rlr@pyuxn.UUCP (09/14/83)
It seems this Mormon business has gotten a little out of hand. As (what has been referred to as) a "religious skeptic", I applaud the notion of showing so-called religious documents as fluff and fraud. But why pick on one group? Because they are a (relatively) easier target than Christinanity or religiondom as a whole? My own personal belief is that the Bible and other similar religious works are no more accurate/inspired/divine/holy/important than the works of Joseph Smith or the writings of L. Ron Hubbard or the Gospel According to Ubizmo. (Ahh, you've all forgotten Ubizmo; for shame...) I'm not here to argue this point, since these are simply personal beliefs that I am not prepared to argue about. But, to me, all religious writings are either 1) the works of truly inspired individuals with something to say, or 2) the attempts of others to "cash in" on examples of (1). I say "cash in", but I don't necessarily mean that in a TOTALLY negative sense; i.e., taking earlier works and leading other people in the ways of the earlier works may be a good thing for all concerned. But given the way that absolute power corrupts absolutely, the way that guiding people in religious teachings can lead to absolute power over their lives, it doesn't matter whether the religious leaders started out with the intention of deceiving, acquired that intention later on, or never acquired it (explicitly) at all. The nature of the beast (large oligarchical bureaucracies like the church) is that such entities exist primarily to self-perpetuate, and secondarily to perform some other function (like enlightening the masses and bringing peace to the world). And what "organized religion" winds up becoming is a power structure controlling people's lives. Though I don't have hard evidence, it is my belief that most religious movements are born out of some form of deceit, though the deceiver may think that he/she is deceiving others for their own good, and may convince others to do the same. This is how modern cults like the Moonies operate. You might say that such cults are different from "true" religions in that the intent of the originators of true religions was benign. I don't see hard evidence of that. Although we see the Rev. Iceemye Belibutan and friends living in the lap of luxury today while their followers follow them in abject poverty and blind obedience, what do we know about the motives, designs, etc. of those who promoted the so-called true religions? The point here is: why pick on the Mormons? Sounds like it's only because they're an easy target. I don't think that Mormonism is any different from any religion in terms of validity, and there's no reason to single them out. If this is a newsgroup containing atheists, religious skeptics, religious fanatics, and everybody in between, all with something to say about everything, then let's talk about concepts and ideas instead of picking on individual groups. Rich Rosen pyuxn!rlr
jonw@tekmdp.UUCP (Jonathan White) (09/15/83)
I happen to be in basic agreement on much of what Rich Rosen has to say concerning religion in general, but I disagree with his assertion that there is no reason to single Mormons out. The Mormons make for particularly interesting study because of their outrageous claims (above and beyond the "regular" religions), as well as their extensive literature that includes "divinely-inspired" pseudo-scripture. I have largely kept my attacks on a secular level -- examining archeological, scientific, historical, etc. claims of the Mormons. And on this level, I think that Christianity is a more "legitimate" religion than Mormonism. The Bible is certainly a genuine ancient document (it can be used by archeologists in the field), whereas even some Mormon archeologists are now admitting that there is absolutely no proof that Book of Mormon people ever existed. Additional reasons that the Mormon religion should be singled out are that it is the fastest growing church in the country, and probably the largest church with a leadership capable of controlling it's members (membership is around 4 million). The Mormon church is the second largest economic institution west of the Mississippi River! By the way, Rich, where were you when everyone was picking on the Christians? Jon White Tektronix Aloha, Ore
russ@dadla-b.UUCP (09/16/83)
Jon, I want to take issue with one statement that you make. >whereas even some Mormon archeologists are now admitting that >there is absolutely no proof that Book of Mormon people ever existed. You seem to indicate that this is some new understanding that is now being realized by Mormon archeologists. I contend that this has been the standard response. It is true that many archeologists have not considered the existence of the Book of Mormon people a proven fact. Mormon archealogist would be no different. There has been no proof. But there also has been no proof that they did not exist. And this allowed their faith to continue while more evidence is being examined. I do believe that the situation is starting to change. Only now is there starting to be an agreement of where the Book of Mormon lands were exactly. And there are still a great number of known archeological sites that have never been excavated. The fact that there might be no proof in archeaology for the Book of Mormon is only significant if there is proof that they didn't exist. Until the later exists which doesn't look likely now, we shall wait for more information to provide the proof of the Book of Mormon people. Russell Anderson Tektronix