behind, so thats that. we try to be kind to others, and serve others. most religions try to do things like that. i know doctrine aside, catholics, methodists, protestants, baptists, evangelical, ANYBODY! believes in serving others. and that is one of the main points of our religion. you guys can argue about doctrine till you're all blue in the face. now face it. we believe it's real and true doctrine, and you don't. everyone believes in different things. thats what an opinion is called. and the whole goal is to respect people enough to respect peoples opinions. didn't anyones mother teach them not to be judgemental. i'm sure lots of people have had bad experiences with mormons and non-mormons alike. everyone has bad days and again, no one is perfect. not even us. but for a general majority of active members, we try to be as good and faithful as we can. i'm sorry you guys have had bad experiences. i have too. and i am mormon. some people are just not nice. it's more a case of that's there personality, not there religous backround. i am not perfect, even in my own religion. i have been a dumb teenager and "sinned" if you will. i did many things i was not supposed under our religion. but i believe that i was doing wrong at the time. and i repented and tried to change. i sometimes wish you guys would just sit and watch a mormon for a day. you would see we are normal just like you. we get annoyed, we say things that are mean, but we try to be good. we try to be better than we are at those moments. seriously i wish you could see one mormon for a whole day. maybe you would see A: we aren't as weird as you think. and B: we are good people just trying to live our quiet lives. yes, we want people to come to find the happiness we feel by believing what we do. whats wrong with wanting other people to be happy? if you don't like mormons, ask the missionaries not to bug you. my boyfriend( yes i have a boyfriend, and yes he is a missionary, they are normal people too) works in an area that is predominantly baptist. so not many people want to listen, but he is just sharing his belief with them. and even if they say no. he treats them the same, and helps them as much as he can with anything in their lives like fixing a house or something like that. so please be nice to these missionaries. they are giving up two years of their lives at home to do what they believe to be right. no for heavens sakes they are not forced. my brother is strong mormon and didn't go on a mission. and yes he could still be married in our mormon temple. your are not condemned for not going. it is encouraged, but you are not forced. and if people say they are, well, maybe they have a different opinion of being forced than others do. sorry to ramble on. but people. let us be. we (again as a general majority) do not bug you about your religion so don't bug us about ours. most of us want to live happy quiet lives believing what we believe. i know this is a poorly structured argument. but i don't care. the main point here is, we are good people who believe in living good lives and doing good things to help others. and i am happy to call myself a mormon. and i would stand up for it everyday of my life. if you want to fight me or have questions, i am open for a nice calm discussion. please feel free. thanx for listneing......

reply

[deleted]

Did you go to school in Utah? The absence of capital letters for I and at the beginning of sentences distracted from the lengthy point you were typing. Commas and correct spelling are also good things.


If you went to school in Utah or the South, I can understand it.

Meanwhile, if you gain whatever it is you need from the mormon church, then good for you. Go to all the meetings and temples you want in peace. No nonmormon would stop you.

However, please tell your relatives and good members that the rest of the world doesn't have to agree with you on any of this. As you pleaded in your post, we'll ask the same of mormons...Let us be!

Someone like Dutcher, that got out into the world well beyond mormonism, found it a pretty wonderous place with people who are kind and giving AND creative. Good for him! He said he was on a spiritual journey and I am anxious to see where that leads him.
I think I already know somewhat the direction that Richard Dutcher is heading in terms of a spiritual journey as he seems to have "telegraphed" this somewhat already. I watched "States of Grace" last night, and perhaps his main point or theme is that Christ loves all of us no matter how our actions fail to live up to good or ideal behaviour, that His forgiveness is a given, and that we should extend understanding and forgiveness to others. He also seems to be showing his belief that Christ can be found by all those who seek Him regardless of the groups or sects to which they belong. It seems to me that Dutcher feels as I do, that true faith in Christ is the same for Mormons and other Christians. He has created a film that has a community that has seekers that are from various "churches" including some identified specifically as Baptists, Pentecostals, Lutherans, and Mormons. I gave what I feel is a similar opinion in another thread, that Christ's outlook is more towards inclusion rather the exclusion. That is probably one of the things that I count as a postive from growing up Mormon. But that is my vantage point, and I would guess some would disagree with me about that.

Richard Dutcher decided to take the course that I have taken and has separated himself from Mormon worship, at least to some degree. However, I doubt we will see him make caustic attacks on Mormons and Mormonism as some of the ex-members do on this board.

P.S. I don't think there are statistics to support your implied criticism of the Utah educational system.

Oh Lord, you gave them eyes but they cannot see...

reply

[deleted]

Sorry Geode, I have several reasons for making that comment.

