Senate Mormonism

Oh, apparently a couple lost tribes of Israel have been found in Africa.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beta_Israel

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lemba

At the risk of a flame war, this is what we call chagrin. Or laughing at the irony.

Another couple in India, so some Indians are Jews, just the wrong kind:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bnei_Menashe

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bene_Israel

And the mother lode:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Jewish_tribes_of_Arabia

 

I'm sorry if this question has been asked before, but I was curious. Regarding missions--is a male allowed to do a term of military service in leiu of a traditional mission? For some reason I had that perception.

 

First of all, it is not required for a man to serve a mission in order to be a worthy member of the Church. For example, my father never served a mission. (He joined the Church when he was 21, and was already engaged to my mother.) Young men who are physically, mentally, and emotionally able to serve a mission are commanded to do so, but choosing not to will not affect their membership in the Church in any way. There is more of a social stigma associated with not serving a mission than any sort of official sanction.

During times of war or when there is some sort of draft or conscription occurring, the Church has instructed young men not to use a desire to serve a mission as an excuse to avoid military service. President Monson, the current Prophet, joined the Navy when he was 17 (at the tail end of WWII) and did not serve a full-time mission as a young man. (He did later serve a full-time mission with his wife as President of the Canadian Mission.)

The Church fully supports those who choose to serve in their respective country's armed forces, regardless of their age or mission service. The counsel all members to live their lives as an example to others of the Gospel, and act as a missionary through their examples.

Kimball Kinnison

 

Just add...typically young men serve a mission and then joint the military after.

 

Well I have friends that have done both. One friend joined the Marines first, did boot camp, went on a mission, then came back and a year later went to Afghanistan. Another tried to do that, even got a mission call, but then his unit was activated and sent, so he is going after. I knew one soldier on my mission that was active duty, and I guess the whole time he was on his mission he was still technically active but his commander was just covering for him (?) and a few days after he got home from his mission had to go to Iraq.

And honestly some young Mormons do choose to enlist rather than stay at home and face social pressure to go on a mission, but really I think now that is far less common than it used to be as the church has really focused on making sure those that go on missions are prepared and do actually want to be there, and tried to lessen the social stigma against those that did not go for some reason or another, or those like my brother that had to come home early due to medical reasons.

Oh and this week I was able to confirm my friend a member of the church, which was neat.

 

I have a slightly unique perspective on the military vs. mission question. While I was a missionary in the San Fernando area of California, one of the Elders had his National Guard unit reactivated. He was honorably released from his duties as a missionary because he chose to deploy to Afghanistan before completing his two-year service. The Church supports members in the military and one of my best friends from my time as a missionary is going to deploy this September.

 

I wonder what my fellow Mormons think of this website.

 

I've seen that site before. My general impression is that they overstate their case a bit, and they sometimes rely on questionable sources (particularly the Tanners, who have rather obvious biases on the subject). They give a lot more attention and detail to the criticisms than they do to the Church's response or explanations.

They make a few good points, but it's really a lot of chaff with a tiny bit of wheat.

Kimball Kinnison

 

I think obviously they have an opinion and provide more information for that opinion, but they do give what I would characterize as a fair summary of the basic apologetic response and provide links to the source documents.

One thing that has impressed me is that they don't engage in ad hominem attacks. And it goes against every impression I previously held of "anti-Mormon" literature. Would you mind going into detail about what exactly is the chaff? By far the most interesting things to me were the incidents of lying throughout the history of polygamy, and it went a long way to understand why parts of my family who had been told by John Taylor to take the polygamy underground turned to fundamentalism. The issues regarding the papyrus and the Book of Abraham is something I've been vaguely aware of, but ones believes what one wants to believe. I'm still in the process of researching, but I'm sorry to say that I think all evidence points against the authenticity of the Book of Abraham. I understand the argument that in the end the belief in authenticity of the book is one of personal spiritual conversion and witness. Faith is a hope in things not seen which are true. How can you have hope in something that has been seen (the papyrus and the facsimiles found and referenced in the Book of Abraham), which is false?

I understand that some may say that the papyrus was more like a prop and that the book was actually revealed, and like the Book of Moses cannot be proven either true or false.

I would love to find answers to these issues, but I'm just not seeing any good ones.

 

I'll see what I can post when I really get the time, because I need to dig a lot of my books out of storage to have my sources. Unfortunately, that's not going to be happening in the near future, because we are currently on "baby watch" and could have a baby any day now.

I will dig it up as soon as I can.

