4 ms·

It's awesome that you have found community through your religion, but you (and everybody else reading this comment who doesn't already know) should be aware tha

It's awesome that you have found community through your religion, but you (and everybody else reading this comment who doesn't already know) should be aware that the Mormon religion was founded as a cult of personality by the con-man Joseph Smith. I am not saying this to pass judgement on you or any practitioners, but anybody interested in conversion should be aware of what they are getting into. Ample resources exist to support this claim, due to Joseph Smith living only a couple hundred years ago and leaving many contemporary sources outside the church who reported on his early life and motivations in the foundational years of the church.

ngngngng 7y ago
There's not ample evidence to support that he was a con-man. > Claims that Joseph was a "juggler," or "conjurer" were a common 19th century method of dismissing his prophetic claims via ad hominem. Modern-day claims about him being found to be a "con man" are simply the same attack with updated language, usually bolstered by a misunderstanding or misrepresentation of Joseph's 1826 court hearing. https://www.fairmormon.org/answers/Question:_Was_Joseph_Smith_found_guilty_of_being_a_%22con_man%22_in_1826%3F https://www.fairmormon.org/answers/Question:_Was_Joseph_Smit...
- vermilingua 7y ago
  I'm not taking a stance on any side of this debate, but you have to admit that using a site called FairMormon as a primary source does not inspire confidence.
  - bigwavedave 7y ago
    Why not? After reading your post (I'm not taking a stance either, to be clear), I got curious and queried a few registrars for domains including the terms "mormon", "lds", "latterdaysaints", and a couple others and was shocked [/sarcasm] to find very few sane or meaningful domains available. While I agree in principle that a resource's name or title can reveal something about its creator(s) and potentially its content, the name itself means far less than the quality of the source(s) of the information it provides.
nrclark 7y ago
I don't consider myself in a position to judge the validity of anybody's religion. But I'd ask you this - if a religion's values are good, its practitioners are happy and its role in the community is positive, does it really matter whether the religion is true in an absolute sense? Is the concept of absolute truth even relevant or applicable? We've all met pious assholes. I've also met truly faithful people that renew my hope for humanity. The practice of faith is one of accepting duality, of not knowing the truth and being comfortable with that. Or of accepting that one person's unprovable truth is different than another's, and being OK with it. Why bother debating the unknowable?
- tomlockwood 7y ago
  > The practice of faith is one of accepting duality, of not knowing the truth and being comfortable with that. Or of accepting that one person's unprovable truth is different than another's, and being OK with it. While I agree that there are some people that view faith in this way, I have heard some interpretations of faith as the idea that there is an unprovable truth that faith allowed to be taken as true, regardless. I think this is the type of faith that can reinforce the importance of some bible passages over others, fighting against same sex marriage, etc. I agree that there is definitely some good faith, and as an agnostic person I'm open to a faith experience (but I haven't had one and am pretty sure I won't), but I also think there's some bad faith that says the person's truth may be unproveable - but that the unprovability doesn't stop that "truth" from being objective. The faith you're describing seems similar in functional terms to what Simone De Beauvoir describes in her book "The Ethics of Ambiguity".

ngngngng 7y ago

There's not ample evidence to support that he was a con-man. > Claims that Joseph was a "juggler," or "conjurer" were a common 19th century method of dismissing his prophetic claims via ad hominem. Modern-day claims about him being found to be a "con man" are simply the same attack with updated language, usually bolstered by a misunderstanding or misrepresentation of Joseph's 1826 court hearing. https://www.fairmormon.org/answers/Question:_Was_Joseph_Smith_found_guilty_of_being_a_%22con_man%22_in_1826%3F https://www.fairmormon.org/answers/Question:_Was_Joseph_Smit...

vermilingua 7y ago
I'm not taking a stance on any side of this debate, but you have to admit that using a site called FairMormon as a primary source does not inspire confidence.
- bigwavedave 7y ago
  Why not? After reading your post (I'm not taking a stance either, to be clear), I got curious and queried a few registrars for domains including the terms "mormon", "lds", "latterdaysaints", and a couple others and was shocked [/sarcasm] to find very few sane or meaningful domains available. While I agree in principle that a resource's name or title can reveal something about its creator(s) and potentially its content, the name itself means far less than the quality of the source(s) of the information it provides.

nrclark 7y ago

I don't consider myself in a position to judge the validity of anybody's religion. But I'd ask you this - if a religion's values are good, its practitioners are happy and its role in the community is positive, does it really matter whether the religion is true in an absolute sense? Is the concept of absolute truth even relevant or applicable? We've all met pious assholes. I've also met truly faithful people that renew my hope for humanity. The practice of faith is one of accepting duality, of not knowing the truth and being comfortable with that. Or of accepting that one person's unprovable truth is different than another's, and being OK with it. Why bother debating the unknowable?

tomlockwood 7y ago
> The practice of faith is one of accepting duality, of not knowing the truth and being comfortable with that. Or of accepting that one person's unprovable truth is different than another's, and being OK with it. While I agree that there are some people that view faith in this way, I have heard some interpretations of faith as the idea that there is an unprovable truth that faith allowed to be taken as true, regardless. I think this is the type of faith that can reinforce the importance of some bible passages over others, fighting against same sex marriage, etc. I agree that there is definitely some good faith, and as an agnostic person I'm open to a faith experience (but I haven't had one and am pretty sure I won't), but I also think there's some bad faith that says the person's truth may be unproveable - but that the unprovability doesn't stop that "truth" from being objective. The faith you're describing seems similar in functional terms to what Simone De Beauvoir describes in her book "The Ethics of Ambiguity".