1 of 3
1
Polygamy
Posted: 04 June 2008 09:41 AM   [ Ignore ]  
Member
RankRankRank
Total Posts:  110
Joined  2007-10-05

The following quotes from a thread on http://www.exmormon.org really highlights the ability of humans to come under the influence of cults. Humans are so very gullible and have great difficulty seeing through lies, scams, false histories, etc.

Subject: Disgusted with the Joseph Smith worship.
Date:    Jun 03 16:03
Author:  What’s in a name?
 

So we have Joe who was a flaming dirtbag and the Mormons insist on revering the bonehead. I think the following three paragraphs say it all and should be on the first page of the Joseph Smith PH and RS manual.

“The Sessions spent a year in Missouri and then settled in Nauvoo. There, Patty wrote in her journal: “I was sealed to Joseph Smith by Willard Richards March 9 1842 in Newel K Whitneys chamber Nauvoo, for time and all eternity…Sylvia my daughter was presant when I was sealed”. Patty was 47. Her daughter Sylvia had married Joseph a month earlier on February 8. It is unclear if Patty’s first husband, David, was aware of the marriage.

After her marriage to Joseph, Patty continued to live with David. Three months later, he left on a mission to his former home state of Maine. Of the occasion, Patty wrote in her journal, “He left me alone, and I am very lonesome.” Two months later she wrote that she was “making shirts for Joseph.”

Patty’s duties as Joseph’s plural wife included approaching and educating prospective wives, serving as a messenger and go between, and acting as a witness at the wedding ceremonies of Joseph and the other plural wives he took. Patty continued in this role until Joseph’s death in 1844.”

http://www.wivesofjosephsmith.org/10-PattyBartlettSessions.htm

Subject: J.S. ran from Kirtland to escape creditors, lawsuits, anti-adultry citizens and jail time.
Date:    Jun 03 17:45
Author:  dja

Then, after declaring a “War of Extermination” on the U.S., committing arson, looting and killing Missouri Millitamen, he was sentenced to a firing squad.

He escaped and ran to Illinois where he burned a newspaper and was killed for the above reasons.

......and they want the faith-promoting, uplifting history version as…......The Persecuted Ones.


Subject:    The other half of the story….....
Date:    Jun 04 09:25
Author:  NoToJoe
 
The one thing about Mormonism that still makes my blood boil is the fact that for 30+ years I was fed a diet of half truths. I only knew half the Joseph story and based on incomplete information they took my tithing checks and massive amounts of my time to promote their cause.

Faith promotion EQ lesson:
1-Joe was tar-n-feathered
2-Joe revealed the BOM
3-Joe organized the Relief Society
4-Joe revealed the endowment

The other half of the story
1-Joe was tar-n-feathered by the father and brothers of an underage girl he had been f**king in Kirkland.
2-Joe revealed the BOM with a rock in the bottom of his hat while the “plates” were safely burried miles away in the woods.
3-Joe was married to most of the RS women and neither their legal husbands or Emma were aware that Joe was bedding the “sistas”.
4-Joe revealed the endowment within a few short days of rising to the highest level of freemasonry and the endowment borrows heavily from mason tradition.

Now that’s the other half of the story…....

 Signature 

“Most of the Israelites did not come from outside Canaan - they emerged from within it. There was no mass Exodus from Egypt…no violent conquest of Canaan. The early Israelites were - irony of ironies - themselves originally Canaanites!

The conquest of Canaan by Joshua could not have happened [as] described in the Bible. Most of the towns…either weren’t inhabited, didn’t exist or were conquered at wildly different times.” —Finkelstein and Silberman

Profile
 
 
Posted: 04 June 2008 01:39 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 1 ]  
Member
Avatar
RankRankRank
Total Posts:  805
Joined  2007-08-28

I’m confused by secular morality. Does it teach that one can forgive without the necessity of a divinity, or that it is not necessary to forgive?