I'm speaking from first hand experience of teaching in the great state of Utah - fifty-first in student expenditure behind Puerto Rico. Teachers in Utah are not required to pass board exams to student teach. Needless to say, the level of instruction is uneven and when I first started at the school I was at for six years, there was no adopted curriculum. The requirements are vastly different for teachers. Case in point, WA state requires a substitute teacher to have a four year degree in education. In UT, a GED is all that is required.
Now that you mention it I think I saw the low expenditures in Utah mentioned in an article some months ago. But do you have stats showing that students from Utah are more likely not to use caps, not to think about breaking thoughts into paragraphs, or to have other difficiencies in written language skills ? On the other hand can you supply any statistics that show that the expenditures per student is really an indicator that Utah lags behind other states in student's writing abilities because of this factor ?
Can Money Buy Better Schools?

By Hanna Skandera and Richard Sousa

Is spending more money the way to improve our public schools? In a word, no. By Hoover fellow Hanna Skandera and Hoover associate director Richard Sousa.

There is a common perception that the way to improve our failing public schools is to spend more money on them. According to many public school administrators, the amount we spend per pupil is an excellent way to affect student performance. Yet a review of the data over the past 80 years shows that this is not necessarily the case. In fact, increases in per-pupil expenditures in the past have often not been matched by increased student performance. In short, the evidence suggests that we cannot simply buy better schools.

Spending per student has increased markedly over time. According to the U.S. Department of Education, in the 1919–20 school year, expenditures per pupil (in constant 2000–2001 dollars) were $367. By 1960, real expenditures had more than quintupled. In the 2000–2001 school year, per-pupil expenditures were approximately $7,000—nearly 20 times as high as in the 1919–20 school year.

Where have the resources gone and what are the results? Special education is often cited as a primary contributor to increased per-pupil costs. Although special education has grown rapidly in recent years (approximately 13 percent of students are now designated as special-education students) and per-pupil expenditures for special education are more than twice the cost of regular education, such growth still does not account for the bulk of school spending. Cost data on special education are difficult to track, but according to recent estimates, special-education student expenditures accounted for less than 20 percent of expenditure growth between 1980 and 1990.

Three additional factors have contributed to increased expenditures: (1) falling pupil-teacher ratios (i.e., more teachers); (2) rising teacher salaries; and (3) growth in expenditures for things other than instructional salaries.

Between 1970 and 1995, per-pupil expenditures increased by more than 75 percent. During that time period, the pupil-teacher ratio decreased by 25 percent, the percentage of teachers with advanced degrees doubled, and median teacher experience nearly doubled. With more teachers in the system, and with teacher pay linked to increases in credentials and experience, higher per-pupil spending resulted. Furthermore, between the 1969–70 and 1995–96 school years, “administration expenditures” increased by more than 80 percent and “other school services” accounted for nearly 18 percent of total public education expenditures, an increase of almost 200 percent (see table 1).

More teachers with advanced degrees and more experience, and more teachers per student, should lead to better educational outcomes. The evidence, however, does not support that conclusion. During the same quarter-century that these educational resources were being increased, student achievement remained flat, as measured by the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) (see table 2).

The contradiction of increased resources and flat achievement suggests that resource shortages may not be the sole culprit for low levels of student performance. This is not to say that resources do not matter but that there is no simple cause-and-effect relationship.

Recent studies reinforce the disconnect between spending and achievement. For example, the American Legislative Exchange Council’s (ALEC) “Report Card on American Education, a State-by-State Analysis 1976– 2000” concluded that “it is clear after studying the data and results that the policies of the past have failed to meet the educational needs of our country’s children. If we continue to spend more money on the existing educational system in an attempt to buy our way to better student achievement, we will condemn another generation of students to mediocrity.” The ALEC study showed no correlation between conventional measures of educational inputs (such as expenditures per pupil and teacher salaries) and educational outputs (such as scores on standardized tests). Simply stated, increased funding does not translate into improved achievement.

An analysis of per-pupil expenditures on a state-by-state basis is illuminating. For example, in the 1998–99 school year, Utah spent $3,807 per pupil whereas Maryland spent $7,059. There is little evidence to suggest that equalizing resources between the two states would equalize achievement. In the 1998 NAEP, 31 percent of eighth graders in both Utah and Maryland scored at proficient or better in reading, despite the large discrepancy in per-pupil expenditures. Also, based on several standardized tests, the ALEC report rated Iowa (ranked 32d in per-pupil expenditures) as having the top-performing public elementary and secondary schools in the nation, followed by Minnesota (14th in spending) and Wisconsin (9th). At the bottom of the achievement ratings were Mississippi (50th in spending), the District of Columbia (5th), and Louisiana (39th).


Expenditures per student have increased over time, and the distribution of the expenditures has been according to popular emphasis: The level of teacher education has increased, teacher experience has increased, and student-teacher ratios have fallen. But the desired outcome—student achievement—has remained flat.

