Friends of the Secular Café: Forums
Council of Ex-Muslims of Britain
Talk Freethought
Rational Skepticism Forum
EvC Forum: Evolution vs. Creation
Living Nonreligion Discussion Forum
The Round Table (RatPags)
Talk Rational!
Blogs
Blue Collar Atheist
Camels With Hammers
Ebonmuse: Daylight Atheism
Nontheist Nexus
The Re-Enlightenment
Rosa Rubicondior
The Skeptical Zone
Watching the Deniers
Others
Christianity Disproved
Count Me Out
Ebon Musings
Freethinker.co.uk
 
       

Go Back   Secular Café > Intellectual Debate and Discussion Forums > Politics & World Events

Notices

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 30 Apr 2012, 09:30 AM   #360039 / #1
DMB
Old git
Beloved deceased
 
DMB's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Mostly Switzerland
Posts: 41,484
Default The religious dimension

Do most mainstream American Christians understand what Mormon beliefs are? Will this matter in the election?

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/mugamb...l?ref=politics

Quote:
The influence of religion remains exceptionally strong in America compared to other Western countries. As noted by Stephen Prothero, a professor of religion at Boston University, modern-day Americans continue to share a faith in faith at a time when religion frequently inspires indifference or suspicion in contemporary developed nations. Four in ten Americans attend church on a weekly basis, a high proportion in the West. Americans are more inclined to believe in a definite, personal God than in a vague spirit or life force. Religious skepticism is also far less common in the United States.

Moreover, an extraordinarily large minority of Americans gravitate towards religious fundamentalism -- faith rooted in a literal understanding of scripture and a staunch opposition to modern social mores, especially in matters of sexuality, as was recently embodied by Santorum. America is essentially the only Western country where Christian fundamentalism is prevalent. This singularity is illustrated by the fact that Americans are much more likely to reject the theory of evolution in favor of Genesis-based creationism. Four in ten Americans deem that God created humans in their actual form 10,000 years ago. The same proportion expects Jesus to return by 2050. Sixty percent are equally convinced that Biblical accounts about God creating Earth in six days and Noah's Ark are true word-for-word (ABC poll, 2006). Few devout persons in other Western countries interpret the Bible literally...

...Ironically, Americans are highly religious but they are more divided by religion than other Westerners, as evidenced by the public's conflicting reactions to Santorum's views on reproductive rights and sexual propriety. Commentators disagree about how much "culture wars" influence U.S. elections. Nevertheless, one thing is sure: in virtually no developed country are issues like abortion, contraception, gay rights, sexual education (abstinence-only or not), and evolution as controversial as in America. In almost all other Western nations, people generally hold the liberal-moderate view of these questions as a matter of consensus. Few share the ultra-traditionalist stance that represents a major side of the debate in America. Notwithstanding the influence of the religious right, many citizens share liberal-moderate approaches to faith, as exemplified by Obama. They favor greater tolerance and are disposed to conciliate religion with modern knowledge, such as by rejecting Biblical literalism and creationism. For example, a slight majority of U.S. Catholics and Mainline Protestants accept evolution, whereas less than a quarter of Evangelicals and Mormons do...

...Smith's claims raise simple factual questions. For example, linguists dispute his key assertion about the existence of a "Reformed Egyptian" language, Egyptologists have ridiculed his interpretation of papyri hieroglyphics, and archeologists and anthropologists find no support for his account about Native Americans being Israelites -- they instead note that the Book of Mormon is full of anachronisms. The lack of attention to these matters illustrates the deference given to faith in America, where even constructive criticism of religion is liable to be construed as downright intolerance, unlike in Europe.

Of course, there is no valid reason to believe that America could not have a good president who happens to be Mormon. The Constitution rightly bars a religious test for office. However, this clause should not be used as a shield while religious rhetoric is used as a sword. Romney has downplayed his Mormonism but, like many politicians of both parties, he recurrently mentions God to try and obtain votes. Notably, Romney claims that the country's sharp wealth inequality is a non-issue and that focusing on it "is entirely inconsistent with the concept of one nation under God." That is quite an exceptional argument.
DMB is offline   Reply With Quote top bottom
Old 30 Apr 2012, 10:27 AM   #360048 / #2
lpetrich
Smart Designer
SysAdmin; Mod: LU&E, C&AS
 
lpetrich's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Lebanon, OR, USA
Posts: 13,858
Default

Quote:
Notably, Romney claims that the country's sharp wealth inequality is a non-issue and that focusing on it "is entirely inconsistent with the concept of one nation under God." That is quite an exceptional argument.
Compare
Federal union blasts Romney over remarks about government workers’ pay - The Federal Eye - The Washington Post
Quote:
The head of the largest federal employees union sent a scathing letter to Mitt Romney after the Republican presidential candidate made disparaging remarks about federal pay.

