Show me a religious organization without a sordid past

[_sock puppet]

The test of Joseph Smith's mission is found in what he actually taught rather than how he actually lived. It's whether or not the Book of Mormon is true rather than what he might have done with Fanny Alger ...

I disagree with this. While I do not expect people to be perfect, their actions and behaviors to tell us something about them and what they teach or claim. How he practiced polygamy can tell us something about his claims. Remember he is attaching his sexual behaviors to God making him do it. Now polygamy may not have direct relevance to the Book of Mormon, but we look at polygamy and how he went about it as to his claims regarding polygamy being commanded from God. We look at the evidences that have to do with the Book of Mormon to see if it holds up. One can teach many things you and I may agree on, but that does not mean other claims are true.

I agree with Themis.

Also, if you were sitting on a jury of a trial that turned on whether or not a specific fact did or did not occur, you evaluate the witnesses for their veracity and trustworthiness. From all the witnesses, you will hear varying stories. How, forensically, do you sort out the truth from the misperceptions from the downright lies? Whatever comes out during cross-examination of a witness that shows him to be duplicitous is certainly taken into account.

When you forensically inquire into JSJr's religion and the veracity of the claims he made, you would not consider his problems with telling lies about polygamy to keep it shrouded in secrecy? You would not consider his multiple changes to the first vision?

[_just me]

Pointing out the skeletons in the closets of other religions does little to exorcise the skeletons in your own.




Unless your premise is that all religions are simply organizatons of men, or that all religions are created equal in the sight of God.


Just a thought.

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

This.

Simon, are you suggesting that the LDS church is not God's one true and living church upon the earth in these latter days? The only church with Jesus at its head?

[_asbestosman]

Maybe, just maybe Simon's point isn't that the LDS church is no worse than other churches and therefore deserves a free pass. Maybe his point is that mistakes made by leaders of those institutions does not mean that the organization is worthy of great criticism. Even some of the Old Testament prophets were a bit colorful. As we say, the church is perfect but the people are not.

If you criticize our church for its skeletons, how do you feel about other churches? If you do not likewise criticize them, is it a double-standard? If so, would it be healthy to reconsider that maybe the LDS church isn't so bad after all?

[_sock puppet]

Maybe, just maybe Simon's point isn't that the LDS church is no worse than other churches and therefore deserves a free pass. Maybe his point is that mistakes made by leaders of those institutions does not mean that the organization is worthy of great criticism. Even some of the Old Testament prophets were a bit colorful. As we say, the church is perfect but the people are not.

If you criticize our church for its skeletons, how do you feel about other churches? If you do not likewise criticize them, is it a double-standard? If so, would it be healthy to reconsider that maybe the LDS church isn't so bad after all?

The LDS Church owns its own history, warts and all. Its no worse nor better than its people and its doctrine, because that is what an institution is after all: a collection of people attracted to the core belief or reason for the institution's existence.

Comparing the LDS Church to other churches merely is a comparison. It does not wash clean the LDS Church's history. It does not make it any less "bad after all".

[_The Reaping]

Maybe, just maybe Simon's point isn't that the LDS church is no worse than other churches and therefore deserves a free pass. Maybe his point is that mistakes made by leaders of those institutions does not mean that the organization is worthy of great criticism. Even some of the Old Testament prophets were a bit colorful. As we say, the church is perfect but the people are not.

If you criticize our church for its skeletons, how do you feel about other churches? If you do not likewise criticize them, is it a double-standard? If so, would it be healthy to reconsider that maybe the LDS church isn't so bad after all?

Good points AB, however, I would not expect critics to busy themselves criticizing other churches too much here, for a couple reasons. First, this website is, after all, Mormon discussions, so lengthy threads about other religions would be out of place here, and second, most of the critics here seem to be former members, so it is somewhat natural that the would focus on the LDS faith.

[_schreech]

Jainism, bahai, rastafari, universal life church....

