Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by martyb on Tuesday October 04 2016, @12:04PM   Printer-friendly
from the I-see-what-they-did-there dept.

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (Mormons) is notoriously secretive about the inner workings of its ruling hierarchy, the First Presidency and Quorum of Twelve Apostles. With an estimated annual income in the billions and assets in the tens of billions, the church does not release financial statements to its members or the general public. The meetings and decision-making processes of the Mormon leaders are similarly undisclosed.

That changed Sunday when a group called Mormon Leaks posted more than a dozen videos to YouTube, containing briefing sessions with the hierarchy. The briefings were apparently recorded "live" and include candid comments and discussion from the apostles in attendance. The leak appeared to be timed to coincide with the church's semi-annual conference that took place over the weekend.

Ironically, one of the briefings discusses WikiLeaks and the possibility of a similar leak targeting the church, but the apostles shown in the video appear to more concerned about Chelsea (nee Bradley) Manning's sexuality than they are about threats to their own secrets.

One briefing that is particularly troubling was given by a former U.S. senator from Oregon, Gordon H. Smith. Smith, a member of the church, admits that he values obedience to the hierarchy and loyalty to the church more than he does his office. He also describes using his office and staff to gain political favors for the church, and justifies the Iraq War by claiming that it will allow Mormon missionaries access to Middle Eastern nations. At one point (around the 26 minute mark), Smith possibly reveals classified information to the group, or at least his willingness to do so.

The videos appear to come from the same whistle blower who leaked a trove of church documents on-line about a week ago. Those documents are here and the leaker has announced that many more are coming.


Original Submission

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 2, Interesting) by lcall on Tuesday October 04 2016, @04:02PM

    by lcall (4611) on Tuesday October 04 2016, @04:02PM (#410049)

    I'm a Mormon and this is a link to a Church-owned general news source, but I think it can help everybody relax a little. If you understand what's going on, there's not much very interesting there as far as I can tell:
          http://www.ksl.com/?sid=41706847&nid=148 [ksl.com]

    The stuff about how decisions are made being secretive doesn't ring true to me. For example, the Quorum of the Twelve (highly qualified individuals all with diverse private backgrounds) have to agree unanimously before policy changes or major decisions are made. Do people expect to get weekly meeting minutes or something? There is a *ton* of public information at http://lds.org [lds.org] on how individual units are organized & run, etc etc. Even on how groups of units are run ("stakes", like a diocese). I can say from long experience that it is really how things are done. It's not meant to be a democracy or publicly-traded or something. For the financials, think about the cost of upkeep and construction on all the chapels, and it's not so complicated I think. Yah, there's more debate elsewhere, ok.

    Now to try to gently preclude you saying I'm a lame brain and all the usual (which you still can of course, but here goes some more stream-of-consciousness stuff for anyone interested...):
    I've been a Church employee at headquarters (not currently due to some long-term health issues but were very good about it), have known high-up Church leaders a little bit personally, and the more I learn, the more frankly and profoundly grateful I am. I'm not interested in long arguments where we each make sweeping claims and insist on more citations from the other person to the point of wearing out the other, but I'll say from a personal standpoint that as I'm getting older, have grandchildren, read news and other things from a wide variety of sources (I started reading the Quran but haven't got far yet; I have studied history enough to satisfy myself that there are good & evil people in the world, & religion can be a good or bad influence as we all know), and I participate a lot in the Church, as I'm able. I have ancestors who knew Joseph Smith personally and wrote in their journals, copies of which I own, and I see the effects of the Church's teachings on individual lives across many generations, and we are definitely better off & happier, in long-term sustainable ways, because of it, than we would be otherwise. And after long hard examination questioning many things, I really do believe it. The Book of Mormon, when closely examined to determine if it is what it internally claims to be, I find personally amazing. I'm not going to prove anything to anyone, you can go read both sides of long arguments if you want, been there; done that. There are experiences and learnings I personally can't deny. Now you can all call me crazy or mentally lame or whatever and we can still be friends, ok? But I think if you examine the effects of the Church, the service it does internationally, the level of volunteerism and donations to humanitarian relief worldwide, the general happiness by getting to know some actual Mormons, we could learn some things together. We are humans, therefore far from perfect individuals. But like in "hometeaching" and "visiting teaching": we are responsible to look after each other, and we work at it, consistently trying to help the invisible struggling ones through all kinds of hard times, in organized ways, providing counseling, food, etc etc. There is so much that goes on to help those less fortunate that is never seen. I'd better stop there. I'll just emphasize that from the inside, it looks pretty good. And it's frankly too much work being an active member, to bother with if I didn't really personally believe it after hard examination. Now go join my financial network (not!).

    Starting Score:    1  point
    Moderation   +1  
       Interesting=2, Overrated=1, Total=3
    Extra 'Interesting' Modifier   0  

    Total Score:   2  
  • (Score: 5, Insightful) by TrumpetPower! on Tuesday October 04 2016, @04:56PM

    by TrumpetPower! (590) <ben@trumpetpower.com> on Tuesday October 04 2016, @04:56PM (#410079) Homepage

    I'm not going to prove anything to anyone

    When you understand why this is so, you will understand the desirously willful self-delusion of cognitive dissonance you are subjecting yourself to.

    I can trivially prove to anybody that the acceleration of gravity here on Earth is about ten meters per second per second. All sorts of other equally fundamental facts about nature are just as easy to demonstrate -- we independently verified the temperature of absolute zero in a physics lab with equipment the ancient Romans could have manufactured.

    Much of history, too. For about as much as you probably spend on a month's housing, you can buy for your very own personal collection a contemporary portrait of any of the Caesars, in the form of a coin. We've got Julius's autobiographical account of his conquest of Gaul, independently confirmed via modern archaeological digs.

    But, when it comes to even more spectacular and fundamental and important stuff, such as the personal Creator of Existence who suffered horribly to convince us of the vital nature of his great teachings? You're not going to prove it to us, nobody's going to prove it to us, we've all got to take it on "faith."

    Would you buy an used car on faith, or would you take it to your own mechanic to independently verify?

    Religious faith is the same unverifiable confidence that scam artists play on. Trust but verify -- and those who insist verification isn't needed, or insufficient or irrelevant verification can or should be substituted...well, they're just trying to sell you something.

    And, again...note that we're often the ones most desperately trying to sell something to ourselves, so there's no point in playing the blame game. Just recognize the con for what it is, leave your losses (however great) behind as the price of admission, and do your best to learn from your experience so you don't have to repeat it.

