Ask the member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints AKA Interrogate the Mormon — Page 24

Tobar said:

Being a quarter Native American myself, I'm curious to hear what the views of Mormonism are today in relation to us.

 If one were to read a preface to the Book of Mormon, he would read that the Lamanites, which in turn were descendants of Manasseh, the older son of Joseph, are the principle ancestors of the Native Americans.  At this point however, the general consensus has changed without the importance of the message having changed.  Many critics have pointed to the lack of genetic evidence of the relationship as a criticism of our faith.  However, many things must be borne in mind when listening to this criticism.  I am not an expert in genetics, but many factors could easily explain the discrepancy, including a dominance of other races (Mongoloid as the predominant modern theory), the substantial loss of Native American life to war and disease following the European invasions (up to 90% killed), etc.  I encourage reading here.

http://en.fairmormon.org/Book_of_Mormon/Lamanites/Relationship_to_Amerindians

I also find it ironic that those who criticize our faith for believing this based on genetics are also quickest to dismiss other genetic evidence that contradicts their faith, such as evolution.  Either one must be open to the whole possibility or disregard its legitimacy more completely.

RicOlie_2 said:

darth_ender said:

RicOlie_2 said:

AntcuFaalb said:

What's your opinion on this, d_e? http://cesletter.com/Letter-to-a-CES-Director.pdf

I came across it on Reddit recently.

 Ender, could you elaborate on your thoughts about the following specific points outlined in the letter (or whatever it is) that AntcuFaalb linked to?:

• Why were there multiple, contradictory accounts of Joseph's first vision? That doesn't seem like the kind of thing one would forget enough to contradict oneself on (p. 23 in the PDF);

Have you read the accounts?

No, I have not read the accounts themselves. Certain details seemed to be mutually exclusive when I read the letter's summary of them (I don't feel like opening up the PDF again just to check for sure), but I can easily believe that critics exaggerate the differences (and they tend to exaggerate similarities when it suits their purpose).

• There is, of course, the issue of Joseph translating Egyptian artifacts which were later translated yielding a completely different result. I believe you've explained this before in this thread, but if I recall correctly, you simply (I don't mean to imply that you're a simpleton here, just that you don't have complicated beliefs on the subject :)) believe that the Egyptian texts have a dual meaning, and I'm curious why you believe that (pp. 25-30);

It's one of several possibilities posed by apologists.  What I believe the texts to be are ancient Egyptian texts, exactly as most interpret[...].

I think that makes sense and that's the first time I've heard a reasonable rationalization of those data.

• Joseph Smith was shown to be unreliable with his denial of his polygamy, so it seems quite possible, if not likely, that he was unreliable in general. If he got thirty-one witnesses to sign in testimony against Joseph's polygamical practices, should one consider the testimony of the witnesses to the golden plates any more reliable? If Joseph Smith was known to lie, and used his leadership to pressure numerous women and girls to marry him, while forbidding polygamy to all other Mormons, how can anything else he said and claimed be trusted ? (p. 34);

While being unreliable does cast a person's character in doubt, it does not invalidate all that a person says[...]

As for his witnesses, different events, the extent of their witness, who the witnesses are (i.e. one being a poor witness for something does not invalidate another's witness for something else), once again the social conventions and circumstnces, etc.  It would be a fallacy to discredit Book of Mormon witnesses because of the affidavit of the witnesses of Joseph's marriages.

I agree with that. My point was just that if he could find such a large number of people to testify to his monogamy when he was practicing polygamy, it seems he could have had people testify to the truth of the golden plates without them being true. My focus on the witnesses is in part due to a vague recollection from reading through this thread that the witnesses to the plates was a significant factor in your acceptance of Mormonism as the truth.

[...]

http://en.fairmormon.org/Template:PolygamyPortal

Fair enough, though I don't find all fairmormon.org's arguments more convincing than the author of the PDF's. I can put that down to lack of in-depth reading from the Mormon side of things.

• Some of the witnesses were apparently unreliable (I forget what you wrote previously about the witnesses, so perhaps the others make up for the following): 

 

Martin Harris had mortgaged his farm to finance the Book of Mormon, and thus would not be an unbiased witness (and not to the golden plates themselves, but a cloth-covered object supposed to be the plates), not to mention that he had belonged to five other denominations previously, testifying to the truth of all of them at various times, and Mormonism wasn't the last (pp. 52-53);

There is no such thing as an unbiased witness.  However, if he did not see what he says he saw, don't you think he'd be more likely to actually take a stand against it?  "You mean I wasted my money on this phony book?!"  And most of his faith was indeed devoted to schisms of Mormonism.  Only his interest in the Shakers followed.

Note that this is incomplete but i won't be able to post till tomorrow probably. 

 Indeed, there is no such thing as an unbiased witness, but a person can be an unbiased (or almost so) witness for a certain thing. I don't agree he'd be more likely to take a stance against it, but I won't argue my thoughts on it, since that isn't the purpose of the thread. The letter/PDF states that Martin Harris was a member of five previous religious organizations, some of which he testified for. Is that inaccurate? Even so, if he testified for one, that seems to effectively nullify the validity of his later testimony. Again, as you say, the unreliability of one witness doesn't mean they were all unreliable, but I think it's safe to say that this one wasn't.