Profile
 
 
Posted: 05 June 2008 11:20 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 2 ]  
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  1646
Joined  2008-04-02
mcalpine - 04 June 2008 05:39 PM

I’m confused by secular morality. Does it teach that one can forgive without the necessity of a divinity, or that it is not necessary to forgive?

Secularists are highly diverse and have no uniting dogma. We are freethinkers. As such, you could probably get an infinite number of answers to your question.

I cannot speak for anyone other than myself. I try to forgive myself and others. I do not need permission from a divinity to release my hostility. It seems to me that anger hurts the person who owns that emotion. Thus, forgiving seems logical to me in many situations.

I can think of situations where a healthy skepticism of someone’s motives might be appropriate. Does that mean that I have not forgiven them? Who cares?

 Signature 

Real honesty is accepting the theories that best explain the actual data even if those explanations contradict our cherished beliefs.-Scotty

Profile
 
 
Posted: 05 June 2008 02:08 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 3 ]  
Member
Avatar
RankRankRank
Total Posts:  805
Joined  2007-08-28

“As such, you could probably get an infinite number of answers to your question.”

Well, so far I’ve only got yours. Thanks.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 06 June 2008 04:45 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 4 ]  
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  1835
Joined  2006-03-26

Gene Simmons said that he took up rock guitar to get a girl for the night. Joseph Smith took up religion for the same purpose.

 Signature 

Bill Maher’s New Rule About Religious Tests for Office

Sam explains the difference between the belief in Elvis and belief in Jesus

Support the Separation of Church & State!
Freedom From Religion Foundation

Profile
 
 
Posted: 06 June 2008 08:57 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 5 ]  
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  2821
Joined  2005-04-29
mcalpine - 04 June 2008 05:39 PM

I’m confused by secular morality. Does it teach that one can forgive without the necessity of a divinity, or that it is not necessary to forgive?

I assume, but don’t know, that the concept of forgiveness, or at least today’s version of it, comes to us by way of religious, especially Christian, influence. I hope someone will correct me if I’m mistaken in my assumption.

If my assumption is correct, then secular morality, whatever that is, owes a debt of gratitude to Christian influence because a seemingly selfless tendency toward forgiveness is—at least occasionally—a sensible thing to have. I don’t see how divinity has much of anything to do with the concept itself.

 Signature 

Philosophy may in no way interfere with the actual use of language; it can in the end only describe it. For it cannot give it any foundations either. It leaves everything as it is.
Ludwig Wittgenstein

Profile
 
 
Posted: 07 June 2008 07:03 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 6 ]  
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  1814
Joined  2006-11-10
homunculus - 07 June 2008 12:57 AM

I assume, but don’t know, that the concept of forgiveness, or at least today’s version of it, comes to us by way of religious, especially Christian, influence. I hope someone will correct me if I’m mistaken in my assumption.

If my assumption is correct, then secular morality, whatever that is, owes a debt of gratitude to Christian influence because a seemingly selfless tendency toward forgiveness is—at least occasionally—a sensible thing to have. I don’t see how divinity has much of anything to do with the concept itself.

As I understand it, forgiveness is a fancier version of our tendency to reconcile after disputes.
If this is indeed so than there is no mystery here as chimps, lions and a host of other mammals display this behavior which is easily explained in Darwinian terms.

 Signature 

“You know I’m born to lose, and gambling is for fools.
But that’s the way I like it baby, I don’t want to live forever.”

From the autobiography of A.A.Mills, ‘The passage of time, according to an estranged, casual tyrant.’

Profile
 
 
Posted: 07 June 2008 11:28 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 7 ]  
Member
Avatar
RankRankRank
Total Posts:  805
Joined  2007-08-28

“As I understand it, forgiveness is a fancier version of our tendency to reconcile after disputes.
If this is indeed so than there is no mystery here as chimps, lions and a host of other mammals display this behavior which is easily explained in Darwinian terms.”