After essentially clinching the Republican nomination on Tuesday, Romney said “We will stop the unfairness of government workers getting better pay and benefits than the taxpayers they serve.”
Talk about divisiveness. Does he plan to work for nothing and to return his pay to those taxpayers he cries so much for?
lpetrich is offline   Reply With Quote top bottom
Old 30 Apr 2012, 10:38 AM   #360052 / #3
trendkill
Senior Member
Mini KickUps Champion, KickUps Champion
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Northern California
Posts: 2,056
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by DMB View Post
Do most mainstream American Christians understand what Mormon beliefs are? Will this matter in the election?
As someone who has a high level of familiarity with Mormon beliefs, I can say without reservation that they don't. As for whether it will matter in the election, it might, but I can't say whether it will matter more than other factors, like Romney's record as a politician, gaffes, etc.
trendkill is offline   Reply With Quote top bottom
Old 30 Apr 2012, 12:49 PM   #360074 / #4
sohy
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Georgia, USA
Posts: 10,487
Default

I think most mainstream Xians understand enough about Mormonism to know that it conflicts with their own beliefs, but I don't think this will keep many from voting for Romney because of his religion. There are many other reasons that will keep people from voting for him. I think the outcome of the election will have a lot to do with who is the most enthusiastic when it comes to voting. Many will simply stay home, but it's too early to know which side will benefit from the apathy of voters.
sohy is offline   Reply With Quote top bottom
Old 30 Apr 2012, 05:58 PM   #360147 / #5
Koyaanisqatsi
Semper oppugnant quod max
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Posts: 7,898
Default

It's the main reason why he will not beat Obama (and the GOP elite know this). Romney has two Christian hills to climb; assuring the majority of Christian Republican voters that he's Christian enough and convincing enough "swing" Christian Democrat voters to abandon Obama.

He has no hope with the swing Christian Dem voters, of course, so that's out (but for reasons having nothing to do with his Mormonism), which means he has to convince the Republican base voters--the fundiest of the fundies--that he's Christian enough, but he can't attack Obama's faith in any way to do so or it backfires on him (i.e., by using the old Obama is a Muslim bullshit).

Ultra-right wing Christians simply will not vote for a Mormon and the fact that Obama is black won't trump mormonism, particularly since he's already been elected and is POTUS. They won't vote for Obama either, of course, but what they'll likely do is just not vote, which is essentially the same as voting for Obama.
Koyaanisqatsi is offline   Reply With Quote top bottom
Old 30 Apr 2012, 08:03 PM   #360183 / #6
Politesse
Sapere aude
 
Politesse's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Laquisimas
Posts: 19,092
Default

Yeah, the people who are nutters enough to be afraid of Mormons probably also think that Obama is a secret Muslim, so... it may balance out.
__________________
"The truth about stories is that's all we are" ~Thomas King
Politesse is online now   Reply With Quote top bottom
Old 30 Apr 2012, 08:30 PM   #360187 / #7
Koyaanisqatsi
Semper oppugnant quod max
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Posts: 7,898
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Politesse View Post
Yeah, the people who are nutters enough to be afraid of Mormons probably also think that Obama is a secret Muslim, so... it may balance out.
It's not really the extreme nutters that are the problem, ironically; it's the more moderate but still fundie nutters that are the ones who Romney needs to convince that being a Mormon is more Christian than Obama claims he is. But, again he can't attack Obama and imply he's a secret Muslim because that brings his Mormon insanity into fair play. Romney has to avoid the issue entirely.

So, again, his battle isn't necessarily going to be against Obama; his battle is going to be in getting enough Republican Christians to vote at all. There are already enough Republican swing voters out there who are pissed off at how the Republicans have behaved (and continue to behave) during Obama's first term for Romney to worry about, but what's really going to sink him is the unknown number of Republican Christians who just won't vote for a Mormon period and they aren't the fringe extremes.

It may be the Tea Party that drives the headlines and they arguably got Romney to the big table, but they aren't the majority and they already think Obama's a Muslim, so Romney being a Mormon doesn't really matter to them. Not true of the crucial swing Republican voters that Romney will have to convince if he has any hope of beating the guy who killed Bin Laden, "ended" two wars and turned the economy around.
Koyaanisqatsi is offline   Reply With Quote top bottom
Old 30 Apr 2012, 09:09 PM   #360191 / #8
Barefoot Bree
Token Aging Flower Child
 
Barefoot Bree's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: On the highway - could be anywhere!
Posts: 9,312
Default

I was with you, Koy, right up to the last phrase.

Repubs are already harping on how Obama's "failed economic policies" haven't turned the economy around, but that theirs would. And their base is stupid enough to follow that, not thinking about that it was the eight years of Bush's policies - the same ones they're touting - that got us into the mess in the first place.

So they still have a mighty huge hook to work with.
__________________
There's no such thing as "political correctness". The phrase you're looking for is "Common Decency".
"Said" it? Sink me! She almost SANG it!
Barefoot Bree is offline   Reply With Quote top bottom
Old 30 Apr 2012, 09:41 PM   #360199 / #9
Koyaanisqatsi
Semper oppugnant quod max
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Posts: 7,898
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Barefoot Bree View Post
I was with you, Koy, right up to the last phrase.

Repubs are already harping on how Obama's "failed economic policies" haven't turned the economy around, but that theirs would. And their base is stupid enough to follow that
Well, again, Romney's got two problems to overcome; one are the Republican swing voters who aren't that stupid in regard to faith or the economy and dislike the extremist posturing that Romney has not distanced himself from (and can't because they got him there) and the other are Republican Christian moderates-to-fundies, who just aren't going to vote for a Mormon.

So there are two different groups with two different problems to overcome and they are both in effect swing voters (i.e., small enough groups to not be part of the majority, but large enough groups that if he doesn't overcome both problems, either one would sink his campaign). This election is going to be extremely close, if not a landslide for Obama, so it will likely all come down to the wire and every vote will count. And since the GOP elite don't seem to really give much of a shit, this time the votes will actually be counted .

Romney can't convince the Christian non-voters without triggering attacks in kind on his Mormonism from the Obama camp (who are evidently content so far to keep that in reserve) and if that happens, he's fucked good and hard because all the right has are rumors and assertions; Romeny however is no question a Mormon.