    Cheers,

    b&

    --
    All but God can prove this sentence true.
    • (Score: 3, Interesting) by lcall on Tuesday October 04 2016, @05:08PM

      by lcall (4611) on Tuesday October 04 2016, @05:08PM (#410084)

      Thanks: I think you have well-described a common misconception. I think we agree that blindly following anything would be extremely risky, and a time when it would be a good idea is hard to think of. Faith, in my experience, doesn't mean that at all. It means that based on repeatable personal experiences, I can prove things true for myself, but not necessarily in a way I can transfer to you. You have to perform the test yourself, and may then act accordingly. The "act accordingly" part sometimes means following through on the lessons learned in the test, even though we don't know *everything* yet. For example, based on experience, someone could convince me that it is worth studying a new subject, trying an unfamiliar dish, or learning a new skill, even though I haven't learned it yet -- they can't give me the skill or the experience, I have to do it myself, based on some reason for confidence that it leads to something worthwhile. But I can still try it for myself and see. Having gained that small piece of experience for myself, I can determine if that was a good thing and if it is worth proceeding -- ie, acting on what I have learned to that point. That "acting on what I have learned" part is often called faith, but it really means something like confidence. There are very, very many witnesses of the things I'm saying, but they can't give it to you, you have to find out for yourself. The last chapter of the Book of Mormon (among others) describes the exact details. It's available free online.

    • (Score: 0, Troll) by lcall on Tuesday October 04 2016, @05:10PM

      by lcall (4611) on Tuesday October 04 2016, @05:10PM (#410087)

      ps: it's like describing the taste of salt. You really have to experience it for yourself to know. I would have no idea how to do it without using the world "salt" anywhere. And doing it yourself requires action, in this case, like reading the Book of Mormon and asking God sincerely to help you know for yourself, which goes back to the reference at the end of my previous post.

      • (Score: 5, Insightful) by TrumpetPower! on Tuesday October 04 2016, @05:31PM

        by TrumpetPower! (590) <ben@trumpetpower.com> on Tuesday October 04 2016, @05:31PM (#410122) Homepage

        Sorry, but that's a textbook example of a bait-and-switch.

        "Personal experience" can, indeed, give you visceral knowledge of the taste of salt.

        But you don't need to taste salt to know that it's a white crystalline substance with the chemical formula NaCl, that it's soluble (and ionic) in water, that it's the second major chemical in seawater, that it plays a significant role in all sorts of biological functions, and so on.

        Show me these gods of yours, and then we can worry about what they taste like.

        But all you're doing is asking me to imagine how they should taste, to the point that the visualization of the sensation of taste becomes overwhelming...and there's my proof that I'm actually tasting them. Never mind that everybody else describes the tastes of their own gods differently.

        You do know that all the other religions have holy texts just as absurd as yours, with just as much in them to demonstrate their validity? And that their gods are revealed to their adherents in exactly the same ways as your gods are revealed to you?

        Take your own advice. Read the Q'ran and ask the Archangel Gabriel to reveal unto you that Muhammad was the last of the Prophets and your Joe Smith was a two-bit conman. Then read the Egyptian Book of the Dead and ask Ra to weigh your soul lightly upon your death. Sacrifice a bull to Zeus to petition him for protection and favor.

        But you won't do any of that, of course.

        You owe it to yourself to understand why you won't -- if for no other reason than that you won't understand why nobody else takes your own superstition any more seriously, unless they're as thoroughly personally invested in it as you.

        Because, when it comes right down to it, you don't actually believe -- and you can read the last chapter of Mark for the unambiguous proof that you don't, should you care. Instead, you believe it's a good thing to believe, and you sincerely try to convince yourself using the exact same techniques you're urging on the rest of us. And the main reason you persist in your belief in belief is because you're (probably justifiably) afraid that you'll lose all your family and social and professional connections should anybody else discover the fractured foundation of your faith.

        The thing is, none of your coreligionists believe any more than you do. It's all an interlocking network of self-reinforcing delusion, exactly as described in The Emperor's New Clothes. All y'all're trapped in the web everybody keeps spinning. Everybody wants to escape, but is afraid to stop weaving....

        Cheers,

        b&

        --
        All but God can prove this sentence true.
        • (Score: 1) by lcall on Tuesday October 04 2016, @05:36PM

          by lcall (4611) on Tuesday October 04 2016, @05:36PM (#410129)

          I've got consistent answers and results, and peace amid really hard experiences of life. You can too. (And I'll plan to raise the priority of my Quran reading, thanks for your suggestion :)

          • (Score: 2) by TrumpetPower! on Tuesday October 04 2016, @05:53PM

            by TrumpetPower! (590) <ben@trumpetpower.com> on Tuesday October 04 2016, @05:53PM (#410138) Homepage

            I've got consistent answers and results, and peace amid really hard experiences of life.

            Nobody questions your own internal consistency, or that you gain personal benefit.

            But you yourself have admitted that there's no consistency with the rest of reality.

            Star Trek has more internal consistency than most religions, and lots of Trekkies will be happy to tell you the personal benefits they gain from the insights of Roddenberry and others. But we all agree that that's fiction and literary analysis, so consistency and personal benefit are -- again, obviously -- exactly the bait-and-switch I was referring to.

            Now, if you want to admit that your holy texts are every bit as fantastical as Star Trek, and that you draw satisfaction and inspiration from them nonetheless, you'd find pretty much everybody would be cool with that. But that's not what you're doing; you're trying to convince everybody else that you really are a Red Shirt on an away mission, that Kirk really does speak to you on your communicator (which the rest of us can clearly see is a cheap plastic toy), and that Scotty really is going to beam you up as soon as the mission is over.

            When you understand how unhealthy that degree of attachment in a Trekkie would be, you will understand how much unhealthier your own degree of attachment to your own religion is.

            Cheers,

            b&

            --
            All but God can prove this sentence true.
            • (Score: 1) by lcall on Tuesday October 04 2016, @05:57PM

              by lcall (4611) on Tuesday October 04 2016, @05:57PM (#410141)

              Actually, I am often delighted about how consistent it is with reality and ongoing scientific development. It all works. And when it seems not to, I just wait and things sort themselves out. Lots of times science changes (dietary & psychology come to mind...), and it's OK, we are still learning.

              • (Score: 2) by TrumpetPower! on Tuesday October 04 2016, @06:19PM

                by TrumpetPower! (590) <ben@trumpetpower.com> on Tuesday October 04 2016, @06:19PM (#410169) Homepage

                Still missing the point.

                Star Trek is, too, just as often "consistent" with reality and ongoing scientific development. The original series had communicators that resembled flip phones decades before any public wireless telephone system existed. They had automatic sliding doors now ubiquitous in supermarkets. Lots more.

                But they also have the Enterprise and transporters, neither of which is consistent with reality.

                And that's your problem.

                You keep trying to prove you're right, and look for evidence supporting your position. But any position, no matter how insane, can be proven right in such a manner.

