Mormons As "blind Followers"

[Obiwan]

Corky.... There's one big issue that fly's in the face of your vastly ignorant judgment of us and the Church. That is that we CHOOSE to be in this religion BECAUSE OF what it teaches and encourages us to do and do for mankind.

The MOMENT it (or some leader) starts telling us to slaughter the innocent WE ARE GONE!!!

So stop preaching to your own mind trying to justify your own bigotry.

And as to MMM.... It was just as much based on ignorance of the facts and having the wrong information as it was based on an abuse of power, and the sheep obeying.

That reminds me of something else. A key doctrine in our faith is that the Priesthood is to be exercised based on Righteousness, and when it's not, amen to the priesthood of that man. So, don't tell us we our blind, or follow a religion that encourages us to be blind. The religion itself prevents such. The same is for the Priesthood issue. Despite the ban, mormons and the Church by and large because of what the Faith taught us were not at all prejudiced. Especially since the ban had nothing to do with prejudice, it had to do with a specific race, according to interpretation. Not based on skin color either, because 100,000's of other races some just as black as African blacks WERE given the Priesthood. It was lineage based on long held understanding of scripture, and whatever other reason we don't know of. And a couple of inaccurate assumptions quoted over the years for the reasons for it do not make the Church. It makes it an anomaly of the times and society, as much as MMM was an anomaly of the times and situation.

[Doctor Steuss]

WHAT!? That's exactly what Heber and Young are saying. They are just using different words. If I were a betting man I'd bet I could find those exact words were I to search my library of Mormonism.

There is a source for those exact words. The CFR was for those exact words because it was stated by her that they were said by a GA. The source from that quote was repudiated by the prophet who was serving during the time of the circulation of that quote. But, if you actually cared about learning instead of simply stating your egocentric world-view, that might actually matter to you.

Itâ??s no surprise that it doesnâ??t.

I almost was one but I went back to the beginning and did the research. I now know the truth- that's why I'm not LDS.

Based on your black-and-white thinking, inability to take context into consideration, and demand to interpret the beliefs of others to fit your rather dismal world view, I'm glad that you found your "truth." Maybe one day you will learn that things arenâ??t quite as egocentric as you currently think, and youâ??ll be able to do actual research.

[Zakuska]

Blue Bell,

AMEN!

[LifeOnaPlate]

The JofD is not some sort of oujia board where we hover our finger over the top of the pages and drop the finger and that's what we do for the day. I have never read the entire JofD -- I do read Life on a Plate's blog!

Aw shucks! Don't forget to comment sometimes!

Most of the 13,000,000 worldwide members of the church haven't heard or JofD, nor read it, nor do they need to. There is actually a priority to our scriptures that you might wish to understand. The Book of Mormon is a priority. The Holy Bible is a priority (beats out JofD by a verrry long shot!!! ). JofD is not scripture and the prophets in them are not living. JofD is not doctrine as itself.

Hence my blog, rocmonkey. I suggest giving it a try. I select and apply quotes from sermons to sayings of recent Church leaders and scriptures. There are some gems and some coal. (More gem than coal, but still. This is one reason I decided to do this blog project. That's a whole other discussion.)

[Zakuska]

“As a means of coming to truth, people in the Church are encouraged by their leaders to think and find out for themselves. They are encouraged to ponder, to search, to evaluate, and thereby to come to such knowledge of the truth as their own consciences, assisted by the Spirit of God, lead them to discover."

You know its funny that even in the discourse rocmonkey is taring from its context thinking is encourage!

There are a great many things, probably, that are taught you from this stand-that is, from individuals. They are taught to you; and you, probably, have not got faith and confidence in them. Well, now, I do not care whether you have or not: if you will go and do as you are told, you shall have a knowledge, although you had not a particle of faith when you began. That is curious religion; but there is no knowledge on any other principle, only by obedience.

http://journalofdiscourses.org/Vol_06/refJDvol6-4.html

Which again IS very scriptutal...

