posted
I know that several people who are LDS/Mormon (including OSC) frequent this side of the board so I thought I'd post it here.
The other day someone who was talking about Mormons, said several very hostile things about the early Mormon church. Personally, I thought it was bull...but that was just my opinion, since I don't really know much of anything about it (so I had no evidence to back up my claim that it had to be bull). I figured I'd as ask people who actually would know that it wasn't true.
He said that he saw some TV program that said two things
1) That before starting the Mormon church, Joseph Smith was a con artist. Wikipedia mentioned something to do with being hired to find treasure with divine assistance (though it said it was commonly done back then).
2) This is the worse one: That the followers of Brigham Young who went out to Utah would refuse to sell supplies to non Mormons who moved out to Utah, and some some cases killed them (though they said there was no evidence that Young knew that this was going on).
I almost didn't post this, because I thought people might find it offensive...but you can't learn unless you ask people who would know...and I don't know anyone IRL that is LDS.
Posts: 1901 | Registered: May 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I have been told the con-artist one when my old church did a week long thing on "cults."
I've been learning over the years just how slanted my old religion's views were on ANY religion that was not their own.
But I wonder if there is any weight to that statment anyway. I don't know the history of the man myself.
Posts: 339 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
...and the Apostle Paul was once Saul who killed Christians...before he became one.
No, I'm not Mormon.... I'm just saying...
..that maybe it isn't right to judge based on whatever he might have been before his "calling"... Unless when you are 45 or so, you want to be judged by the type of person you were when you were 18.
posted
Lupus, both those facts are technically true (as far as I know), but they've been put in a biased and deliberately damning light.
Joseph Smith worked as a mystic and diviner in his youth.
Additionally, Mormons moved to Utah to get away from the citizens of the United States, who at that time were persecuting and killing them. They did not wish to encourage non-Mormon migration into or across Utah (as at that time they still intended for Utah to remain a theocracy), and so refused to socialize with and/or sell to non-Mormon settlers. Some Mormons did in fact threaten and even kill settlers, but then some settlers threatened and killed Mormons; the score's pretty even in that regard, and I'm reluctant to assign blame for the reckless and immoral actions of a few individuals under pressure to an entire church or government.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Was he a Pagen or somehow linked with old Celtic values? I noticed Scott R telling me how Mormon structures are decorated with suns, moons, and stars. Although these are common symbols in many places, I am just wondering what his beliefs were before he began getting his visions.
Posts: 339 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Tom:"They did not wish to encourage non-Mormon migration into or across Utah . . . , and so refused to socialize with and/or sell to non-Mormon settlers."
Actually, the Mormons made quite a lot of money selling supplies to travellers across their territory. What the original poster might have heard about is the instruction not to sell to U.S. troops which had been sent by the President to invade Utah. (This occurred during the same time period when the Mountain Meadows Massacre took place, which is probably the other event that the original poster heard about).
As for socializing with non-Mormon settlers of the same area, the history of my own hometown (Layton, Utah) is full of stories of the interactions between the two groups. One of the main thoroughfares through town is called Gentile Street, and was given that name as a joking reference to the surprising number of non-Mormons who lived along it back in the very early days. (In other words, the non-Mormon residents would joke with their Mormon neighbors that the street should be called Gentile Street, and so it was.)
Posts: 1652 | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think for question number one these articles should be of use. Mormons, and Joseph Smith himself, never denied early money digging. The question is, and these admittedly "apologetic" articles touch on this, how much and for what reason?
Posts: 2207 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Farmgirl: ..that maybe it isn't right to judge based on whatever he might have been before his "calling"... Unless when you are 45 or so, you want to be judged by the type of person you were when you were 18.
FG
While this is a good point, don't we hold founders of religion to higher standards? Would you agree that Jesus could have been judged (had he lived to 45) by what he was at 18?
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:While this is a good point, don't we hold founders of religion to higher standards?
I know that "we" do, but that is a mistake. People are people, and we should judge them if they overcome their mistakes. After all, we are talking about a person AFTER their religious coversion. As for Joseph Smith, he never claimed perfection and agreed that his "teenage years" were rather unChristian at times.
Besides, considering that Jesus means a lot more than just "founder" to a LOT of people, than this is a mistaken comparison.
Posts: 2207 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote: I noticed Scott R telling me how Mormon structures are decorated with suns, moons, and stars.
This symbolism is an overt reference to 1 Cor. 15: 41:
quote: 41 There is one glory of the sun, and another glory of the moon, and another glory of the stars: for one star differeth• from another star in glory.
There is evidence that he was hired by Mr. Stoal specifically because of his reputation as a diviner. However, there is equal evidence that he never solicited the work, and even tried to discorage the use of his gifts for uses other than religious.
Edit: Not to mention that, aside from rumor and innuendo, there is no mention that he was ever hired for divination purposes besides that one time.