Kimball Kinnison

 

Congratulations KK, feel free to get back whenever you have the chance. And although it isn't something I have yet been able to talk about with those I care about, I have come to the conclusion that the foundational claims of the LDS church are not true. As you have met me and have seen my posting history here, from the third post in this thread where I had the audacity to call the Catholic church a cult, when by any measure the effect on my life and the difficulty I am going to have in leaving the organization indicates that the LDS church fits the definition to a much greater degree, this is a major life change. I have not made this decision because of a desire to sin, but because I value truth and the using all available evidence to come to the most reasonable conclusion. I am still the same person you invited into your home KK, and I hope you understand that this is not a personal attack on you and would allow me to make my own decisions when it comes to the manner and the time I choose to make this decision fully known to those around me. This place has been a large part of my life and feel the need to start with being honest here before I deal with the consequences of this honesty in the real world.

I would be happy to discuss various points with you, but LDS apologists far too often engage in ad hominem attacks against their critics rather than addressing the merits or truth of those criticisms.

I wish the church was true more than anyone, this is a very difficult experience and the realization comes with a lot of regrets of a life not lived, feelings of betrayal by those that knew and didn't share with me the truth, and anger at the consequences of the negative side effects of the religion.

However at the same time I am appreciative of the many positive things Mormons and even the church has done for me. I am unable to imagine what type of person I would be without the Mormon church. Thus leaving the Mormon church is a loss of a sense of self. I know this is saddening to you KK, and I understand why you believe and what you will make of this. But having for so long advocated here for this organization I feel this is as good a place to start as any, and the consequences be what they may. I haven't lost my testimony, I have gain a knowledge of truth.

As for specifics, the Book of Abraham, peep stones in a hat, lying about polygamy, marrying other faithful member's wives, marrying underage girls without Emma's permission, Brigham Young's blatant racism, the deceit by current leaders about past practices, changes to doctrine when rebutted with clear scientific proof, all of these things if taken by itself may be explain away through some complicated means, but taken together lead one who follows Occam's Razor to the simple fact that what the LDS church teaches about Joseph Smith simply isn't true, and is not a transparent organization. If God instituted a religion here on Earth, it would not tell its members to not hear from those that disagree with it. It would welcome criticisms and have logical responses to them.

27 years of indoctrination does things to you, and I've yet to settle everything yet. But emotional experiences are not valid forms of proof of the truth of something. Evidence and logical reasoning are.

 

I was partially expecting something like this, especially after you posted that link. Looking back, I can see hints of it building over time.

About all I can say is that I hope you do find what you are looking for, and I wish you the best. I think you are making a mistake, and giving the criticism far more weight than the responses, but you have to do what you think is right. It's not my place to judge you or your choices.

I will give you a word of warning, though. My wife and I have each known several people who have followed a similar path, and many of them have transitioned from amicably separating from the Church, after a period of time, to almost rabid opposition to anything even tangentially related to it. Please guard carefully against that. It won't make you any happier as a person, and it will hurt both you and people that you care about.

As my grandfather (who was inactive pretty much his entire life, and was also a life-long alcoholic) used to say, "Be sure you are running towards something, and not away from something." Until you know what you are moving towards, you will not be able to deal with what you are moving away from.

Good luck.

Kimball Kinnison

 

I have no intention of letting the church take over my life any more than it already has. I hope you don't think those people are simply possessed by Satan to rage against the truth, I know I certainly would have. I think the organization has itself to blame for that reaction from some people. It is such a significant part of your life, and the lives of your friends and family that it is only natural to want to share your beliefs and knowledge of the truth. I would be lying if I said I didn't have some issues right now with anger and resentment against the organization, but I have nothing but love for you and all the many great Mormons in my life.

I also find it interesting that you don't seem to have the same concerns with those who decide to teach seminary, serve missions, or any number of the activities members of the religion do throughout their life who display what to even faithful members is an unhealthy devotion that causes stress and problems with friends and family. When it is a truth you agree in, many believe it is admirable to risk the approval of everyone one knows to accept the teachings of the LDS faith, yet when people who are also pursing truth and sharing that truth with others, it is seen as hateful, small minded, an attack that would be better for that person to just leave people to believe whatever they wish and to move on with their life. If you care about others, you want to share with them the truth and what you believe will make them happy. I'm sure you don't have a problem with the ex-Moonies who assist people in getting out.

 

If you would have thought that people who viciously oppose the Church are possessed by Satan, then I don't know what to say, except that you shouldn't project such reactions onto other people. There's no need to even consider that, when it can be just as easily explained by an emotional reaction to the expression of agency. It is possible to have even severe disagreements with someone without thinking them evil.