John 7: 17

17 If any man will do his will, he shall know of the doctrine, whether it be of God, or whether I speak of myself.

[LifeOnaPlate]

Based on your black-and-white thinking, inability to take context into consideration, and demand to interpret the beliefs of others to fit your rather dismal world view, I'm glad that you found your "truth." Maybe one day you will learn that things arenâ??t quite as egocentric as you currently think, and youâ??ll be able to do actual research.

sounds like a bit of ethnocentricity as well, methinks. Idolotry, anyone?

[see latest FARMS review for more!]

[rocmonkey]

Hmmmm...your "evidence" gets challenged and you resort to mockery? Kinda hard to have a serious discussion on those terms, isn't it?

I stated your doctrines as your Standard Works (Journal of Discourses) state them.

I was just saying that the church must have changed the wording here if he/she didn't read the same words from the same book, page and verse that I did. No mockery intended or implied.

[Tsuzuki]

Basically, it all comes down to this.

Claim: Mormons blindly follow their leaders.

Response of LDS: No, I do not blindly follow my leaders.

You'd think this would be case closed(?)

But no, instead we get:

Poo Flinging Mammal: No, you do follow your leaders blindly. "So and so" said this. And then thereâ??s the teaching about this. So, you disagree with these prophets; therefore you follow them blindly.

Response of LDS: Huh?

Poo Flinging Mammal: Exactly. Your god changes.

Response of LDS: Huh?

Poo Flinging Mammal: You blindly follow your leaders.

Response of LDS: No we donâ??t.

Poo Flinging Mammal: I know what you do and believe better than you do. In 1978 a janitor lost his job for doing such and such.

Response of LDS: CFR

Poo Flinging Mammal: Exactly. Your god changes. You follow blindly.

Response of LDS: Huh?

Poo Flinging Mammal: Context doesnâ??t matterâ?¦ I win.

And thus, I have summed up the future of this thread. It can probably be closed now.

"Some truths will ever remain mysterious for the slow-witted and the foolish; and we need not be afraid to tell them these truths, because it is quite certain that they will never understand them.

What is a fool? One who is somewhat more irrational than a dumb animal. He is a man who wants to run before he can crawl; a man who thinks he has mastered a subject as soon as he had made a little progress in it; a mathematician who looks down his nose at poetry; a poet who condemns mathematics; a painter who says that theology and the Qabalah are stuff and nonsense; an uneducated man who repudiates knowledge without taking the trouble to study it; a man who talks without knowing what he is talking about and makes assertions without certainty. Fools are the people who kill men of genius. Galileo was not condemned by the Church, but by the fools who, unfortunately, belonged to the Church. Folly is a wild beast which has the composure of innocence; it assassinates without remorse. The fool is the bear in La Fontaine's fable; he breaks his friend's head under a paving-stone to whisk away a fly; but do not try to make him admit he is at fault when things go badly wrong. Folly, like Hell and Fate, is inexorable and infallible, because it is always controlled by the magnetism of evil.

The animal is never a fool, because it openly and naturally plays the role of an animal; but man teaches folly to dogs and intelligent donkeys. The fool is the animal who despises instinct and poses as intelligent.

Progress is a possibility for the animal: it can be broken in, tamed and trained; but it is not a possibility for the fool, because the fool thinks he has nothing to learn. It is his place to dictate to others and put them right, and so it is impossible to reason with him. He will laugh you to scorn in saying that what he does not understand is not a meaningful proposition. 'Why don't I understand it, then?', he asks you, with marvellous impudence. To tell him it is because he is a fool would only be taken as an insult, so there is nothing you can say in reply. Everybody else sees it quite clearly, but he will never realize it.

Here then, at the outset, is a potent secret which is inaccessible to the majority of people; a secret which they will never guess and which it would be useless to tell them: the secret of their own stupidity."

- Eliphas Levi,

The Great Secret

I stated your doctrines as your Standard Works (Journal of Discourses) state them.

The Journal of Discourses is not part of the Standard Works.

[Zakuska]

I stated your doctrines as your Standard Works (Journal of Discourses) state them.

I was just saying that the church must have changed the wording here if he/she didn't read the same words from the same book, page and verse that I did. No mockery intended or implied.

Since when have the Journal of Discourses been considered... "standard works"?

[LifeOnaPlate]

Do you have a source for those last two quotes. I dig 'em!