That said, I do agree with the premise of the OP: the LDS church is no better than any other flawed, man-made religion with a sordid pasts....not really sure what the point of confirming that is...

[_asbestosman]

Comparing the LDS Church to other churches merely is a comparison. It does not wash clean the LDS Church's history. It does not make it any less "bad after all".

Yeah, so? Did you miss the point where I ask if you likewise criticize other institutions about their skeletons? I didn't claim the comparison washed the church clean. I actually don't consider the church or other churches to be sullied by the past. The responsibility rests on the individuals, not the institution. I don't criticize the Catholics because current Catholics have nothing to do with the Inquisition. I could even see them being God's authoritative church in spite of the Inquisition. However, I condemn the Inquisition itself. This is not about whitewashing anything, but about assigning blame and criticism where it is due and being fair about it.

[_Sethbag]

Maybe, just maybe Simon's point isn't that the LDS church is no worse than other churches and therefore deserves a free pass. Maybe his point is that mistakes made by leaders of those institutions does not mean that the organization is worthy of great criticism.

What is an organization but some combination of its membership and its leadership? And how does the membership get off scot free when they approve, sustain, and support the leadership in its mistakes?

I claim that all religions are works of man and not "kingdoms" of some Creator of the Universe, which said Creator has caused to be erected here on Earth so that his "will" can be explained to us by those to whom he has appeared in secret and appointed his viceroy over the rest of us. How is giving us a laundry list of the various ways in which the large, recognized religions on Earth have failed to live up to any kind of Godly expectations going to help out the Mormon cause?

Even some of the Old Testament prophets were a bit colorful. As we say, the church is perfect but the people are not.

To say that Old Testament prophets were "colorful" is a bit of an understatement. They commanded genocide, handed their daughters over to mobs (when they weren't getting drunk and f*cking them), and instructed people to kill anyone doing particular things on a specific day of the week, killing people who talked back to their parents, killing anyone who said a particular word (the "he said Jehova!" scene in Life of Brian is friggin hilarious), killing anyone who didn't claim allegiance to the same made-up god, and so forth and so on. These were bronze-age desert tribesman and shaman, not mouthpieces for some Creator of the Universe.

If you criticize our church for its skeletons, how do you feel about other churches?

Pretty much the same way.

If you do not likewise criticize them, is it a double-standard?

I wasn't born a Catholic, Muslim, Hindu, Jew, or any of the other religions out there. My whole family, and most of my in-laws, are Mormons not Catholics, Muslims, Hindus, Jews, and so forth. My experience of realizing that my religion was not true was with the Mormon one, and so forth. I trust you recognize a pattern forming.

But the bottom line is that I actually do criticize all the other religions as man-made institutions. If I don't spend as much time interested in them specifically as I do with Moromonism, that's just an accident of personal history.

If so, would it be healthy to reconsider that maybe the LDS church isn't so bad after all?

I might ask you the same thing. When you identify a pattern of manmade churches throughout history on Earth, and then the Mormon church fits right in with that pattern, what does that tell you?

[_asbestosman]

I would not expect critics to busy themselves criticizing other churches too much here, for a couple reasons. First, this website is, after all, Mormon discussions, so lengthy threads about other religions would be out of place here, and second, most of the critics here seem to be former members, so it is somewhat natural that the would focus on the LDS faith.

Fair enough I suppose. However, I think most of them may not even consider that other churches which they respect and don't think to criticize have their own share of questions. The idea isn't to get people to criticize other churches, but rather to temper their criticism in light of other things they just let be.

[_Simon Belmont]

That's why when I became Catholic I was more concerned about its doctrine than its history. There are of course points where history and doctrine intersect such as the LDS doctrine of polygamy. In that case you have to look at whether or not the doctrine of polygamy is true instead of how the doctrine was carried out. People will always come short of what they profess. The test of Joseph Smith's mission is found in what he actually taught rather than how he actually lived. It's whether or not the Book of Mormon is true rather than what he might have done with Fanny Alger ...

And this is what I am trying to get at. I agree with this.