 Stuff to address here, plus your original big post.  It takes a while, and I've already given a lot of time to this.  I promise I will answer your questions.  And I don't mind some debate or countering my points.  I just don't like the endless back and forth that I was afraid was going to happen.  It's happened before with much harsher critics (CP3S, Bingowings), and I don't like it.

No problem. I don't really expect you to address anything in my responses to your answers, unless I specifically ask for clarification. I think I'm happy enough with what you came up with this time. If I needed you to convince me why your beliefs are the best explanation of the evidence before I was satisfied, I wouldn't have any questions left to ask after that because I'd be a Mormon. ;)

How much of that link did you read and how prepared were you to answer this way regardless of my reply to your previous question?

Considering he switched to his current avatar about five or six hours before making that post, the second part of your question needs no further answer....

Probably I find the avatar switching most hurtful, as it appears to be an attempt to broadcast my religion's insensitivity.  I encourage you to do more reading, then we can resume this discussion, Tobar.

That is your right.  I'm sorry it hurts.  I'm sorry you also misunderstand our teachings and instead had apparently asked questions after you already had answers that you felt were accurate.  I gave you links.  I encourage you to try them.  You'd be surprised at the different points of view one might get when choosing between friendly sources and hostile sources.

Tobar said:

You know what I find hurtful. That once my ancestors were millions strong across the land. That children are taught they were a primitive people when in fact they were an advanced culture with large cities.

 What children are these? I've never been taught a negative thing about Amerindians (or whatever term you want to give them) in school, but many positive things. Technologically, only the Central American tribes, and some South American tribes, were advanced. Mentally, they were, and are, no different than Europeans, despite not advancing as far in other ways due to location, population (and consequently lack of competition), and many other things.

I have a question for you: How's it going?

Pretty good!  You?

I've never heard the term Amerindians.  Is that considered a term in poor taste, Tobar?

Did I misunderstand an assertion that Native Americans might not have been the original inhabitants of this land?

TV's Frink said:

Pretty good!  You?

Since when are you LDS's Frink?

Nothing can replace the place that TV holds in my heart.

TV's Frink said:

I've never heard the term Amerindians.  Is that considered a term in poor taste, Tobar?

 It was used a lot more before the age of political correctness. I don't get why a person would find it offensive--just inaccurate. I only used it since the Québécois call them "indiens" or "amerindiens" and I've still got French on the brain.

darth_ender said:

thejediknighthusezni said:

        Do Mormons believe it is possible to refuse to become Mormon and yet be saved?

        Can a "good Protestant" reject LDS and still achieve eternal life?

 Bearing in mind that mormon is a nickname, we believe  all must accept the fullness of Christ's gospel to be saved. We believe that much can be accepted after this life is over and that many good Christians and even good Muslims, buddhists, etc will accept the full truth eventually.

       This idea, that people can get a "do-over" after this life, not only runs counter to my human sense of justice, but also everything I read on the subject in the OT and NT. Jesus said over and over again that the rebellious are condemned forever.

       The source for that notion is The Brotherhood of the Snake. These characters have been twisting the word of God inside-out and backwards for thousands of years in order to draw people into their cruelties and excuse and empower themselves. That is their exact modus operandi.

       Were you aware that the founder of LDS was a member of a Luciferian secret fraternity and some allege that he was murdered by his "brothers" for establishing an alternate exclusive society?

You should take thejediknighthusenzi's Divinely Revealed Truth™ seriously, people. If you don't, the Reptilians from the 666th planet of the Omega Satanus system are going to come to your houses at night and turn your children into meat smoothies.

TV's Frink said:

I've never heard the term Amerindians.  Is that considered a term in poor taste, Tobar?

Did I misunderstand an assertion that Native Americans might not have been the original inhabitants of this land?

 where/how did he assert that Native Americans might not have been the original inhabitants?

I was referencing the link ender posted.

To answer your question, Frink, yes, I believe you did.

DuracellEnergizer said:

You should take thejediknighthusenzi's Divinely Revealed Truth™ seriously, people. If you don't, the Reptilians from the 666th planet of the Omega Satanus system are going to come to your houses at night and turn your children into meat smoothies.

      LOL

      Actually, it's the Luciferians who like to push this idea of "alien" origins.

      It's a hell of a lot more impressive to suggest that they come from cosmic superbeings than the disgusting reality that they are purely DEPRAVED and PSYCHOPATHIC FREAKS whose only superpower is the infliction of unspeakable CRUELTIES onto the people who are INFINITELY SUPERIOR to them.

     Oh, and my "Divinely Revealed Truth" is my ability to read the plain text of the Bible.

thejediknighthusezni said:

Actually, it's the Luciferians who like to push this idea of "alien" origins.

      It's a hell of a lot more impressive to suggest that they come from cosmic superbeings than the disgusting reality that they are purely DEPRAVED and PSYCHOPATHIC FREAKS whose only superpower is the infliction of unspeakable CRUELTIES onto the people who are INFINITELY SUPERIOR to them.

Quoth the Warbler, *sigh* 

Oh, and my "Divinely Revealed Truth" is my ability to read the plain text of the Bible.

Millions of you zealots claim to read "the plain text of the Bible", and you all plainly read it in millions of plainly contradictory ways.

Thus far, all you and the rest of your irk have proven is that you're all conceited narcissist blowhards who live in worlds of your own creation, not God's.

I've never really understand the stigma against calling Natives "Indians". Sure, it's inaccurate, but it's not an insult (Unless you happen to dislike true Indians/Indian culture for some reason.).