Subject: Richard Packham - Radio Interview Transcript
Date: Oct 11 22:51
Author: Nightingale
Mail Address:
I transcribed while I listened to Richard's interview on the Infidel Guy's Internet radio program tonight.
It's not verbatim, I couldn't catch it all; in fact, is paraphrased in some places (so don't fry somebody for a word) and there were a few gaps in the audio feed, but this will give you the idea. As others have said, Richard did great. He's very knowledgeable and good at summarizing events and he has a calm, friendly and humourous demeanour but is very factual with it.
Mormonism: Behind the Mask
Infidel Guy ("I"): Richard Pack-Ham [hehe] is an ex-Mormon. We thought we’d bring this up, btw, because as you know, we have a practicing Mormon who is a serious contender for the Presidency of the United States so we should talk about it.
Richard is going to give us an insider’s view of this powerful, growing cult. Most of us have a view that it’s a funny little sect but it’s apparently more than that.
Welcome, Richard. One of the major questions people keep asking is what is Mormonism. So maybe we'll start by you telling us about yourself.
Richard Packham ("R"): I was born Mormon. My ancestors for 4 or 5 generations back on both sides were Mormon. I was born in it, trained in it, believed in it. My family and friends were Mormons. Most of the people in my town were Mormons. That is the culture I grew up in. I married my high school sweetheart in the Mormon temple. I attended Brigham Young University, BYU. For 25 yrs or so I believed in it wholeheartedly. There didn’t seem any reason not to. Everyone I knew believed it.
Then I began studying some of the history. Friends asked questions I couldn’t answer. I determined to prove to them that this was the one true and living church. I started studying more for about three years. It never occurred to me that the church wasn’t what it claimed to be, the one true church. But there were problems as I studied more. Things I couldn’t explain…
I: Uh huh. You realized you were spending more time trying to defend things that were indefensible.
R: Right, right. I was having problems explaining things. Finally, it dawned on me almost like a revelation one day that all of these problems disappear if you just admit that Mormonism is just another man-made religion.
I: Right. So, tell us about Mormonism.
R: Mormonism started as a church in 1830, organized by a young man named Joseph Smith, Jr, who claimed that he had been visited by an angel who showed to him in the hills near his home golden plates that had been put there by a prophet. It was a sacred record and he would be able to translate it with the help of God, through magic spectacles that were buried with the plates. JS got the plates after a 4 yr wait and he translated them, with the help of God, he said, and produced the Book of Mormon in 1830 and that same yr he founded a church with a few people who believed his story. A lot of people didn’t believe him but some did and they did get some converts.
He moved from New York to Ohio, where he converted a lot of people. He sent people off to do missionary work in Missouri. He prophesied that this is where the New Jerusalem would be built, it would be Zion. He ran into trouble because he told the Missourians that God had given him Missouri, and they didn’t like it. They eventually left there and then founded a town called Nauvoo in Illinois. JS established a private army. Nauvoo became a thriving city.
I: Really!
R: Once again, they ran into trouble with other folks because the Mormons were very close knit and some accused them of shady dealings and dishonesty. JS was also developing some opposition among his own followers, some of whom published a newspaper accusing JS of the secret practice of polygamy and of being a tyrant and other shady things. JS had the newspaper destroyed and he was thrown into jail because that was an illegal act. A mob stormed the jail and killed him and his brother. Brigham Young became JS’s successor, at least in the eyes of most of JS’s followers, and BY led the Mormons to Salt Lake City, where they have prospered ever since.
I: Expressed surprise re how JS died. Never heard that before.
R: Mormons claim that he was a martyr and died, sealing his testimony with his blood.
I: Oh, OK, that sounds familiar.
R: If he had not been killed, he would have probably been charged with treason and riot and he would have been tried.
I: People don’t realize how easy it is to follow these religious icons. If you hear the right message it’s easy to get wrapped up in it. Especially if the leader dies from "persecution".
R: It was a time of great religious fervor, belief in folk magic, spirits and demons and he was able to use that in order to pursue his own ends.
What makes Mormonism a rather unusual religion is, one, the book of scripture that he translated, the Book of Mormon. It tells the story of how people came from Palestine. They got here by ship but all under the guidance of God. God led them here.
I: Of course.
R: They divided into two groups, righteous and unrighteous. In a climactic battle, the unrighteous destroyed the righteous.
I: Really. Well, that’s a twist…
R: The unrighteous had dark skin and were the ancestors of the American Indians.
I: Ohhhhhhhhhhhhhh. Descendants of the House of Israel or the Lost Ten Tribes or something…
R: Now, we know that the American continent has been inhabited for 10-20,000 years and that the ancestors came across the Bering Strait.
I: And so you’d have to ignore DNA evidence that shows there is no…
R: Exactly. The Mormon spin on ….(audio blip)
I: My eyes just got twice as wide right there. Now, that is faith for you, Richard.
R: Oh yeah. The Book of Mormon has a great many details about these people who had come over from Palestine. None of it matches up with the civilizations that actually existed in America. BoM talks about wheat, horses, metal coins, cattle, etc., none of which existed anywhere in the Americas before Columbus came. So it takes a great deal of faith.
That is one of the objections that a lot of people have to Mitt Romney’s candidacy - that they want a man of faith but not a man who is gullible, who believes this kind of stuff. But Mormons believe this.
The Mormon Church was growing quite astronomically in the last couple of decades of the last century but it has slowed down now.
I: Why?
R: I think it’s because of the Internet. People can log on, do a search on the name Mormon and they can come up with all kinds of web sites, pro and anti Mormon. Did you see the South Park episode?
I: I did, laughs.
R: Well, it got a few things wrong but it told an accurate story of how JS brought the BoM…
I: If someone makes a claim it’s up to the person receiving the message to believe it or not. There just aren’t enough voices saying how do we know this is true?
R: People like David Koresh, Jim Jones, Reverend Moon - and people just take them at their word and they allow themselves to be indoctrinated. The first thing that Mormon missionaries or missionaries for Moon or the Scientologists will say is, "Don’t listen to people who are saying negative things about us because they are working against God, they are tools of Satan. If you want to find out about Mormonism, ask Mormons, not ex-Mormons."
I: Seer stones, people just accept things, I mean, come on.
R: The seer stone – A lot of Mormons don’t know that the seer stone that JS used to translate the gold plates is the same seer stone that he had used before the angel ever showed up to do treasure hunting.
I: What?!
R: He and his dad and other family members had a reputation in New York of being able to locate buried treasure. They would hire themselves out and would say to farmers we can use this seer stone to find treasure on your place. They would dig holes and lo and behold, the treasure would always slip away.
I: I bet they had no idea that it would get to this point, where it is today. There are so many similarities to people who claim to have psychic powers, the same kind of fervor over these ideas. So they were professional conmen for a long time. They knew how to sway people.
R: As far as there is an official explanation, Mormon apologists say yeah, folk magic was very popular in that time but that was probably just God’s way of preparing him for the work ahead.
I: Of course. I felt that coming. It’s kind of weird, a double-edged sword. The story is so out there. You have to wonder. Someone could not make this up. It’s so out there.
R: That is one point that makes it more believable - is because it is so unbelievable. I remember when I first went through the temple ceremony as an adult. It is very secret. Nobody tells you ahead of time what you are going to experience there. I remember sitting there in the Mormon temple in Idaho Falls, Idaho, thinking this is so weird that nobody could have made it up, it must be true. The mere weirdness of it.
I: This guy [on his blog?] says exactly the same thing about the Virgin Mary story. He says, "How can you not believe this, it’s so unbelievable". Who would take the time to make that up? Why the need for special glasses? Why the hat? Why the seer stone? Couldn’t God just tell you what he wanted to tell you? Where _are_ the glasses, btw?
R: The angel took them back.
I: Oh. The angel took them back.
Just like the Catholic Church, the Mormons have this other document as well where you just kind of fill in the details.
R: The Mormons have more scripture than just the BoM. JS started getting more revelations from God.
I: While he was in jail!
R: Well, yes.
I: What? Laughs.
R: These are the words of God, the way JS dictated them. They sort of go like this: "Thus sayeth the Lord. My servant, JS, I am well pleased with thee".
I: Well, of course. They wouldn’t say I am NOT pleased with you.
