Joseph Smith Fraud

[tomato1236]

not sincere? now who's being quick to judge?

Who said anything about you judging?

 

[sniper762]

please give referrence to my perceived combativeness.

 

[tomato1236]

please give referrence to my perceived combativeness.

Haha do you deny that you have been (at any significant time during our lovely online encounters together)?

 

[Katzpur]

I've been 29 for 28 years.

Wow! You're old, too! Cool!

 

[Katzpur]

please give referrence to my perceived combativeness.

Come on... drop it already.

 

[sniper762]

katspur implied that i judged the church by your actions.

 

[Katzpur]

katspur implied that i judged the church by your actions.

I implied it? Uh... no. You said it:

especially on this forum where your actions reflect the lds religion....i was concidering the lds religion, but if you are any example, then i want no part of it.

 

[tomato1236]

katspur implied that i judged the church by your actions.

Oh. Uh, ok. Well it's not wrong to judge.

 

[sniper762]

i emphatically deny it, tomatoe

 

[Revoltingest]

Wow! You're old, too! Cool!

I'm just experienced at being young.

 

[tomato1236]

i emphatically deny it, tomatoe

Haha ok. Well you sure come across as combative, often. I get off work in 3 minutes, but maybe tomorrow I can provide you with examples. Or maybe I'll not waste my time. Yeah, not wasting my time sounds pretty good.

 

[sniper762]

is that judgemental? i was just using his response as a referrence to unchristianlike conduct.
a fruit from a tree that i choose to stay away from

 

[tomato1236]

is that judgemental? i was just using his response as a referrence to unchristianlike conduct.
a fruit from a tree that i choose to stay away from

No less judgemental than Katzpur's assessment about your sincerity. There's nothing wrong with perception.

 

[AxisMundi]

Most religions look like "hogwash" to people on the outside. You assume that anyone who "buys into" Joseph Smith's story are stupid, naive, irrational, etc. The fact is, though, that several hundred new people worldwide "buy into" it every day of the year. Some of them are uneducated, even illiterate; others are very well-educated and well-read. Some are living in poverty; others are quite wealthy. Some are young, some are old. They are men and women. They are from hundreds of different countries and are of every race. The Church is growing and it's growing quickly. I'm not saying this alone is proof of anything, but considering the fact that it started in 1830 with six members and today, less than 200 years later, claims roughly 14 million, ought to tell you that there must be something in it that appeals to such a varied cross-section of the people of the world. Maybe you ought to ask yourself why and, instead of trying to amuse yourself and everbody else with a sarcastic answer, just admit that maybe you shouldn't dismiss this religion or its founder so flippantly.

Considering the active missionary/proselytization efforts of Mormonism (and Christianity in general) such conversions are completely moot when discussing the validity of said religions.

Such efforts target impressionable children, the disillusioned, inherently socially contrary, and those types of people who like to jump onto any "new thing" that comes down the street.

 

[tomato1236]

Considering the active missionary/proselytization efforts of Mormonism (and Christianity in general) such conversions are completely moot when discussing the validity of said religions.

Such efforts target impressionable children, the disillusioned, inherently socially contrary, and those types of people who like to jump onto any "new thing" that comes down the street.

Actually, as someone who spent a considerable amount of time making such efforts, I can tell you with authority what we were instructed to target, and what not to target. Here's some samples:

We were told to be careful when teaching children to ensure that at least one of their parents would also be joining, since an unsupported child is likely to fall by the wayside. An emphasis was also placed on the father's involvement, because a child whose father is unsupportive has an even harder time than with an unsupportive mother. Ideally both parents would accomany the child to baptism and church attendance. In cases where neither parent supported the kid's interest, we were advised to wait until the kid was 18.

We were told to be careful when teaching those with mental handicaps and challenges, since there's a possibility they are not accountable.

We were told to be careful when teaching those with unusually low income, such as those on welfare, to make sure they were joining because they believe what is being taught, and not just for financial assistance.

There is an interview that each person goes through prior to being baptized to ensure that they have sufficiently forsaken their major sins, and that their heart is in the right place. The church has no interest in baptizing for the sake of numbers.

As far as people who just like to go with the latest whim, we do not bar these folks from joining if they appear to be genuinely interested, but we certainly do not target them. We target "honest seekers of truth".

 

[AxisMundi]

Actually, as someone who spent a considerable amount of time making such efforts, I can tell you with authority what we were instructed to target, and what not to target. Here's some samples:

We were told to be careful when teaching children to ensure that at least one of their parents would also be joining, since an unsupported child is likely to fall by the wayside. An emphasis was also placed on the father's involvement, because a child whose father is unsupportive has an even harder time than with an unsupportive mother. Ideally both parents would accomany the child to baptism and church attendance. In cases where neither parent supported the kid's interest, we were advised to wait until the kid was 18.

We were told to be careful when teaching those with mental handicaps and challenges, since there's a possibility they are not accountable.

We were told to be careful when teaching those with unusually low income, such as those on welfare, to make sure they were joining because they believe what is being taught, and not just for financial assistance.

There is an interview that each person goes through prior to being baptized to ensure that they have sufficiently forsaken their major sins, and that their heart is in the right place. The church has no interest in baptizing for the sake of numbers.