                What you should be doing is attempting to dis prove your position. It would be easy to disprove gravity, for example; just show something levitating in a way that's not being held up by something else (string, magnetic fields, airflows, whatever).

                And, when you do that...

                ...well, you find that, centuries before the Caesars, Epicurus had already observed that there aren't any powerful moral agents with the best interests of humanity at heart.

                You know how you'd call 9-1-1 if you ever came across, for example, a Roman Catholic priest raping a child, as far too many of them are known to be fond of doing? And how little effort it would take you to make such a call, how much it would do to mitigate evil, and how bad a person you'd be for failing to do so?

                So what's Jesus's excuse for failing to call 9-1-1 every time one of his own official agents rapes the altar boy in the choir room just after instantiating Jesus in the flesh and blood? How can he answer the boy's mother's prayer that her breast augmentation surgery go smoothly but fail to answer the boy's own prayers to be spared from his assailant? Does he not have good cellphone coverage in Heaven? Can he not afford to pay the monthly service fees? Do church buildings block divine observation powers? Is the priest's free will to rape boys more valuable than the boy's free will to be free from rapists?

                Note that, when you answer this, either publicly or simply to yourself, you will offer excuse after excuse for the incompetence and / or malice of your gods...and, in the process, you will vigorously argue that they are, indeed, powerless and / or heartless. And in a situation, no less, where you yourself could and would be overwhelmingly effective with minimal effort.

                When you understand why you yourself are more moral and able than your own gods, you will understand the great disservice you do to yourself and everybody else by maintaining their edifice.

                Back to the Trekkies...if they assured us that the Federation would make everything right in the end, you'd be very nervous about their moral judgement and trustworthiness, right? So why are you so surprised that everybody outside of your own cult is just as nervous around you as you are around everybody else?

                Cheers,

                b&

                --
                All but God can prove this sentence true.
                • (Score: 1) by lcall on Tuesday October 04 2016, @06:42PM

                  by lcall (4611) on Tuesday October 04 2016, @06:42PM (#410190)

                  You make intelligent arguments and I respect them. I really, really hope I don't make anyone nervous around me; if I do, I would want to fix that by being a better, kinder person. All your questions have answers. If you find some Mormon missionaries (or w/ online chats at mormon.org) they can answer them as I need to move on with my day. Or I guess we could exchange email addresses and take things one at a time if you wanted. Like, the purpose of life, where and what we were before we came here, how we can know for ourselves what is true, what happens after death (this life is really a short period, relatively), about judgement, justice, and mercy, and many really great, happy things. I'm sorry I've not been more help to this point. (BTW, in some ways maybe I have tried to disprove my position. And I keep coming back.)

                  I think your main point is that the presence of evil in the world is an argument against the existence and potence of God.

                  There are reasons that evil is allowed by God. Maybe I should answer that one now, as it's a classic and important question. He Himself has experienced the pain of evil and mortal suffering, to a further degree than any of the rest of us, so He understands. The really short (probably inadequately expressed right now) reason is that we are in a temporary probationary period to see what we will choose when goodness is not forced upon us. If our choices always had immediate consequences we wouldn't really show by our lives what we truly seek and desire. But the same omnipotent God that I believe in has said "Blessed are *all* they that mourn, for they shall be comforted" (emphasis added), and we believe he means it in a big way. He lets us choose, and our eternity depends on the choices, and everyone will eventually have the opportunity to know enough to make a fair choice, and the end will be better than the beginning. But you and I can't expect you to believe that just because I or anyone said so....

                  • (Score: 2) by TrumpetPower! on Tuesday October 04 2016, @07:00PM

                    by TrumpetPower! (590) <ben@trumpetpower.com> on Tuesday October 04 2016, @07:00PM (#410209) Homepage

                    All your questions have answers.

                    Of course. Every question has answers. "42" is an answer to pretty much any question you might have, for example.

                    But not all questions are meaningful in the first place, and not all answers to meaningful questions are themselves meaningful.

                    Even more importantly, how much you like the answer is utterly irrelevant to its validity. Nor is its internal consistency.

                    If you want to know how correct your answer is likely to be, you've got to objectively test it against observations. Forget about "should be"; what actually is?

                    And, boy did I ever call it. Any parent as neglectful as your "Almighty" would be the poster child for abuse, and would have the children most rightfully taken away by the state. I mean, really? It's a blessing to a child to be raped by a priest so the child can mourn and be comforted? And we all know that justice delayed is justice denied; a police officer who knowingly let rapists run rampant for decades would again be the poster boy for official malfeasance.

                    Really, you should be ashamed of yourself. You'd be ashamed of acting according to the standards you're defending your gods by, right? So why aren't you equally ashamed of your gods for their horrifically incompetent malfeasance? Why aren't you ashamed for your public association with such monsters?

                    I mean, you'd be ashamed of wearing Nazi regalia, right? Of publicly identifying as a Crusader or an Inquisitor? Yet you've just described your "Almighty" as even more despicable than Hitler, Urban II, or Torquemada -- and in terms as horrifically glowing as any propaganda put out by any of those outfits.

                    When you understand why you can't make sense of why battered spouses stay with their abusers, you'll understand why you yourself shouldn't be making excuses for your pantheon, either.

                    Cheers,

                    b&

                    --
                    All but God can prove this sentence true.
                    • (Score: 1) by lcall on Tuesday October 04 2016, @09:19PM

                      by lcall (4611) on Tuesday October 04 2016, @09:19PM (#410332)

                      He has promised that such things will pass and that He will heal and restore, for each individual. I trust that He can and will, even if it seems long, sometimes, while we are in the thick of it.

                      The things people are claiming here are very foreign to my personal experience. I'll thoughtfully and sincerely read the Quran. I challenge you to do the same with the Book of Mormon. :)

                      Best wishes.

                      • (Score: 2) by TrumpetPower! on Tuesday October 04 2016, @09:44PM

                        by TrumpetPower! (590) <ben@trumpetpower.com> on Tuesday October 04 2016, @09:44PM (#410353) Homepage

                        He has promised that such things will pass and that He will heal and restore, for each individual.

                        So, let's say we've got one of these Catholic child-raping priests. And he kidnaps a child and keeps him chained in the basement and rapes him every day for a couple decades. If he promises the child that this will all pass and that he'll heal and restore him in a few more years, would that make it okay?

                        How about the priest's bishop. If the bishop knows all this is going on, and gives the same "will pass" line, does that make it okay?

                        And if the cardinal and even the Pope are all singing from the same sheet of music, does that still make it okay to keep the kid chained up?

                        No?

                        So why is it okay when it's Jesus, next in line after the Pope, who's the one who's refusing to call the police?