As a means of coming to truth, people in the Church are encouraged by their leaders to think and find out for themselves. They are encouraged to ponder, to search, to evaluate, and thereby to come to such knowledge of the truth as their own consciences, assisted by the Spirit of God, lead them to discover.

(James E. Faust, "The Truth Shall Make You Free," Ensign, Spetember, 1998.)

Cha-ching!

[Lamanite]

Do you have a source for those last two quotes. I dig 'em!

The Truth Shall Set You Free

Let me know if the link doesn't work.

(James E. Faust, "The Truth Shall Make You Free," Ensign, Spetember, 1998.)

Cha-ching!

AS usual I'm a day late and a dollar short.

[Zoidberg]

This analogy is far more prescient than you might beleive Zoid. In both cases, homosexual conduct and breast augmentation, there are hidden costs both physical and mental, and extremely serious health repercussions that are generally glossed over in pursuit of acceptance and/or sanction.

Boob jobs aside, what are the physical hidden costs? Lower life expectancy? Might it be because of constant discrimination and bashing by family members? How about this: women who only have sex with women are at less risk for contracting syphilis, gonorrhea, chlamydia, herpes HPV and HIV than women who have intercourse with men. Furthermore, if a woman only has sex with women who only has sex wit women who only has sex with women...etc. (let's just say two lesbian virgins hook up and only have sex with each other from then on), this risk becomes miniscule in comparison with heterosexual women. Such lesbians are also at a lower risk for developing cervical cancer. here's a source: http://www.hawaii.edu/hivandaids/Health_Ca...ited_States.pdf I know the picture is quite different with gay men and they are more at risk for HIV and other nasty stuff than heterosexual men. But it could actually be more advantageous to a woman's health to only have sex with another woman. So, if it were perfectly accepted and you don't have to deal with emotional issues, it is healthier to be a lesbian. Or would you put gay men and gay women into different categories and suggest that only male homosexuality is bad, as some people have done? (Can't help remembering a lovely Christian polygyny-minded guy who justified having a threesome this way with his hypothetical two wives - let the mods have mercy on me). As for the mental issues, wouldn't you feel bad if most of your environment were hostile to you because you are mormon, for instance? I've had such an experience, with my family being the most hostile, as everybody else didn't really care and therefore left me alone for the most part.

If I beleive premarital sex is wrong, I don't provide my son condoms or allow his girlfriend to share the bed with him under my roof. That, frankly, is both mixed signals and tacit support. It's hypocrisy, and it's enabling destructive and immoral behavior.

If your son is a minor, you have a perfectly valid right to not give him condoms or to let his girlfriend sleep over. If your son has moved out and is living his own independent life, he will probably be able to get his own condoms and sleep with his girlfriend at his own place (besides, who has ever had any kind of sex at their in-laws house with them snoring on the other side of the wall? not me!). Would you let her sleep over if she stayed in a different bed? A different room? If he really wants to have sex with his girlfriend so much that he would do it in the same house you are at, he would probably eventually stop making long visits to your house altogether. What hypocrisy is is thinking that you can feel righteous when all you are doing is preventing "unrighteous behavior" within your house. if you are really so concerned, you should be trying to prevent such behavior outside of the house, as well.

If you love an alcoholic, you don't encourage him to belly up to the bar every night, or socialize with him down at the local wattering hole- you help him put the bottle down. You don't enable the behavior- you enable the recovery.

Are you suggesting that homosexuality is an addiction? or a disease? An alcoholic either knows they have an addiction problem or is in denial (I'm not an alcoholic... I can stop any time ). Most gay people who know they're gay don't think they are addicted or sick, so why would you think that if you treat them as you would an alcoholic would help? There are some gay people in denial, but you probably don't have a problem with them, huh?

As a beleiver, how do you feel about the historic/scriptural examples of a people fully ripened in iniquity?

I feel that if I judge not, I shall not be judged.

Actually, the problem is that he's hurting himself. He's engaged in behavior that has been proven to be extremely self-destructive in this life and will be equally damning in the next. As un-PC as the great and spacious building may find it, the Savior counseled us to leave the ninety and nine and bring home the lost sheep.

