What Is Anti-Mormon?

[AFDaw]

PD--I guess what they are saying is that the Church is pro-MORMON family, not necessarily ALL families.

That's not necessarily true because when Spencer and I went through the Temple, very few of my family was allowed to attend because they weren't endowed. So that's not necessarily biased just towards non-Mormon families. I do see the point, I'm just pointing out that just because the family is Mormon, doesn't mean that's an automatic ticket in.

[AFDaw]

Woops...I just wanted to add that Maureen had not posted that when I replied :)

[Maureen]

Originally posted by AFDaw@Mar 24 2004, 05:44 PM

Woops...I just wanted to add that Maureen had not posted that when I replied :)

Great minds think alike!

M.

[AFDaw]

I know right :)

[Snow]

Originally posted by Maureen@Mar 24 2004, 05:41 PM

The last time I talked with LDS missionaries they gave me the impression they wanted to emphasize that only the LDS church has a prophet. It seemed to me that having a prophet was more important than making Christ the centre of their religion.

Maybe so.

But if such is the case, I think you have to keep in mind what the purpose of a prophet is. It is not an end in and of itself. It is a means to an end.

Theoretically all or most all Christian religions have God as their center. That's a given. To claim God as your center is does not particularly distinguish you form any other denomination unless you can say, with a straight face, we are more on-center than the other guys with our God focus. What sets the Church of Jesus Christ apart is that it says, "...look, we have a guy who is specifically called of God to be HIS goto guy and to speak directly for him and tell us what the real deal is, so when we say we are Christ-centered, you gotta know that we are really, really centered cause we know what the center is supposed to look like..."

[Guest TheProudDuck]

Cal --

Another bit of speculation based on a certain amount of fact----I have a theory that another reason that the church should emphasize the FAMILY as the basis for conversion is that, were it to be proven that, say the BoM, were a falcification, a lawsuit for money paid to the church as tithing could be maintained on the basis of fraud or misrepresentation. Though, at the present time, there is probably not enough evidence against the truth of the BoM to show misrepresentation; but, with what has come out in DNA, and other scientific evidence regarding the BoM, church leaders have to be, at least, a little concerned about promoting church membership and the paying of tithing on the literal truth of the BoM or BoA. Just defending such lawsuits would be devastating. So the church leaders are probably very smart to promote the FAMILY as the driving concept behind church membership.

Now, this is not "anti-" is it? It is not intended to degrade or misrepresent anything. If there is a misstatement of fact please inform me.

Interesting theory, but the Church has nothing to worry about. The authenticity of a religion's scriptures is a religious belief. Courts are prohibited by the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment from passing judgment on the truth or falsity of religious beliefs. See U.S. v. Ballard (1944) 322 U.S. 78, 86-88.

Not only that, but a fraud action would require that the alleged misrepresentation to have been made with knowledge of its falsity, or with reckless disregard for the truth. It would be virtually impossible to prove that Church leaders didn't have a good-faith belief in the authenticity of the Church's scriptures, even if the First Amendment didn't come into play.

Interestingly, churches aren't entirely immune from fraud lawsuits, so long as their intentional misrepresentations aren't of a religious nature. There was a California case in the 1970s involving Unification Church members who lured potential converts into indoctrination sessions under false pretenses -- in that particular case, by denying they were members of the Unification Church. A person's status as a member of a religious group isn't a religious belief, so the Moonies were on the hook for fraud.

The infamous British Baseball Baptisms could have opened the LDS Church up to similar fraud liability. But there could be discovered absolute, incontrovertible proof that the Book of Mormon was written by William Blake in a drug-induced haze, and the Church still couldn't be liable.

[Guest TheProudDuck]

Today I have been professionally adjudicated as competant to speak for ProudDuck. I doubt he is saying that the Church actually is not pro-all-families but rather that to the extent that some people view it was non-family friendly, one of the reasons for viewing it thusly, is the effect that temple marriages have on family members who can't attend.

So competent, in fact, that you're authorized to speak for me an additional 1.37 times. That's exactly what I'm saying. The Church is pro-family, and believes in good faith that the exclusion of people without temple recommends is a necessary cost of maintaining the sanctity of the temple, which it also believes in good faith is necessary to the Church's particular program of strengthening families.