He can't convince the swing voters that it's all about Obama's failed economic policies when they know damn well it's all been about embarassing extremist nonsense that's taking over the Republican party and put Romney in the forefront to begin with, so the only way to win them over is to distance himself from the Tea Party that brung him and that will backfire even worse than the Mormon thing, because the Tea Party are all batshit crazy (which is why the media loves them) and would tear him to pieces if he even hinted at distancing himself from them.

In short, he's fucked no matter what.
Koyaanisqatsi is offline   Reply With Quote top bottom
Old 30 Apr 2012, 10:13 PM   #360206 / #10
DMB
Old git
Beloved deceased
 
DMB's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Mostly Switzerland
Posts: 41,484
Default

I hope you're right, Koy. I fear that a lot of Republican voters may lack even the rationality that you assign to them. And don't forget Fox et al., who can be relied on to spout nonsensical misinformation wholesale up till the election.
DMB is offline   Reply With Quote top bottom
Old 01 May 2012, 02:14 PM   #360422 / #11
Koyaanisqatsi
Semper oppugnant quod max
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Posts: 7,898
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by DMB View Post
I hope you're right, Koy. I fear that a lot of Republican voters may lack even the rationality that you assign to them. And don't forget Fox et al., who can be relied on to spout nonsensical misinformation wholesale up till the election.
Well that's the beauty of the swing groups (and again here we have two); they're not part of the majority, but hide within the majority so they're not always easy to gauge and in a close race they determine the outcome.

The very fact that the GOP elite allowed Romney to become the frontrunner proves that they just aren't as interested in the outcome (or rather are indifferent to the outcome) so this is Obama's to lose, imo. It will either be a comparative landslide for Obama and the swing votes won't matter, or a close race and the swing will go to Obama.

Unless Obama's team gets cocky or stupid and goes on the offensive and raises the Mormon issue first, in which case that will give Romney the opening his team would need to go after Obama's faith and then that would give Romney's team all they'd need to minimize that particular swing group so that he could focus on the more important and dangerous swing group; the disgruntled intelligent Republicans who are ashamed to associate in any way with the Tea Party. They're out there, they're just publicly silent (well, most of them), and while they'd likely not vote for Obama, they too will just not vote at all and that's a win for Obama.

You'll see Romney carefully trying to distance himself now, actually, and certainly in the coming days. This is precisely why all of the endorsements are being harped by his team; to give Romney the appearance of being accepted by the mainstream/elite GOP.

Now, why Obama asked Bill Clinton to come on board is a mystery and a mistake imho, as it's (a) too early and (b) gives the appearance of desperation, but I suspect there's some behind the scenes something-or-other involved and that Clinton was really the one behind it. If that's not the case--if Obama is the one who asked Clinton to come on board--then it likely means the economic "October surprise" Obama's team has surely been planning isn't going to be the slam dunk they thought it would be so they need Clinton to go around campaigning for Obama now to lay down the spin points for dealing with the less-then-hoped for economic/jobs recovery numbers later. Or something to that effect.

ETA: Middle America associates Clinton with economic recovery/success, so you'd send him out to campaign for you now if there is no actual recovery/success to pull out of your hat later.

Last edited by Koyaanisqatsi; 01 May 2012 at 02:28 PM.
Koyaanisqatsi is offline   Reply With Quote top bottom
Old 01 May 2012, 08:46 PM   #360544 / #12
Koyaanisqatsi
Semper oppugnant quod max
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Posts: 7,898
Default



Barack Obama Makes Surprise Visit To Afghanistan

So it looks as if Clinton was the one imposing himself on Obama's re-election and the economy/jobs will be Obama's October surprise after all. Unless his re-election team are complete fucking morons of course and they aren't holding something in reserve.
Koyaanisqatsi is offline   Reply With Quote top bottom
Old 01 May 2012, 11:29 PM   #360607 / #13
Volcanoman
Member
 
Join Date: May 2012
Posts: 45
Default

in the process of reading Under the Banner of Heaven by Krakauer. I have wondered the same thing about Romney while reading. LDS has a clear and well defined obedience to the hierarchy of the church. It will sure become a point of contention when I vote.

Some other things to consider:

1) Mormons outlawed polygamy only after pressure from the US judicial system in the early 1900s.
2) Mormons had/have a fundamental racist doctrine until it was changed in the 1970s. They thought that all blacks were apostate and that the original native Americans were evil.
3) Joseph Smith allowed polygamy in order to maintain the vast number of relationships he had with women before he introduced polygamy into the Mormon doctrine including those with prostitutes.
Volcanoman is offline   Reply With Quote top bottom
Old 03 May 2012, 02:12 AM   #361100 / #14
trendkill
Senior Member
Mini KickUps Champion, KickUps Champion
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Northern California
Posts: 2,056
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Volcanoman View Post
in the process of reading Under the Banner of Heaven by Krakauer. I have wondered the same thing about Romney while reading. LDS has a clear and well defined obedience to the hierarchy of the church. It will sure become a point of contention when I vote.

Some other things to consider:

1) Mormons outlawed polygamy only after pressure from the US judicial system in the early 1900s.
2) Mormons had/have a fundamental racist doctrine until it was changed in the 1970s. They thought that all blacks were apostate and that the original native Americans were evil.
3) Joseph Smith allowed polygamy in order to maintain the vast number of relationships he had with women before he introduced polygamy into the Mormon doctrine including those with prostitutes.
Item 2 is factually inaccurate (blacks and native Americans have never been subject to a blanket judgment of being "apostates" or "evil" by the LDS church), and the others are irrelevant to Mormon belief.
trendkill is offline   Reply With Quote top bottom
Old 03 May 2012, 04:51 AM   #361129 / #15
Volcanoman
Member
 
Join Date: May 2012
Posts: 45
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by trendkill View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by Volcanoman View Post
in the process of reading Under the Banner of Heaven by Krakauer. I have wondered the same thing about Romney while reading. LDS has a clear and well defined obedience to the hierarchy of the church. It will sure become a point of contention when I vote.