If increased resources are not at the heart of improved student achievement, what is? One possible answer is that resources need to be allocated differently rather than simply increased. For example, the present teacher pay system provides no way to distinguish between a good teacher and a bad teacher. Both can expect the same salary and promotion pattern, regardless of the performance of their students. The evidence suggests that resources are not the sole solution to poor student achievement; that financial incentives for teachers may be their necessary partner.
http://www.hoover.org/publications/digest/4495906.html
Why do you think UTAH school districts are having to toughen the requirements for high school graduation now? I'll tell you, the system is designed for students to register for college, do a year or two and then go on a mission or get married and start having babies. There is a high rate of students graduating from high school, but then what happens? Yes, many do go on to degrees and productive lives, but many don't.
Interesting idea, but the Mormon families I have known in Utah and elsewhere stressed education more than what is average for Americans, and tended to have high achieving children. Your point of toughening high school graduation requiements is not clear to me. Is it that this will produce superior results to allow entry to colleges or universities, or to suffice as the highest level of education for those who do not ? Your thought seems to have become a little lost in another attempt to take a swipe at Mormonism. School districts are having to toughen requirements to allow people to drop out after one or two years of college so they can go on missions and have babies ?
Case in point, several years ago I was on a hiring committee in a district in WA state. We interviewed a PhD from Utah State University and hired that person for a school psychologist position. When they turned their credentials into the state for licensure, they were told that they did not have enough post graduate preparation to be considered a PhD in WA state. That person had to go to an additional year of schooling to have their doctoral degree. They had been hired to be a school psychologist, yet, they had never, in Utah, given any psycho-educational test to a student. In other words, they had no experience in the field they were supposedly a PhD level graduate in.
I find this confusing. A PhD from an accredited institution is not accepted as a valid degree ? What post graduate preparation are we talking about, some that would occur after being granted a doctorate ? In that case the person would have a valid degree, but perhaps not meet some other requirement for a state license. In my field having a PhD from any university will not qualify a person for a license in the states that have licences. In the case you cit did the person have a doctorate in psychology but not training in school psychology ? I'm not sure that your attempt to give the impression that degrees from Utah State are inadequate is very convincing.
Other states do not recognize seminary on high school transcripts, save perhaps southern Idaho.
So what ? This sounds like a red herring to me in terms of this discussion.
Now back to the rest of my comment, I stand by it as I have lived outside of the church for many, many years and know what non-mormons feel about mormons.
Which comments are you talking about ? I have lived oustide of the church for a long time as well. There is a wide range of opinions.

Oh Lord, you gave them eyes but they cannot see...

reply

alright. it is not a case of me being, "uneducated". it's a simple case of I am not going to waste my time on an IMDB board to use correct grammar and punctuation expecting that my paper is going to be graded by random Bill or Sue. you knew what i was saying, you knew what i meant. what difference does it make if my "I"'s are in caps or not. and in answer to your response, I do leave you all be. I am not trying to convert you, or change the way you think. good for you. I mean that sincerely. it's not a case of we stay close only to those who are mormon. we are not all inclusive to our own kind. one of my best friends is gay and i love him to death. thats one of the things they teach us. even if we don't agree, we have our opinion and they have theirs. we should be kind to each other none the less. the only thing i was encouraging here is that you see we are normal people, and that we are good people.

reply

alright. it is not a case of me being, "uneducated". it's a simple case of I am not going to waste my time on an IMDB board to use correct grammar and punctuation expecting that my paper is going to be graded by random Bill or Sue. you knew what i was saying, you knew what i meant. what difference does it make if my "I"'s are in caps or not. and in answer to your response, I do leave you all be. I am not trying to convert you, or change the way you think. good for you. I mean that sincerely. it's not a case of we stay close only to those who are mormon. we are not all inclusive to our own kind. one of my best friends is gay and i love him to death. thats one of the things they teach us. even if we don't agree, we have our opinion and they have theirs. we should be kind to each other none the less. the only thing i was encouraging here is that you see we are normal people, and that we are good people.
The comments about the lower case letters, etc. in your post were a classic example of the debating technique of making personal attacks upon the person taking a position in an attempt to cast doubt or disapproval on that position. I knew what you were saying, but I will admit that I found your long post very hard to get through since it was all clumped together. Your comments would make a better impression and carry more weight if put in a more readable format. I fear that your comments in this latest post might be taken as defending laziness. I shouldn't admit this, but I find the all too common use of the lower case "i" to be very irritating. I guess this is my problem, but it is true.

