List of things that make Mormonism a cult

[_JAK]

And someone on this forum in another thread claimed that religion did not use fear as persuasion.

"People are stupid; given proper motivation, almost anyone will believe almost anything. Because people are stupid, they will believe a lie because they want to believe it’s true, or because they are afraid it might be true." --Terry Goodkind, Wizard's First Rule

Well, I would modify that First Rule a little.

Some people are stupid. Or, many people are stupid.

Certainly people want to believe certain things. And without doubt, fear is a motivational tool.

It’s not only about religion. People are over-insured, for example.

Others are under-insured. They think, It won’t happen to me…

Advertising plays on emotions as it attempts to persuade us to buy.

JAK

[_Moniker]

The LDS website that I first sought answers to my questions didn't really present "reality" when it came to Joseph Smith. I then went to the official Joseph Smith website -- same deal.

"reality" according to whose interpretational filter?

Ha. Well reality to some is that Joseph Smith never practiced polygamy. Is that the truth, Coggins? Does that pass your "interpretational filter"?

[_Moniker]

Information control:

The LDS website that I first sought answers to my questions didn't really present "reality" when it came to Joseph Smith. I then went to the official Joseph Smith website -- same deal.

http://www.josephsmith.com/

http://josephsmith.net/josephsmith/v/in ... 5e340aRCRD

There are LDS (met 'em and talked with 'em) that vehemently deny that Joseph Smith had more than one wife. Their understanding of LDS persecution and Joseph Smith's death (outside any knowledge that polygamy was even practiced) is very skewed since they're unaware of the history that led to the persecution and subsequent jailing of Smith.

Go to talk to a missionary online and ask about polygamy and you will get the run around.

My nine year old denies that there is a professional football team in Michigan. Therefore, all nine-year-olds are idiots, as well as all members of my family.

Wow! I'm sorry to hear you feel that way.

My 55-year-old secretary, a devout Catholic, has never heard of the massacre perpetrated by the Church at Languedoc. Therefore all Catholics are ignorant and choose not to know the truth of their faith.

On the other hand, every member of my LDS study group knows that Joseph Smith had more than one wife, that some of them were married civilly to other men, and know all about the Nauvoo Expositor. Therefore, I must conclude, all Latter-day Saints know the truth of all things pertaining to their religion.

I am not a logician, but there is something wrong with your logic.

rcrocket

What's wrong with my logic? The Church puts out information for the public with bios that say Emma was his one and only wife. This isn't ancient history. If the Church did not talk so much about the persecution of the early saints (and they DO) then it wouldn't be that big of a deal. Yet, when you say the LDS were persecuted and then leave out the rest of the history this is skewing history and doesn't give an accurate portrayal of Joseph Smith or the early Church.

I just sense that there are going to be a bunch of wavering testimonies when people do find out. I've often spoken on MAD that I wished the Church was more open about this. From my understanding there are LDS that feel the same way (consig for instance) that believe that less people would be so startled about the revelation of the history if they heard it from the Church. As of right now people believe that it is only anti-Mormon propaganda and lies that Joseph Smith had more than one wife. And yanno what may happen when they realize it is NOT the anti-Mormons that were lying to them? Woopsie daisy -- that may cause a little fire storm in the noggin.

Just sayin'.

[_Coggins7]

Yes, a requirement. That's good. At least we see acknowledgment that it isn't really a "choice" in any meaningful way.

And what would a true "choice" entail, regarding the Temple, that would make it meaningful?

Sure, a faithful LDS who "understands what the Temple is" would "want to pay their tithing." But this assumes there is only one kind (Morgbot, anyone?) of "faithful LDS". There are plenty of different types of LDS, and

not all of them are 100% jolly and cheerful about the temple and tithing.

Ahh, Scratch is now the arbiter of Church doctrine and the nature of faithfulness. Strange. When I or any other apologist here clarifies or makes definite statements regarding official doctrine or settled understanding of an issue, Scratch, Harmony, and other assorted peanuts in the gallery throw a tittie fit. And yet here, Scratch lectures us on a heretofore unknown (at least among the benighted morgbots) phenomena of multiple forms of faithfulness.

Now, anyone who does not accept either tithing or the Temple (and anyone who does not accept the Temple has just rejected, for all intents and purposes, the overarching purpose and mission of the Church), has, as with tithing, other options. There are other churches, other belief systems.

Yeah, it's true: you get a "choice" about whether or not to pay tithing, but this "choice" sounds rather like one of Don Corleone's "offers you can't refuse."