Some other things to consider:

1) Mormons outlawed polygamy only after pressure from the US judicial system in the early 1900s.
2) Mormons had/have a fundamental racist doctrine until it was changed in the 1970s. They thought that all blacks were apostate and that the original native Americans were evil.
3) Joseph Smith allowed polygamy in order to maintain the vast number of relationships he had with women before he introduced polygamy into the Mormon doctrine including those with prostitutes.
Item 2 is factually inaccurate (blacks and native Americans have never been subject to a blanket judgment of being "apostates" or "evil" by the LDS church), and the others are irrelevant to Mormon belief.
Wow Hoss you don't know much about Mormons and LDS history do you? Or you are Mormon and don't want folks to know the truth. Either way, I do not have the time to educate you on the details but I do recommend Under the Banner of Heaven by Krakauer if you wish to catch up on your facts.

Joseph Smith was fundamentally a major racist and so was Brigham Young. If you don't believe Krakauer try Wikipedia. The Mormons officially backed off their racism in 1978 -- "A number of official changes have taken place to the organization during the modern era. One significant change was the ordination of men of black African descent (regardless of actual skin color) to the priesthood in 1978, which reversed a policy originally instituted by Brigham Young in 1852" Translation - you could not be a Mormon numbnuts unless you were white prior to 1978. Brigham Young announced a revelation from god which forbid blacks in the church when they moved west after Smith was killed. I would say that they were considered apostates.

But the teachings of Joseph Smith are founded on racism. You can get all the details in the Book of Mormon which supposedly came from golden tablets handed to Smith from god (they conveniently disappeared after Smith translated them). The golden plates (The Book of Mormon) describe a Hebrew tribe led by a man named Lehi. Lehi took his people and left Jerusalem 600 years before Christ was born and came to North America. To make a long story short, the tribe split in acrimony: the righteous light skinned Nephrites and their adversaries the Lamanites. Here is the description of the Lamabnites from the good book -- "an idle people, full of mischief and subtlety". God eventually was so pissed off at them that he cursed them and gave them dark skin (i.e., they became blacks) to punish them. You can't make this stuff up. Supposedly, Christ came to North America to quell the fighting between them. But they could not get along and had a war -- the Nephrites got slaughtered by the Lamanites in about 400 AD. Native Americans are the descendants of the Lamanites. I think that is quite racist toward blacks and native Americans -- how bout you?

And the Republicans just nominated a Mormon (LDS). Mormons consider church first so where does that put the US govt? The Mormons have had a long history of conflict with the US so if Romney gets elected we could be in for some interesting times.

On other thing, Mark Twain described the book of Mormon as "cholorform in print" so I don't advise reading it -- Booooring.
Volcanoman is offline   Reply With Quote top bottom
Old 03 May 2012, 05:32 AM   #361133 / #16
trendkill
Senior Member
Mini KickUps Champion, KickUps Champion
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Northern California
Posts: 2,056
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Volcanoman View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by trendkill View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by Volcanoman View Post
in the process of reading Under the Banner of Heaven by Krakauer. I have wondered the same thing about Romney while reading. LDS has a clear and well defined obedience to the hierarchy of the church. It will sure become a point of contention when I vote.

Some other things to consider:

1) Mormons outlawed polygamy only after pressure from the US judicial system in the early 1900s.
2) Mormons had/have a fundamental racist doctrine until it was changed in the 1970s. They thought that all blacks were apostate and that the original native Americans were evil.
3) Joseph Smith allowed polygamy in order to maintain the vast number of relationships he had with women before he introduced polygamy into the Mormon doctrine including those with prostitutes.
Item 2 is factually inaccurate (blacks and native Americans have never been subject to a blanket judgment of being "apostates" or "evil" by the LDS church), and the others are irrelevant to Mormon belief.
Wow Hoss you don't know much about Mormons and LDS history do you? Or you are Mormon and don't want folks to know the truth. Either way, I do not have the time to educate you on the details but I do recommend Under the Banner of Heaven by Krakauer if you wish to catch up on your facts.
Wrong on both counts--I'm a former Mormon who is now a secular humanist, so I know all sides of the story, not just the sensationalistic view that you seem to be solely familiar with.

Quote:
Joseph Smith was fundamentally a major racist and so was Brigham Young.
Almost everyone was a racist in Smith's and Young's time, so that's not saying much, and in particular, it's not saying what you said in your previous post, which was that blacks were considered "apostates" and native Americans "evil" by the Mormon church, neither of which has ever been the case. They may have been subject to prejudice from white members and, in the case of blacks specifically, reduced status within the church, but regardless, people of all races have always been allowed to join said church, which is inconsistent with a judgment of apostasy or evil on entire races.

Quote:
Translation - you could not be a Mormon numbnuts unless you were white prior to 1978.
I myself was a Mormon prior to 1978, and I have majority non-white ancestry. I doubt even your sources got things this wrong.
trendkill is offline   Reply With Quote top bottom
Old 03 May 2012, 04:55 PM   #361369 / #17
Volcanoman
Member
 
Join Date: May 2012
Posts: 45
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by trendkill View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by Volcanoman View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by trendkill View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by Volcanoman View Post
in the process of reading Under the Banner of Heaven by Krakauer. I have wondered the same thing about Romney while reading. LDS has a clear and well defined obedience to the hierarchy of the church. It will sure become a point of contention when I vote.