                        Look, I'm making it easy on you. You clearly reject the notion that the Papists have any sort of legitimate theological authority, and yet you can't deny that their hierarchy is responsible for committing some seriously heinous crimes and then conspiring to cover them up in a way guaranteed to create even more victims.

                        So why doesn't the Mormon Jesus call 9-1-1 whenever a Catholic priest rapes a child in Jesus's name? All y'all have an history of something akin to that, what with the official disavowals of the polygamous schisms.

                        And your own Jesus can't do the same, but instead goes along with the conspiracy?

                        ...and you still worship him...why, exactly...?

                        I challenge you to do the same with the Book of Mormon. :)

                        I have.

                        And when you actually read your own holy texts, rather than read the Cliff's Notes and apply the Notes to the text, you might understand why the text is undeserving of respect.

                        No, really. You've read Mein Kampf, no? Thoughtfully and sincerely, presumably, as part of an history class or the like? Do you respect it?

                        So if you wouldn't respect a text justifying the slaughter of millions of Jews, why would you respect text that glorifies the slaughter of all the Midianites, to pick but but one of depressingly many examples?

                        Cheers,

                        b&

                        --
                        All but God can prove this sentence true.
                        • (Score: 1) by lcall on Tuesday October 04 2016, @09:55PM

                          by lcall (4611) on Tuesday October 04 2016, @09:55PM (#410365)

                          I know you won't find this satisfactory, and I'm not intending a complete answer since it probably won't matter, but just to be clear: We must never condone such atrocities, and we should seek to punish the perpretrators according to law. And the ones we miss, God will punish, there is no doubt whatever.

                          • (Score: 2) by TrumpetPower! on Tuesday October 04 2016, @10:10PM

                            by TrumpetPower! (590) <ben@trumpetpower.com> on Tuesday October 04 2016, @10:10PM (#410371) Homepage

                            And the ones we miss, God will punish, there is no doubt whatever.

                            But divine wrath is utterly useless to the victims of priestly rape. (And, of course, various other atrocities; I'm just focussing on this one example because it's so theologically clear-cut.)

                            Let's again say that the bishop learns about the priest's harem. The bishop does nothing to interfere, doesn't call the police. But when the priest finally retires, the bishop throws the priest in the dungeon and waterboards him every day for the rest of his life.

                            Would you even pretend to consider that morally acceptable behavior on the part of the bishop?

                            No?

                            So why is that same scenario writ immense something you're so passionate to promote?

                            I should note: you're writing from a presumption of your own moral righteousness, that you're fighting the good fight for the good guys, that you can't possibly be worng. You've got faith, after all.

                            But when your faith prompts you to justify infinite torture, praise it even as the ultimate moral virtue that excuses any and all terrestrial atrocity...you really, really need to look in the mirror and ask yourself if you're one of the baddies.

                            https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ToKcmnrE5oY [youtube.com]

                            Cheers,

                            b&

                            --
                            All but God can prove this sentence true.
                            • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday October 04 2016, @10:32PM

                              by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday October 04 2016, @10:32PM (#410380)

                              justify infinite torture

                              This was one of those things that never made sense with a "just" or "merciful" god. Even if someone lived to be 100 and was an evil bastard for every minute of it - the equation just doesn't balance if there's eternal punishment involved. This is even more obvious when someone is generally good, but not good enough by a certain religious standard (such as believing in the wrong god).

                              Do Mormons believe in a purgatory?

                              • (Score: 1) by lcall on Tuesday October 04 2016, @10:51PM

                                by lcall (4611) on Tuesday October 04 2016, @10:51PM (#410388)

                                I don't know strictly how other religions define purgatory, but we believe there will be a just punishment for sin, unless one repents and chooses to keep the commandments, and chooses to qualify for forgiveness by behavior changes and obedience. Sounds tricky? That's why it's good that the judge has complete wisdom. He is not a God who wants us to be miserable, so He gives us commandments so we can be happy (like guardrails on a highway), but He lets us choose for ourselves. Not everyone had the knowledge to make the choices well, so they'll get a fair chance at some point. I hope the other post I just made in this thread helps a little on this. He doesn't expect us to get it right all at once either, but to do our very best and keep going forward.

                                If one knowingly chooses not to keep His commandments, the eternal reward will be limited according to what one was willing to accept. The punishments for sin are real and severe, if we choose not to follow Him, but eventually they will end and we can receive the level of reward we were willing to receive. In my own crass sort of way (not official doctrine, just me, imagining), I imagine that it is a perfect, complete, way of determining who can be trusted with how much, for eternity, by finding out what they truly desire, and giving them that, ie letting them be with those who want the same thing. Those who like chaos and destruction will get to be with others who like it, etc. (which sounds like a rather severe punishment to me), until they realize that doesn't work and stop it, then they get as much reward as possible, for them. But that's not the same reward as those who show by their actions that they desire things like honesty and the Golden Rule, etc, so there are different rewards. That last part is just me thinking aloud as to how I understand & visualize it, so forgive me if I'm off.

                                • (Score: 2) by SomeGuy on Thursday October 06 2016, @06:47PM

                                  by SomeGuy (5632) on Thursday October 06 2016, @06:47PM (#411203)

                                  Wow, just wow. Post after post of nit-picking over all the little details, rules, and ins and outs of an "afterlife" and one small detail you completely overlooked is that IT DOES NOT EXIST!

                                  You don't have the first shred of proof that it is even there, and yet you somehow think you already know every teeny-tiny little detail of how it operates.

                                  That is one of many problems with religious nuts. You spin such fantastic stories to divert attention away from the root fact that what you are talking about is nonsense.

                                  Where does a flame go when it is extinguished? Where does a bit in RAM go when it is powered off? It doesn't "go" anywhere, it ceases to exist. Same with human brains. And that simple fact makes all your fluffy-happy-dead-bunny stories, as the British say, complete ballox.

                                  There is no such thing as an afterlife. Sorry about that :\

                              • (Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday October 05 2016, @09:38AM

                                by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday October 05 2016, @09:38AM (#410538)

                                FWIW, Hell is often (and probably more logically) explained as a place the soul effectively chooses to go to once it realizes its overall incompatibility with God's Heaven. Yet because the soul is designed to have God as a necessary part for its happiness, even if in Hell there is nothing different to Heaven except for God's felt presence, multiplied by infinity it equates to an infinite unhappiness or unfulfilment, however mild. So I'd agree this hell as punishment per se is a convenient but illogical idea akin to revenge, whereas if it does exist, it is likely part of the whole free will thing. Earthly justice however is indeed described as God's vengeance, especially for such things as sodomy/rape/usury/murder/defrauding workers. That some or many seemingly die without ever being 'punished' in this life may well equate to a worse Hell, where the soul is forever aware of why it misses out on God, that it chose this and has to live with it. Whereas the reward for unmet justice to the victim is said to be given exponentially more greatly in Heaven, so the whole thing does have an internal consistency to it, be it true or not. I am not a Mormon by the way.