As my father told me when my ex-wife left me, "The problem with agency is everyone else gets it, too." Just because you have chosen a different path (whatever path that is) from someone else doesn't mean that they are evil for disagreeing with you.

Hold on a moment. There is a difference between what you are describing here and what I was saying to guard against.

First of all, by now you should know that I have never advocated or supported members using "in your face" proselyting methods. Quite simply, they don't tend to work that well, and they tend to turn people off to your message more than anything else. You don't need to tear down someone else's beliefs in order to share your own. (In fact, that has also been what the Church has tried to teach missionaries, if you remember your time in the MTC. Has Bible bashing ever been an effective proselyting method? It's the same principle.)

Note that I used the term "rabid opposition". That tends to be disrespectful, and almost thoughtless (such as those people who will oppose something for the mere reason that the Church supports it). It's more of the knee-jerk reaction against the Church, and in many of the cases I mentioned, it morphed into a knee-jerk reaction against the members in general as well. This wasn't something that happened overnight when they left the church, but usually took 2-3 years or so. Each of them started off saying something like what you said here, that they had "nothing but love" for the individual members, but they lost that perspective with time.

Most of all, what I am counseling here is to remember to be respectful of others and their beliefs, even if you completely disagree with them. It's the same advice I have given to member and non-member alike when it comes to such interactions, regardless of whether a person is a future, current, former, or never will be a member of the Church.

No one gains anything by being combative and "in your face". If you are so confident in the truthfulness of your beliefs, then there should be no need to tear down someone else's beliefs in order to express that. After all, if you arrived at your beliefs through a process of consideration and cool reason, why should you think that the same wouldn't work for someone else? Similarly, remember how you would usually react when others used such "in your face" methods with you. Did that encourage you to change your mind? If not, then why do you think it would work on someone else?

Kimball Kinnison

 

I don't have any problems with any of that, it is a good point. Just understand that I think your view is a minority in the church, and it is certainly different from my family who has said some pretty hurtful things to defend their conception of belief.

I never Bibled bashed as a missionary, always hated that, and I believe in you use logical reasoning you will come to the conclusion I did, if you use reasoning based off emotion you can come to a different conclusion. You might want to examine what about the organization makes some who leave it react in such a manner when you almost never hear about anti-Methodists or anything like that, but we can both agree that such a thing is not healthy.

 

I'm not so sure that it is a minority in the Church. However, from my experience, the sort of views you describe are far more common in Utah than outside of it (and even then, it's mostly from the "Utah Mormon" crowd). I think a large part of that is because in Utah, the Church is so omnipresent that it has extremely significant influence over your life beyond just the religious aspects. When you get outside of Utah, that changes by quite a bit, especially for adults. (For example, I am one of only two members in my company, at least in our main building. There are only a handful of members in my entire neighborhood. As a result, most of my social interactions are not centered around the Church.)

You are making one big mistake here: you assume that logical reasoning always results in the same output. It doesn't.

Logic isn't an end result; it is a process. If you start from the same basic assumptions and follow logical reasoning, then you will always arrive at the same results. Because of that, two people can look at the same body of evidence and come to a widely divergent set of logical conclusions. Just because you have shifted your basic assumptions doesn't mean that someone else will.

As an example, in science one of the key aspects of creating a new theory is that you need to be able to explain everything that the previous theory did, as well as account for the previous theory's flaws. Until then, scientists keep working from the previous theory. A good historical example of that is how Newton's laws of motion turned out to not work at relativistic speeds. However, physicists didn't throw Newton out the window until Einstein provided a new theory of motion that explained both Newton's laws and the relativistic effect. (Even then, they still work from Newton's laws as a general case, leaving Einstein's theory for more specialized use.)

While you have described some of the flaws that you see in LDS teachings and policies, you don't seem to be taking into account how your new world view explains things that LDS doctrine has gotten right. (As one well-documented example, the discovery of NHM on the Arabian Peninsula in a location that coincides with where the Book of Mormon identifies Nahom cannot be explained through information available to Joseph Smith in 1830. Similarly, the use of Alma as a Hebrew man's name was not confirmed until the 1960s.) Logically, for me to reject the Church, I would need not only evidence of the flaws, but an explanation of how it has so many things right. There are too many such things to chalk them up to mere coincidence. (For example, if you are going to concede that Joseph Smith couldn't have had knowledge of NHM, but then claim that he didn't write the Book of Mormon, you would need to point to who you claim had such knowledge and did write it and not just demonstrate that he did, but account for the witnesses who supported Joseph Smith's accounts.)