Intellectual vacuity born of emotional and psychological desperation. Faustian bargain this. Don Corleone's threat was that if you don't do something I want, I will hurt you. God's identification of the consequences of sin or rebellion against him is a threat only to those who perceive it as a threat. The wicked, as we recall from the Book of Mormon, shake and tremble with anger when presented with the word of God. It cramps their style. It causes all manner of upset.

Mr. Corleone's punishments are are imposed. Our damnation, in whatever form, is self imposed. and that's one major difference. And Mr. Corelone is seeking only his own self interest. God, and his Church, are seeking ours. Big difference. You can choose not to pay your tithing, or choose not to go to the Temple, and accept the degree of glory implied by this body of choices. Your other choice, of course, is to pay the tithing and go to the Temple. Then, if one endures to the end, we get to have our cake and eat it. Problem solved.

Its your lack of intellectual honesty Scratch, that obviates any possible rational discussion with you on issues such as this, not any incongruity in the concepts themselves.

Sure, you don't have to sign the contract---you have the choice. But, if you choose not to sign, your brains will be blown out. What, at base, is all that different (besides severity and duration, of course) between eternal damnation/denial of salvation/exaltation, and getting your head blown off? We are talking about similar, very serious kinds of consequences.

There is an external universe in which you and I are embedded. The Gospel claims to have true and distinct knowledge about the central features of that universe and our relation to it. This is called the Plan of Salvation. To inherit exaltation, there are rules, standards, disciplines, sacrifices; in a word, requirements, as there are in all other aspects of life. Do you want a degree? Then there are requirements. Do you want to be a Space Shuttle pilot. There are requirements. Want to be a Karate master? There are requirements. One can choose not to pursue or maintain those requirements, but if one so chooses, then, inherently and necessarily, one by definition chooses not to pursue the goal or end state desired.

And why, in any case, should it be thought that exaltation in the Kingdom of God should not involve goals involving disciplines related to standards bearing directly on the ultimate goal? What kind of loony universe Scratch, would you like to live in in which the gates of heaven are open to everybody regardless of the standard of existence they have chosen for themselves? If heaven is open to all, then heaven isn't heaven but just a cosmic commons.

No thanks. Not worth all the trouble down here.

[_Coggins7]

What's wrong with my logic?

Its inferentially irrelevant to your major point (conclusion) which appears to be that the institutional church exercises some form of "information control".

The Church puts out information for the public with bios that say Emma was his one and only wife.

I'd like a source for this. The Church certainly does put out information saying that Emma was his wife. I'd like a reference for the "one and only' phraseology.

I just sense that there are going to be a bunch of wavering testimonies when people do find out.

Being trapped in fantasy world of your own construction, no matter how it may massage your ego now, will eventually deliver only diminishing returns. I've known about polygamy since I don't know when. Every Mormon I've ever known over the last twenty years knows it. Extensive written material on the subject is available at the FARMS website or in any Church bookstore. Here's some more logic: you clearly don't know what your talking about.

Calling Mongo, calling Mongo, come in Dale...

I've often spoken on MAD that I wished the Church was more open about this.
From my understanding there are LDS that feel the same way (consig for instance) that believe that less people would be so startled about the revelation of the history if they heard it from the Church. As of right now people believe that it is only anti-Mormon propaganda and lies that Joseph Smith had more than one wife. And yanno what may happen when they realize it is NOT the anti-Mormons that were lying to them? Woopsie daisy -- that may cause a little fire storm in the noggin.

Just sayin'.

Moniker, the doctrine of polygamy is clearly explicated and justified in the D&C. Its there for all LDS, young and old, male and female, sweet or sour, to see for themselves. We go over it in Gospel Doctrine class every time the Old Testament is taught and every time the D&C is taught. We went over it extensively in Institute in the seventies.

You are losing intellectual credibility rapidly in a place where, admittedly, credibility loss is a kind of mad race to the bottom for which there is always a line forming.

[_Moniker]

What's wrong with my logic?

Its inferentially irrelevant to your major point (conclusion) which appears to be that the institutional church exercises some form of "information control".

I have proof that the official Church websites do not mention any wives other than Emma. What? Did you see my reply to you, Coggins? I posted the links.

The Church puts out information for the public with bios that say Emma was his one and only wife.

I'd like a source for this. The Church certainly does put out information saying that Emma was his wife. I'd like a reference for the "one and only' phraseology.