As far as people who just like to go with the latest whim, we do not bar these folks from joining if they appear to be genuinely interested, but we certainly do not target them. We target "honest seekers of truth".

"Careful" or not (as if that means anything) you are still targeting those people, and my statement still stands.

If numbers of converts actually meant something towards the validity of a religion, we non-Abrahamics, the fastest growing religions in the Western World whose populations grow expodentially each year, would be the winners hands down in such a contest, as we ahve NO missionaries.

 

[Katzpur]

Considering the active missionary/proselytization efforts of Mormonism (and Christianity in general) such conversions are completely moot when discussing the validity of said religions.

Actually, most Christians do not have a particularly active missionary program. Secondly, this is the third time I've said that the number of converts is no proof that the Church's teachings are valid. How is it some of you people continue to miss that point? On the other hand, there are literally hundreds, more likely thousands, of religions that are formed, flourish for a few years and then die out. My point was that there is obviously something different about any religion, be it Mormonism, or any other religion, particularly one that has endured the kind of persecution Mormonism has (for instance, did you know that it was actually legal to murder a Mormon anywhere in the state of Missouri until as recently as 1976?) and continued to grow at the rate Mormonism has. The growth rate is not, as I said, proof that it's true, but it is a good indicator that it encompasses something that ever since its inception has appealed to a huge cross-section of people. This is something I wouldn't expect an atheist to understand, but it's something that religion sociologists find compelling.

Such efforts target impressionable children, the disillusioned, inherently socially contrary, and those types of people who like to jump onto any "new thing" that comes down the street.

That's an interesting comment, however most of it is absolutely unverifiable statistically. To begin with, children who wish to convert are not permitted to do so without their parents' consert. If it appeals to the "disillusioned," that's wonderful. That means it is different from the religions the disillusioned have been a part of or familiar with in the past. I don't know what you mean by "inherently socially contrary" so I won't attempt to comment on that statement. And as far as it appearing to people who like to "jump onto any new thing that comes down the street," that's absolutely preposterous. Most of the people who convert to Mormonism do so even after having had pretty much everyone they know tell them they have lost their minds. They do so even after having well-meaning (or not) friends and relatives present them with the most outlandish anti-Mormon material you can imagine. They do so knowing that a lot of their former associates will no longer want anything to do with them. They do so knowing that their new religion will require more of them, both in terms of their time and money, than any previous organization they've ever been a part of. Is that what you call "jumping into" it?

 

[Katzpur]

"Careful" or not (as if that means anything) you are still targeting those people, and my statement still stands.

Would you explain what on earth you mean when you say we are "targetting" those people? Your statement may stand, but you certainly can't offer any evidence whatsoever to support it. If we were "targetting" these people, how would we go about doing so? We present the gospel to anyone who is interested in hearing it -- rich or poor, male or female, young or old, educated or uneducated. Why don't you just say we are "targetting" everyone? That would least be marginally more rational.

If numbers of converts actually meant something towards the validity of a religion, we non-Abrahamics, the fastest growing religions in the Western World whose populations grow expodentially each year, would be the winners hands down in such a contest, as we ahve NO missionaries.

Holy cow! I'm starting to think you simply can't read. How many different ways do we have to say that we've never claimed this to be the case?

 

[Autodidact]

Most religions look like "hogwash" to people on the outside.

Yup.

You assume that anyone who "buys into" Joseph Smith's story are stupid, naive, irrational, etc.

Or more likely, brainwashed as a small child.

The fact is, though, that several hundred new people worldwide "buy into" it every day of the year.

Or so the Church would like you to believe. Actually, more Mormons leave every year than are converted, and chief source of growth is large families, and that childhood brainwashing.

Some of them are uneducated, even illiterate; others are very well-educated and well-read. Some are living in poverty; others are quite wealthy. Some are young, some are old. They are men and women. They are from hundreds of different countries and are of every race. The Church is growing and it's growing quickly.

According to them and no one else.

I'm not saying this alone is proof of anything, but considering the fact that it started in 1830 with six members and today, less than 200 years later, claims roughly 14 million, ought to tell you that there must be something in it that appeals to such a varied cross-section of the people of the world.

Which has absolutely nothing to do with whether anything it teaches is true or not.

Maybe you ought to ask yourself why and, instead of trying to amuse yourself and everbody else with a sarcastic answer, just admit that maybe you shouldn't dismiss this religion or its founder so flippantly.

That is an interesting question. Why do people choose to believe such obvious malarkey?

 

[Autodidact]

Naw. People just join because the church gifts every new member with a Fararri, a $75,000 annuity and eternal youth.

Seriously, though, the fact that this many people are joining a church that requires its members to abstain from extra-marital sex, alcohol, tobacco, tea, coffee, harmful drugs, to serve without pay in various leadership roles in the church, offer missionary service (boys age 19) and to give back 10% of their income to the church...well it does seem strange that people are joining so quickly. Not to mention teachings that we should serve others continually, be honest in our dealings, admit our faults to ourselves and change.

If it's so crazy, what's the motive?

Not very many people do join. I'm guessing most of them do because it meets their needs.