You might not require such an explanation for those things as part of your logical process, but I would, because of the different axioms or basic assumptions that we are starting from. That doesn't make either of our approaches more logical than the other, merely the result of different viewpoints. I have to keep living my life as best I can under the best theory I

 

By their fruits ye shall know them. The Utah culture is a product of the religion. Funny how everything good thing a person does while Mormon is because of their religion and every bad thing has nothing to do with it at all.

I hope others are reading this, because to any impartial observer your arguments make no sense and I don't even know where to begin with your faulty idea that somehow Mormonism equates to a scientific theory. I had one of my former BYUI professors comment on Facebook the other day that "you should never trust anyone who claims that the data is clear, data is always up for interpretation."

The church doesn't make logical sense, and I would like you to show me one person who joined the church because of this overwhelming evidence you have. Whenever an impartial observer reviews the evidence based off of logical reasoning, there is only one conclusion they come to. I find it odd when you or other apologists even try to make this argument because it goes against what every true believing Mormon I've ever met thinks. They base their belief off of a emotion or feeling that one gets from God. If you don't get that emotion or feeling, then the only conclusion is that you are the one with the problem, and in Moroni's so called "test" there is no way he gives to know that the Book of Mormon isn't true. If you don't feel the things, it doesn't mean it isn't true, it is that you didn't ask in faith with a sincere heart.

If you evaluate ideas and beliefs against empirical evidence, then the facts are obvious. It isn't just a criticism of "teachings and policies." Unlike mainstream religions, Mormonism makes very specific claims about the origination and translation of certain documents, and many other statements made by Joseph Smith. If you follow Occam's Razor, then it is far easier to explain Evolution, lack of physical evidence or even any type of Book of Mormon geography, Kinderhook plates, the introduction to the Book of Abraham being verified to be false are proofs to the theory that Joseph Smith was a clever charlatan who was able to convince a superstitious people to believe in his visions of God just as well as he had them believe in his visions of treasure. The fact that the Book of Mormon mentions a rather large volume of place names and people names, and while we can read all sorts of stone hieroglyphics that were made during the time the Book of Mormon is purported to take place and there is never once a mention of any of them, because there is a huge vested interest in searching for whatever links one can find, you are able to find some things that are nowhere near as conclusive as you think them to be, I am supposed to reject all other facts to the contrary. Stick with the knowledge by faith thing, while I find it deluded and close minded, it seems more honest.

A broken clock is right twice a day. And if you turn your head and tell me the numbers don't actually mean what they say they mean and are up for in

 

Espy, I'm not going to debate this with you. As I said, to me there are too many "coincidences" to just brush them all away. I provided that as an example to you of how our basic assumptions are different, and the sort of logical criteria I would need to change my mind. I'm not trying to convince you to change your mind.

As I said, I wish you luck, but please don't try to tear down my faith. Such behavior will only lead you in a direction that you have already said is "not healthy". I've examined the same evidence that you claim to have examined, and I have come to a different conclusion than you have. Please respect that.

Kimball Kinnison

EDIT: What you are missing is that you are treating it as an either/or situation. You may claim that emotions or feelings are insufficient, but to me they make up part of a greater whole. To quote Spock, in Star Trek VI, "Logic is the beginning of wisdom, Valeris, not the end." Any alternate explanation that you would choose to present to me would have to be able to explain the historical facts that support the Book of Mormon, as well as the numerous personal experiences that I have had that also support it. To me, each of those is a contributing part to the larger whole. You may have made the decision that you can't trust your own feelings or experiences, but your experiences are not mine. It's not your place to decide what is or is not valid proof for me.

 

I'd be a lot less interested in not "tearing down faith" when the followers of that "faith" were a little less interested in tearing down me as a person rather than respond to facts. This thread of full of instances of people coming into this thread, and you complaining about them bringing up questions that they didn't formulate on their own and that this was a place for dialogue. When that dialogue comes to things that run counter to your faith, you say I am tearing it down. I'm much less interested in your personal beliefs than finding truth, but since anyone who doesn't come to the same conclusion of truth as the church has succumbed to the power of the devil and led off into strange paths or into a great and spacious building, I'm sure there is no point in you debating this with me.

As a believer in the search for truth, to see the same of mindset I saw among people of other religions who refused to really learn about Mormonism, I see that same behavior with you and my family. Is all this anger directed at you justified? Probably not, but we've only met a few times and you are 3000 miles away, and I like telling this to people on the internet much more than my family, even when they tell me I'm possessed by the devil in order to make themselves justify their illogical and emotional belief in a lie.