R: This book is called the Doctrine & Covenants. The interesting thing is that when they first collected JS’s revelations and started writing them down, they put them together in Missouri under the title "The Book of Commandments" and said this was God’s word, true and correct, unchangeable (etc). The Missourians destroyed most of the copies. In Ohio, they republished, added subsequent revelations and called it the Doctrine & Covenants. The Book of Covenants had been approved by God himself. In Ohio, the Mormons decided those revelations weren’t true and correct and so they changed some of them. So the D&C is different from the BoC.
I: Other religions do that too - "this is what it *really* means…".
R: Also, the Book of Abraham. This has quite a different history. It came about when a travelling sideshow man came through Ohio with some Egyptian mummies and papyri that he had bought in Egypt. JS saw them, papyri written in hieroglyphics. JS said they were scripture. JS translated them with divine power. He said that they were the writings of the patriarch Abraham, written by his own hand, and he translated them and produced the Book of Abraham.
I: I know where this is going. It doesn’t say any damn thing that he said.
R: You are right.
It had additional theology in it that he had come up with. When eventually translated by scholars, they had nothing to do with Abraham. They were just typical pagan funeral texts.
I: Did you discover that in your journey in getting out of the church?
R: No, I was not really aware of it until not too many yrs ago.
I: Really? Laughs.
R: They were missing and not found until the 1960’s.
I: That’s embarrassing. Why would they want to hold onto something like that?
R: Because the Mormons really believe it. They [papyri] were missing and then were found in a museum in New York and the church leaders were thrilled to get them because they really believed that they would be the same as what JS had written.
I: And the apologetic response is?
R: That is not really the papyri.
I: Of course, of course.
R: The apologetic response doesn’t make sense. The BoA has three illustrations that were copied off the papyri. They’re the same as what JS had.
I: Oops.
R: The BoA has caused more Mormons to leave the church than any other thing.
I: That’s a huge wedge in the whole thing.
R: The BoA, lack of archeological substantiation for the BoM, the DNA evidence about the real origin of the American Indians – those are three of some of the biggest items that are causing people to leave the Mormon Church.
I: They haven’t had time to work out all the kinks and cover their tracks and you get caught up in trouble and can’t refute. If other religions were as explicitly obvious as that one, they would have trouble too. Christianity is on the downfall, many youth are saying they just aren’t buying the mythological story any more. I think that is why computers are not allowed by a lot of Muslim families and other fundamentalists.
R: If you are a Mormon family, especially in Utah, you can subscribe to the Net and screen out anything that is not friendly to Mormonism.
I: Oh really? Laughs.
R: Well, you can screen out porn too.
I: Oh, yeah…
I: You have just totally destroyed Mormonism in a few minutes. It’s amazing there is anyone who still believes it after what you have just said.
I: Question re afterlife.
R: [Discusses afterlife]. Summarizes the traditional view of hell.
The Mormons have come up with something better than that. Three levels in heaven. Celestial Kingdom if you’re a good Mormon. Telestial Kingdom for non-Mormon good people. Terrestrial for non-mo non-good. Even the terrestrial kingdom is better than what’s on earth. No hell as Christians believe. Another attractive thing is that you can go to the Mormon temple after a loved one is dead and you can be baptized for them by proxy and get them into the Mormon Church after they are dead.
I: Sounds like Catholicism, better than.
R: This is mostly what is going on in the Mormon temple – this baptism for the dead. This is why they are so interested in genealogy.
I: I’m a genealogist.
R: The most attractive thing about the Mo afterlife is that if you are a good and faithful Mormon and married to a good faithful Mormon, you will continue to progress until you too become a God. That way, you will be able to create your own universes, have your own spirit children and rule over them. Doesn’t that sound nice?
I: So you spent all this time to get next to God in the CK, what happens to that God? Is that God broken? Are they all equal at a certain level?
R: Mormons don’t agree on this. Some Mos say that God continues to progress to infinity. Other Mo authorities say that God is perfect in knowledge, he is expanding in power only.
I: So there is still one main God?
R: One main god that is our God. But that God also had a daddy god.
I: This is confusing. There’s a big problem with that but OK. So Yahweh had a dad and his dad had a dad. There’s no beginning to it? OK, it goes on to infinity.
Caller: Question re "magic underwear".
R: Mormons call it the Garment of the Holy Priesthood. It is worn by all adult practicing Mormons. It is part of the endowment ceremony in the Mo temple, before you go on a mission or get married. They give you this underwear which is white, plain underwear that reaches from shoulder to knees and contains four sacred markings, one over each breast, one over the navel and one over the right knee.
I: Laughing…
R: You are told that you are to wear it at all times. Of course, you have a change of the underwear, you put it in the laundry and you change it every day or so but you are to wear it at all times, even in bed. You can take it off to bathe and play sports. It is referred to only by non-Mormons as magic. Mormons believe it is divine, protective. One of the most common testimonies Mos will bear to you is that they were in an accident and the garments protected them, they were burned everywhere but where the garments covered their skin...
I: Similar to all the same types… Just like a magic blanket…
R: Mos have to buy the underwear from a church company.
I: Can you get one of those online or do you have to be a member of the church?
R: Church has shut that down as people who shouldn’t have them were buying them.
Caller: Can you tell us about polygamy – JS marrying other men’s wives.
R: JS, his basic premise was that he was called by God to restore all things. Restore not only the church that Jesus Christ had established but also to restore all Biblical faiths and he believed that it went back to the days of Adam. In the OT, many patriarchs had more than one wife. So JS asked God about this.
I: Of course.
R: God told him by revelation that all things would be restored, including the practice of polygamy. JS realized that would not be a very popular thing for him to announce publicly so he started it secretly and initiated a few close friends and he also taught the doctrine to several young, attractive Mormon women, and convinced them that they should become his wife.
I: And how can one deny God’s word?
R: JS told one of the young women that he didn’t want to do it.
I: Oh come on.
R: And that an angel with a flaming sword would destroy him if he didn’t do it.
I’ve got to use that one.
R: Yeah, try it some time.
JS had about 33 plural wives. About 11 of them were women who already had living husbands. They were already married but JS took them also as plural wives. This is documented by Todd Compton in a book called "In Sacred Loneliness". It was not until after JS’s death that BY announced in 1852 that yes, polygamy was a doctrine of the Mormon Church. It was practiced in Utah until 1890….. (big gap in audio).
The president of the church has denied even that it’s doctrinal but it’s still in the D&C, 132, saying that it’s OK for a man to have more than one wife. It’s quite correct for the church to say no, we do not presently practice polygamy with a man having more than one living wife. However, if a man is sealed for eternity to a wife and she dies, he can be married for eternity to a second wife and if she dies, he can be married for eternity to a third wife and they will all be in heaven together…..he’s a polygamist because he’s got more than one wife in heaven.
If you ask any Mormon right now if JS has more than one wife in heaven, they will say he was sealed to more than one wife.
I: Celestial orgy.
R: My brother is a devout Mormon. He is divorced but is still sealed to his first wife. He is married again and sealed to that woman. If they all died tomorrow they would all be sealed together in Mormon heaven.
The church is in the news because of the FLDS because their prophet, Warren Jeffs, has just been convicted of accessory to rape. Mainstream Mormons are saying we have nothing to do with Jeffs. They fail to realize, or they don’t want people to know, that Jeffs is doing nothing different than what their founder, JS, did during his life.
I: Really?
R: Well, yeah, Jeffs is doing what JS preached. The mainstream Mormon Church is, in effect, denying their own heritage.
I: Is there an age limit, to take a woman as a wife? How young can she be?
R: In the mainstream Mo Church they follow the …. (audio gap). Legal age. See this is where Jeffs got into trouble. The girl involved was 14 yrs old, another one was 15.
I: OK, it’s all coming together. Well, well.
We’re discussing Mormonism behind the mask or behind the magic underwear.
R: There’s a point I’d like to make too about Mitt Romney, about why people should hesitate to consider him as a presidential candidate. That is because as part of the temple endowment ceremony you take several oaths (secret). One of them is to obey the oath of consecration. That is that you promise to give everything the Lord has blessed you with, time, talents, money, to the building up of Zion. One has to wonder if Romney – in his letter to Newsweek he said, he must believe that anything that God blesses him with he has to devote it to the upbuilding of the Mo church. If he wins the presidency, he’s got to believe that that is a blessing from God, that God helped him win, and he is committed by solemn, secret oath and he’s got to use that for what he believes will uphold the kingdom of God and to a Mormon that is the Mormon Church.