Some other things to consider:

1) Mormons outlawed polygamy only after pressure from the US judicial system in the early 1900s.
2) Mormons had/have a fundamental racist doctrine until it was changed in the 1970s. They thought that all blacks were apostate and that the original native Americans were evil.
3) Joseph Smith allowed polygamy in order to maintain the vast number of relationships he had with women before he introduced polygamy into the Mormon doctrine including those with prostitutes.
Item 2 is factually inaccurate (blacks and native Americans have never been subject to a blanket judgment of being "apostates" or "evil" by the LDS church), and the others are irrelevant to Mormon belief.
Wow Hoss you don't know much about Mormons and LDS history do you? Or you are Mormon and don't want folks to know the truth. Either way, I do not have the time to educate you on the details but I do recommend Under the Banner of Heaven by Krakauer if you wish to catch up on your facts.
Wrong on both counts--I'm a former Mormon who is now a secular humanist, so I know all sides of the story, not just the sensationalistic view that you seem to be solely familiar with.

Quote:
Joseph Smith was fundamentally a major racist and so was Brigham Young.
Almost everyone was a racist in Smith's and Young's time, so that's not saying much, and in particular, it's not saying what you said in your previous post, which was that blacks were considered "apostates" and native Americans "evil" by the Mormon church, neither of which has ever been the case. They may have been subject to prejudice from white members and, in the case of blacks specifically, reduced status within the church, but regardless, people of all races have always been allowed to join said church, which is inconsistent with a judgment of apostasy or evil on entire races.

Quote:
Translation - you could not be a Mormon numbnuts unless you were white prior to 1978.
I myself was a Mormon prior to 1978, and I have majority non-white ancestry. I doubt even your sources got things this wrong.
Yes I thought you were picking at the verbiage rather than the essence of the text. Perhaps apostate was not the technical term. But certainly blacks have been excluded from the Mormon church and I find it amazing that you would take the opposite approach. You made a dogmatic statement and after cornered you seem to be squirming relying on technical minutia to save face. Being a Mormon probably puts you in a poor position to judge. I was a Catholic in another life but certainly had no idea that the church consorted to protect ghey priests. If you were allowed into the church, I bet you look as white as i do. And saying that all men in Smith's time were racists has shattered your argument. May I remind you that the underground railroad was at full speed back then.

Do you deny the basic tenets of the Book of Mormon? I mean what I described above? If not, then I think I made a fairly strong case for a racist environment surrounding the Mormons. The fact that they needed to publicly state in 1978 that they were accepting blacks makes me confident in my position.

I am not making this stuff up. You may claim that the entire non-Mormon population has misunderstood the LDS stance but if it walks and talks like a racist it probably is a racist.
Volcanoman is offline   Reply With Quote top bottom
Old 04 May 2012, 01:11 PM   #361753 / #18
trendkill
Senior Member
Mini KickUps Champion, KickUps Champion
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Northern California
Posts: 2,056
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Volcanoman View Post
Yes I thought you were picking at the verbiage rather than the essence of the text. Perhaps apostate was not the technical term. But certainly blacks have been excluded from the Mormon church and I find it amazing that you would take the opposite approach.
I'm not picking at verbiage, I'm "picking" at a blatantly inaccurate statement that Mormons used to demonize entire races as evil and ban them from joining the church prior to a certain date. This is not just some minor linguistic distinction we're talking about. You claimed that there were no non-white Mormons prior to 1978. Just because an organization is flawed does not give you a pass to say anything you want about it and not have anyone call you on it.


Quote:
You made a dogmatic statement and after cornered you seem to be squirming relying on technical minutia to save face.
I kind of knew from your attitude you weren't going to back off just because of a minor detail like your position being discredited, LOL. Okay, let's keep going then.

Quote:
Being a Mormon probably puts you in a poor position to judge. I was a Catholic in another life but certainly had no idea that the church consorted to protect ghey priests.
Well, I don't know it from being Mormon, I know it because nobody ever made these claims but you. The real history of the church is very different from what you assume it is.

Quote:
If you were allowed into the church, I bet you look as white as i do.
My family album says you'd lose that bet.

Quote:
And saying that all men in Smith's time were racists has shattered your argument. May I remind you that the underground railroad was at full speed back then.
It's quite possible to be an abolitionist and also be a racist. By some accounts that I've read, Joseph Smith was an abolitionist. That's what you don't seem to get--racial prejudice is not the same thing as having the maximum possible level of hatred. You can be a little prejudiced; just because you're a bigot doesn't automatically make you Hitler, and just because you think blacks are inferior doesn't mean you approve of a brutal institution like slavery. What would nowadays be considered racism was perceived as scientific back then; it was the norm.

Quote:
Do you deny the basic tenets of the Book of Mormon? I mean what I described above?
The basic outline of events is correct, but you left out some major details. The "skin of blackness" was indeed a curse on the Lamanites in the beginning, but what you evidently didn't know was that the Nephites weren't always the good guys and the Lamanites weren't always the bad guys. The white Nephites got exterminated in the end as punishment from God because they had become unrighteous, and there were a lot of good dark-skinned Lamanites--there was even at least one Lamanite prophet (Samuel). If you aren't aware, a prophet in Mormonism is a person who is chosen by God to speak for him. So much for all native Americans being "evil".


Quote:
I am not making this stuff up.
I disagree. As I said earlier, I don't believe your sources said any of the things you've been saying about bans on minority membership, entire races being judged as apostates or evil, etc. It certainly looks like you heard that the church was racist (which it was) and then started making wild assumptions on the basis of that.