I plan on leaving this topic and going out an living my life, but I hope you can realize that when people get consumed by anger, it isn't because they have lost all the light and knowledge they once had and are trying to justify their decision by destroying others. The only kicking against the pricks they do isn't against God or Jesus or the idea of either, but against the pricks in the church. A proselytizing organization has little legitimate basis to espouse a live and let live in ignorance doctrine when it comes to its critics. Truth is a cake, and sometimes people who aren't selfish want to share that cake. But I recognize you can't force it on anyone. Much better for me to send off messages into the ether than destroy the relationships with those I love. Adieu.

 

Not to get in-between this little love-in, but Star Trek, really? I know the show and movies were very philosophical, but it was hardly a masterwork which will one day guide the future. Hell, even the Trekkies who use it to guide their future end up seemingly life-long virgins. Gene Roddenberry wrote progressive morality plays where the future was full of Atheists and religion seemed primitive. I'd hardly say his creation supports a religious view when it comes to logic and reason. Best to go with Battlestar Galactica if support for the LDS faith is needed. Much closer to home, 'eh?

 

Espy, I'm sorry if others have treated you poorly as a result of your choice, or if you expect that other will treat you poorly, but I haven't done so. I have wished you well, and even though I think you are making a mistake, I am trying to respect your agency. I haven't accused you of being misled or possessed by Satan, or anything like that. It's extremely unfair and disrespectful of you to accuse me of such attitudes when I have not said or done anything to even imply anything like that. In fact, I explicitly said that I wasn't going to accuse you of any such thing.

I am not your family, and it's wrong of you to project their opinions or reactions onto me, just because I'm on the other end of an Internet connection. I understand that you feel hurt and angry, but I haven't personally done anything to deserve your anger. If you value anything of the friendship that I thought we had built over the years, then please don't treat me as some faceless person who is out to harm you in any way.

I think you are making a mistake, and as a friend it is my responsibility to say something about it. However, you have the right to make your own choices, and as a friend I am also bound to respect that. Please, respect my choices like I am trying to respect yours.

Kimball Kinnison

 

You are correct that the anger directed at you was misplaced and I apologize for that.

However this forum is one of debate and discussion, and I have never held back an opinion to promote the LDS church or its values, or on any other matter out of respect of the opinions of others. I've offended literally everyone else here by insulting their core beliefs, and it keeps me from doing so in the real world. I come to this place to engage in a type of discussion that is generally not available in polite company, and certainly not something you discuss with friends and family. The LDS church relys on large part on maintaining themselves as an organization by writting off dissent and criticism through a variety of personal attacks, dismisal, and social coersion. Sharing conceptions of truth isn't a one way street.

It is unfair of you to demand that I treat this subject differently that all other subjects of discussion found in this board out of personal respect for you. If you do not wish to debate me, I can respect that, but that requires you to not respond to me, not that I shut up about the topic. If others wish to discuss criticisms of the religion in this thread following the rules established, I retain the right to do so. I know you feel like this thread is your baby in many respects, but I have a right to participate just as much as you do. Your choice to participate is your own. I've stayed out of many a thread here for just these reasons before.

 

1) Do you believe that the Mormon Church intentionally misled you?

2) If you were a true believer isn't possible that many others are true believers?

3) Dude, you have to move on. So your girl lied to you. It happens.

4) Don't waste one more moment of your life on this.

 

I'm not demanding that you treat this thread differently from any other thread out of respect for me. I am simply asking you to follow the same guidelines that this thread has always operated under. This thread isn't here to either prove or disprove LDS doctrines or beliefs. It is here to discuss those doctrines and beliefs.

That has been the standard that Lord Bane enforced when this thread started, and that every other moderator of this forum (including me) has enforced in this thread (and others devoted to the teachings of specific religions) since then. I'm not asking anything more of you than has been asked of anyone else in the past decade. (I'm sure you remember the several threads on Islam and what happened to them when people didn't follow those guidelines.)

You are still very much welcome here, but I'm not going to get into a debate with you over whether or not the Church is true. We'll just have to agree to disagree on that.

Kimball Kinnison

 

Except when it comes to dotrines and beliefs that are too embarrassing? How many ex-Muslims have we had here exactly? It is either true or it isn't, and any discussion with those involved one way or another are going to have an opinion. It is just mine is much more knowledgeable than the rest of the non-believers. I'll leave the moderation of the thread to those currently in those positions, and if you ever feel I am breaking the rules to take your concerns to them.

We will have to agree to disagree on the truth of it, but should I feel the need to delve into institutional lying about polygamy, it is still a doctrine of the LDS church. At that point your choice in response is up to you.