Uh, when they don't mention him being married to any other women that's deceit by omission. I retract my statement that they say "one and only". Yet, they make no mention of polygamy or any other wife.

I just sense that there are going to be a bunch of wavering testimonies when people do find out.

Being trapped in fantasy world of your own construction, no matter how it may massage your ego now, will eventually deliver only diminishing returns. I've known about polygamy since I don't know when. Every Mormon I've ever known over the last twenty years knows it. Extensive written material on the subject is available at the FARMS website or in any Church bookstore. Here's some more logic: you clearly don't know what your talking about.

Yah, well, Coggins, ya see I have family ties that are LDS and they don't know! And they are not the only ones as you will hear about on MAD. There were threads that dealt with this very subject -- about broaching the history in firesides. Just 'cause you say you knew doesn't mean everyone does. Why so defensive?

I've often spoken on MAD that I wished the Church was more open about this.
From my understanding there are LDS that feel the same way (consig for instance) that believe that less people would be so startled about the revelation of the history if they heard it from the Church. As of right now people believe that it is only anti-Mormon propaganda and lies that Joseph Smith had more than one wife. And yanno what may happen when they realize it is NOT the anti-Mormons that were lying to them? Woopsie daisy -- that may cause a little fire storm in the noggin.

Just sayin'.

Moniker, the doctrine of polygamy is clearly explicated and justified in the D&C. Its there for all LDS, young and old, male and female, sweet or sour, to see for themselves. We go over it in Gospel Doctrine class every time the Old Testament is taught and every time the D&C is taught. We went over it extensively in Institute in the seventies.

You are losing intellectual credibility rapidly in a place where, admittedly, credibility loss is a kind of mad race to the bottom for which there is always a line forming.

Oh, sheesh. I don't really care, Coggins. I mean, it's not my Church. It's not my deal. I just do know for a fact that the Church website omits mention of Joseph Smith's other wives. I also know for a fact (from personal contact) that there are members of the LDS Church that don't know this bit of history. I also know that when I talked to missionaries about it that they denied he had more than one wife.

I think it should be more proactive with teaching the history so no one is startled. And that's all.

[_Moniker]

Here's a search engine on JosephSmith.net

http://josephsmith.net/josephsmith/v/in ... D&locale=0

Guess how many results there were?

Here's his bio on JosephSmith.com (I found no search engine here -- but did find a link to FARMS)

http://www.josephsmith.com/content/arti ... _Smith.htm

Here's the chronology of the Church from the LDS official website:

http://scriptures.LDS.org/chchrono/contents

[_Coggins7]

I have proof that the official Church websites do not mention any wives other than Emma. What? Did you see my reply to you, Coggins? I posted the links.

That's not what you claimed. You claimed that the Church makes assertions to the effect that Emma was his one and only wife, and that is not a logically equivalent statement to the Premise "Emma was Joseph Smith's wife".

Uh, when they don't mention him being married to any other women that's deceit by omission. I retract my statement that they say "one and only". Yet, they make no mention of polygamy or any other wife.

Uh, where's the official Church publication that claims Emma was his "one and only" wife? The idea that it is deceit by omission is your own perception, not a logical inference. Joseph Smith's other wives are not in the slightest way gemain to the core concepts of the Gospel nonmembers need to know, and there is no reason to scare them away with such knowledge. Milk before meat is the rule. There are any number of principles that would spook nonmembers of any religion (say, Buddhism) until the more fundamental principles of the system are known and the manner in which they are connected as a whole are understood. If one just doesn't like the idea of polygamy, that's understandable, but as is in evidence here, people don't like tithing, the Temple per se, the Church's sexual standards, the WoW, and any number of other things. To some, the WoW is bizarre and extreme. its all a matter of the frame of reference and bias through which one perceives.

Yah, well, Coggins, ya see I have family ties that are LDS and they don't know!

That's their problem, not the Church's.

Oh, sheesh. I don't really care, Coggins. I mean, it's not my Church. It's not my deal. I just do know for a fact that the Church website omits mention of Joseph Smith's other wives.

Yes moniker, and it also omits probably 99% of the teachings, doctrines, and principles of the Church, as well as their philosophical and theological implications, as it must to make sense to those who do not understand the Church and are interested in the basics. So what? Your standard is both impossible and tendentious, so it can safely be ignored.

I also know for a fact (from personal contact) that there are members of the LDS Church that don't know this bit of history. I also know that when I talked to missionaries about it that they denied he had more than one wife.