Oh Lord, you gave them eyes but they cannot see...

reply

[deleted]

[deleted]

It's interesting that you see Geode's ability to be open-minded about all aspects of the LDS faith as a "religious crisis". He's been very open about having left the LDS church and he has never seemed to have any issues with that decision. He obviously does not believe that the LDS church is everything it claims to be yet he does not see evil in every aspect of it like some on this board.

reply

ok. well, I apoligize for not making it readable to you. I get that. ok. fine. I just wanted my point out there. whether you prefer the way I chose to display my opinion or not. I said what i wanted to say and i'm glad. I am just a curious spectator who wanted to see what other people really think of mormons. and I can see at least for you that is not much. well, I am sure you are a nice person, and I can respect your opinion. my point was made. and I did what I set out to do. of course i will still read this message board cause i'm curious where these arguments will go. but thanks for at least letting me say all I had to. whether it was readable to you or not.

reply

I think Geode is just one moody fellow.
I can be at times.
I guess he's in the middle of a religious crises right now. His opinions seem to change from day to day and he cant make up his mind of what he really thinks.
This has little or no basis in fact. If I am in a religious "crisis" it has been going on now for 20 years with not a lot of change in my thinking. I don't think my opinions have changed at all from day to day, but have been consistent about any given topic. I have consistently either supported or taken exception with aspects of Mormonism.
One day he is critical of the lds religion and it's teachings, the next day he is the lds biggest defender.
One day I might posting about a subject and I am pointing out unfair or untrue comments about the LDS church, another day I might be posting about a different subject and being critical of an LDS idea. I doubt you can point out any topic where I have changed my position. This is not really the "us" versus "them situation that you seem to think exists here. I think you and others simply lack the perception to see that there are shades of grey in what we discuss here.
And when he cant think of a good argument when debating, he attack peoples writing skills instead. Very cranky individual to say the least!
Witch of my posts might you be thinking about ? On the hole, I think you are making too big a deal about this for I may have pointed out bad spelling or writing problems two or three times out of many dozens of posts. I also have generally been making very good arguments at these times. Actually I am making good points about writing skills when I have done so. I will admit that many in the generations that were taught to read using "phonics" have written language skills that are equally amusing and irritating to me. People who learned to read using phonics who actually do read very much on their own seem to use proper spelling, those who do not make a hole lot of mistakes witch is what I am pointing out here.

Oh Lord, you gave them eyes but they cannot see...

reply

See, for my LDS mission in South America, mom and dad gave me a Visa tied to their high-yield CD and checking account. So I didn’t starve. The LDS Church has access to the best and most reliable insurance in the world, whether it is for auto, health, etc. South American missionaries are treated at some of the continent’s best hospitals and they never have to pay a dime to the church.

I’m an ex-Mormon and was kicked out of BYU last year for being gay. I don’t look at the Church fondly but I don’t necessarily decry it as a cult either.

From one RM to another… the church is controlling and its leaders can be manipulative, but it wasn’t *that* cultish.

reply

To a certain extent, any group that sets itself apart and acts in a secretive manner--and the mormon church does this to at least a certain extent--is going to be viewed with some suspicion if not downright hostility. Look at the Masons and consider all the flak they catch.

But what really gets to a lot of people in more traditional Christian faiths is that some Mormon beliefs are so completely at odds with very basic Christian precepts. The whole "As Man is, God once was, as God is, Man may become," idea is just patently offensive to most Christians. It's blasphemy. It's so central to Judaeo-Christian (as well as Muslim) thinking that there is only one God, that the LDS idea of multiple Gods---and the conceit that men may become Gods---really puts mormons out in left field. I don't think the LDS church will ever be accepted by the other Christian faiths so long as this idea survives.

And in my experience, most mormons are very touchy about this belief. The next time you are approached by mormon missionaries ask them if they believe in more than one God. They will give you some canned response like, "We believe in our Heavenly Father." Persist, and they will get frustrated or mad, but in my experience they will neither refute or confirm the belief.

I am at best a very, very skeptical agnostic, but I find the belief that one may someday attain godhood extremely offensive, and this idea, more than any other, put the mormons dangerously close to the "cult" label.

reply

It is a very misunderstood belief. You ought to understand that Mormon doctrine is that men can become LIKE or AS God but not become a God.

The central tenet being that men and women will, in the next life, be able to produce spiritual offspring in the same way that God has created all of us. But it is important to realize that we do not teach that man will somehow be a God or replace Christ. There is one Savior, Christ's sacrifice is considered by us to be infinite and eternal.

reply

How unbelievable is that?
You've already attested to the fact that Smith had enemies and enemies with motive.

How would they know how to forge Martin Harris' handwriting? Would not their "forgery" be easily proved?
Oh... because forgery has never been committed? This happened in the 1820's. CSI wasn't around. And assuming the general public was anything like some of those on this board - an "incorrect translation" wouldn't be scrutinized much as it would only be used to support their foregone conclusion that Smith was a fraud.

reply

[deleted]

If God was protecting him by giving him knowledge of these evil plans, then how come nothing happened? The missing pages never surfaced? No side by side comparison?
Nothing happened because he didn't re-translate that part of the book. Therefore there was nothing for the stolen pages to be compared against. Did you miss that part of the story? I suppose Lucy or whoever had them could have come forward and said "hey, look - I have the pages that Smith never re-translated" but to what end?

reply

[deleted]

[deleted]

[deleted]

Richard,

...which they knew that he did so they never used the forged pages
Right, it wasn't a secret when he published the Book of Mormon and they would have been able to tell that he left out that part.