A theocracy, as soon as Jesus returns it’s going to be a Mormon world, run by Mormons. Many Mormons who are so happy to see Romney running view this as a first step to the building up of the Mormon kingdom and the coming of Jesus. Nobody knows about this except Mormons and ex-Mormons like me. But nobody listens to me...
I: Well, maybe now they will...
Caller: How come the media doesn’t ask Mitt Romney about this?
I: They don’t know?
R: I’ve tried to contact media. They’re all non-Mormon. They think we’ll ask the Mormon Church. But it’s secret and so they cannot and will not talk about it. That’s the problem with the far right, they like Romney but they don’t know the questions to ask him.
I: Maybe that will change now.
Caller: I’ve heard that Mormons are quite vindictive to apostates.
R: I haven’t had anything happen to me. People who have been vocal or published are excommunicated. So far as I know, nobody has been killed. Which doesn’t mean some crazy Mormon might not. I have had occasional death threats but not from the official church.
I: Why would we need to worry about Mitt? He never changed the whole world to Mormonism in his other political offices. What, next thing you know, grads of BYU will be in court, posted to various positions?
R: If you want to see what a theocracy looks like, look at Utah. Most of the judges and legislature are Mormons and they don’t recuse themselves and they rule for the Mormon Church. They figure they owe their judgeship to God and you’ve promised in the temple that everything that God gives you, you will give to the church.
I: I just can’t believe people believe these things.
R: As PT Barnum said, a sucker is born every minute.
[Good-byes to Richard]
I: So they also have this world domination thing. What is up with that? There is no evidence that if we were all Christians the world would be a better place. Ann Coulter, shut up. Wow, another religion that believes if everyone conforms to their religion the world would be a better place. How about if everyone conforms to individuality? What if everyone.... rational… the end.
----------------------------
Keskustelua käydään exmormon-forumilla
http://www.exmormon.org/boards/w-agora/index.php?site=exmobb&bn=exmobb_recovery
Date: Oct 11 22:51
Author: Nightingale
Mail Address:
I transcribed while I listened to Richard's interview on the Infidel Guy's Internet radio program tonight.
It's not verbatim, I couldn't catch it all; in fact, is paraphrased in some places (so don't fry somebody for a word) and there were a few gaps in the audio feed, but this will give you the idea. As others have said, Richard did great. He's very knowledgeable and good at summarizing events and he has a calm, friendly and humourous demeanour but is very factual with it.
Mormonism: Behind the Mask
Infidel Guy ("I"): Richard Pack-Ham [hehe] is an ex-Mormon. We thought we’d bring this up, btw, because as you know, we have a practicing Mormon who is a serious contender for the Presidency of the United States so we should talk about it.
Richard is going to give us an insider’s view of this powerful, growing cult. Most of us have a view that it’s a funny little sect but it’s apparently more than that.
Welcome, Richard. One of the major questions people keep asking is what is Mormonism. So maybe we'll start by you telling us about yourself.
Richard Packham ("R"): I was born Mormon. My ancestors for 4 or 5 generations back on both sides were Mormon. I was born in it, trained in it, believed in it. My family and friends were Mormons. Most of the people in my town were Mormons. That is the culture I grew up in. I married my high school sweetheart in the Mormon temple. I attended Brigham Young University, BYU. For 25 yrs or so I believed in it wholeheartedly. There didn’t seem any reason not to. Everyone I knew believed it.
Then I began studying some of the history. Friends asked questions I couldn’t answer. I determined to prove to them that this was the one true and living church. I started studying more for about three years. It never occurred to me that the church wasn’t what it claimed to be, the one true church. But there were problems as I studied more. Things I couldn’t explain…
I: Uh huh. You realized you were spending more time trying to defend things that were indefensible.
R: Right, right. I was having problems explaining things. Finally, it dawned on me almost like a revelation one day that all of these problems disappear if you just admit that Mormonism is just another man-made religion.
I: Right. So, tell us about Mormonism.
R: Mormonism started as a church in 1830, organized by a young man named Joseph Smith, Jr, who claimed that he had been visited by an angel who showed to him in the hills near his home golden plates that had been put there by a prophet. It was a sacred record and he would be able to translate it with the help of God, through magic spectacles that were buried with the plates. JS got the plates after a 4 yr wait and he translated them, with the help of God, he said, and produced the Book of Mormon in 1830 and that same yr he founded a church with a few people who believed his story. A lot of people didn’t believe him but some did and they did get some converts.
He moved from New York to Ohio, where he converted a lot of people. He sent people off to do missionary work in Missouri. He prophesied that this is where the New Jerusalem would be built, it would be Zion. He ran into trouble because he told the Missourians that God had given him Missouri, and they didn’t like it. They eventually left there and then founded a town called Nauvoo in Illinois. JS established a private army. Nauvoo became a thriving city.
I: Really!
R: Once again, they ran into trouble with other folks because the Mormons were very close knit and some accused them of shady dealings and dishonesty. JS was also developing some opposition among his own followers, some of whom published a newspaper accusing JS of the secret practice of polygamy and of being a tyrant and other shady things. JS had the newspaper destroyed and he was thrown into jail because that was an illegal act. A mob stormed the jail and killed him and his brother. Brigham Young became JS’s successor, at least in the eyes of most of JS’s followers, and BY led the Mormons to Salt Lake City, where they have prospered ever since.
I: Expressed surprise re how JS died. Never heard that before.
R: Mormons claim that he was a martyr and died, sealing his testimony with his blood.
I: Oh, OK, that sounds familiar.
R: If he had not been killed, he would have probably been charged with treason and riot and he would have been tried.
I: People don’t realize how easy it is to follow these religious icons. If you hear the right message it’s easy to get wrapped up in it. Especially if the leader dies from "persecution".
R: It was a time of great religious fervor, belief in folk magic, spirits and demons and he was able to use that in order to pursue his own ends.
What makes Mormonism a rather unusual religion is, one, the book of scripture that he translated, the Book of Mormon. It tells the story of how people came from Palestine. They got here by ship but all under the guidance of God. God led them here.
I: Of course.
R: They divided into two groups, righteous and unrighteous. In a climactic battle, the unrighteous destroyed the righteous.
I: Really. Well, that’s a twist…
R: The unrighteous had dark skin and were the ancestors of the American Indians.
I: Ohhhhhhhhhhhhhh. Descendants of the House of Israel or the Lost Ten Tribes or something…
R: Now, we know that the American continent has been inhabited for 10-20,000 years and that the ancestors came across the Bering Strait.
I: And so you’d have to ignore DNA evidence that shows there is no…
R: Exactly. The Mormon spin on ….(audio blip)
I: My eyes just got twice as wide right there. Now, that is faith for you, Richard.
R: Oh yeah. The Book of Mormon has a great many details about these people who had come over from Palestine. None of it matches up with the civilizations that actually existed in America. BoM talks about wheat, horses, metal coins, cattle, etc., none of which existed anywhere in the Americas before Columbus came. So it takes a great deal of faith.
That is one of the objections that a lot of people have to Mitt Romney’s candidacy - that they want a man of faith but not a man who is gullible, who believes this kind of stuff. But Mormons believe this.
The Mormon Church was growing quite astronomically in the last couple of decades of the last century but it has slowed down now.
I: Why?
R: I think it’s because of the Internet. People can log on, do a search on the name Mormon and they can come up with all kinds of web sites, pro and anti Mormon. Did you see the South Park episode?
I: I did, laughs.
R: Well, it got a few things wrong but it told an accurate story of how JS brought the BoM…
I: If someone makes a claim it’s up to the person receiving the message to believe it or not. There just aren’t enough voices saying how do we know this is true?
R: People like David Koresh, Jim Jones, Reverend Moon - and people just take them at their word and they allow themselves to be indoctrinated. The first thing that Mormon missionaries or missionaries for Moon or the Scientologists will say is, "Don’t listen to people who are saying negative things about us because they are working against God, they are tools of Satan. If you want to find out about Mormonism, ask Mormons, not ex-Mormons."
I: Seer stones, people just accept things, I mean, come on.
R: The seer stone – A lot of Mormons don’t know that the seer stone that JS used to translate the gold plates is the same seer stone that he had used before the angel ever showed up to do treasure hunting.
I: What?!
R: He and his dad and other family members had a reputation in New York of being able to locate buried treasure. They would hire themselves out and would say to farmers we can use this seer stone to find treasure on your place. They would dig holes and lo and behold, the treasure would always slip away.
I: I bet they had no idea that it would get to this point, where it is today. There are so many similarities to people who claim to have psychic powers, the same kind of fervor over these ideas. So they were professional conmen for a long time. They knew how to sway people.