I wonder, though, whether this might change in the future. Peace mentioned the common practice of including non-member family members in a ring ceremony. My non-member mother-in-law was a good sport at the time, but it's clear she resented being left out. The ring ceremony does seem like kind of a consolation prize.

I'm not holding my breath, but seeing as how aspects of the Temple have changed over the years, I don't think it's entirely impossible that the Church might someday designate certain temples as "part-member-family-friendly" for weddings, perhaps creating a separate entrance to the sealing rooms for the unendowed, just as there are now separate entrances for the temple baptistries, to allow unendowed members to take part in baptisms for the dead without entering the portions of the temple that require a recommend. It seems to me that the sense of reverence and holiness could be maintained with a dress code ("no shirt, no shoes, no sealing") and a good bouncer along the lines of the original Porter Rockwell.

[Snow]

Originally posted by TheProudDuck@Mar 24 2004, 06:26 PM

It seems to me that the sense of reverence and holiness could be maintained with a dress code ("no shirt, no shoes, no sealing") and a good bouncer along the lines of the original Porter Rockwell.

Which kinda reminds me of a q&a on The Straight Dope (who usually do a nice job):

Dear Straight Dope:

I know this will probably sound terrible, but my curiosity is getting the better of me. I just want to know (so I don't actually do it) what would happen if someone stole a Mormon Temple recommend and snuck into a service? Would they be able to get in? Do they have someone standing at the door checking IDs like at a club? I just thought of it one day, and I don't know any Mormons so I can't ask them. --B. Young

http://www.straightdope.com/mailbag/mmormoninvade.html

Here's part of their answer:

What would happen if you faked up a recommend? (Or obtained one on the sly--a couple years ago a recommend was yanked from the eBay auction site, apparently after someone beefed that the document belonged to the LDS church, not the holder.) In theory the folks at the Recommend Desk, where you check in and have your recommend scrutinized, will be moved by the Spirit and just know you're not the real McCoy. But I'm betting that those folks will be able to discern an impostor without the help of the Holy Ghost. You need the recommend and a few other things (garments, a semblance of knowledge of what's about to transpire, etc.) to go through the Temple.

But say you manage to pull it off: whom are you really fooling? Just the fallible humans in the Temple itself. If you assume the LDS church is right about their rites, you're not an authorized participant in the Temple ordinances and therefore God isn't impressed by what you did. So basically all you did was for naught.

[btw 1.37 x 3 = information. What kind of information? Well 5 x 1.37 is pretty darn close to the number of the... and frankly I resent the implication and don't tell me you didn't have that in mind.]

[Guest Starsky]

[btw 1.37 x 3 = information. What kind of information? Well 5 x 1.37 is pretty darn close to the number of the... and frankly I resent the implication and don't tell me you didn't have that in mind.]

Sheesh...I hate being dumb....darn close to the number of the....?????WHAT????

Don't leave me hangin...unless it isn't nice....then you can leave me hangin..

[Guest TheProudDuck]

Originally posted by Peace@Mar 24 2004, 10:04 PM

[btw 1.37 x 3 = information. What kind of information? Well 5 x 1.37 is pretty darn close to the number of the... and frankly I resent the implication and don't tell me you didn't have that in mind.]

Sheesh...I hate being dumb....darn close to the number of the....?????WHAT????

Don't leave me hangin...unless it isn't nice....then you can leave me hangin..

It's a reference to the biblical "number of the breast," which is the number of the beast plus r, "r" being usually assigned the value of .19. Apparently Snow is referring to my use of the phrase "consolation prize" instead of "booby prize." He's pretty sharp. I thought I'd camouflaged the risque reference as effectively as it could be done.

[Guest Starsky]

Originally posted by TheProudDuck+Mar 25 2004, 01:04 AM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (TheProudDuck @ Mar 25 2004, 01:04 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin--Peace@Mar 24 2004, 10:04 PM

[btw 1.37 x 3 = information. What kind of information? Well 5 x 1.37 is pretty darn close to the number of the... and frankly I resent the implication and don't tell me you didn't have that in mind.]

Sheesh...I hate being dumb....darn close to the number of the....?????WHAT????

Don't leave me hangin...unless it isn't nice....then you can leave me hangin..

It's a reference to the biblical "number of the breast," which is the number of the beast plus r, "r" being usually assigned the value of .19. Apparently Snow is referring to my use of the phrase "consolation prize" instead of "booby prize." He's pretty sharp. I thought I'd camouflaged the risque reference as effectively as it could be done.