Last edited by trendkill; 04 May 2012 at 03:09 PM.
trendkill is offline   Reply With Quote top bottom
Old 05 May 2012, 02:34 AM   #362002 / #19
Volcanoman
Member
 
Join Date: May 2012
Posts: 45
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by trendkill View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by Volcanoman View Post
Yes I thought you were picking at the verbiage rather than the essence of the text. Perhaps apostate was not the technical term. But certainly blacks have been excluded from the Mormon church and I find it amazing that you would take the opposite approach.
I'm not picking at verbiage, I'm "picking" at a blatantly inaccurate statement that Mormons used to demonize entire races as evil and ban them from joining the church prior to a certain date. This is not just some minor linguistic distinction we're talking about. You claimed that there were no non-white Mormons prior to 1978. Just because an organization is flawed does not give you a pass to say anything you want about it and not have anyone call you on it.


Quote:
You made a dogmatic statement and after cornered you seem to be squirming relying on technical minutia to save face.
I kind of knew from your attitude you weren't going to back off just because of a minor detail like your position being discredited, LOL. Okay, let's keep going then.

Quote:
Being a Mormon probably puts you in a poor position to judge. I was a Catholic in another life but certainly had no idea that the church consorted to protect ghey priests.
Well, I don't know it from being Mormon, I know it because nobody ever made these claims but you. The real history of the church is very different from what you assume it is.

Quote:
If you were allowed into the church, I bet you look as white as i do.
My family album says you'd lose that bet.

Quote:
And saying that all men in Smith's time were racists has shattered your argument. May I remind you that the underground railroad was at full speed back then.
It's quite possible to be an abolitionist and also be a racist. By some accounts that I've read, Joseph Smith was an abolitionist. That's what you don't seem to get--racial prejudice is not the same thing as having the maximum possible level of hatred. You can be a little prejudiced; just because you're a bigot doesn't automatically make you Hitler, and just because you think blacks are inferior doesn't mean you approve of a brutal institution like slavery. What would nowadays be considered racism was perceived as scientific back then; it was the norm.

Quote:
Do you deny the basic tenets of the Book of Mormon? I mean what I described above?
The basic outline of events is correct, but you left out some major details. The "skin of blackness" was indeed a curse on the Lamanites in the beginning, but what you evidently didn't know was that the Nephites weren't always the good guys and the Lamanites weren't always the bad guys. The white Nephites got exterminated in the end as punishment from God because they had become unrighteous, and there were a lot of good dark-skinned Lamanites--there was even at least one Lamanite prophet (Samuel). If you aren't aware, a prophet in Mormonism is a person who is chosen by God to speak for him. So much for all native Americans being "evil".


Quote:
I am not making this stuff up.
I disagree. As I said earlier, I don't believe your sources said any of the things you've been saying about bans on minority membership, entire races being judged as apostates or evil, etc. It certainly looks like you heard that the church was racist (which it was) and then started making wild assumptions on the basis of that.
Thank you for giving me the opportunity to expound on the wrongs of Mormonism further. I deny your claim and air of incredulity that I might challenge your knowledge about Mormonism because you were a Mormon. The Mormons have had 130 plus years of denying many things. I can see why they would. Joseph Smith decided he had a revelation from god that allowed polygamy -- after he had debaucherous relationships with many women including prostitutes. It made it very convenient for him. But you will not hear this from any devout Mormons. You say you are a secular humanist but staunchly defend the dogma of Mormonism by painting a very rosy picture and avoiding the facts. If someone said that Catholics believe in virgins giving birth I would not defend it by saying the statement is patently incorrect even though I was a Catholic and believed that nonsense at one time. I certainly would not claim that they had a different idea of virginity back then like you have with racism. Good lord man, as I said I may be wrong on the minutia but Mormonism history is a history of racism if even 10% of my information is correct.

You of all people should know that degrees of racism should not be set forth as an argument against racism. What, the KKK was only 50 percent racist? If you hate some blacks for their color you are just partially a racist? You really are going to have to enlighten me further on your views of racism. So I will agree with you that the Mormons allowed some appropriate minorities into their church prior to 1978 if that will satisfy you. I do note that the statement of 1978 does say they allowed blacks to become priests so I guess not letting them be priests prior to 1978 has nothing to do with racism? We are not arguing over details. We are arguing over a massive history of racist dogma from virtually the beginning of the church. To say the Mormons were not racist (and I suspect still are to some extent -- per their church doctrine) or not that racist because I misstated the meaning of a 1978 church revelation is preposterous.

I suppose you will contend that there was no Mountain Meadows massacre of 130 people travelling in a wagon train by Mormons in the mid 1800s. The Mormons dressed up as Piutes and attacked them and continued to blame the attack on the Indians for years afterword. For all I know, it might still be the official story from them. They killed women and children in cold blood -- got them to put down their guns and then shot them. This order came from the second highest command in the Mormon military. I might also mention that Brigham Young supposedly wrote a letter prior to the massacre stating that the Saints must not meddle with the immigrants. But mysteriously we only have a copy of that letter and not the original. I suspect that BY wrote something much more sinister but we will never know.