In the grand scheme of things religious, the story of the lost manuscript is quite plausible and logical. Like I said, there are better stories out there if you are looking to discredit Smith, you've mentioned a couple.

reply

[deleted]

Sorry for the slow response - I spent the last week on an island in the Pacific enjoying some time away from my office & computer. If you've moved on and lost interest in this discussion, I understand.

The missing pages is an interesting story because it shows a con man in action. Making a mistake, he creates a conspiracy against to counter the possibility of getting found out. It is a perfect example of the type of counter double actions that Prophet Joe used to make himself bullet proof.
Your statement is only true if Smith's version is false. And there is nothing to indicate that his account couldn't have been true. You have hypothesized that Smith made up the conspiracy against him but you can't make that jump from hypothesis to conclusion. So what you are saying is simply conjecture.

The missing pages would have exploded the Church from the inside if they had surfaced.
How?

The Church did have vocal critics with plenty of information to use: the bizzare account from the linguistic professor who Smith claimed had declared his translations were perfect (this NEVER happened), the lingering suspicion around MANUSCRIPT FOUND and the role of Sidney Rigdon in creating the early chruch.
I'm curious - how do you conclude that the linguistics professor account never happened? What is the lingering suspicion around the manuscript found and Rigdon's role? Have I forgotten something having been away for a week?

reply

Is it me, or is there alot of effort being put forth about 166 pages of something (the Book of Mormon) that if you don't believe doesn't matter at all, if you do, is the cornerstone of a faith.

166 pages...whoopdeedoo! Ever read Lord of the Rings? Didn't have time but you watched the movie. I miss Tom Bombadil. How could they not have'em in it. And what about Old Man Willow! And...and...Sauraman getting impaled like that! Wormtounge not killing 'em in the Shire like he's supposed to! Strider has a kid? What's that all about! And that's just a scratch on the surface!

They ruined it completely! It's not J.R.R. Tolkien's Lord of the Ring. It's a fraud, a farce, a weak and empty thing. You jump behind that flag and you're as fake as those who created it.

Lehi or Nephi doesn't even matter. Not really. Bash the faith to pieces if you must. I don't mind. I really don't. I actually encourage you to find fault with it. Please. Because when all is said and done, we're still standing and we will still offer you a hand in pure friendship.

As every member will tell you, we believe in Christ. The Book of Mormon is simply a translation. Nothing more. Notta. Try translating English to Japanese and back again, that's gotta be hard!

But, should you wish to really delve into it, be my guest. I've more of a life and better things to do with my time here on earth than debate the validity or credibility of a document or person.

P.S. I've read LOTR several times, and own the DVD collectors editions. Maybe I do need more of a life.

Just do us all a favour and read the 13 Articles of Faith and save a little time before demonstrating your ignorance and intolerance of a faith.

Ye who screams loudest, has the least to say!

reply

In my opinion, this is a very good summary of the Church. They have a terrible reputation that they do not deserve, even if they do have a dark history.

reply

[deleted]

I know alot of you will think I'm a hypocrite, but that's not what I am tryingto convey by this. i agree with rachel. even I a mormon do find that confusing. and it is contradictory in aspects. like I said before I would be upset if I had to be involved with that. I want to be my husbands one and only wife. the reason we did that. is because of this. plain and simple.

there are more women in the world. and in our church (then and now) there are more women. the goal is to make it to heaven (we call it the celestial kingdom. debate with me all you want) and the men wanted to provide that opportunity for the reason i mentioned. there are simply more women.

I don't pretend to say that there weren't other "advantages" that these men took by living this way. or that I know how they thought or why they did this other than the above mentioned back then. but it's like people who are of german descent.

Now I in no way mean any disrespect to anyone who is german. quite the contrary. people to this day who are german in backround still have people who hate them for the halocaust. and it has nothing to do with them. you can't blame people now for what happened in their past. but by the same token. there are people who believe the halocaust never happened. and in that regard. at least me, I would never pretend like the MMM didn't happen. or other events in our history. they are not our proudest moments. but don't blame us for what our great great grandparents did. we are not them, and we are different people.

reply

[deleted]

Who, exactly, is blaming current members of the LDS church for the Mountain Meadow Massacre?

The only criticism I've seen here is directed towards those who ape the official church propaganda of denying, marginalizing or otherwise trying to lessen the massacre; well deserved criticism IMO.

It's exceedingly curious to watch Mormons freak out whenever the MMM is mentioned as if they themselves were being personally attacked.

reply

The Book of Mormon includes things which don't agree with what the Scripture says happened...
The Book of Mormon only disagrees with some interpretations of the Bible.

...and it adds freely to Scripture, which the Bible states God will not countenance.
The Bible doesn't actually say that.