R: As far as there is an official explanation, Mormon apologists say yeah, folk magic was very popular in that time but that was probably just God’s way of preparing him for the work ahead.
I: Of course. I felt that coming. It’s kind of weird, a double-edged sword. The story is so out there. You have to wonder. Someone could not make this up. It’s so out there.
R: That is one point that makes it more believable - is because it is so unbelievable. I remember when I first went through the temple ceremony as an adult. It is very secret. Nobody tells you ahead of time what you are going to experience there. I remember sitting there in the Mormon temple in Idaho Falls, Idaho, thinking this is so weird that nobody could have made it up, it must be true. The mere weirdness of it.
I: This guy [on his blog?] says exactly the same thing about the Virgin Mary story. He says, "How can you not believe this, it’s so unbelievable". Who would take the time to make that up? Why the need for special glasses? Why the hat? Why the seer stone? Couldn’t God just tell you what he wanted to tell you? Where _are_ the glasses, btw?
R: The angel took them back.
I: Oh. The angel took them back.
Just like the Catholic Church, the Mormons have this other document as well where you just kind of fill in the details.
R: The Mormons have more scripture than just the BoM. JS started getting more revelations from God.
I: While he was in jail!
R: Well, yes.
I: What? Laughs.
R: These are the words of God, the way JS dictated them. They sort of go like this: "Thus sayeth the Lord. My servant, JS, I am well pleased with thee".
I: Well, of course. They wouldn’t say I am NOT pleased with you.
R: This book is called the Doctrine & Covenants. The interesting thing is that when they first collected JS’s revelations and started writing them down, they put them together in Missouri under the title "The Book of Commandments" and said this was God’s word, true and correct, unchangeable (etc). The Missourians destroyed most of the copies. In Ohio, they republished, added subsequent revelations and called it the Doctrine & Covenants. The Book of Covenants had been approved by God himself. In Ohio, the Mormons decided those revelations weren’t true and correct and so they changed some of them. So the D&C is different from the BoC.
I: Other religions do that too - "this is what it *really* means…".
R: Also, the Book of Abraham. This has quite a different history. It came about when a travelling sideshow man came through Ohio with some Egyptian mummies and papyri that he had bought in Egypt. JS saw them, papyri written in hieroglyphics. JS said they were scripture. JS translated them with divine power. He said that they were the writings of the patriarch Abraham, written by his own hand, and he translated them and produced the Book of Abraham.
I: I know where this is going. It doesn’t say any damn thing that he said.
R: You are right.
It had additional theology in it that he had come up with. When eventually translated by scholars, they had nothing to do with Abraham. They were just typical pagan funeral texts.
I: Did you discover that in your journey in getting out of the church?
R: No, I was not really aware of it until not too many yrs ago.
I: Really? Laughs.
R: They were missing and not found until the 1960’s.
I: That’s embarrassing. Why would they want to hold onto something like that?
R: Because the Mormons really believe it. They [papyri] were missing and then were found in a museum in New York and the church leaders were thrilled to get them because they really believed that they would be the same as what JS had written.
I: And the apologetic response is?
R: That is not really the papyri.
I: Of course, of course.
R: The apologetic response doesn’t make sense. The BoA has three illustrations that were copied off the papyri. They’re the same as what JS had.
I: Oops.
R: The BoA has caused more Mormons to leave the church than any other thing.
I: That’s a huge wedge in the whole thing.
R: The BoA, lack of archeological substantiation for the BoM, the DNA evidence about the real origin of the American Indians – those are three of some of the biggest items that are causing people to leave the Mormon Church.
I: They haven’t had time to work out all the kinks and cover their tracks and you get caught up in trouble and can’t refute. If other religions were as explicitly obvious as that one, they would have trouble too. Christianity is on the downfall, many youth are saying they just aren’t buying the mythological story any more. I think that is why computers are not allowed by a lot of Muslim families and other fundamentalists.
R: If you are a Mormon family, especially in Utah, you can subscribe to the Net and screen out anything that is not friendly to Mormonism.
I: Oh really? Laughs.
R: Well, you can screen out porn too.
I: Oh, yeah…
I: You have just totally destroyed Mormonism in a few minutes. It’s amazing there is anyone who still believes it after what you have just said.
I: Question re afterlife.
R: [Discusses afterlife]. Summarizes the traditional view of hell.
The Mormons have come up with something better than that. Three levels in heaven. Celestial Kingdom if you’re a good Mormon. Telestial Kingdom for non-Mormon good people. Terrestrial for non-mo non-good. Even the terrestrial kingdom is better than what’s on earth. No hell as Christians believe. Another attractive thing is that you can go to the Mormon temple after a loved one is dead and you can be baptized for them by proxy and get them into the Mormon Church after they are dead.
I: Sounds like Catholicism, better than.
R: This is mostly what is going on in the Mormon temple – this baptism for the dead. This is why they are so interested in genealogy.
I: I’m a genealogist.
R: The most attractive thing about the Mo afterlife is that if you are a good and faithful Mormon and married to a good faithful Mormon, you will continue to progress until you too become a God. That way, you will be able to create your own universes, have your own spirit children and rule over them. Doesn’t that sound nice?
I: So you spent all this time to get next to God in the CK, what happens to that God? Is that God broken? Are they all equal at a certain level?
R: Mormons don’t agree on this. Some Mos say that God continues to progress to infinity. Other Mo authorities say that God is perfect in knowledge, he is expanding in power only.
I: So there is still one main God?
R: One main god that is our God. But that God also had a daddy god.
I: This is confusing. There’s a big problem with that but OK. So Yahweh had a dad and his dad had a dad. There’s no beginning to it? OK, it goes on to infinity.
Caller: Question re "magic underwear".
R: Mormons call it the Garment of the Holy Priesthood. It is worn by all adult practicing Mormons. It is part of the endowment ceremony in the Mo temple, before you go on a mission or get married. They give you this underwear which is white, plain underwear that reaches from shoulder to knees and contains four sacred markings, one over each breast, one over the navel and one over the right knee.
I: Laughing…
R: You are told that you are to wear it at all times. Of course, you have a change of the underwear, you put it in the laundry and you change it every day or so but you are to wear it at all times, even in bed. You can take it off to bathe and play sports. It is referred to only by non-Mormons as magic. Mormons believe it is divine, protective. One of the most common testimonies Mos will bear to you is that they were in an accident and the garments protected them, they were burned everywhere but where the garments covered their skin...
I: Similar to all the same types… Just like a magic blanket…
R: Mos have to buy the underwear from a church company.
I: Can you get one of those online or do you have to be a member of the church?
R: Church has shut that down as people who shouldn’t have them were buying them.
Caller: Can you tell us about polygamy – JS marrying other men’s wives.
R: JS, his basic premise was that he was called by God to restore all things. Restore not only the church that Jesus Christ had established but also to restore all Biblical faiths and he believed that it went back to the days of Adam. In the OT, many patriarchs had more than one wife. So JS asked God about this.
I: Of course.
R: God told him by revelation that all things would be restored, including the practice of polygamy. JS realized that would not be a very popular thing for him to announce publicly so he started it secretly and initiated a few close friends and he also taught the doctrine to several young, attractive Mormon women, and convinced them that they should become his wife.
I: And how can one deny God’s word?
R: JS told one of the young women that he didn’t want to do it.
I: Oh come on.
R: And that an angel with a flaming sword would destroy him if he didn’t do it.
I’ve got to use that one.
R: Yeah, try it some time.
JS had about 33 plural wives. About 11 of them were women who already had living husbands. They were already married but JS took them also as plural wives. This is documented by Todd Compton in a book called "In Sacred Loneliness". It was not until after JS’s death that BY announced in 1852 that yes, polygamy was a doctrine of the Mormon Church. It was practiced in Utah until 1890….. (big gap in audio).
The president of the church has denied even that it’s doctrinal but it’s still in the D&C, 132, saying that it’s OK for a man to have more than one wife. It’s quite correct for the church to say no, we do not presently practice polygamy with a man having more than one living wife. However, if a man is sealed for eternity to a wife and she dies, he can be married for eternity to a second wife and if she dies, he can be married for eternity to a third wife and they will all be in heaven together…..he’s a polygamist because he’s got more than one wife in heaven.
If you ask any Mormon right now if JS has more than one wife in heaven, they will say he was sealed to more than one wife.
I: Celestial orgy.