                            • (Score: 1) by lcall on Tuesday October 04 2016, @10:39PM

                              by lcall (4611) on Tuesday October 04 2016, @10:39PM (#410384)

                              I'm not expecting you to like this, but I'll try to explain.

                              I'm not saying the priest's torture would be infinite, in your scenario, just that there is a price to pay and it will be paid, unless the sinner repents, in which case Christ has paid the price by His tremendous suffering, and therefore has commanded us to forgive, because the price has been paid. It isn't fair that he had to suffer for our sins, when He was sinless. Many things aren't fair. But He has paid the price for everyone who truly repents, and He will judge, with justice and mercy properly applied in His infinite wisdom. Repentance would include confession, restitution where possible, and a change of heart and of behavior. As mortals we can't always un-do the harm, but we believe that Christ has paid and will provide full healing and restitution, in His time which is not always ours.

                              I think you're saying that it is wrong for God to allow the abuse to continue, therefore there can be no God.

                              The real question is whether God exists, and whether He deserves our trust. Each of us will have to answer this for ourselves, for now. If He exists, as I believe, then He knows the rules and will follow them, even if it takes a while for us to fully understand the wisdom of His plans. It's not for us to tell Him the rules, but He does guarantee it will be fully right in the end, including for the sufferers, even for those that you and I have offended, and for you and I who ourselves will need healing. I believe He will make it right for all.

              • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday October 05 2016, @01:12PM

                by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday October 05 2016, @01:12PM (#410568)

                Consistency, huh? Science (famously) allows us moments where it predicts things we haven't yet learned.

                The LDS church (and all churches) claim guidance by an omniscient being, who can't predict very well at all.

                There are the obvious 'got it wrong' moments: Slavery, great gobbets of the old testament like human sacrifice and killing for minor indiscretions. More recently, it's pretty transparently not divine how leaders seemed to be the ones god was instructing to co-opt others' wives when polygamy has been practiced. Church sanction of mishandling other cultures (indigenous peoples)

                There are coincidences, or accumulated knowledge passed off as divinity, even when scientific process wasn't well-understood: rules on food and sanitation scattered throughout religions. Even the Word of Wisdom didn't say specifically the things that are now attributed to it. It disliked tea and coffee because they were HOT, and odd rules of self-deprivation were a central element of numerous sects and religions that sprang up around the same time as Joseph Smith.

                But there are so many contemporary hurrying-to-catch up moments, and accumulating evidence of how often the LDS church really got it wrong:
                -- no mitochondrial DNA evidence of the Americas being populated by people fleeing to the new world from Israel.
                -- no archaeological evidence. Timelines all show the Americas populated across Bering, with limited incursions by Northern Europeans. No Book of Mormon cities, roads, etc., especially near NY and Vermont, where Joseph Smith began it all
                -- homosexuality as a Lifestyle Choice
                -- similarities between the Book of Mormon and 'The Late War' and other sources: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Origin_of_the_Book_of_Mormon [wikipedia.org]
                -- shifting policies on race and the priesthood
                -- grassroots opposition to Climate Change action, while the LDS leadership is conspicuously silent
                -- grassroots growth of antiscience sentiments over the last 30 years, not coincidentally in parallel with the religious right's doubling down as an ally to big business
                -- a 'flip' from communal beliefs by Brigham Young to anti-socialism pro-mercantile pro-corporate policies (which one did God get wrong, in leading the church?)
                -- grassroots young-earth views, with the LDS leadership again avoiding to quell the crazy
                -- the church's handling of sexual abuse cases
                -- positive policies on sex and birth control vs. repressive guilt-driven puritanical rules
                -- Gender policy

                I'm sure others have noticed others, and examples like these across all religions.

                There should be a consistent drumbeat of divine advice that anticipates science, if god is helping the faithful. Instead, most church policy is depressingly reactionary: it generally seems to be resistant to new ideas, rather than offering a quirky framework that takes us a thousand years to grow and learn the scientifically-proper reasons for. That's the worst flaw, IMHO. If God exists, surely we'd get predictive advice. Decades or even a thousand years should be stupidly easy for a 16-billion-year-old omniscient to offer pro-tips and guidance on.

                • (Score: 1) by lcall on Wednesday October 05 2016, @04:05PM

                  by lcall (4611) on Wednesday October 05 2016, @04:05PM (#410669)

                  You make a detailed set of points. There was another part of the threads where I answered about faith. I think God does want us to show our true desires, and if we had physical proof of everything right now, it wouldn't be the same kind of test. The proof is internal and personal, like in the other answers where I talked about the Book of Mormon and asking God oneself. And I know others have answered why they disagree with that. It's each one's choice. For the specific ~"predictions" you discuss, I think a lot of it has been discussed by others better than I could, at http://fairmormon.org, [fairmormon.org,] if you are really interested. To save time and be a bit lazy, I'll cherry-pick a few here. :) I'm not personally well-qualified on all of them.

                  But first, a key point (and another at the end): It is a mistake to think that God intends to prove things to us but can't or something. He allows opposition and we get to choose for ourselves. If one understands the nature of the Plan of Salvation, the role of the pre-earth life, the purpose of this one, and where we go afterward, it makes more sense. We are here to choose and learn in an environment of challenges. And, my overall take and the reason I'm not worried about every detail that comes up, I expressed in this part of another thread on this discussion, especially #'s 1 and 2 of the 4: https://soylentnews.org/comments.pl?sid=15830&cid=410465 [soylentnews.org]

                  DNA, migration patterns, etc: there certainly could have been other migrations such as via the Bering Strait area. The text of the Book of Mormon discusses some DNA changes that were caused by God during the period it covers anyway (changes in appearance of peoples), so I wouldn't be surprised at much of anything.

                  Archaeological evidence is inconclusive, and seems likely to remain so for a while at leaset. In Joseph Smith's time I don't think they knew anything about all the mesoamerican stuff that is known now, so would have dismissed it on those grounds. I don't think physical proof would be enough for anyone who isn't interested it enough from the standpoint of my above link, anyway. You might find Nibley's books really interesting.

                  Word of Wisdom (dietary rules): we are calling that one differently. I see it holding up extremely well.