Unfortunately, there is also the uniquely human tendency to NOT reconcile after disputes.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 25 June 2008 05:45 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 8 ]  
Member
RankRankRank
Total Posts:  112
Joined  2006-10-23

.

[ Edited: 26 February 2009 07:26 AM by AJY]
Profile
 
 
Posted: 26 June 2008 07:53 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 9 ]  
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  1646
Joined  2008-04-02

I made the quote about secularist being diverse. I am proud to be a freethinker. Your post seems to have me saying that I am glad to not be a freethinker. I would not make such a statement. That quotation error could possibly be a glitch of the forum software. You have a right to think dogmatically. I do not feel the need to impose my views on others. I would like to see people think for themselves rather than blindly follow what they are told.

 Signature 

Real honesty is accepting the theories that best explain the actual data even if those explanations contradict our cherished beliefs.-Scotty

Profile
 
 
Posted: 26 June 2008 02:42 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 10 ]  
Member
Avatar
RankRankRank
Total Posts:  949
Joined  2007-10-08

Here’s one from the site Cooper provided that refers to the “washing and anointing” prior to receiving temple “endowments” (Thank my skeptical mind, wicked pot and evil beer I was never “worthy” to “receive” a “temple recommend.”) I’ll never look at some of my true believin’ mo relatives the same again. At my Grampy’s funeral, I wanted to rip off the silly bonnet they put on his head, and now, I want do dig him up and do it even more. (And while I’m at it, wag my finger at him for being one of the “anointers.” )

Subject:  Just close your eyes, pretend ..... [more inside]
Date:  Aug 22 12:13
Author:  Langdon
I still remember vividly the words he spoke to me (whispering to me tenderly that I was his first):
“Health in the navel;
Marrow in the bones;
Strength in the loins and in the sinews

Power in the Priesthood Be Upon Your Posterity…”

The initiatory ordinance needs to be described in exquisite detail in the pre-baptism missionary discussion:

“You must now pay us 10% of your income for the rest of your life, so that you can buy admission into the temple for the privilege of getting naked and having an old geezer touch your private parts with oil.

“See, it doesn’t matter how moral you are, how completely virtuous you may be in word, thought, and deed, if you don’t receive the holy Naked-Touching in the temple, as well as secret handshakes and passwords. No, these rituals override your personal worthiness, your character, your deeds.

“Paying us lots of money for a recommend so that you can obtain the sacred Naked-Touching is the ONLY way God will let you see him again. Swearing an oath to allow yourself to be gruesomely executed, while pantomiming your own gruesome death is the highest degree of the gospel taught by Jesus.

“John wasn’t fully forthcoming when he said ‘God is Love’: God isn’t just Love; God is Secret Passwords and Handshakes! The Gospel of Jesus Christ is that all mankind can return to live with God if they pay for the privilege of getting Naked-Touching!”

Somehow, I’m betting that most converts are not taught this “fullness” of the gospel…....

There ought to be a full-disclosure lawsuit in here somewhere for not being informed that your participation in the secret ritual would require you to submit to sexual harassment.

In the scientific research world, this kind of abuse would get slaughtered by an Institutional Review Board on the grounds of violation of standard requirements for Protection of Human Subjects.

Did any of you sign a waiver, or notice of full prior disclosure prior to attending your initiatory ordinance, explaining that you were advised you would have to get naked, and then AFTER you were already naked (and therefore, feeling entirely vulnerable), have a stranger touch your groin?

I know I didn’t.

AJY: Me thinks you misunderstand the term freethinker. It is merely another word describing the concept of secularism and/or humanism and/or atheist and/or non-believer. Personally, I like this term the best. I think—but I’m not sure—it was Robert Ingersoll, a 19th century orator, who coined the term.

[ Edited: 26 June 2008 02:46 PM by isocratic infidel]
 Signature 

“Proving the efficacy of a methodology without defining the word ‘efficacy’ can come back to bite you in the assertion.”—Salt Creek

Profile
 
 
Posted: 27 June 2008 07:58 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 11 ]  
Member
RankRankRank
Total Posts:  112
Joined  2006-10-23

.