R: My brother is a devout Mormon. He is divorced but is still sealed to his first wife. He is married again and sealed to that woman. If they all died tomorrow they would all be sealed together in Mormon heaven.
The church is in the news because of the FLDS because their prophet, Warren Jeffs, has just been convicted of accessory to rape. Mainstream Mormons are saying we have nothing to do with Jeffs. They fail to realize, or they don’t want people to know, that Jeffs is doing nothing different than what their founder, JS, did during his life.
I: Really?
R: Well, yeah, Jeffs is doing what JS preached. The mainstream Mormon Church is, in effect, denying their own heritage.
I: Is there an age limit, to take a woman as a wife? How young can she be?
R: In the mainstream Mo Church they follow the …. (audio gap). Legal age. See this is where Jeffs got into trouble. The girl involved was 14 yrs old, another one was 15.
I: OK, it’s all coming together. Well, well.
We’re discussing Mormonism behind the mask or behind the magic underwear.
R: There’s a point I’d like to make too about Mitt Romney, about why people should hesitate to consider him as a presidential candidate. That is because as part of the temple endowment ceremony you take several oaths (secret). One of them is to obey the oath of consecration. That is that you promise to give everything the Lord has blessed you with, time, talents, money, to the building up of Zion. One has to wonder if Romney – in his letter to Newsweek he said, he must believe that anything that God blesses him with he has to devote it to the upbuilding of the Mo church. If he wins the presidency, he’s got to believe that that is a blessing from God, that God helped him win, and he is committed by solemn, secret oath and he’s got to use that for what he believes will uphold the kingdom of God and to a Mormon that is the Mormon Church.
A theocracy, as soon as Jesus returns it’s going to be a Mormon world, run by Mormons. Many Mormons who are so happy to see Romney running view this as a first step to the building up of the Mormon kingdom and the coming of Jesus. Nobody knows about this except Mormons and ex-Mormons like me. But nobody listens to me...
I: Well, maybe now they will...
Caller: How come the media doesn’t ask Mitt Romney about this?
I: They don’t know?
R: I’ve tried to contact media. They’re all non-Mormon. They think we’ll ask the Mormon Church. But it’s secret and so they cannot and will not talk about it. That’s the problem with the far right, they like Romney but they don’t know the questions to ask him.
I: Maybe that will change now.
Caller: I’ve heard that Mormons are quite vindictive to apostates.
R: I haven’t had anything happen to me. People who have been vocal or published are excommunicated. So far as I know, nobody has been killed. Which doesn’t mean some crazy Mormon might not. I have had occasional death threats but not from the official church.
I: Why would we need to worry about Mitt? He never changed the whole world to Mormonism in his other political offices. What, next thing you know, grads of BYU will be in court, posted to various positions?
R: If you want to see what a theocracy looks like, look at Utah. Most of the judges and legislature are Mormons and they don’t recuse themselves and they rule for the Mormon Church. They figure they owe their judgeship to God and you’ve promised in the temple that everything that God gives you, you will give to the church.
I: I just can’t believe people believe these things.
R: As PT Barnum said, a sucker is born every minute.
[Good-byes to Richard]
I: So they also have this world domination thing. What is up with that? There is no evidence that if we were all Christians the world would be a better place. Ann Coulter, shut up. Wow, another religion that believes if everyone conforms to their religion the world would be a better place. How about if everyone conforms to individuality? What if everyone.... rational… the end.
----------------------------
Keskustelua käydään exmormon-forumilla
http://www.exmormon.org/boards/w-agora/index.php?site=exmobb&bn=exmobb_recovery
Vastaukset 42
Vanhimmat
Blaa blaa antitavaraa puskee joka tuutista. Paljonko tästä maksettiin sinulle? Onko Packham kontaktihenkilö?
Tahtoisin päästä tämän asian ytimeen, sillä minulle on käynyt toimintanne laajuudesta selkesti esille että kyseessä on miljoonabisnes. Osaisiko kukaan kertoa enemmän asiasta?
Teillä ei olekaan ihan vain miljoonabisnes kun lasketaan jäsenmäärä n. 12 miljoonaa ja heidän palkastaan jatkuvasti 10 % kirkolle....
Snif....
olkoon tulot minkälaatuisia tai suuruisia tahansa.
Tervessi Turust
heippa vaan sinne turustille.Kirkko parjaa hyvin ja haluamme, etta se parjaa hyvin ja etta kaikkeen riittaa mihin tarvitaan.Kymmenyksia maksetaan. Jos ansaitset $10 maksat $1 kymmenyksina. Jos ansaitset $100 000 maksat $1000 kymmenyksina.Joten jokainen maksaa saman osan tuloistaan.
Ja kun ajattelemme, etta monet mormonit ovat korkeasti koulutettuja..
Teikäläisten kymmenykset eivät ole samansääntöisiä Abrahamin maksamien kymmenysten kanssa. Kymmenyksiä ei maksettu tuloista vaan kertyneestä ylijäämästä.
Kyllähän kirkkonne parjaa hyvin. Kirkkonne parjaa mm. muita kristittyjä perkeleen kirkon jäseniksi.
Ja muuten: Prosentuaalinen vero ei ole oikeudenmukainen. Progressiivinen olisi paljon parempi ja oikeudenmukaisempi.
On korkeasti koulutettuja? Utahissa ainakin tuo naisten työssäkäyntiprosentti on Yhdysvaltain pienin, ja myöskin naisten keskipalkka on pienin.
Samassa osavaltiossa on toisaalta Yhdysvaltojen eniten uusia yrityksiä, eniten talousrikoksia ja eniten konkursseja.
Onneksi sentään Mitt Romney ajoi läpi lain jonka mukaan kymmenykset saa maksaa ennenkuin tarvitsee velkojille antaa mitään. Se on hieno ja oikeudenmuikanen periaate se. Eläköönhuuto kymmenyksille!
mista sait tallaisen kasityksen?
Olet oikeassa. Utahissa on paljon konkursseja ja se johtuu ylpeydesta. Presidentti Benson varoitta tasta jo 1980 luvulla puheessaan, josta tuli kuuluisa kirkossamme. Utahinssa monilla mormoneilla on paljon kilpailua keskenaan.Ikava kylla.On oltava suuri talo, uusia auto jne. ja pysyttava kilpailutasolla naapurin kanssa. Siksi myos velkaa on paljon ja siita profeettamme varoittaa jatkuvasti ja kehoittaa paasemaan eroon veloista.
Mita tulee taas naisten tyossakayntiprosentista. Siita en tieda kun en ole tarkastanut sita, mutta tiedan, etta kirkossa on paljon korkeasti koulutettuja naisia. Toissa tai ei. Myos monet naiset kirkossa jatkavat ja paattavat opintonsa kun lapset ovat kouluikaisia ja heilla on enemman aikaa.Haluavat sitten takaisin tyoelamaan tai ei. Minullakin on monia ystavia kirkossa, jotka menivat takaisin kouluun lasten aloitettua koulun.
On myos ystavia, jotka kayvat tyossa kodin ulkopuolella.
Mitt Romneyta en ole tarpeeksi seurannut, jotta voisin kommentoida.
No juu, olen ollut laiska ja kirjoitan ilman tarvittavia pilkkuja ja pisteita.
mutta kun nain Jumala sen asetti.
Täh?
Ask McDonalds if Burger King has the best hamburgers...they will tell you they are evil!
Luin taman kaiken jo kauan sitten. Ja kuullostaa kaverilta, jonka taytyy todistaa itselleen, etta teki oikein kun jatti kirkon.Eipa kertonut koko totuutta ja mukana oli vahan variakin.
" But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God; for they are foolishness unto him;
neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned."
hampurilainen sitten?
Mormonikirkko väittää kirkkain silmin näin.
Sinä muuten kuulostat aika naiivilta tapaukselta. Oletko aikuinen?
Tarkoitin tietenkin sita, etta jos aina kysyt niilta, jotka ovat kirkkoa vastaan, sinulla tietenkin on todistus sen vaaryydesta.
Jos kuullostan sinusta naiivilta, hyva. Parempi niin kuin se milta sina kuullostat.
Bitten Sie um um McDonalds, wenn Burger King die besten Hamburger hat,…, das sie Ihnen erklären, daß sie schlecht sind!
Luin taman kaiken jo kauan sitten. Ja kuullostaa kaverilta, jonka taytyy todistaa itselleen, etta teki oikein kun jatti kirkon. Eipa kertonut koko totuutta ja mukana oli vahan variakin.
