Mormons. | Page 3 | INFJ Forum

Mormons.

You say "sacred", I say "secret", there's no difference. People proud of their religion will wear any garment or symbol of it in plain sight of everyone; a cross, a yamaka, etc. Mormons wear their symbolic clothing under their regular clothing and then, refuse to talk about it with us "outsiders".

No wait, the underwear myth is folklore... wait, no, it's scripture. Exactly, how the blazes do or can you tell fact from fiction when religious texts are all fiction (based on facts) to begin with? I suppose it's rational to claim that angels came to Joseph Smith and gave him the golden tablets too?

Enough about the underwear... let's move on the the other reasons people dislike Mormons.

They're rebels. They essentially carved out a portion of the USA to call their own and named it Deseret, when that failed for one reason or another, they settled for statehood. Utah and the US had all but declared open war on one another, but when the Civil War started, Lincoln didn't want to risk another territory going to the Confederates, so he gave in to Brigham Young's demands.

Black people were considered lesser than whites until the late 1970's. A quote directly from B.Y. "The Lord had cursed Cain’s seed with blackness and prohibited them the Priesthood." Tell me... WTF Mormons?! Really???

Another one for you - Mountain Meadows Massacre. Outsiders look at that point in history and realize ow brutal the Mormons were for slaughtering desperate pioneers under a flag of truce. I have a book written in the 20th century by a Mormon that actually tries to justify the actions of the Mormons and LDS church for that massacre... justify killing 120 men, women and older-children.

There are some modern sects of older religions that have "screwed up" over the years. I'm quite closely tied to the Seventh Day Adventist church and most of them and their pastors will admit, they screwed up. They predicted the end of the world, not once, but twice... and were wrong. David Koresh was a member of a faction that branched off of that religion and look at their tragic story. Adventists don't deny or try to justify any of this. (And I think their religion parallels the LDS church in this country rather closely, historically speaking)

Joseph Smith was also a convicted criminal, guilty of being a fraud and a con artist. No, this isn't just my opinion, there are actual court records that prove it. He was arrested for these crimes 4 years before writing The Book of Mormon. So the sole founder of the LDS church who claims the religion was everything he says it was because he says it was, was a career liar. You can compare him to Christ and say they were both criminals, but that's also a weak argument. Mormons still, voluntarily live in the country and under the government that convicted Joseph Smith. You (most) all follow the law and uphold the common standards of most citizens, which means you don't disagree with those laws to the point of revolution. So... under the same laws that you live by and your church operates, your founder was a fraud, convicted and tried.

I suppose what I'm trying to point out with that is the integrity of the LDS church is severely lacking. The modern LDS church pretty much admits that "Yep, Joseph Smith was a crook" and "Yep, we're still going to follow his words." And "Yep, our pioneers were bloodthirsty, rebels" and "nope, they weren't wrong". The Catholic Church has admitted to being wrong in their past, especially regarding science. The LDS church doesn't believe they've ever done any wrong, even equalizing Black people came as a "revelation" not an apology.
 
Last edited:
let's move on the the other reasons people dislike Mormons

So, let me get this straight... You're saying that most(?) (many? some?) people don't like Mormons because of a history the founders of the church had that most people, including many who belong to the church, don't even know about?

Most people actually like Mormons. That they are quite likeable and promote a healthy community and image is why they are growing so quickly all over the world. Some are curious. Most are unaware of said history. If they became interested in this history, most people would still not hold it against modern members of the church to say that they dislike them.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: isabellajay
So, let me get this straight... You're saying that most(?) (many? some?) people don't like Mormons because of a history the founders of the church had that most people, including many who belong to the church, don't even know about?

Most people actually like Mormons. That they are quite likeable and promote a healthy community and image is why they are growing so quickly all over the world. Some are curious. Most are unaware of said history. If they became interested in this history, most people who still not hold it against modern members of the church to say that they dislike them.


Understand Mormons. There is no specific "history". Everything that has occurred in the past is still held in the highest regard to the church. They trace ancestry back through generations, take pride in their pioneer families and still practice many traditional values the church was founded on. They nit-pick their own history to focus on only what they want to, ignoring the actual facts that surrounded it. (I don't consider 1978 to exactly be "ancient" history either.) Ask a Mormon about these things and they'll glaze over it as unimportant.

I view Mormons with the same level of respect I have for the Rednecks who display the Confederate flag in their truck windows...
 