                  About race and priesthood: There are differences between doctrine about the nature of eternity, and policies for what is necessary to move forward right now. God is definitely in charge, and there are many changes in these last days, fortunately, as we become willing to learn & listen to God, and step by step. But changes are not to core doctrines expressed by the BofM and the combined official voice of the First Presidency, like that all humankind are children of God, and we should repent and keep God's commandments. I'm very glad that all worthy males can now hold the priesthood. (For gender stuff, it has been exhaustively discussed elsewhere such as in conference talks and I don't think I can do better. But both genders are equal in value and importance and opportunity for blessings and mutual interdependence, but that doesn't mean identical, in nature or assignment. Neither can have the highest blessings or progress in eternity without the other.)

                  Climate change: you're right that the Church hasn't taken an official position. Individuals choose their positions. My personal take is that God created the earth, we should respect it and we haven't, we should keep His commandments such as Sabbath observance and we haven't, and we are frankly as a global society not competent to solve the problems without His help, though we certainly should keep doing our best. But we'll do better at everything if we jointly seek and follow His counsel on these and other matters. The Church officially seems to be busy with other things right now; I'm not sure the world would listen on this anyway when they haven't listened to the key stuff like the fact that God does indeed speak. The prophecies do talk (very briefly) about the ice melting in the last days (D&C 88), and major changes happening in the earth. Hang on for a big ride; more on that below.

                  Science & big business: I really, really don't see members or leaders of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints being antiscience, but quite the opposite! But mostly we all have to be humble and realize we don't know everything yet. Individuals choose how to vote or ally politically. I think sometimes big business can help with efficiency, but the Golden Rule should be used by *all* of us. I also think that we all cause problems for ourselves when we, as persons or businesses, mistreat others, because we wind up with so many laws to try to prevent the abuses, that it becomes a mess.

                  Communal vs. corporate policies: The law of consecration is compatible with private property but is incompatible with force or compulsion. It is a higher law that the people were not willing to live well enough at the time, so we do our best for now. We believe sometime we will again live the law of consecration, and individuals may try to attain the same virtues by using their means to do good for others.

                  Sexual abuse cases are turned over to the law by policy, and such behavior has always been incompatible with and has consequences for church membership. Where individuals have failed in this regard, that is sad and must always be corrected without exception. I assure you it is not ignored nor condoned by Church leadership. The Lord's statements in the scriptures are clear on this, and our behavior must also be, and He will judge.

                  On reproduction: as far as I can tell the core principles are taught about the eternal importance of families, with the final decision always being only between the individuals and the Lord. If culture says otherwise it should be corrected, but I don't see a problem in my experience.

                  And about predictions in general: the scriptures say many things about the signs of the times. They will continue, and some will be severe, until the 2nd coming of the Lord. That won't prove anything to anyone right now, but is for food for thought as time goes on right now. We need the prophets' counsel now just like the people did in the time of Noah. It is a dangerous time to ignore the commandments of God through His living prophets. If anyone studies them and is watching closely, it should be apparent.

                  Thanks & best regards.

                  • (Score: 1) by lcall on Wednesday October 05 2016, @04:13PM

                    by lcall (4611) on Wednesday October 05 2016, @04:13PM (#410675)

                    Sorry, I gave an incorrect reference on ice melting. Here's the right one if anyone cares:
                        https://www.lds.org/scriptures/dc-testament/dc/133.26?lang=eng#25 [lds.org]

                    --
                    Fast, free, open personal organizer for touch typists, with big dreams: http://onemodel.org [onemodel.org] .

                  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday October 05 2016, @07:42PM

                    by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday October 05 2016, @07:42PM (#410782)

                    So, TL;dr: there's no turning your attention back from wishful thinking, to PAST PERFORMANCE AS EVIDENCE. You've offered no defense for any of those mistakes.

                    And no, 'god scrambled the DNA' is not a scientifically-valid defense. It's ludicrous. The same god that can't be bothered to intervene to save millions of lives, arbitrarily monkeyed around with DNA without explanation just to preserve your faith in the book of Mormon. This is the slippery slope that leads to 'God hid fossils in the mountains when the earth was created 6000 years ago, to test our faith' young-earth-creationism. And FOR CRISSAKES, indians and black people DID NOT BECOME BLACK FROM SINFULNESS. My *GOD*, what a reprehensibly bad idea to cling to, not to mention it being scientifically baloney: Melanin isn't DNA.

                    No, not 'could be other migration patterns'... NO EVIDENCE OF YOUR PATTERN. ZERO. There isn't ambiguity in archaeological evidence. None exists. Zero. OTOH, Plenty of counter-evidence exists. Ruins, roads, tools, blades: all show a migration directly contradictory to what your church mythology claims. Science literally keeps finding additional mechanisms to confirm these results, while NEVER even hinting alignment to 'jews got on a raft and floated across the Atlantic to the Americas, where they flourished for centuries, including building cities'. Forty years ago, it started to become argued they went to South America (with claims made to Peruvian/brazilian prehistoric societies). Now, those claims have utterly collapsed.

                    Your entire post is faith and promises. I talked science. Since you agree they're still compatible (and yeah, lots of Mormons no longer do), we're done until you substantiate something. Better still, predict. Show me a church that consistently guides people to live ethically, predicts/guides things we later learn to be upheld by science, etc. Anything less is worth less than relying on ethics and science itself.

        • (Score: 1) by TheSouthernDandy on Tuesday October 04 2016, @06:57PM

          by TheSouthernDandy (6059) on Tuesday October 04 2016, @06:57PM (#410204)

          The parent comment (b&'s) is really beautifully written. I know such frivolous observations aren't commonly offered on message boards, especially in discussions about religion, but thank you.

          • (Score: 1) by Frost on Wednesday October 05 2016, @09:13AM

            by Frost (3313) on Wednesday October 05 2016, @09:13AM (#410533)

            I concur. Nicely done.

      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday October 04 2016, @06:01PM

        by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday October 04 2016, @06:01PM (#410146)

        Humans don't normally communicate using taste. There is an entire area of science based around taste/smell. The food industry depends on that, and they certainly can communicate that information to those that need it. You probably think that lemon-lime beverage is flavored with real lemons and limes.

        From the sound of it, you expect people who have not tasted this "salt" to believe it is somehow magically enchanted or something. And it is not permitted to look any closer, because if they did they might realize it is salt directly from your balls.

        • (Score: 1) by lcall on Tuesday October 04 2016, @06:07PM

          by lcall (4611) on Tuesday October 04 2016, @06:07PM (#410151)

          Nah, everything I'm saying is that you have to look closer to know.

          • (Score: 3, Insightful) by TrumpetPower! on Tuesday October 04 2016, @08:21PM

            by TrumpetPower! (590) <ben@trumpetpower.com> on Tuesday October 04 2016, @08:21PM (#410284) Homepage

            And what on Earth should make you think we haven't looked closely?

            Statistically, atheists are far more likely to be knowledgeable about scripture and theology than believers.