"Aber das natürliche Mann receiveth nicht die Sachen des Geistes des Gottes; für sind sie Dummheit an ihn; keine können er sie kennen, weil sie Angelegenheiten erkannt werden."
Tervessi Turust
Miltä tuo aiempi kirjoittaja kuulostaa? Olisi kiva joskus saada näihin vihjailuihin jotain konkreettistakin.
Noin alentuva puhe ei muuten ole kovinkaan sivistynyttä, vaikka kovasti yrität sellaisen kuvan antaa.
Ajattelin vain kun luin kirjoitustasi, etta se on taalla tyylina.Tama alentuva sivistymaton puhe nimittain ja ajattelin, etta vastaan samaan tyyliin niin ehka ymmarrat paremmin kun muuten ei mene perille.
Mikä oli ensi kommenttisi Packhamistä? Miestä tuntematta aloit heti paikalla mustamaalata häntä.
Mitä tarkoitusta muuten on tiukilla läsnäolomääräyksillä kaikissa kirkon kokouksissa - muuta kuin se, että siellä vahvistetaan toistensa harhaluuloja? Kiva kun kaikki ovat koko ajan samaa mieltä kaikesta. (Huom. myös tuon Mayfieldin tjsp foorumikehotus - varokaa erilaisia mielipiteitä, pyrkikää suljettuihin, samanmielisiin, sisäänlämpiäviin sensuroituihin ryhmiin...)
Mielestäni ihmisen on häpeällistä olla tuollainen kuin sinä - mikä tahansa korvaa miellyttävä kelpaa, turha tutkia mitään "antien" tekstejä. Aikuisen ihmisen pitää pystyä kuuntelemaan molempia (kaikkia eri) puolia.
Sinä olet jo etukäteen päättänyt, että kirkosta lähteneet ovat jättäneet sen jostakin pahasta syystä ja siksi sinun ei tarvitse syventyä "luopioiden" ajatusmaailmaan.
Jos joku on ennakkoluuloinen, niin tuollaiset mormonit. Mitä te oikein pelkäätte? Ei se tartu.
Sinä puhut muka paheksuvasti muiden tyylistä, mutta itse alat kovasti muistuttaa palstalla aiemmin vaikuttanutta todella ilkeää mormoni"tiedottajaa" Josefiinaa. Missä on sinun ymmärryksesi evankeliumistasi? Mitä Jeesuksesi on sanonut muiden tuomitsemisesta? Entä lähimmäisten - ja vihollisten - rakastamisesta? Mikset halua noudattaa hänen käskyään?
Olet tekopyhä.
Arvasinhan mina, etta jos vastaan samaan mittaan ja alan kirjoittaa samaan henkeen kuin sina ja muutamat muut ei mormonit taalla uskostamme, siita nousee heti melu.
Katsopa kuinka vastasit minulle. Oliko se lahimmaista rakastavaa? Aika alentavaa vai mita? Kuka tassa on feikki?
"Mielestäni ihmisen on häpeällistä olla tuollainen kuin sinä - mikä tahansa korvaa miellyttävä kelpaa, turha tutkia mitään "antien" tekstejä. Aikuisen ihmisen pitää pystyä kuuntelemaan molempia (kaikkia eri) puolia."
Kun tutkin kirkkoa, minulle annettiin ystavien kautta ihan tarpeeksi anti kirjallisuutta ja lehtileikkeita luettavaksi ja jotka luin. Eras ystavistani oli elakkeella olevan ev.lut kirkossa korkeassa asemassa olleen miehen tytar ja han antoi minulle lehtileikkeita ym anti juttuja ,joita hanen isansa oli kirjoittanut mormoneista jne. Monet ystavistani suuttuivat minulle, eivat olleet enaa ystaviani. Onneksi myos monia jai kun huomasivat, ettei kirkkoon liittymiseni muuttanutkaan minua ja olemme yha ystavia.
Kun taalla annetaan linkkeja antien sivuille luen ne,jotta tiedan miksi puhutaan ja mita puhutaan. Se ei tietenkaan tarkoita sita,etta minun pitaisi hyvaksya ne faktoina jos ne eivat minusta ole.
"Missä on sinun ymmärryksesi evankeliumistasi? Mitä Jeesuksesi on sanonut muiden tuomitsemisesta? Entä lähimmäisten - ja vihollisten - rakastamisesta? Mikset halua noudattaa hänen käskyään?"
Kukahan tassa nyt tuomitsee ja keta?
Ymmarran kylla evankeliumia ihan tarpeeksi ja juuri siksi puolustan sita kun sita alennetaan. Missa on sinun ymmarryksesi? Etko sinakin puolusta sita mihin uskot?
Lahimmaisen rakkaus ei tarkoita sita, ettenko voisi sanoa mielipidettani ja ilmoittaa, etta joku ei mielestani puhu taytta totuutta.
Sanoin,etta olen lukenut artikkelin jo aikaisemmin ja etta han kuullosti kaverilta, joka yrittaa todistaa itselleen, etta teki oikean paatoksen kun jatti kirkon. Talla en julistanut omaa mielipidettani siita oliko se oikein vain vaarin kun han jatti kirkon vaan, etta han tuntuu tarvitsevan itselleen lisatodistusta. Ja etta osa mita han sanoi oli sanottu valossa, joka antoi vaaran kasityksen. Tai ei ollut aivan totta. Ja nain tapahtuu miltein aina kun joku jattaa kirkon. Minusta han yrittaa todistaa itselleen ja muille, etta teki oikein kun jatti kirkon, kertomalla puolitotuuksia tai varitettya totuutta tai mika ei ole lainkaan totta.
Ja uskotko sina minua kun sanon, etta han ei puhu totuutta? Et. Ja miksi et? Koska olen mormoni.
No se siita.
Ensimmäistä kertaa tähän kirjoitin. Ei täysin mennyt sinunkaan tajuntaasi, siltikin olet innokkaana huutamassa miten muut ovat tyhmiä.
Ei, tämän palstan tyylinä on se, että lasten hyväksikäyttö on hieno ja kaunis asia kunhan sitä vain mormonit suorittavat. Sekin on tyylinä, että kun antaa kommenttia joka menee mormonikirkon ajatuksia vastaan, saattaa saada jopa tappouhkauksia. Sekin on täällä ollut tyylinä, että kaltaisesi passiivis-aggressiiviset Uskonsoturit ryntäävät innokkaana tuomitsemaan kaiken lukematta, jos on pienintäkään epäilystä että se menee omaa arvomaailmaa vastaan.
Mutta niin, paljastuuhan se sinunkin oikea luonteesi vähitellen, oletkin onnistunut sen pitämään jotenkuten salassa aikaisemmin.
Kukaan muu kuin sina ei ole taalla "huutanut". Haukut muita,asioista, joihin eivat ole syyllistyneet. En oikein ymmarra miksi sinusta ainoa tapa keskustella on parjaaminen ja syyttely ja nimittely. Joskus tuntuu, etta olet taalla vain paasemassa eroon agressioistasi ja kaytat mormoneja ja kirkkoa koirana, jota potkit kun muuta ei loydy.
Olen lukenut kirjoituksiasi ennenkin.Tunnen kirjoituksesi hengen ja siksi....
olen pahoillani, olisi ollut mukavaa keskustella enemmankin, mutta koska et osaa asiallisesti keskustella, rauhallisin mielin,jatan tahan. See ya!
Eli lopetat kirjoittelun kun sinun turhista syytöksistä mainitaan etkä osaa vastata niihin muuten kuin että "tunnet hengen". Heh. Noh, lähdehän johonkin toiseen keskusteluun mustamaalaamaan kunnes joku taas huomauttaa puheistasi. Sitten jo tunnistatkin "hengen" ja lähdet seuraavaan..
Huvittavaa miten tässäkin viestissäsi valehtelet, että syytän asioista johon et ole syyllistynyt. Luehan tuo lapsottelu-viestisi uudelleen. Ilmeisesti jos mormonille huomauttaa heidän vihastaan saa itkua miten on saatanan puolella ja miten mormonikirkkoa taas sorretaan. Näinhän se menee, turha sinun ottaa vastuuta mistään, olet jumalan valittu ja takanasi on rikas kirkko. Mikäs siinä sitten muita mollatessa.
vähemmän rikasta uskonsuuntaa?
Vain keskenkasvuinen mittaa kaiken rahassa.