I also wish to point out that I am getting most of my information from a fairly reputable writer (some is enhanced from the internet). Unfortunately, I do not have time to hunt down the details but I seem to have read that blacks were not allowed into BYU until well into the last century. There is something like .7% blacks there now (probably mostly football players on scholarship). The reason I am taking the time to point out all of this is because the US could elect a Mormon president that still believes in all of this nonsense. The Mormons from all I can tell demand absolute obedience from their flock. There is a clear distinction -- Church first country second. I don't want a man in the White House that puts his church before his country especially a Mormon. I am an atheist so I don’t want any church member to be president but the Mormons take the cake when it comes to belief in nonsense (right up there with Ron L. Hubbard).

Last edited by Volcanoman; 05 May 2012 at 03:29 AM.
Volcanoman is offline   Reply With Quote top bottom
Old 05 May 2012, 04:37 AM   #362025 / #20
Goodchild
Ahoy hoy!
 
Goodchild's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 3,762
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Volcanoman View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by trendkill View Post
Almost everyone was a racist in Smith's and Young's time, so that's not saying much
And saying that all men in Smith's time were racists has shattered your argument.
Just kinda wanted to point out that trendkill did not say what you are saying they said.

Quote:
I was a Catholic in another life but certainly had no idea that the church consorted to protect ghey priests.
Pedophilia/rape does not equal gay. It's about opportunity and power.

fwiw, I'm with you in your distaste for mormonism and what you're saying lines up with what i've heard over the years (though I'm willing to read evidence to the contrary) ... but being imprecise weakens your argument.
Goodchild is offline   Reply With Quote top bottom
Old 05 May 2012, 05:44 AM   #362031 / #21
Volcanoman
Member
 
Join Date: May 2012
Posts: 45
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Goodchild View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by Volcanoman View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by trendkill View Post
Almost everyone was a racist in Smith's and Young's time, so that's not saying much
And saying that all men in Smith's time were racists has shattered your argument.
Just kinda wanted to point out that trendkill did not say what you are saying they said.

Quote:
I was a Catholic in another life but certainly had no idea that the church consorted to protect ghey priests.
Pedophilia/rape does not equal gay. It's about opportunity and power.

fwiw, I'm with you in your distaste for mormonism and what you're saying lines up with what i've heard over the years (though I'm willing to read evidence to the contrary) ... but being imprecise weakens your argument.
Yes I deserved to be chastised for this. I reread it today while I was composing my recent post in this thread and realized I meant to say pedophile priests. I went to change it but could not find an edit button. There must be some time limit on editing. I sincerely apologize if I have offended anyone with this remark. It was clearly wrong but I can assure you that it was not meant to imply that being ghey has any correlation with pedophilia. I appreciate the chance to clarify this.
Volcanoman is offline   Reply With Quote top bottom
Old 05 May 2012, 05:56 AM   #362035 / #22
Goodchild
Ahoy hoy!
 
Goodchild's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 3,762
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Volcanoman View Post
Yes I deserved to be chastised for this. I reread it today while I was composing my recent post in this thread and realized I meant to say pedophile priests. I went to change it but could not find an edit button. There must be some time limit on editing. I sincerely apologize if I have offended anyone with this remark. It was clearly wrong but I can assure you that it was not meant to imply that being ghey has any correlation with pedophilia. I appreciate the chance to clarify this.
Yep, there is a time limit on the edit button

And fwiw, I wasn't offended though I can't speak for anyone else. It would only have been offensive if someone insisted on equating pedophilia with homosexuality after it's been pointed out that they are not the same thing at all.

Thanks for the apology and admission of error, though! That's quite rare online
Goodchild is offline   Reply With Quote top bottom
Old 05 May 2012, 06:03 AM   #362036 / #23
Volcanoman
Member
 
Join Date: May 2012
Posts: 45
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Goodchild View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by Volcanoman View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by trendkill View Post
Almost everyone was a racist in Smith's and Young's time, so that's not saying much
And saying that all men in Smith's time were racists has shattered your argument.
Just kinda wanted to point out that trendkill did not say what you are saying they said.
I recognize that there is never never or always. In the short time I have been on this site I have found that my inability to focus on details has given many posters fits. I have continuously had minor errors pointed out to me which I think is deserved. I suffer from a mild case of dyslexia that makes it extremely hard to focus on details when I am trying to portray the bigger picture. I recognize that it undermines my position with some but I often times don't see the subtleties (to me they are subtleties) in the bigger picture. I recognize that "all" and "almost" are not the same. But honestly, it does not change the essence of what I am stating as I tried to point out to trendkill. If I continue to post here, I can assure you it will be a continuing theme I will need to deal with. I try to use statements like "to the best of my memory" and things like that but getting a date correct, for example, by plus or minus ten years matters little to me and I have difficulties recognizing how things like this are important. He says almost everyone was a racist. I said he said all. The significance of the statement is not in whether it was all or almost all. The significance was the fact that he was trying to justify racism because everyone (or almost everyone) did it. It seems picky to me and deflects from the real issues at hand but your criticism is noted and I will try to be more precise (although based on past experience, I will probably fail again if I don't think there is a significance in the differences.
Volcanoman is offline   Reply With Quote top bottom
Old 05 May 2012, 08:08 AM   #362045 / #24
trendkill
Senior Member
Mini KickUps Champion, KickUps Champion
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Northern California
Posts: 2,056
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Volcanoman View Post

Thank you for giving me the opportunity to expound on the wrongs of Mormonism further. I deny your claim and air of incredulity that I might challenge your knowledge about Mormonism because you were a Mormon. The Mormons have had 130 plus years of denying many things. I can see why they would. Joseph Smith decided he had a revelation from god that allowed polygamy -- after he had debaucherous relationships with many women including prostitutes. It made it very convenient for him. But you will not hear this from any devout Mormons.
That's because they don't know about it; they're fed only the information the church wants them to hear. Mormons are deeply ignorant about the history of their church.
Quote:
You say you are a secular humanist but staunchly defend the dogma of Mormonism by painting a very rosy picture and avoiding the facts.
On the contrary, I am painting a realistic picture and insisting on the facts. The aphorism "he who speaks the truth talks to himself" is never more applicable than in discussion of Mormonism, in my experience. Thanks for helping me prove that point, by the way.