And I have suggested a way for you to do this on this thread and the one about "loving the sinner", and have provided justification of why I think it would work better than constantly reminding someone they're a sinner. What evidence have you that constantly reminding someone they are a sinner actually helps bring them home? And if it does, that it is not detrimental for their well-being because they give up a part of their identity they consider crucial to for no other reason than to please their parents?

A blind eye and a politically-sophisticated "boys will be boys" isn't doing a service to a wayward son. It's abandoning him to the wolves.

I agree with you that "ritual shunning" and the like are extreme reactions- but a feigned indifference, polite public faces, and a tepid tolerance are the perfect cocktail for spiritual poison.

I'm not suggesting feigned indifference. I'm not suggesting that you be hypocritical. I believe that if you love a person, you will at least be able to want to understand their point of view. And when you can relate to people, you naturally tend to be more empathic. You are now convinced that homosexuality is a disease that can be cured (I think even the Church has lately refrained from making such radical statements), but most gay people consider this notion of yours ridiculous. if you are ever able to put yourself into their shoes, I believe you will understand my point of view.

[Doctor Steuss]

Eliphas Levi, The Great Secret

With each passing quote you hook up from this, the more I realize I need to bump it up on my reading list...

"We should gather all the good and true principles in the world and treasure them up, or we shall not come out true "Mormons."

History of the Church 5:517

[Zakuska]

As for the mental issues, wouldn't you feel bad if most of your environment were hostile to you because you are mormon, for instance?

Bad analogy... seen the box office lately? Mormons have always lived in a hostile enviroment. At very great risk to their health... "Exterminate.... exterminate... Exterminate!"

[rocmonkey]

Yes.

No.

Your point?

My point was, they blindly followed BY order to murder 120 human beings. No one, outside of the LDS church, doubts that for a second. No one did anything without the prophets consent. BY was a ruthless man who did things his own way. W.Woodruff admitted to as much in his diary when he wrote these words about BY and the Mountain Meadows Massacre---

"We visited the Mountain Meadow Monument put up at the burial place of 120 persons... The pile of stone was about 12 feet high... A wooden Cross was placed on top with the following words: Vengence is mine and I will repay saith the Lord. President Young said it should be Vengence is mine and I have taken a little." - Wilford Woodruff's Journal, 1833-1898, vol. 5, page 577

Now, try and tll me BY didn't tell his 'blind' followers to murder. The church and its members are guilty of mass murder, according to W.W.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

I almost was one but I went back to the beginning and did the research. I now know the truth- that's why I'm not LDS.

Ha you think you know the truth. THats whats so funny, I switched your glass when your back was turned.

[LifeOnaPlate]

Boob jobs aside, what are the physical hidden costs? Lower life expectancy? Might it be because of constant discrimination and bashing by family members? How about this: women who only have sex with women are at less risk for contracting syphilis, gonorrhea, chlamydia, herpes HPV and HIV than women who have intercourse with men. Furthermore, if a woman only has sex with women who only has sex wit women who only has sex with women...etc. (let's just say two lesbian virgins hook up and only have sex with each other from then on), this risk becomes miniscule in comparison with heterosexual women. Such lesbians are also at a lower risk for developing cervical cancer. here's a source: http://www.hawaii.edu/hivandaids/Health_Ca...ited_States.pdf I know the picture is quite different with gay men and they are more at risk for HIV and other nasty stuff than heterosexual men. But it could actually be more advantageous to a woman's health to only have sex with another woman. So, if it were perfectly accepted and you don't have to deal with emotional issues, it is healthier to be a lesbian. Or would you put gay men and gay women into different categories and suggest that only male homosexuality is bad, as some people have done? (Can't help remembering a lovely Christian polygyny-minded guy who justified having a threesome this way with his hypothetical two wives - let the mods have mercy on me). As for the mental issues, wouldn't you feel bad if most of your environment were hostile to you because you are mormon, for instance? I've had such an experience, with my family being the most hostile, as everybody else didn't really care and therefore left me alone for the most part.

If you think the only downside to sexual promiscuity is physical, namely, disease, etc., then you must check out the doctrine on the issue. It is a matter of body and spirit.