No juu, jos niin haluat. Kun alat kirjoittaa asiaa, voin ehka keskustella. Ehka sitten voit minulle omin sanoin, ei linkkeja, tiedan jo linkit, todistaa miksi sinusta Mormonin Kirja ei ole totta. Ja myos kerro minulle yksinkertainen totuus, yleistamatta, mita sanoin, missa oli vihaa. Missa en ota vastuuta.
Ainakin kirjoitan nimeni kun kirjoitan. Tuli sitten hyvaa tai pahaa. Samaa en voi sanoa sinusta. Piilottelet vihasi takana.
hiljattain edesmenneen Josefinan rauhaan. Joistakin lähimmäisistä, kuten minusta hänen esiinvetämisensä tuntuu varsin makaaberilta.
Turust
keskustelua kanssani. Kaikilta toivoisin, ettei mentäisi liian voimakkaisiin henkilökohtaisiin solvauksiin.
Tervessi vaa Turust
En ole kirjoittanut tähän keskusteluun muuta kuin ihmettelyni sinun käytöksestäsi, ja aloit syyttämään minua turhasta. En ole todisteita antanut mihinkään enkä muutenkaan osallistunut keskusteluun. Kunhan ihmettelen sinun osoittaamaasi yleistä vihaa.
Kirjoitin ensimmäisen viestin tähän ketjuun, jossa ihmettelin miksi sinä kutsut toisia "lapsiksi" ja vihjailet heistä ilman sanomatta mitään konkreettista. Sinun vastauksesi minulle oli seuraavanlainen:
" Ajattelin vain kun luin kirjoitustasi, etta se on taalla tyylina.Tama alentuva sivistymaton puhe nimittain ja ajattelin, etta vastaan samaan tyyliin niin ehka ymmarrat paremmin kun muuten ei mene perille."
Kirjoituksessani, johon vastasit, ei ollut mitään muuta kuin yhden lauseen kysymys mitä tarkoitat, ja toteamus ettei sellainen lapseksi kutsuminen ole rakentavaa. Päätit vastata myrkyllisellä tekstillä, ja sanoa miten tällä palstalla on ei-mormonit ovat sivistymättömiä ja tyhmiä, vaikket sinä edes minulle vastannut, koska se oli ensimmäinen viestini.
Sitten kerrot miten minun kirjoituksesta on aistittavissa tietty "henki" (Joka lienee koodikieltä paholaiselle, eikö niin?) ja miten mormoneita sorretaan. Ja nyt minä "piilottelen vihani takana", kun erehdyin kysymään miksi puhut alentuvasti, ja sain vastaukseksi haistattelua.
Mietihän vähän mitä kirjoittelet ja ketä syytät.
pysy asiassa.
Olet oikeassa. Olen pahoillani.Kiitos sinulle. Rauhoitti mieltani.
Eli kiistät nyt kirjoittaneesi tuon pätkän mikä tässäkin ketjussa nimelläsi on?
Ainoa henkilö joka tässä ketjussa on toisia syytellyt ja vähätellyt on SINÄ. Siihen puututtuani sain kuulla sinulta olevani saatanan hengen vallassa, tyhmä ynnä muuta.
Ilmeisesti sinä et tosiaankaan ajattele olevasi vastuussa siitä mitä kirjoitat, vaan ajattelet voivasi aukoa päätäsi niin paljon kaikille kuin tahdot, eikä siihen saisi puuttua. Tulipa sekin sitten selväksi.
Itse en Josefinan kirjoittelua tällä palstalla nähnyt, kun olen sen verran uusi tulokas, ja tuollainen tuntuu oudolta. Mutta en ymmärrä myöskään Caritan käytöstä, ja sitä kuinka alentuvasti hän muille puhuu, ja siitä kun hänelle mainitsee alkaa hän suoltamaan myrkkyä kaikkien niskaan jotka eivät ole mormoneita. Jos tuollaisen esimerkin mainitseminen auttaa mitään tuohon käytökseen, niin miksipäs ei? Ei kait tuossa puitu tämän edesmenneen tekemisiä.
Ihan syyttä sain tässä keskustelussa kuulla olevani mormonien vihaaja, saatananpalvoja, tyhmä, sivistymätön, alentuva, parjaaja ja syyttäjä. Tämä siis vastauksena siihen, kun kysyin miksi nimimerkki Carita kutsui "vauveliksi" ja puhutteli alentuvasti henkilöä joka ei jaa hänen mielipiteitään. Sellainen vetää hiljaiseksi.
kun sina laitat sanoja suuhuni,joita en ole puhunut ja vaaristat sen minka sanoin. Ammut reilusti yli.
Puhut tietystä "hengestä" mikä kirjoituksissani on, sen mitä olen mormoneiden kanssa puhunut tuo henki on saatanasta. Sanot miten minä en ymmärrä (eli on tyhmä) muuta kuin sivistymätöntä ja alentuvaa puhetta, miten puran vihaani mormoneihin (väärin taas, ainoastaan ihmettelen SINUN puheitasi), kerrot miten syyttelen ja haukun. Mitään siitä en ole tehnyt, osaltasi nuo olivat sanojen suuhun laittamista. Lue viestisi uudelleen.
asiaa.
Unski Uudeltamaalta.
Ok,valkoinen lippuni on ylhaalla.
Kylla, puhuin hengesta, mutta olet vaarassa millaisesta. Vaikka meita kaikkia kutsutaan mormoneiksi,emme ajattele kaikki samalla tavalla. Hengella voi tarkoittaa muutakin. Hengella tarkoitin negatiivisuutta ja agressiivisuutta,jota mielestani luin kirjoittamissasi teksteissa.
Se, etta ei ymmarra ei minusta valttamatta tarkoita tyhma. Toivon, etta ei sinustakaan. En tieda miksi luulit niin. Itse en ymmarra moniakaan asioita, mutta en pida itseani tyhmana silti. Tosin on niita,jotka ovat toista mielta, mutta jatan sen heidan mielipiteekseen. En voi murehtia siita. Maailmassa on ihan tarpeeksi suurempiakin asioita joita murehtia.
Kylla, sanoin, etta nayttaa silta, etta kanssasi ei voi keskustella ilman negatiivisuutta ja nimittelya. Minusta "keski-ikainen pukki " oli hyvin loukkaavaa uskoani kohtaan. Sanoit siihen, etta olet tottunut tallaiseen tapaan,koska sinusta se on niin.
Siihen vastasin, etta vaikka olet siihen tottunut, minun ei tarvitse sita hyvaksya huomauttamatta,koska se loukkasi minua. Sanoin muistaakseni, etta minulla on oikeus puolustaa sita mihin uskon. Minusta asian olisi voinut ilmaista uskoani loukkaamatta ja myos samalla olla eri mielta.
Ja siita se sitten lahti. Suutuit joka kerta yha enemman, vaikka yritin selittaa sinulle, mutta oli kommunikointi ongelmia ilmeisesti. Siis et ymmartanyt mita yritin sanoa. Aloin sitten minakin jo tuohtua siina. Ja jotta voimme paattaa taman ikavan vaittelyn:
Olen pahoillani. Ja pyydan sinulta anteeksi. Ja olen pahoillani juuri siksi,koska todellakin ei ole luonteeni mukaista loukata toisia ihmisia. Uskot sen tai et. Toivon, etta otat vastaan anteeksi pyyntoni.
=) Kiitos hyvasta kaannoksesta!
Vaikka olen useasti sanonut.
" Kylla, sanoin, etta nayttaa silta, etta kanssasi ei voi keskustella ilman negatiivisuutta ja nimittelya. Minusta "keski-ikainen pukki " oli hyvin loukkaavaa uskoani kohtaan. "
Minä en ole noin sanonut, minun ensimmäinen viestini tähän keskusteluun oli vastaus sinun viestiisi "lapsonen lapsonen", en ole puuttunut keskustelun sisältöön millään tavalla, vain ihmetellyt sinun alentuvuuttasi. Olen jo sanonut tämänkin useaan kertaan tähän keskusteluun, olen vastaillut vain ja ainoastaan sinulle.
"Se, etta ei ymmarra ei minusta valttamatta tarkoita tyhma. Toivon, etta ei sinustakaan. En tieda miksi luulit niin. "
Sanoit etten ymmärrä muuta kuin sivistymätöntä puhetta (Vaikka en edes ollut kirjoittanut muuta kuin uteluni sinun kielenkäytöstä) ja ehkä ymmärrän paremmin jos puhut alentuvasti. Lähinnä lapsille ja sellaisille, joita pitää itseään alempiarvoisina, puhutaan alentuvasti. Joka "ei ymmärrä puhetta" on ihan kansankielessä tyhmä.