            Besides, I guarantee you you're far more ignorant of Islam and Judaism than you (incorrectly) think I'm ignorant of Mormonism. So on what grounds are you blaming my ignorance for rejection of your superstition, when your own much greater ignorance serves as your own basis for rejection of innumerable other superstitions?

            No, don't bother replying; you'll only regurgitate a talking point.

            The real answer, again, is that you only believe in belief, and you only hold your belief in belief out of fear of being ostracized. You wouldn't even pretend to yourself to seriously consider the merits of another religion, for you have nothing to gain and everything to lose. At best, you could hope to be persuaded by that folly and transfer your membership from one cult to another. At worst, you'd realize that all follies are equally fallacious, including your own -- and then where would you go for community?

            Alas, you likely are quite trapped in this web you and your family have woven together and continue to weave. Most rational people, given a choice between pretending to go along with the talk about the finery of the Emperor's wardrobe and being shunned by their loved ones, will keep their loved ones happy.

            But there are those who manage to find the way to be honest with themselves...and what family can truly be trusted if you can't be honest with them, either? And the good news is that, in today's increasingly secular world, your chances of succeeding at apostasy are better than ever.

            Best of luck...you'll need it, whether you want to admit it to yourself or not, whether you choose the path of honesty or continue to pretend otherwise.

            Cheers,

            b&

            --
            All but God can prove this sentence true.
  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday October 04 2016, @05:12PM

    by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday October 04 2016, @05:12PM (#410091)

    and we are definitely better off & happier

    "Religion is the opiate of the masses" -Karl Marx

    • (Score: 1, Touché) by lcall on Tuesday October 04 2016, @05:26PM

      by lcall (4611) on Tuesday October 04 2016, @05:26PM (#410114)

      Ah, Karl Marx's ideas really don't seem to make people happier as far as I can tell. (I have studied communism and know a little Russian; majored in their history, for a while and had a whole semester class on Josef Stalin at a midwestern university, had a Russian coworker, etc. My mother knows Chinese, teaches it a little, got a degree in asian studies or something, and has visited China more than once, and I have borrowed & read some of her books with biographical and historical stuff. My father was born & raised in a non-English speaking country, and I've been out of my home country extensively and talked with people at great length. It would be very hard to convince me at this that Karl Marx's ideas are generally helpful, though he probably had a few good ones buried in there, given the volume.

      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday October 04 2016, @07:08PM

        by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday October 04 2016, @07:08PM (#410217)

        Karl Marx's ideas [...] I have studied communism [...] Josef Stalin

        One of these is not like the others.
        (Stalinism is Totalitarianism; that isn't anything like Marxism|Communism.)
        Why is it that I think you went to a parochial school to "study communism"?

        Hint: Indoctrination is NOT the same as being taught analytical thinking.

        -- OriginalOwner_ [soylentnews.org]

        • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday October 04 2016, @07:38PM

          by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday October 04 2016, @07:38PM (#410239)

          Republican voting trends to the contrary, Mormons are secret believers in Marxism. They have their own version, called the United Order [wikipedia.org], where the church membership has "all things in common". The Wikipedia page talks about the practice being voluntary, but nothing was voluntary under Brigham Young. It was obey and volunteer or suffer the consequences.

          Mormons claim that their style of communism is different than others, and maybe it is because every version is unique. Mormons were very proud of their Marxist ways, until the red scares of the early 20th century when they whitewashed the United Order into meaninglessness.

          When you get to the true heart of the matter, Mormons believe in communism as long as Mormon leaders run the show. It partly explains their theocratic desires, as showcased in the Senator Smith briefing video.

          • (Score: 1) by lcall on Tuesday October 04 2016, @07:47PM

            by lcall (4611) on Tuesday October 04 2016, @07:47PM (#410247)

            Your comment reflects a common, unfortunate myth about Christianity. In any form of the United Order, as in any form of real Christianity, anyone can get out whenever they want. We do not believe in forcing anyone, ever, for any reason, to serve God.

            In fact it is an article of faith for us to defend the freedom of others to believe or not, participate or not, as they wish, and to speak openly of their reasons for such in public and private, as they choose. Preferably, everyone could agree on that much at least.

            • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday October 04 2016, @08:01PM

              by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday October 04 2016, @08:01PM (#410270)

              The lip service to freedom is nice, but Brigham Young used to hunt down and murder people who left his kingdom. (OK, he didn't by himself. That's what his "Destroying Angels" were for.)

              Even when no physical duress is used, the church (both historical and current) uses persuasive techniques that are no different that any other confidence game. It's easy to do when you control an entire culture (e.g. the Mormon belt in the inter-mountain west). How many young men really want to serve two year missions and how many go because of the pressure? How many people really want to pay the church 10% of their income, and and many do it just to keep a temple recommend so that they won't be shut out of family weddings? The societal pressure is intense.

              But yes, in modern Mormonism, people can leave. There is a huge social, emotional and familial cost to do this, however. Check out the many heartbreaking stories at exmormon.org [exmormon.org] for examples of the toll that leaving the Mormon church takes on people.

              • (Score: 1) by lcall on Tuesday October 04 2016, @08:25PM

                by lcall (4611) on Tuesday October 04 2016, @08:25PM (#410287)

                Most of these thunderous statements (not all), seem to come from ACs.

                I really doubt the BY murders you suggest. Not sure how to prove it either way though. Many people said bad things but that doesn't make them true. I do have family who was there through some controversies, which is about as good as what one could go on. Even scholars disagree on history, which I'm not, but I read a lot.

                Three people in my immediate family have left the Church in my immediate memory. We still do lots of family stuff. That doesn't prove anything I know, but ... I see it, and it seems individual to me. Again, we really are supposed to be good to each other regardless, and when we are not, we should do better. We'll keep trying to do better, anyway. Also I'm not going to pretend I don't believe something just because I'm around them, and they likewise express their minds. For comparison, my son and I don't vote alike, but I still think we're really close and we have *tons* in common. When someone is exclusionary or cliquish, that is sad, definitely. (BTW, my son, w/ whom I usually disagree politically, made the best statement about the candidate from my party, for whom I won't vote, that I ever heard. Since then you've heard it elsewhere, but it really, really made me laugh.)

                • (Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday October 04 2016, @08:41PM

                  by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday October 04 2016, @08:41PM (#410299)

                  Bill Hickman, one of the "destroying angels", admitted all and turned state's evidence. Google the book and read it for yourself: "Brigham's Destroying Angel: Being the Life, Confession, and Startling Disclosures of the Nortorious Bill Hickman". It's now public domain.

                  • (Score: 1) by lcall on Tuesday October 04 2016, @09:05PM

                    by lcall (4611) on Tuesday October 04 2016, @09:05PM (#410323)

                    Looks like his "confession" kept him from being prosecuted, and then the federal case he was enabling went nowhere. Seems to be one of those historical things where you have to decide whom to believe, based on one's view of their trustworthiness, and whether it can be corroborated in any way. Thanks for the reference.