To borrow a line from the book "The Godmakers," "Since when did real servants of God bow to godless government edicts and compromise their faith for expediency's sake or to save their own skins?" The history of Christianity is the history of martyrs for the true faith.
Nobody can argue that the Mormons haven't had their share of martyrs for the faith. The early church members sacrificed everything for their faith: friends, property, homes, family, and their own lives.

The Church continued to teach polygamy for many years under threat from the Government. Members and leaders were in hiding for years and some served prison sentences. It eventually reached a point where the church would soon be forced out of existence. President Woodruff was given a vision of what would happen in the practice of polygamy continued and was told by the Lord that the practice should stop. You cannot be intellectually honest and claim that they LDS church easily caves to government pressure.

It comes with centering your faith on the changing "revelations" of mere men rather than on God's Word.
Actually, at least for me, it comes from centering my faith on Christ.

reply

[deleted]

[deleted]

I don't typically reply to posts regarding Mormonism or even movies for that matter, but I figured I'd share what I consider to be not only coherent but correct thoughts on:

Those precise, exact words? No. What it says is,

Pr 30:5 Every word of God is pure: he is a shield unto them that put their trust in him.
6 Add thou not unto his words, lest he reprove thee, and thou be found a liar.

Re 22:18 For I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book, If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book:
19 And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book.

The words "God will not countenance" are not in there; you are correct. But they don't need to be. One gets the definite impression that God isn't pleased with those who add to His Word.


We should all agree that simply quoting one scripture without analyzing its background, intent, etc (what I mean are all relevant facts) is pretty meaningless. What I'm trying to say is let's keep in mind that each book within the Bible was written independently of the other; each has a different author (although some authors like Moses wrote several books). So when John, in Revelation, writes "...if any man shall add unto these things..." it is quite reasonable that he is referring to changes made to those specific writings, ie the Book of Revelation. Further analyzing the relevant facts would tell us that the Book of Revelation was written chronologically before other writings in the New Testament (John's own epistle, I believe, possibly among others). While Revelation is the last book in the New Testament, it was not the last book to be written. I believe we'd all agree that John's future writings that we now have in the Bible have not merited John's condemnation.

Regarding martyrs for the faith- this issue had nothing to do with polygamy. What about the extermination order that was issued by MO Governor Boggs? To my knowledge this stands alone in US history that a group of people was expelled from such a large area, even a state, and by government authority. I presume many died from local hostility resulting from this extermination order. These people were no less martyrs for their faith than the many others that have lost their lives in their causes.

http://www.fairlds.org is a good resource for refuting many of the ridiculous claims by the anti-mormon community.

I am not ashamed to call myself a Mormon, after all I know that by abiding the principles that my religion teaches I will be a better person. I live a happy life. I find it amusing that so much opposition faces us because honestly people, what have we done to you?

reply

[deleted]

But do you know why that order was given to kill all Mormons? It was because the mormons incited alot of hate and animosity where ever they went. the Mormons activities back East that has been even more hidden.
Everywhere they went, they boasted that the Lord had sent them there, and that it was "their's to take" in a sense. They were not only guilty of many illegal activities, but they boasted of their voting block, etc. -- making them a very, very scary bunch to the local people. They were definately guilty of inciting people's hatred of them. The Haun's Mill Massacre was directly related to some recent illegal activities of the Mormons (all of the details escape me at the moment)except for....Sidney Rigdon’s 1838 "Fourth of July Oration" that threatened the state of Missouri with what Rigdon called a "war of extermination between the Mormons and the non-Mormon citizens." Smith certainly didn’t ease tensions when he reprinted Rigdon’s speech into a pamphlet. Making it clear that Mormons were not at all pacifists, the voiceover stated, “The Mormons retaliated. They drove Missourians off their land and burned their homes.”
And only 18 mormon men lost their lives compared to the innocent 120 women and children that was lost in the MMM, 18 was nothing.
Everywhere they went, they tried to bully people, and take control. They
were definately not "innocent victims" (except the poor women and children
who just "went along" with the violent men, since they had absolutely NO say
in anything!

reply

What...

Your dislike of Mormonism has clouded your judgement.

Boasting of a voting block? Guilty of inciting people's hatred of them?

They might have been part of the fight, but KILLING PEOPLE ISN'T THE RIGHT ANSWER. You are basically defending the persecution and killing of an annoying group of people.

That isn't adult behavior. That isn't rational behavior.

Also, it is a ridiculous comparison saying that it is ok that people died at Hauns Mill because they just killed more people later.

Seriously, your arguments are weak.

reply

Ask most Bible scholars, and they'll tell you those aren't the names of Christ's disciples.
The names you referenced refer to disciples that Christ called on the American continent after his resurrection (see 3rd Nephi Chapter 12).