Posts: 2207 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I just want to say that this possibly the best religion-related thread I've seen in my whole time at Hatrack.
Posts: 1068 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
I don't understand why the street would be called "Gentile Street." Mormons are gentiles themselves...
Posts: 289 | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Minerva, according to LDS theology anyone baptised as a Mormon is, either literally or through spiritual adoption, part of the House of Israel. They become, for lack of a better word, Spiritual Jews.
Posts: 2207 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
No, not really. They basically believe that, like their brothers the Jews, Mormons are also God's chosen people. Hence, anyone other than Jews and Mormons are Gentiles.
Judaism, of course, does not return the sentiment.
Posts: 2267 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
So no one wants to own up to the Mountain Meadows Massacre? It is a pretty complicated issue. The Mormon territory was under seige by an army sent by General Buchanan at the time. A guy several hundred miles south of Salt Lake was given the order to maintain peace with the indigenous people at all costs, and what the indigenous people wanted to show loyalty was for the Mormons to claim a truce with some settlers they had been beseiging and lead them out where they could be killed. The Mormons killed the men and the indigenous warriors killed the women and, I believe, many wounded.
There was also an organizational problem in that militia ranks were all incongrous with ecclesiastical ranks and when the shooting was over, the military men wanted to blame the ecclesiastical leaders and the ecclesiastical leaders wanted to claim they were acting under military orders.
Small children were spared and most were returned to relatives in the east, though a few who had no relatives remained with Utah settlers.
Views vary between Brigham Young plotting the whole thing by siphoning away several important leaders from the area and him feeling really really bad about it. I consider the massacre to be casualties of war, though the popular view is that the Utah war was a bloodless war.
posted
.... confused.... since when does the US have the right to waltz right in territory that doesn't belong to them and try to annex it? If they left the US to escape persecution don't they then have the right to live their own lives as there own nation without interfearance? I can never understand the contradiction in American democracy where they soehow have the right to take whatever they think is there's. No offence to ym fellow Hatracks and other decent American's I know.
Posts: 1567 | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
What right did Apaches have to take children from the Pimas? What right did Napoleon,and later Hitler, have to take Europe? What right did the string of 5 Kahns have to taking Europe and Asia? What right did Rome have to take the land around the Med? What right did Hirohito have to take Manchuria? And on, and on, and on, throughout human history.
We really aren't that nice to each other.
Posts: 115 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I mean specifically the American example since they are supposedly supposed to be a democratic nation dedicate to the individual free rights.
Posts: 1567 | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Sid Meier: I can never understand the contradiction in American democracy where they soehow have the right to take whatever they think is there's.
Well, we only have two directions left to expand. I think it's time we grabbed ourselves some much needed "breathing room" up north. Posts: 339 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
i like the south park take on mormons/religions we may think are BS. as long they aren't committing atrocities against humanity or anything, who cares what they believe, thats there buisness. and they do help alot of people out of some tough times ya kno.. well, alot of religions in general do alot of that. which is why, tho im not terribly religious myself, i believe it is, on the whole, good for society.
Posts: 5 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
The whole affair is a lot more complicated than even your senerio Sid M. To be honest, the Mormons never wanted to leave the United States. Even during the travel West, the Mormons were voluntarily recruited for participation in the War with Mexico in hopes of saying "see, we aren't enemies." Obviously, the government of the U.S. didn't buy that line of reasoning.
The Mormons said, "we are different and hold different ideas about religion and the meaning of democracy, but we still believe in the Constitution of the United States. We even believe in it to the point of believing it was a revelation of God to help set up the nation." Well, most members of the United States said, "No, you are a false religion and a danger to the Constitution because you aren't OUR kind of democrats. After all, you believe in gathering together in seperate communities and having a living breathing prophet. Besides, you believe in . . . how dare you . . . polygamy." This was in the day that you were either a Protestant or you were nothing; as Catholics were persecuted for a few of the same reasons as Mormons.
On top of that, the territory the Mormons went to was a Mexican territory, meaning Mormons didn't have any more rights to be there than the United States. Of course, you can say, as someone else did, that neither did the Mexicans. So, Mormons were saying leave us alone and let us in. Non-Mormons were saying you don't even have a right to exist unless you become more like the regular old protestants. Well, in many ways Mormons eventually did become more like regular old protestants as many of the early practices of the Church no longer exist as mainstream (such as communitarian economies and polygamy).
Posts: 2207 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Not all Mormons were former Americans. A good many came over directly from Europe. At the time of the Mountain Meadows Massacre, it was three parties involved: Americans, Mormons, and Indians (I'll leave it at that since none of these is the correct names of the groups). As time passes and we conflate Mormons with Americans, the massacre seems more sinister. But at the time Americans were at war with the Mormons and the Mormons were trying to avoid getting in a war with the Indians at the same time.