                    • (Score: 2) by FatPhil on Wednesday October 05 2016, @01:08PM

                      by FatPhil (863) <pc-soylentNO@SPAMasdf.fi> on Wednesday October 05 2016, @01:08PM (#410567) Homepage
                      I will admit that you do turn the other cheek very well, as I understand would all devout LDS adherants. That is very honourable, others would have cracked and become angry or derailed. However, your persistence with your friendly tone, often with very similar responses, not-always-ones-to-the-questions-asked, does make you come over as just a little bit brainwashed.
                      --
                      Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people; the smallest discuss themselves
                      • (Score: 1) by lcall on Wednesday October 05 2016, @03:16PM

                        by lcall (4611) on Wednesday October 05 2016, @03:16PM (#410635)

                        Thanks. I'm all in, anyway. If I didn't answer and should have and you point it out, I'll retry. I admit sometimes I was tired. I had some time and this is important.

                        • (Score: 3, Funny) by aristarchus on Thursday October 06 2016, @03:19AM

                          by aristarchus (2645) on Thursday October 06 2016, @03:19AM (#410943) Journal

                          I just think it is sooo-o cute that SoylentNews has its own Mormon missionary assigned to us! Does this mean we are an "important" website now? Did we have to give up a Microsoft shill or an Electric Universe crazy to make room?

                          • (Score: 1) by lcall on Thursday October 06 2016, @12:28PM

                            by lcall (4611) on Thursday October 06 2016, @12:28PM (#411061)

                            There were some strong statements and valid questions, and almost nobody else was answering. Is only one viewpoint allowed here?

                            • (Score: 2) by aristarchus on Friday October 07 2016, @07:10AM

                              by aristarchus (2645) on Friday October 07 2016, @07:10AM (#411389) Journal

                              Cute, I said. Mormonism is not a viewpoint, it is not a theory of reality. As many have very politely pointed out, the entire religion is a delusion, and a scam.

                              Do I have to point out how many pyramid schemes originate in Utah, because it is perfectly alright to rip-off the gentiles? Do I have to mention the Salamander Papers, the assassination of their possessor? Do I have to mention the splinter groups, the Mormon war against the United States of American, the fact that Mitt Romney's father was born in Mexico for a reason?

                              Yes, your opinion is allowed here. But I do notice that you only pipe up when something prejudicial to the Saints comes up. And you are very polite. That does not make me uncomfortable. It just plain scares me. I sincerely hope you recover. There are people and organizations that can help.

                              • (Score: 1) by lcall on Friday October 07 2016, @02:00PM

                                by lcall (4611) on Friday October 07 2016, @02:00PM (#411488)

                                Ghandi, to make a remote comparison, was polite -- is he frightening? It can be good to learn from people like that when we can. I don't want to quit trying after all the effort to learn to be polite, especially since it's still a work in progress.

                                I do want to chime in when I see info that to me is very false or unbalanced, where I might know something. In this case I think I do.

                                With other issues as you mentioned, when one looks at the actual facts with depth, I have found to be not as you insinuate (in one case, personal acquaintances, etc: "que te vaya bien, y que no te machuque el tren", as one says -- google translate doesn't do well there). But all those things have been covered vigorously on both sides I presume, more thoroughly than we will here (including at http://fairmormon.org). [fairmormon.org).] Maybe I should have logged in when helping (just a little) with a tech/security question.

                                I also answered a large # of questions about my Free software -- where maybe I'll charge for some features later. (Since then, I made some improvements to the documentation, though not all that were suggested. I added some code to increase the convenience of creating consistently structured or semi-structured data -- in github but not in a released binary nor documented yet. When I'm able, I currently work on making it distributed, for exchanging data, structured or not, between instances, watching for data changes, etc. Then I'll probably try getting a demo video made, and sometime I hope, a pleasant web UI: http://onemodel.org [onemodel.org] .)

                                Best wishes.

      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday October 04 2016, @09:21PM

        by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday October 04 2016, @09:21PM (#410334)

        Ah, Karl Marx's ideas really don't seem to make people happier as far as I can tell.

        Of course not! Marxism is an economic theory, not an opiate of the masses like religion.

    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday October 05 2016, @09:47AM

      by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday October 05 2016, @09:47AM (#410540)

      Thanks to Karl Marx one third of the world was enslaved and literally tens of millions of truly innocent people were tortured and killed for disagreeing with his theories. Atheism is such a great religion.

  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday October 04 2016, @05:20PM

    by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday October 04 2016, @05:20PM (#410105)

    Whoever is leaking the videos and documents is (or was) also a church employee and they seem to disagree with you about how well things are run. And while the general organization of the Mormon church may be well known, the high-level decision making and finances are shrouded in secrecy. That's undeniable. Transparency in these matters is far more commonly the case in large churches.

    As far as unanimity in decision making, that seems to be propaganda for the masses. Respected Mormon scholar D. Michael Quinn wrote a well-documented book on the subject called The Mormon Hierarchy: Extensions of Power. Here's the book's blurb from its Amazon page (linked in the original post):

    The Mormon church today is led by an elite group of older men, nearly three-quarters of whom are related to current or past general church authorities. This dynastic hierarchy meets in private; neither its minutes nor the church’s finances are available for public review. Members are reassured by public relations spokesmen that all is well and that harmony prevails among these brethren.
    But by interviewing former church aides, examining hundreds of diaries, and drawing from his own past experience as an insider within the Latter-day Saint historical department, D. Michael Quinn presents a fuller view. His extensive research documents how the governing apostles, seventies, and presiding bishops are likely to be at loggerheads, as much as united. These strong-willed, independent men–like directors of a large corporation or supreme court justices–lobby among their colleagues, forge alliances, out-maneuver opponents, and broker compromises.

    There is more: clandestine political activities, investigative and punitive actions by church security forces, personal “loans” from church coffers (later written off as bad debts), and other privileged power-vested activities. Quinn considers the changing role and attitude of the leadership toward visionary experiences, the momentous events which have shaped quorum protocol and doctrine, and day-to-day bureaucratic intrigue from the time of Brigham Young to the dawn of the twenty-first century.

    The hierarchy seems at root well-intentioned and even at times aggressive in fulfilling its stated responsibility, which is to expedite the Second Coming. Where they have become convinced that God has spoken, they have set aside personal differences, offered unqualified support, and spoken with a unified voice. This potential for change, when coupled with the tempering effect of competing viewpoints, is something Quinn finds encouraging about Mormonism. But one should not assume that these men are infallible or work in anything approaching uninterrupted unanimity.