OK, so the missionaries you talked to were Dorks. I've nolt met one in thirty years who didn't know it. Its pedestrian and common knowledge.

I think it should be more proactive with teaching the history so no one is startled. And that's all.

I think critics of the Church should be more proactive in doing there homework so that they at least have a working knowledge of the issues and points of interest they seek to discuss. That would be a real big plus.

[Guest]

I have proof that the official Church websites do not mention any wives other than Emma. What? Did you see my reply to you, Coggins? I posted the links.

That's not what you claimed. You claimed that the Church makes assertions to the effect that Emma was his one and only wife, and that is not a logically equvalent statement to the Premise "Emma was Joseph Smith's wife".

How would one go about finding out about the other wives if they wanted to know from official LDS websites, Coggins? I claimed that the Church was WITHHOLDING information. THAT was my claim! It is by omission! I'm not going to get into a pissing contest with you. I know you can aim and do it standing up -- I have no desire to play with you in that manner. Chill out!

Uh, when they don't mention him being married to any other women that's deceit by omission. I retract my statement that they say "one and only". Yet, they make no mention of polygamy or any other wife.

Uh, where's the official Church publication that claims Emma was his "one and only" wife? The idea that it is deceit by omission is your own perception, not a logical inference. Joseph Smith's other wives are not in the slightest way gemain to the core concepts of the Gospel nonmembers need to know, and there is no reason to scare them away with such knowledge. Milk before meat is the rule. There are any number of principles that would spook nonmembers of any religion (say, Buddhism) until the more fundamental principles of the system are known and the manner in which they are connected as a whole are understood. If one just doesn't like the idea of polygamy, that's understandable, but as is in evidence here, people don't like tithing, the Temple per se, the Church's sexual standards, the WoW, and any number of other things. To some, the WoW is bizarre and extreme. its all a matter of the frame of reference and bias through which one perceives.

Coggins, I retracted that statement. Can you not make any points as it relates to anything else I mentioned? Uh, Buddhism isn't scary in the least -- CFR! ;)

I think milk before meat is a pretty rotten idea -- personally. Look about on this board and see how many angry, hurt people there are that were startled, shocked, and lost much (if not all) of their faith when confronted with some of that meat!

Yah, well, Coggins, ya see I have family ties that are LDS and they don't know!

That's their problem, not the Church's.

Why? Does the Church members not talk about anti-LDS material? I was informed that saying that Joseph Smith had more than one wife made ME an anti-LDS. Which was nutso because I got all my information from FARMS and was only trying to HELP understand their faith. Gotta say I was more than a bit shocked to find out I knew more about the history than those that are in the Church! It was upsetting to me that they thought I was a liar. THIS is a Church problem if the Church is aware that some (many?) of the members are unaware. They should be PROACTIVE!

Oh, sheesh. I don't really care, Coggins. I mean, it's not my Church. It's not my deal. I just do know for a fact that the Church website omits mention of Joseph Smith's other wives.

Yes moniker, and it also omits probably 99% of the teachings, doctrines, and principles of the Church, as well as there philosophical and theological implications, as it must to make sense to those who do not understand the Church and are interested in the basics. So what? Your standard is both impossible and tendentious, so it can safely be ignored.

Do you call that "information control"? I do!

I think it should be more proactive with teaching the history so no one is startled. And that's all.

I think critics of the Church should be more proactive in doing there homework so that they at least have a working knowledge of the issues and points of interest they seek to discuss. That would be a real big plus.

I am NOT a critic of the Church! I have no qualms with the LDS Church, really. The one thing that bothers me is the sexual aspect of the Church -- it makes me skeev out a bit and I think can be harmful. But that makes me a critic? Sheesh, Coggins, without critics of the Church there would still be all sorts of nutso crap going on. Without the critics the Church WOULD be a cult -- as it was 100 some years ago.

I think there are wonderful people in the Church and even those that left are still great people! I think faith and the community that the Church can be very beneficial to some. The morals, work ethic, emphasis on education, and charity are something I GREATLY admire! I just commented on THIS because it's something that has touched my life personally and it's a concern of mine. I don't suggest anything to attack the Church! If anything these are suggestions. Take them as such!

[_Jason Bourne]

So yes there is a mandate, duress, and even subtle force. "If I fail to tithe I will be denied the ordinances I need to be exalted...so I better tithe...."

You try very, very hard to avoid the logical, inferential content of an argument and miss the central point, and all too many times, somehow, you succeed.

You fail to face the facts, the truth and thus you obfuscate with sentences that have no meaning....