Why do people hate Mormons so much?
I am Mormon and I promise I'm completely normal.
I can understand not liking it because of what you've heard, what you've read,
but I know I'm not a crazy person, or a cultist, or a freak show.
It's hurtful that people make such judgements of me.
And know that many Mormons are super conflicted on certain topics - namely gay marriage.
I am for gay marriage. But people just assume because I'm Mormon
that I'm some hatey, shallow criminal.
I'd like to hear your opinions without being attacked.
Trust me, I get a lot of that.
I am starting to feel safe on this forum and I would be very
disappointed if people stopped speaking to me or starting hating me
just because of my religious beliefs.

And JUST as a side note, I am on here to make friends and learn, NOT to convert people.
I was raised Mormon....and was a member of the church until about the age of 16 when my older brother came out of the closet to my parents. I have known many people, friends who were disowned by their parents for just that reason...but my parents told my older brother that ‘he was their son, and he always will be’...they didn’t look at him any differently which was very cool of them at the time (the early 90’s). Personally, I witnessed my older brother being called names, being assaulted, spit on, etc. in HS even though you really couldn’t tell he was gay unless he told you so....but rumors spread fast in HS. I could never, and still can’t rationalize why anyone would “choose” to make life more difficult for themselves...also I knew my brother and have spoken to him about it many times...he has always felt and been that way....even my Mom says that ‘looking back, she always sort-of knew he was gay, even from a small child.’. Anyhow, this is not a post against the views of the Mormon church...only an explanation of why there was a falling out. My parents chose my brother over the religion. Personally, I think it was a wonderful way to be raised as a child, the church is VERY family oriented, and focused on trying to live your life in a healthy and moral way (whether you agree with the morals or not).
And honestly, they are no more a “Cult” than the rest of the churches out there...the only difference is the time they have been established. Everyone is entitled to his/her own opinions and beliefs...and while you can debate those with someone....to say you are right and they are wrong is childish and small-minded.
For me....I don’t believe in Hell...nor do I necessarily think there is a “God” with a white beard and long flowing robes. If there is a “God” he/she/it is so far beyond what our mind can grasp that we have created an explanation that we could understand. Just like with the creationism stories....the Earth wasn’t created in 7 days...what is a day to God honestly? Time is a creation of man....perhaps a “day” to God is a billion years...or maybe it exists on another plane of reality...who knows. My point is, we put those thoughts and ideas of how it happened into terms we could all understand at the time....if we really understood and could write down how God created Earth not only would we not understand it, it would be almost infinitely long. I cannot simply adhere to one religion or idea of everything...I actually just discussed this recently with some missionaries that came to my door....my mind is constantly questioning...it is a difficult concept for me to have “faith”....I cannot just let my mind go and trust in something that there are infinite questions about...I have had to resign myself to finding out when I die. Until then, I will continue to search my own thoughts and soul, because I do believe in something beyond this life.
Shrug off those people that want to throw nasty things about Mormons your way...shall we list all the fucked up stuff the rest of the religions in the world have done?? lol
If you have a strong belief in it then that is wonderful...the rest can go to Hell...figuratively.
 
[MENTION=2890]Lerxst[/MENTION] Your lack of respect for me and my faith is sad. Be an adult and show some respect for those that believe differently than you. That's probably the reason Latter-day Saints don't discuss things that are sacred to them with you (that's why I wouldn't anyway) - because they can see that you'll show absolutely no respect to them about things that are important to them. Why would people want to open up about something that is a significant part of them if all you're going to do is mock it and be unkind? I asked for opinions to be shared in a mature manner. I didn't jump down your throat and say, "You better convert to my religion and you're an idiot and how can you live with yourself." I appreciate that you and I live differently and need different things to be happy.
Mountain Meadows Massacre - it was a mistake. The church had been severely mistreated and they killed those people because they were trying to protect what little they had left. No, they didn't handle it the right way, but those were really tough times for latter-day saints. We don't worship the incident and claim we were in the right.
I know your opinion now. And I know all of the stories you've brought up to prove why my religion is stupid. Let's be done now.
 
[MENTION=5045]Skarekrow[/MENTION] I appreciate you sharing your story and your beliefs in the manner you did, even though you and I are different (heaven forbid!). :)
 
[MENTION=2890]Lerxst[/MENTION] Your lack of respect for me and my faith is sad. Be an adult and show some respect for those that believe differently than you. That's probably the reason Latter-day Saints don't discuss things that are sacred to them with you (that's why I wouldn't anyway) - because they can see that you'll show absolutely no respect to them about things that are important to them. Why would people want to open up about something that is a significant part of them if all you're going to do is mock it and be unkind? I asked for opinions to be shared in a mature manner. I didn't jump down your throat and say, "You better convert to my religion and you're an idiot and how can you live with yourself." I appreciate that you and I live differently and need different things to be happy.
Mountain Meadows Massacre - it was a mistake. The church had been severely mistreated and they killed those people because they were trying to protect what little they had left. No, they didn't handle it the right way, but those were really tough times for latter-day saints. We don't worship the incident and claim we were in the right.
I know your opinion now. And I know all of the stories you've brought up to prove why my religion is stupid. Let's be done now.