[ Edited: 26 February 2009 07:24 AM by AJY]
Profile
 
 
Posted: 28 June 2008 05:01 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 12 ]  
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  1646
Joined  2008-04-02

You have a valid point AJY.

 Signature 

Real honesty is accepting the theories that best explain the actual data even if those explanations contradict our cherished beliefs.-Scotty

Profile
 
 
Posted: 03 July 2008 03:07 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 13 ]  
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  2136
Joined  2006-02-20
homunculus - 07 June 2008 12:57 AM
mcalpine - 04 June 2008 05:39 PM

I’m confused by secular morality. Does it teach that one can forgive without the necessity of a divinity, or that it is not necessary to forgive?

I assume, but don’t know, that the concept of forgiveness, or at least today’s version of it, comes to us by way of religious, especially Christian, influence. I hope someone will correct me if I’m mistaken in my assumption.

If my assumption is correct, then secular morality, whatever that is, owes a debt of gratitude to Christian influence because a seemingly selfless tendency toward forgiveness is—at least occasionally—a sensible thing to have. I don’t see how divinity has much of anything to do with the concept itself.

Some philosophers suggest that if you need to forgive, you have already made the mistake of harboring resentment, of carrying around a grudge, a hurt, a vendeta.  Buddha made comments along these lines.

 Signature 

“The simple fables of the religious of the world have come to seem like tales told to children.”  - Nobel Prize recipient - Francis Crick

“It is time we recognized the boundless narcissism and self-deceit of the saved.” - Sam Harris

Profile
 
 
Posted: 04 July 2008 01:27 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 14 ]  
Member
Avatar
RankRankRank
Total Posts:  949
Joined  2007-10-08

Fuck forgiveness. The topic of this thread is supposed to be about polygamy.

Why did everyone let mcalp throw the topic into a tailspin of bullshit about the concept of forgiveness and whether it is a religious or secular concept? Whether one forgives another for a perceived or actual act against them that requires forgiveness or not is determined by the person doing the so-called forgiving and whether or not their reasons are based on secular or religious reasons. The forgiver gets to be “the decider.”
I’ll not forgive mcalp for this and I don’t care if mcalp forgives me or not.

Does no one care what the fundamentalist mormon men are doing to “their” women and children?

Does no one care what the mainstream mormons are doing in their secret ceremonies in their temples?

Guess not. But I’ll forgive you.

(now how many of you really care if I forgive you or not, eh?)

 Signature 

“Proving the efficacy of a methodology without defining the word ‘efficacy’ can come back to bite you in the assertion.”—Salt Creek

Profile
 
 
Posted: 04 July 2008 11:38 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 15 ]  
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  2136
Joined  2006-02-20
isocratic infidel - 04 July 2008 05:27 AM

The topic of this thread is supposed to be about polygamy.

Does no one care what the fundamentalist mormon men are doing to “their” women and children?

On the subject of women as chattels of their husbands, here’s
an interesting quote, at least closer to the topic than forgiveness:

“The difference between freethought prohibitionists and Christian prohibitionists was that the freethinkers wanted to make drunkenness grounds for divorce - and to make it possible for a woman to leave a violent husband without incurring social stigma - whereas the Christians, while viewing drunkenness as a vice, did not consider either drinking or violent abuse grounds for leaving a marriage.”

(“Freethinkers were as divided in their views on temperance as on many other political issues.”)

Quoted from ‘FREETHINKERS - A History of American Secularism’ by Susan Jacoby

 Signature 

“The simple fables of the religious of the world have come to seem like tales told to children.”  - Nobel Prize recipient - Francis Crick

“It is time we recognized the boundless narcissism and self-deceit of the saved.” - Sam Harris

Profile
 
 
   
1 of 3
1
 
RSS 2.0     Atom Feed