No doubt about it...Snow is sharp!....thanks for the explanation. :)

[Cal]

Originally posted by TheProudDuck@Mar 24 2004, 06:09 PM

Cal --

Another bit of speculation based on a certain amount of fact----I have a theory that another reason that the church should emphasize the FAMILY as the basis for conversion is that, were it to be proven that, say the BoM, were a falcification, a lawsuit for money paid to the church as tithing could be maintained on the basis of fraud or misrepresentation. Though, at the present time, there is probably not enough evidence against the truth of the BoM to show misrepresentation; but, with what has come out in DNA, and other scientific evidence regarding the BoM, church leaders have to be, at least, a little concerned about promoting church membership and the paying of tithing on the literal truth of the BoM or BoA. Just defending such lawsuits would be devastating. So the church leaders are probably very smart to promote the FAMILY as the driving concept behind church membership.

Now, this is not "anti-" is it? It is not intended to degrade or misrepresent anything. If there is a misstatement of fact please inform me.

Interesting theory, but the Church has nothing to worry about. The authenticity of a religion's scriptures is a religious belief. Courts are prohibited by the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment from passing judgment on the truth or falsity of religious beliefs. See U.S. v. Ballard (1944) 322 U.S. 78, 86-88.

Not only that, but a fraud action would require that the alleged misrepresentation to have been made with knowledge of its falsity, or with reckless disregard for the truth. It would be virtually impossible to prove that Church leaders didn't have a good-faith belief in the authenticity of the Church's scriptures, even if the First Amendment didn't come into play.

Interestingly, churches aren't entirely immune from fraud lawsuits, so long as their intentional misrepresentations aren't of a religious nature. There was a California case in the 1970s involving Unification Church members who lured potential converts into indoctrination sessions under false pretenses -- in that particular case, by denying they were members of the Unification Church. A person's status as a member of a religious group isn't a religious belief, so the Moonies were on the hook for fraud.

The infamous British Baseball Baptisms could have opened the LDS Church up to similar fraud liability. But there could be discovered absolute, incontrovertible proof that the Book of Mormon was written by William Blake in a drug-induced haze, and the Church still couldn't be liable.

It is true that in order to maintain a lawsuit for fruad or misrepresentation there has to be knowledge and intent elements. And as I said, at present there isn't enough evidence against the BoM to put a reasonable person on notice that would amount to reckless disregard. However, who knows what could be discovered in the future.

I disagree that the truth or falsity of the BoM is exclusively a religious issue. Whether the BoM is historically accurate is also a factual and scientific matter in spite of its religious contexts. If a person joins the church based on this historical accuracy, and the church can be found to be promoting such conversion on this basis, and there should come a point where it becomes well known and obvious that the BoM is a fraud and that church leaders knew it, the case might still be made for fraud.

[porterrockwell]

What?? Join on historical grounds??? Why? I can prove that a man named Jesus walked the earth, but only the Holy Ghost can confirm that he is the son of God and heir to all that was created through him. I can prove that the Bible gives reference to Gospel doctrine, but it's only a "legit Gospel" if Jesus Christ is actually the SON OF GOD! The fact that you insinuate that the BOM "could" be false makes me wonder about you Cal. You can't ride the fence either you believe or don't.

[Guest TheProudDuck]

Cal -- While I can see how one could make a distinction between the spiritual assertions of a religious group, and factual assertions as to its founding documents or history, the U.S. v. Ballard case I cited made no such distinction.

In that case, the allegations of fraud turned on three assertions by the accused religious group, including, "The portion of the scheme relating to certain religious experiences described in certain books (Unveiled Mysteries and The Magic Presence) and concerning which the indictment alleged 'that the defendants represented that Guy W. Ballard, Edna W. Ballard, and Donald Ballard actually encountered the experiences pertaining to each of their said names as related and set forth in said books, whereas in truth and in fact none of said persons did encounter the experiences."