"Ja siita se sitten lahti. Suutuit joka kerta yha enemman, vaikka yritin selittaa sinulle, mutta oli kommunikointi ongelmia ilmeisesti."
Ongelma oli siinä, että sinä laitot sanoja suuhuni ja hyökkäsit niitä vastaan kertoen miten pidän mormoneja koirina joita potkin.
"Hengella tarkoitin negatiivisuutta ja agressiivisuutta,jota mielestani luin kirjoittamissasi teksteissa. "
Kerrohan, mistä tämä henki on peräisin?
"Ja olen pahoillani juuri siksi,koska todellakin ei ole luonteeni mukaista loukata toisia ihmisia. Uskot sen tai et. Toivon, etta otat vastaan anteeksi pyyntoni."
Ei ole mitään anteeksipyydettävää. Puutuin tekstiisi juuri siksi, koska sinulta on tottunut näkemään järkevää kirjoittelua ilman rähjäämistä, ja se oli suuri ihmetyksen aihe. Mainittakoon vielä että minustakin "keski-ikäinen pukki" on loukkaavaa, enkä siksi sellaisia puhuisikaan.
joutuu ponnistelemaan äärimmäisillä rajoilla, että saa asiat pysymään edes kutakuinkin asiallisella tolalla.
:) Turust
aivan noin pitkiä ruosikielisiä kirjoituksia, ainakaan kovin usein.
Nimittäin on kauhea työ kääntää niitä ihmisten ymmärtämille kielille.
Tämän kerran tein sen, mutta en anna sitovaa lupausta jatkosta.
Käännös:
Thema: Richard Packham - Radio interview-Abschrift
Datum: 11. Okt. 22: 51
Autor: Nachtigall
Post-Adresse:
Ich übertrug, während ich zum Interview Richard auf dem ungläubigen Internet-Radioprogramm des Kerls heute abend hörte.
Es ist nicht, ich könnte nicht es aller sich verfangen wortwörtlich; tatsächlich wird paraphrasiert, in einigen Plätzen (also nicht jemand für ein Wort brät) und es gab einige Abstände in der Audiozufuhr, aber dieses gibt Ihnen die Idee. Da andere gesagt haben, tat Richard großes. Er ist sehr kenntnisreich und gut an der Zusammenstellung von Fällen und von ihm hat ein Ruhe, freundliches und humourous demeanour aber ist mit ihm sehr auf Tatsachen beruhend.
Mormonism: Hinter der Schablone
Ungläubiger Kerl („I“): Richard Verpacken-Schinken [hehe] ist eine ExMormone. Wir dachten, daß wir dieses oben, BTW holen würden, weil, wie Sie wissen, wir eine übende Mormone haben, die, die ein ernster Kämpfer für den Vorsitz der Vereinigten Staaten ist, also sollten wir über sie sprechen.
Richard wird uns die Ansicht eines Eingeweihten dieses leistungsfähigen, wachsenden Kults geben. Die meisten uns haben eine Ansicht, daß es ein lustiger kleiner Abschnitt ist, aber es anscheinend mehr als das ist.
Willkommen, Richard. Eins des Haupt fragen Leute-Unterhaltbittens ist, was Mormonism ist. So möglicherweise beginnen wir durch Sie erklärend uns über selbst.
Richard Packham („R“): Ich war geborene Mormone. Meine Vorfahren für 4 oder 5 Erzeugungen ziehen auf beiden Seiten waren mormonisch zurück. Ich war in es geboren, ausgebildet in ihm, glaubte an es. Meine Familie und Freunde waren Mormonen. Die meisten Leuten in meiner Stadt waren Mormonen. Die ist die Kultur, die ich inch aufwuchs. Ich heiratete meinen High School Schatz im mormonischen Bügel. I sorgten sich Brigham junge Universität, BYU. Für 25 Jahre oder so glaubte ich an es von ganzem Herzen. Schienen kein Grund nicht. Jeder, das ich wußte, glaubte es.
Dann fing ich an, etwas von der Geschichte zu studieren. Freunde stellten Fragen, die ich nicht beantworten könnte. Ich stellte fest, zu ihnen zu prüfen, daß dieses die eine zutreffende und lebende Kirche war. Ich fing an, mehr für ungefähr drei Jahre zu studieren. Es trat nie zu mir auf, daß die Kirche nicht was es behauptete zu sein, die eine zutreffende Kirche war. Aber es gab Probleme, da ich mehr studierte. Sachen I konnten nicht erklären…
I: Uh huh. Sie verwirklichten, daß Sie mehr Zeit verbrachten, die versucht, Sachen zu verteidigen, die unhaltbar waren.
R: Recht, Recht. Ich hatte Probleme Sachen erklärend. Schließlich dämmerte es auf mir fast wie einer Enthüllung ein Tag, daß alle diese Probleme verschwinden, wenn Sie gerade zulassen, daß Mormonism eine andere synthetische Religion gerecht ist.
I: Recht. So erklären Sie uns über Mormonism.
R: Mormonism, das als Kirche 1830, organisiert von einem jungen Mann begonnen wurde, nannte Joseph Smith, Jr, das behauptete, daß er durch einen Engel besucht worden war, der ihm in den Hügeln nahe seinen goldenen Hauptplatten darstellte, die dort von einem Prophet gesetzt worden waren. Es war eine heilige Aufzeichnung und er würde in der Lage sein, sie mit Hilfe des Gottes, durch magische Schauspiele zu übersetzen, die mit den Platten begraben wurden. JS erhielt die Platten, nachdem eine 4 Jahr Wartezeit und er sie übersetzten, mit Hilfe des Gottes, sagte er, und produzierte das Buch der Mormone 1830 und das das gleiche Jahr gründete er eine Kirche mit einigen Leuten, die seiner Geschichte glaubten. Ein Los Leute glaubte ihm nicht, aber einige taten und sie erhielten einige Bekehrte.
Er zog von New York nach Ohio um, in dem er eine Menge Leute umwandelte. Er sendete Leute weg, um Missionarsarbeit in Missouri zu erledigen. Er prophezeite, daß dieses, wo das neue Jerusalem errichtet würde, es würde sein Zion ist. Er lief in Mühe, weil er dem Missourians erklärte, daß Gott ihm Missouri gegeben hatte, und sie mochten es nicht. Sie verließen schließlich dort und gründeten dann eine Stadt, die Nauvoo in Illinois genannt wurde. JS stellte eine private Armee her. Nauvoo wurde eine emporkommende Stadt.
I: Wirklich!
R: Noch einmal liefen sie in Mühe mit anderen Völkern, weil die Mormonen stricken sehr nah waren und einige sie von den schattigen Umgang und von der Unehrlichkeit beschuldigten. JS entwickelte auch etwas Opposition unter seinen eigenen Nachfolgern, einige von, veröffentlichte wem eine Zeitung, die JS von der geheimen Praxis der Polygamie und des Seins tyrant und eine anderen schattige Sachen beschuldigt. JS hatte die zerstörte Zeitung und er wurde in Gefängnis geworfen, weil die eine ungültige Tat war. Ein Pöbel stormed das Gefängnis und tötete ihn und seinen Bruder. Brigham Junge wurden Nachfolger JSS, mindestens in den Augen der meisten Nachfolger JSS und führten VORBEI die Mormonen nach Salt Lake City, in dem sie sich seitdem erweitert haben.
I: Ausgedrückte überraschung bezüglich, wie JS starb. Nie vorher gehört dem.
R: Mormonen behaupten, daß er ein Märtyrer und gestorben war und sein Zeugnis mit seinem Blut versiegelte.
I: OH-, O.K., das klingt vertraut.
R: Wenn er nicht getötet worden war, würde er vermutlich mit Verrat aufgeladen worden sein und zu randalieren und er würde versucht worden sein.
I: Leute stellen nicht fest, wie einfach es, diesen frommen Ikonen zu folgen ist. Wenn Sie die rechte Anzeige hören, ist es einfach, oben aufgewickelt in es zu erhalten. Besonders wenn der Führer „an der Verfolgung“ stirbt.
R: Es war eine Zeit der großen frommen Leidenschaft, Glaube an Volksmagie, Geist und Dämonen und er waren in der Lage, das im Auftrag zu verwenden , um seine eigenen Enden auszuüben.
Turust