Are you suggesting that homosexuality is an addiction? or a disease? An alcoholic either knows they have an addiction problem or is in denial (I'm not an alcoholic... I can stop any time ). Most gay people who know they're gay don't think they are addicted or sick, so why would you think that if you treat them as you would an alcoholic would help? There are some gay people in denial, but you probably don't have a problem with them, huh?

I don't believe drinking alcohol is a disease; I believe chosing to drink and drive is wrong, though; and I believe advocating for such is also wrong.

Same with sexual acts.

I feel that if I judge not, I shall not be judged.

You'll be judged, either way. We all will.

And I have suggested a way for you to do this on this thread and the one about "loving the sinner", and have provided justification of why I think it would work better than constantly reminding someone they're a sinner. What evidence have you that constantly reminding someone they are a sinner actually helps bring them home? And if it does, that it is not detrimental for their well-being because they give up a part of their identity they consider crucial to for no other reason than to please their parents?

I agree that there may be a time for parents to say "we have taught you what we think of [such and such]. We won't support you in that, but as far as you are concerned, we love and support you. Not all your actions, however. [What parent ever did support all their childrens' choices?]

I'm not suggesting feigned indifference. I'm not suggesting that you be hypocritical. I believe that if you love a person, you will at least be able to want to understand their point of view. And when you can relate to people, you naturally tend to be more empathic. You are now convinced that homosexuality is a disease that can be cured (I think even the Church has lately refrained from making such radical statements), but most gay people consider this notion of yours ridiculous. if you are ever able to put yourself into their shoes, I believe you will understand my point of view.

I believe we all have our own issues to deal with in regards to putting off the "natural man."

[rocmonkey]

as much as MMM was an anomaly of the times and situation.

I've never heard mass murder being described as an anomaly before. That's a new one on me.

[LifeOnaPlate]

My point was, they blindly followed BY order to murder 120 human beings. No one, outside of the LDS church, doubts that for a second. No one did anything without the prophets consent. BY was a ruthless man who did things his own way. W.Woodruff admitted to as much in his diary when he wrote these words about BY and the Mountain Meadows Massacre---

"We visited the Mountain Meadow Monument put up at the burial place of 120 persons... The pile of stone was about 12 feet high... A wooden Cross was placed on top with the following words: Vengence is mine and I will repay saith the Lord. President Young said it should be Vengence is mine and I have taken a little." - Wilford Woodruff's Journal, 1833-1898, vol. 5, page 577

Now, try and tll me BY didn't tell his 'blind' followers to murder. The church and its members are guilty of mass murder, according to W.W.

This doesn't say, in any way, that BY ordered the massacre. I issue a direct CFR that Brigham Young ordered the massacre. Provide it, or break the rules of the board; it's that simple.

If you knew anything about the Book of Mormon, or the history of the LDS Church, you'd know we believe it is generally the wicked who do the punishing; not the righteous. MMM was not condoned by BY or the Church.

I've never heard mass murder being described as an anomaly before. That's a new one on me.

This one's simple: How many "mass murders" were committed by members of the LDS Church?

[Doctor Steuss]

My point was, they blindly followed BY order to murder 120 human beings.

CFR

No one, outside of the LDS church, doubts that for a second.

You sure about that?

No one did anything without the prophets consent.

LOL!

"President Young, I was wondering if I might wipe my hind-quarters..."

It's strange that he had trouble controlling a portion of the saints who were looting in Nauvoo (one little city), yet he was somehow able to control everyone and everything in an entire territory. You give Brigham more prophetic abilities than LDS do.

BY was a ruthless man who did things his own way. W.Woodruff admitted to as much in his diary when he wrote these words about BY and the Mountain Meadows Massacre---

"We visited the Mountain Meadow Monument put up at the burial place of 120 persons... The pile of stone was about 12 feet high... A wooden Cross was placed on top with the following words: Vengence is mine and I will repay saith the Lord. President Young said it should be Vengence is mine and I have taken a little." - Wilford Woodruff's Journal, 1833-1898, vol. 5, page 577

I fail to see where Woodruff is saying Brigham was ruthless. I don't doubt he was anything along the lines of all incense and peppermint, but your train of logic derailed a while back. But, hey, context doesn't matter... and surely appeal to authority isn't any type of _________.