The words "God will not countenance" are not in there; you are correct. But they don't need to be. One gets the definite impression that God isn't pleased with those who add to His Word.
This is such a common argument against the Book of Mormon and so simple to refute. Proverbs and Revelations were separate books written at different times by different authors. What we know as the Bible was not known to them. So they had to be referring to something different. What that would be is up for some interpretation. But they clearly can't be saying that what they had written was the final word... the Bible itself contradicts that interpretation.

Regarding polygamy and martyrs: As you noted the early church members clearly showed their willingness to die for their faith. If polygamy had been taught as something that must be done in order to receive salvation, I think they would have gone to prison for it. But that wasn't the case - it wasn't taught as something that must be done to receive salvation.

We believe in a prophet who leads the church and that prophet was given a vision that showed him that the mission of the church could not go forward if polygamy continued to be practiced. He felt it was consistent with the Lord's will that the church move forward and that polygamy end.

Certainly. But where do you learn of Him?
Scripture.

In the Bible, we're urged to be like the Bereans, who checked everything they were told with Scripture to see that it was so. If we feel we're being led by the Holy Spirit, we can be sure if we look to God's Word. If we hear something from a religious leader, we can be sure of it by looking to God's Word. It is there, we are told, "That the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works." (2Ti 3:17)
And we in the LDS church believe the same.

reply

Jeff is basically correct in my opinion about the tired criticism of the Book of Mormon that comes from the direction that the Book of Revelation states that nothing can be added. After all it says "the prophecy of this book" and "the book of this prophecy" which clearly indicates to me, as it does to many scholars, that these words only refer to the Book of Revelation. The Bible had not been assembled when it was written. When it was assembled it was composed of several books.

Oh Lord, you gave them eyes but they cannot see...

reply

Certainly. But where do you learn of Him?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Scripture.

Scripture???????? Fact here - Scriptures were written by man. Historically speaking, History of mankind and scriptures are written by men in power to control others. Given the fact the "Bible' has been re-written many times and about one people...puuulease. How about the fact that JS changed his story about meeting God the Father many times. He would change things like, he saw angels, then to he saw God the Father, then it was God the Father and Jesus, he even changed the age he witnessed this. He changed his story so many times that the church finally had to stick with only one version. How does one keep changing a story like seeing God face to face. Logically, If he really saw him, he would have remembered everything. How can you follow a church that has to change it's history so much to make the "facts" fit???? Atleast the bible had actual places.

Polygamy????? JS made that up so that he could make it legal to sleep with as many women as he wanted. JS was basically a horny con artist. And did so behind his wife's back, he married very young women as young as14 years old, to even marrying women who were married to living men. That's what got Pratt killed.

Mormons weren't always persecuted. They dished it out alot too. As I have stated before JS was not jailed and killed because of religious persecution, he got was coming to him because of the things he did.

I dont mean anyone to get hurt or anything, and I would never wish that but...... Isnt it Ironic how the missionaries in Utah had to be evacuated yesterday due to fires, guess Romney couldn't get the wall built between Utah and Hell fast enough. or was it Karma coming back to bite the MORmONS in the arse????????

reply

Jena,

You are certainly entitled to reject scripture but there aren't many other places to read of Christ.

You are also welcome to your opinion though it comes across more as bitterness than anything else.

p.s. Did something sticky get under your question mark key?

p.p.s. That's so creative how you capitalized the word "morons" in "Mormons". I've never seen that before.

reply

That's so creative how you capitalized the word "morons" in "Mormons". I've never seen that before.
I have seen this quite a lot on other message boards. It is relatively common on anti-Mormon boards, so I wouldn't give Jena much credit for creativity.

Oh Lord, you gave them eyes but they cannot see...

reply

Oops... I guess my sarcasm didn't come across.

reply

Oops... I guess my sarcasm didn't come across.
I was hoping that you actually had never seen this lame attempt at humor before, and that unlike myself you had not seen it on other boards. I wonder if the so-called grown adults who do such a thing realize how immature it makes them appear ? It is the sort of thing one would expect to encounter in junior high.

There was some laughter when a classmate wrote the word "moron" after my name of a chalkboard in the 7th grade when in context it appeared to everyone that he meant to write "mormon" but I am now thinking that perhaps I gave him too much of a benefit of a doubt.

Oh Lord, you gave them eyes but they cannot see...

reply

Yes, I would say that most of what Jena had to say came from a combination of a sense of entitlement to insult other people and a bitter personality. Also, I'd agree with geode, capitalizing the "moron" part of "mormons" is pretty immature and not in the least bit creative.

I appreciate the intent of this thread. I am an ex mormon as well who had mostly good experiences with the church. Everything that gsmith said is completely true, including the south park references. I was a member the first time I saw those episodes and they geniunely made me laugh my arse off.

reply

Dear gsmith83-1,
Are you by chance related to George A. Smith? If so your history is inextricably intertwined with the events surounding the Mountain Meadows Massacre and with the movie September Dawn. I would really like to establish a line of communication with a descendant of George A. Smith. I have been a student of these subjects for more than 40 years and I have a lot of questions.
I appreciate your comments about the FACTS based on your own experiences. You sound like a pretty credible person to me. Thanks, W. Capurro

reply

[deleted]

I've been reading through some of these threads, which are similar to other comments regarding Mormonism--and the truth of the matter, or the entire religion, is whether or not Joseph Smith saw God the Father and Jesus Christ, or not.