This claim is analogous to the Church's claim about the Book of Mormon -- that is, that it was translated from golden plates by the power of God. Either these events happened, or they didn't. Whether an event happened or not is generally susceptible of proof by non-spiritual evidence. But the Supreme Court didn't make any distinction between this kind of religious claim and less tangible, "spiritual" ones:

"Many take their gospel from the New Testament. But it would hardly be supposed that they could be tried before a jury charged with the duty of determining whether those teachings contained false representations. The miracles of the New Testament, the Divinity of Christ, life after death, the power of prayer are deep in the religious convictions of many. If one could be sent to jail because a jury in a hostile environment found those teachings false, little indeed would be left of religious freedom. The Fathers of the Constitution were not unaware of the varied and extreme views of religious sects, of the violence of disagreement among them, and of the lack of any one religious creed on which all men would agree. They fashioned a charter of government which envisaged the widest possible toleration of conflicting views. Man's relation to his God was made no concern of the state. He was granted the right to worship as he pleased and to answer to no man for the **887 verity of his religious views. The religious views espoused by respondents might seem incredible, if not preposterous, to most people. But if those doctrines are subject to trial before a jury charged with finding their truth or falsity, then the same can be done with the religious beliefs of any sect. When the triers of fact undertake that task, they enter a forbidden domain."

In other words, the "factual" miracle claims, and the "unprovable" doctrines like "the power of prayer" are equally considered religious doctrines, which are a "forbidden domain" for court consideration.

If the Old Testament account of a global flood (which has been proven about as conclusively false as science can prove something) doesn't open inerrantist Christian churches up to charges of fraud, no "proof" of the Book of Mormon's falsity could open the LDS Church up to a fraud charge, either. At least not in the United States. In other countries that don't have the First Amendment (which includes even the relatively free countries of western Europe) I could conceivably see how your thoughts on potential fraud liability might be a concern.

[Maureen]

Originally posted by porterrockwell@Mar 25 2004, 10:28 AM

...I can prove that a man named Jesus walked the earth...

Okay prove it without using any LDS canonized scripture. Any secular source independent of the gospels from the NT would be great.

M.

[Guest Starsky]

Originally posted by Maureen+Mar 25 2004, 12:02 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Maureen @ Mar 25 2004, 12:02 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin--porterrockwell@Mar 25 2004, 10:28 AM

...I can prove that a man named Jesus walked the earth...

Okay prove it without using any LDS canonized scripture. Any secular source independent of the gospels from the NT would be great.

M.

I am not trying to prove anything here...just thought I would pop in and tell you of a cave found in the Hawaiian Islands where there are hieroglyphics and other stuff painted on it's walls.

The one we found interesting was the picture of a fish surrounded with 12 dots.

There were many others which could also be understood to be speaking about Christ's visit there after his death like in the Book of Mormon account...

[restornu]

Originally posted by Maureen+Mar 25 2004, 01:02 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Maureen @ Mar 25 2004, 01:02 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin--porterrockwell@Mar 25 2004, 10:28 AM

...I can prove that a man named Jesus walked the earth...

Okay prove it without using any LDS canonized scripture. Any secular source independent of the gospels from the NT would be great.

M.

Cornelius Tacitus (AD 55-120):

“Consequently, to get rid of the report, Nero fastened the guilt and afflicted the most exquisite torture on a class hated for their abominations, called Christians by the populace. Christus, from whom the name had its origin, suffered the extreme penalty during the reign of Tiberius ant the hands of one of our procurators, Pontius Pilate, and a most mischievous superstition, thus checked for the moment, again broke out not only in Judea, the first source of the evil, but even in Rome...” (Annals, AD115)

Flavius Josephus (AD 37-97):

“At this time there was a wise man who was called Jesus. His conduct was good and he was known to be virtuous. And many people among the Jews and other nations became his disciples. Pilate condemned him to be crucified and to die. But those who had become his disciples did not abandon his discipleship. They reported that he had appeared to them in three days after his crucifixion, and that he was alive; accordingly he was perhaps the Messiah, concerning who the prophets have recounted wonders.” (Antiquities, AD 90-95)

[Guest Starsky]

Cool Restornu.. :)

[restornu]

Originally posted by Peace@Mar 25 2004, 06:45 PM

Cool Restornu.. :)

GREAT RESOURCE:

Habermas, Gary R., The Historical Jesus: Ancient Evidence for the Life of Christ.

(College Press, 1996)

[Guest Starsky]

Well...you're the one who knew about it and brought it in...kudos!

[Snow]

Originally posted by Peace@Mar 25 2004, 05:45 PM

Cool Restornu.. :)

What's cool about it. It is proof of nothing. Neither was a contemporary of Christ and would not be reporting first hand. At best they are reporting decades later, after the fact, based upon 2nd, 3rd or worse references.