Quote:
If someone said that Catholics believe in virgins giving birth I would not defend it by saying the statement is patently incorrect even though I was a Catholic and believed that nonsense at one time. I certainly would not claim that they had a different idea of virginity back then like you have with racism. Good lord man, as I said I may be wrong on the minutia but Mormonism history is a history of racism if even 10% of my information is correct.
And if I had ever said that Mormonism didn't have a history of racism, that might be relevant, but it's not.

Quote:
You of all people should know that degrees of racism should not be set forth as an argument against racism. What, the KKK was only 50 percent racist? If you hate some blacks for their color you are just partially a racist? You really are going to have to enlighten me further on your views of racism.
All I'm saying is that not all racists are the same. You can't accuse your prejudiced neighbor of kicking all the blacks out of the neighborhood just because he made a racist comment. That's kind of like what you're doing here.

Quote:
I suppose you will contend that there was no Mountain Meadows massacre of 130 people travelling in a wagon train by Mormons in the mid 1800s.
Er, no, the Mountain Meadows massacre does in fact seem to have happened.


Quote:
The reason I am taking the time to point out all of this is because the US could elect a Mormon president that still believes in all of this nonsense.
Well, no, now you've crossed the line into anti-Mormon bigotry. You will never find a Mormon who would defend the Mountain Meadows massacre or anything similar, for instance. I personally have never experienced the slightest bit of racism from Mormons (though I have occasionally from non-Mormons), and I'm from an extremely white area. I know old guys from the times when the church was officially racist who went to Africa on missions and came back talking about how great the people are there. You're like someone who reads some book about the crusades and then assumes that if a Catholic becomes President, he might burn your town and rape your women. It's preposterous. If you want to be scared of Romney, do it because he's a Republican--that's plenty to be afraid of.


Quote:
The Mormons from all I can tell demand absolute obedience from their flock. There is a clear distinction -- Church first country second.
Yeah, that's ridiculous. The Mormon church has gone so far as to not run PR advertisements in battleground states because they're afraid people will think they're taking sides in the election. They don't even endorse political candidates, let alone tell them what to do (as if Romney would listen anyway, you're talking about a candidate who used to take positions that basically made him a pro-choice Mormon, which is almost an oxymoron, and you're afraid that he'll be hanging on the church's every word? Get real).

Last edited by trendkill; 05 May 2012 at 08:21 AM.
trendkill is offline   Reply With Quote top bottom
Old 05 May 2012, 03:03 PM   #362130 / #25
Volcanoman
Member
 
Join Date: May 2012
Posts: 45
Default

Quote:
I know old guys from the times when the church was officially racist who went to Africa on missions and came back talking about how great the people are there.
T
Quote:
hat's because they don't know about it; they're fed only the information the church wants them to hear. Mormons are deeply ignorant about the history of their church.
Now you admit the church was officially racist and they keep their flock ignorant. We could have saved a lot of time if you had simply admitted this in the beginning. So knowing this, I am an anti Mormon bigot because I raise questions about Romney's religion? Guilty as charged I guess. There is another thread going on that talks about some nut predicting the end of the world on June 30th. If one of his disciples was running for president and I raised a red flag about him, I guess I would be a bigot in your eyes also. At some level all religions are cults but Mormonism is certainly in the "fanatical on the edge" cultist elite and people should know the truth.

T
Quote:
he Mormons from all I can tell demand absolute obedience from their flock. There is a clear distinction -- Church first country second.
Y
Quote:
eah, that's ridiculous. The Mormon church has gone so far as to not run PR advertisements in battleground states because they're afraid people will think they're taking sides in the election. They don't even endorse political candidates, let alone tell them what to do (as if Romney would listen anyway, you're talking about a candidate who used to take positions that basically made him a pro-choice Mormon, which is almost an oxymoron, and you're afraid that he'll be hanging on the church's every word? Get real).
You sure sound like you are preaching the gospel according to Joseph. If the Mormons are being careful there must be a reason for them to be careful. I don't remember the Catholic church even considering running advertisement for Kennedy when he ran for president. Now that you tell me the Mormons are, I am even more concerned. If I think Romney is going to call up the leader of the Mormon church and get his marching orders, you have interpreted me incorrectly (as I am sure you are aware). My take is that Romney has a serious conflict of interest -- it is clear to me that he is likely to be awash in no separation of state and church issues. BTW I think Obama has a similar conflict of interest being black. But I can tolerate the support of black issues a bit easier than I can fanatical Mormon issues.
Volcanoman is offline   Reply With Quote top bottom
Reply

Lower Navigation
Go Back   Secular Café > Intellectual Debate and Discussion Forums > Politics & World Events

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Religious freedom DMB Religion 2 15 Jun 2012 11:56 PM
Religious bullies DMB Religion 0 08 Jun 2012 05:05 PM
The Responsibility of Religious Moderates for Religious Extremism phands Religion 67 19 Apr 2012 04:58 PM
Religious experience David B Religion 6 20 Mar 2011 10:16 PM
Religious flowchart DMB Religion 4 21 Nov 2009 01:37 PM


All times are GMT. The time now is 03:47 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions Inc.
 
Ocean Zero by vBSkins.com | Customised by Antechinus