Posts: 2010 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
[/QUOTE]I know that "we" do, but that is a mistake. People are people, and we should judge them if they overcome their mistakes. After all, we are talking about a person AFTER their religious coversion. As for Joseph Smith, he never claimed perfection and agreed that his "teenage years" were rather unChristian at times.[/QB][/QUOTE]
So if he was a con artist in his younger years and lets say he lives today. He's caught and while in prison he founds a religion and says he's saintly or whatever the mormon belief is. That won't make the judicial system or very many people say "Oh he says hes a nice guy now, I guess we can let him out" It just doesn't seem very fair to pardon someone for bad things they have done just because they suddenly decided to do nice things.
Yes America as a whole is/was very hypocritcal. Our founders were the Puritans who came over due to religious persecution and upon landing when some of them asked "can i do this religion" the puritans said hell no get the hell off my land. The exact same thing that was said to them that drove them across the ocean. And then we come up with a nice constitution with bits specifically saying we cannot take these people's territory. We then proceed to take ALL their territory and justify it by saying welll we felt like it.
Posts: 655 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote: That won't make the judicial system or very many people say "Oh he says hes a nice guy now, I guess we can let him out" It just doesn't seem very fair to pardon someone for bad things they have done just because they suddenly decided to do nice things.
Leaving aside the exaggeration in which you're engaging, it's worth noting that there's a huge difference between arguing that the legal system should pardon someone on the face of their claim to have spoken to God and arguing that people should not believe someone who claims to have spoken to God and, as a consequence, reformed.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
The Puritans did not come across due to religious persecution. They came across because they weren't allowed to persecute. You can legitimately accuse them of bigotry, but not hypocrisy.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:The Puritans did not come across due to religious persecution. They came across because they weren't allowed to persecute.
Even though in context you're actually kind of giving a backhanded compliment here, I'm going to have to beg to differ. Though the Anglican persecution of Puritans was comparatively gentle and was directed primarily at ministers and Puritan politicians, it was there. Thomas Shepard, for example, was one of many Puritan ministers forbidden to preach, as was John Cotton. Many Puritan politicans were arrested, and Puritan religious meetings were often broken up.Posts: 794 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
BTW referring to the Puritans as "our founders" is not at all accurate. At best they were a fraction of our founders.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote: So if he was a con artist in his younger years and lets say he lives today.
Are we still talking about Joseph Smith? Just to be clear, Joseph Smith was not a con artist. Certainly not to the extent that he would be jailed as you suggested in the next sentence after the one I quoted. Not that I have any personal knowledge of his kidding around, but I suppose I can't rule out the possibility.
Now there are those who disagree, believing that all of his claims were a con. He did claim to see angels and visions. But if that claim is the basis for calling him a con artist you would also have to call Moses, Daniel, and John con artists (and yes, I know that there are those who do).
Posts: 21 | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
It is certainly not the case that if one or more sightings of angels and visions were the work of con artists that all of them ncessarily were.
There are more than two explanations for Joseph Smith's accounts, including his writings being true, totally made up, the product of a hallucination, or even the product of a vision manufactured by an entity that was not telling the truth.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
Also, it has nothing to do with what I said, or what I tried to say.
My point is that, if saying that one saw angels and visions is the sole basis for being able to be accused to be a con artist, then Moses and other O.T. prophets also fill the bill. The demonstrably false notion that if one claimant is a fraud then they all are is a completely different concept.
Posts: 21 | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I interpreted "if that claim is the basis for calling him a con artist" to mean if one thinks he's a con artist because he made those claims and they are not true.
Just as a person's claim to be owner of a house would be the basis for calling that person a con artist if one did not believe he owned the house, even though somebody can truthfully make the statement that they own the house.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Yep. Without further information, a person claiming to own a house is insufficient cause to believe he is lying.
Posts: 21 | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Yes. But it's the basis for a claim that the person is a con artist when you have further information.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
What a person was prior to his conversion is relatively meaningless. The Apostle Paul was a very fierce persecutor of the early Christians, but we don't condemn him now for his early life of ignorance. King Manasseh was regarded as one of the most wicked of Israel's kings, but even he was accepted by God when he sincerely repented.
However, a person's repentance does not shield him from some of the consequences of his actions. King David still suffered the results of his sin with Bathseba, even though he sincerely repented.
Essentially, we repent so that we can gain acceptance from God. We may still suffer because of the consequences of our sins, but that isn't as important as long as we have God's favor.
We cannot presume to have the knowledge of God in being able to judge a person as wicked or righteous. Whether or not Joseph Smith was a con artist in his early life is of little importance because religion is about a person's individual relationship with God or whatever else you may believe in.
Posts: 1256 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Evil]](graemlins/evil.gif)
![[Grumble]](graemlins/grumble.gif)