One must first ask if such an occurrence is even possible. I personally refuse to believe in deity that would "keep the heavens closed".

One should then look for evidences or fruits. Did the golden plates exist? If they didn't, the story doesn't add up and we can quickly discount Smith as a crazy man. How can we prove that they DID exist? At this point we can only rely on the written testimonies of people who witnessed the plates, "hefted" and "felt" them. The testimony by three such witnesses (Oliver Cowdery, David Whitmer, Martin Harris) reads

"Be it known unto all nations, kindreds, tongues, and people, unto whom this work shall come: That we, through the grace of God the Father, and our Lord Jesus Christ, have seen the plates which contain this record, which is a record of the people of Nephi, and also of the Lamanites, their brethren, and also of the people of Jared, who came from the tower of which hath been spoken. And we also know that they have been translated by the gift and power of God, for his voice hath declared it unto us; wherefore we know of a surety that the work is true. And we also testify that we have seen the engravings which are upon the plates; and they have been shown unto us by the power of God, and not of man. And we declare with words of soberness, that an angel of God came down from heaven, and he brought and laid before our eyes, that we beheld and saw the plates, and the engravings thereon; and we know that it is by the grace of God the Father, and our Lord Jesus Christ, that we beheld and bear record that these things are true. And it is marvelous in our eyes. Nevertheless, the voice of the Lord commanded us that we should bear record of it; wherefore, to be obedient unto the commandments of God, we bear testimony of these things. And we know that if we are faithful in Christ, we shall rid our garments of the blood of all men, and be found spotless before the judgment-seat of Christ, and shall dwell with him eternally in the heavens. And the honor be to the Father, and to the Son, and to the Holy Ghost, which is one God. Amen."

Eight other men bore similar testimonies. It is also interesting to note that several of these very men ended up leaving the church. Not even one of them ever revoked their witness throughout the rest of their lives. A few, near their death beds, reemphasized their testimonies.

Then why aren't the golden plates in some museum somewhere to prove once and-for-all that Joseph Smith was who he claimed to be? One response to this question is the great principle of faith. Another counter-question would be "where is the arc of the covenant? the 10 commandments? the original writ bearing many books of the Bible?" Such artifacts have been revoked from the earth because, honestly folks, that would make things too easy and undermine the necessity of faith.

Well maybe it's possible that Joseph Smith was able to obtain a large amount of gold from which the golden plates were forged and engraved upon as a part of one of the largest cons we've known (a con which, by the way, knowingly cost him his life). An estimate given by a witness to the gold plates was that they weighed about 60 pounds. Current market value on 60 pounds of pure gold, at $650 per ounce, is about $624,000. This high price also supports the necessity of keeping the plates hidden and protected. You can imagine that even an alloy containing only portions of gold would still be very costly. Joseph Smith had only several years of formal education. I imagine it would have been nothing short of impossible to obtain the quantity necessary to produce the golden plates.

The doctrines of the church, even those you think may sound silly, still hinge upon the reality of the Book of Mormon and the vision that Smith had in that grove of trees.

It is a historic fact that the feat of producing the Book of Mormon took approximately 65 working days. No scholar today could produce a volume such as the Book of Mormon, let alone do it in as short of time. It has undergone almost 200 years of vicious scrutiny and not one criticism has been proven. Modern computer-related technologies have confirmed different authoring voices among the books in the Book of Mormon. Brother Joseph would have had to create something over 125 proper names that have been accepted as possible names given the time period and geographical region. Ruins have been uncovered in mexico that relate suspiciously to Book of Mormon excerpts. The Book of Mormon contains ancient writing styles, such as the chiasmus, that Joseph Smith would simply not have known about. This list could continue much further.

I am done. I am passionate about my religion. It is amazing.

"If any of you lack wisdom, let him ask of God, that giveth to all men liberally, and upbraideth not; and it shall be given him. But let him ask in faith, nothing wavering..." James 1:5-6. Go ahead, ask for yourself.

reply

[deleted]

If you decide to post such allegations about the LDS church or Joseph Smith you should back them up with facts. No one cares about hollow accusations.

As for Mormons not being Christians, we need not look further than the name of the church; The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. The term "latter-day" distinguishes the current church from the church Christ organized. The nickname "Mormon" was coined by others simply because of the Book of Mormon, but we do not worship "Mormon".

Visit http://www.lds.org/pa/library/0,17905,5022-1,00.html for an official declaration by church officials regarding our concern with Christianity. Hope this helps.

reply