Now, try and tll me BY didn't tell his 'blind' followers to murder.

Ok, he didn't.

The church and its members are guilty of mass murder, according to W.W.

So... this is what your "research" entails? One journal entry that doesn't even make the claim that you think it does? Well, I for one am sold. Itâ??s no wonder your â??researchâ? led you away from the Church. I hope your "research" never leads you into the medical field.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

My point was, they blindly followed BY order to murder 120 human beings. No one, outside of the LDS church, doubts that for a second. No one did anything without the prophets consent. BY was a ruthless man who did things his own way. W.Woodruff admitted to as much in his diary when he wrote these words about BY and the Mountain Meadows Massacre---

"We visited the Mountain Meadow Monument put up at the burial place of 120 persons... The pile of stone was about 12 feet high... A wooden Cross was placed on top with the following words: Vengence is mine and I will repay saith the Lord. President Young said it should be Vengence is mine and I have taken a little." - Wilford Woodruff's Journal, 1833-1898, vol. 5, page 577

Now, try and tll me BY didn't tell his 'blind' followers to murder. The church and its members are guilty of mass murder, according to W.W.

Were in this quote does it say BY is ruthless or he order the MMM? Im not seeing those words here. Oh well better through out the context.

[Zakuska]

It's strange that he had trouble controlling a portion of the saints who were looting in Nauvoo (one little city), yet he was somehow able to control everyone and everything in an entire territory. You give Brigham more prophetic abilities than LDS do.

But of course my good Doctor... Bring'em (boo Hiss) Young could see through walls Like General Zod!...

What difference does the vail make? None at all. To us there is a vail, but to them there is no vail. They can see through the side of a house as well as through the air. I know that by experience. "Well, now," some one says, "What good does it do for two or three thousand men to be in the mountains? Why, I don't know that it is any of our business. It says, "Uncle Sam cannot come. We are ready; we are on the spot." Well, what else? It gives those men an experience that they cannot have on any other principle. They are getting an experience-for what? To cultivate them for something greater, which will come next year; and if it does not come then, it will come some time. I do not say it will come next year. You never heard me say it would; but you and I want to live our religion and do as we are told, not questioning a word for a moment. You have got to stop that. It is enough for others to do that, without our meddling with those things. I am speaking to the Elders of Israel.

http://journalofdiscourses.org/Vol_06/refJDvol6-4.html

BY was a ruthless man who did things his own way. W.Woodruff admitted to as much in his diary when he wrote these words about BY and the Mountain Meadows Massacre---

"We visited the Mountain Meadow Monument put up at the burial place of 120 persons... The pile of stone was about 12 feet high... A wooden Cross was placed on top with the following words: Vengence is mine and I will repay saith the Lord. President Young said it should be Vengence is mine and I have taken a little." - Wilford Woodruff's Journal, 1833-1898, vol. 5, page 577

Hadn't John D. Lee been execute at this time?

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

But of course my good Doctor... Bing'em (boo Hiss) Young could see through walls Like Emperor Zod!...

What difference does the vail make? None at all. To us there is a vail, but to them there is no vail. They can see through the side of a house as well as through the air. I know that by experience. "Well, now," some one says, "What good does it do for two or three thousand men to be in the mountains? Why, I don't know that it is any of our business. It says, "Uncle Sam cannot come. We are ready; we are on the spot." Well, what else? It gives those men an experience that they cannot have on any other principle. They are getting an experience-for what? To cultivate them for something greater, which will come next year; and if it does not come then, it will come some time. I do not say it will come next year. You never heard me say it would; but you and I want to live our religion and do as we are told, not questioning a word for a moment. You have got to stop that. It is enough for others to do that, without our meddling with those things. I am speaking to the Elders of Israel.

http://journalofdiscourses.org/Vol_06/refJDvol6-4.html

Hadn't John B. Lee been execute at this time?

Isnt it General Zod??

[Zakuska]

My bad. All better now. :blush:

[Tsuzuki]

Isnt it General Zod??

He's been Emperor ever since he turned Earth into a new Krypton. You will be punished for your insolence.