Additionally both are highly suspect by many bible scholars as being later Christian insertions.

Restornu,

Do you think we just fell of the parsnip truck?

[Cal]

Originally posted by porterrockwell@Mar 25 2004, 10:28 AM

What?? Join on historical grounds???  Why?  I can prove that a man named Jesus walked the earth, but only the Holy Ghost can confirm that he is the son of God and heir to all that was created through him.  I can prove that the Bible gives reference to Gospel doctrine, but it's only a "legit Gospel" if Jesus Christ is actually the SON OF GOD!  The fact that you insinuate that the BOM "could" be false makes me wonder about you Cal.  You can't ride the fence either you believe or don't.

Port--If the BoM CAN'T be false, then why the promise of Moroni 10? Beside, ANYTHING CAN be false, the question is, "Is it?". Also, your "black and white" thinking is revealing your lack of education again. This is not meant as a put down or to be condecending; but as you get a broader perspective on life and history, you will begin to realize that very little is as "black and white" as you imagine it to be.

As to joining on "historical grounds"----I have known lots of people who have joined the church without having your Holy Ghost or "out of body" conversion experience. They have seen the church as valuable on practical grounds and have seen no reason NOT to believe on historical or scientific grounds. That last basis could change should the BoM be proven false.

[Cal]

Originally posted by Peace+Mar 25 2004, 12:07 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Peace @ Mar 25 2004, 12:07 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>

Originally posted by -Maureen@Mar 25 2004, 12:02 PM

<!--QuoteBegin--porterrockwell@Mar 25 2004, 10:28 AM

...I can prove that a man named Jesus walked the earth...

Okay prove it without using any LDS canonized scripture. Any secular source independent of the gospels from the NT would be great.

M.

I am not trying to prove anything here...just thought I would pop in and tell you of a cave found in the Hawaiian Islands where there are hieroglyphics and other stuff painted on it's walls.

The one we found interesting was the picture of a fish surrounded with 12 dots.

There were many others which could also be understood to be speaking about Christ's visit there after his death like in the Book of Mormon account...

Peace--I think Maureen was talking to Porterrockwell when she said "prove it". He said he could prove Jesus walked the earth.

Also, your are REALLY "seeing what you want to see" in a "fish surrounded by 12 dots". That could mean almost anything, and certainly says NOTHING about Jesus visiting anything. Do you even know when it was carved, as though that really made a difference (but if it were carved after the arival of the christian missionaries, then it would say absolutely nothing about Jesus' visit to the americas.

Besides that, the Hawaiians are not decendents of the native americans ( or anyone you might think was visited by Jesus). They are decendents of the polynesians of the south seas (the Marquesas most directly) and eventually the micronesians of south east asian areas. All the polynesians are decendents of the early micronesians--genetic and linguistic markers prove it beyond doubt.

[Guest Starsky]

Peace--I think Maureen was talking to Porterrockwell when she said "prove it". He said he could prove Jesus walked the earth.

I know...but I love to butt in... LOL...( I know you've noticed... )

Also, your are REALLY "seeing what you want to see" in a "fish surrounded by 12 dots". That could mean almost anything, and certainly says NOTHING about Jesus visiting anything.

Yes...we all have that problem sometimes...but it still doesn't totally eliminate the possibility of it being a proof of Christ's visit there.

Do you even know when it was carved, as though that really made a difference (but if it were carved after the arival of the christian missionaries, then it would say absolutely nothing about Jesus' visit to the americas.

I can't hardly see missionaries doing the hieroglyphics...besides which they have already be 'dated' and they are in the same era as Christ.

Besides that, the Hawaiians are not decendents of the native americans

They wouldn't have to be would they? Christ said there were other sheep that were not of this fold....He said he would visit the lands and islands....and I am sure that He did.

They are decendents of the polynesians of the south seas (the Marquesas most directly) and eventually the micronesians of south east asian areas. All the polynesians are decendents of the early micronesians--genetic and linguistic markers prove it beyond doubt.

There are studies with some credibility which suggest that the ships of Hagoth went to asia... :)

[Guest Starsky]

John 10: 16

16 And other sheep I have, which are not of this fold: them also I must bring, and they shall hear my voice; and there shall be one fold, and one shepherd.

this doesn't state any limit to whom He would go to....so that they also could hear his voice...

He is the Christ for the entire planet....