I'm not sure how you mistakenly murder over a hundred people, including women and children, over the course of several days. Sounds like a rather deliberate and protracted process to me.

Why do you want Lerxst to stop posting in this thread when you made this thread for the express purpose of discussing why "people" hate Mormons? I think that only now have we really started to engage some of the deeply-rooted problems of the LDS Church. Why stop here? I think we should see how deep this fucked up, historical revisionist rabbit hole goes.
 
[MENTION=6650]SealHammer[/MENTION] I think you misunderstood what I was saying. I was trying to say that it was a mistake in the sense that it shouldn't have happened, it was a bad thing. I wasn't trying to imply that it was an accident or that they didn't mean to.
And I'll be honest, I'm a little afraid of you because you express your opinions so forcefully and always belittle those who differ from you. So if you'd like to go on a hate rant on my religion, go for it. But perhaps create a different thread? This thread was for me to try and understand why people don't like the LDS church or why they believe differently, and I wanted it to be done with respect. I can't see this going in that direction.
 
Deriding Mormons for their religious beliefs is unfair because Mormonism does not have the luxury of having a millennium to obscure the facts of the founding of their faith.

It is "religiosity" that is disturbing, not Mormonism. Few are the religions that do not focus solely on the uplifting of the human spirit. The one that seems to the most is often written off as atheistic (that would be Buddhism or some forms of it).

Religious people are always very concerned with the indoctrination of their children into their faith. Attend an infant baptism if you want to see this first hand. This is important to them because it is much harder to convince and adult mind of "religious" facts then it is to convince a child.

Anyone who simply kowtows to the precepts of their faith is doomed to ignorance.

Let's get some Scientologists to open a thread, then we can have some real fun.
 
  • Like
Reactions: SealHammer
I concur with FiftySeven, if you really want to keep score as to which religion has done the most and least amount of murder and slaughter, the Mormons are far from the top of the list of worst offenders. I’m not advocating or making excuses for what they did either....just as I’m sure the Christians thought they were making the world a better place when -
As soon as Christianity was legal (315), more and more pagan temples were destroyed by Christian mob. Pagan priests were killed.

Between 315 and 6th century thousands of pagan believers were slain.

Examples of destroyed Temples: the Sanctuary of Aesculap in Aegaea, the Temple of Aphrodite in Golgatha, Aphaka in Lebanon, the Heliopolis.

Christian priests such as Mark of Arethusa or Cyrill of Heliopolis were famous as "temple destroyer." [DA468]

Pagan services became punishable by death in 356. [DA468]

Christian Emperor Theodosius (408-450) even had children executed, because they had been playing with remains of pagan statues. [DA469]
According to Christian chroniclers he "followed meticulously all Christian teachings..."

In 6th century pagans were declared void of all rights.

In the early fourth century the philosopher Sopatros was executed on demand of Christian authorities. [DA466]

The world famous female philosopher Hypatia of Alexandria was torn to pieces with glass fragments by a hysterical Christian mob led by a Christian minister named Peter, in a church, in 415.

Emperor Karl (Charlemagne) in 782 had 4500 Saxons, unwilling to convert to Christianity, beheaded. [DO30]
Peasants of Steding (Germany) unwilling to pay suffocating church taxes: between 5,000 and 11,000 men, women and children slain 5/27/1234 near Altenesch/Germany. [WW223]
Battle of Belgrad 1456: 80,000 Turks slaughtered. [DO235]
15th century Poland: 1019 churches and 17987 villages plundered by Knights of the Order. Victims unknown. [DO30]
16th and 17th century Ireland. English troops "pacified and civilized" Ireland, where only Gaelic "wild Irish", "unreasonable beasts lived without any knowledge of God or good manners, in common of their goods, cattle, women, children and every other thing." One of the more successful soldiers, a certain Humphrey Gilbert, half-brother of Sir Walter Raleigh, ordered that "the heddes of all those (of what sort soever thei were) which were killed in the daie, should be cutte off from their bodies... and should bee laied on the ground by eche side of the waie", which effort to civilize the Irish indeed caused "greate terrour to the people when thei sawe the heddes of their dedde fathers, brothers, children, kinsfolke, and freinds on the grounde".
Tens of thousands of Gaelic Irish fell victim to the carnage. [SH99, 225]

First Crusade: 1095 on command of pope Urban II. [WW11-41]
Semlin/Hungary 6/24/96 thousands slain. Wieselburg/Hungary 6/12/96 thousands. [WW23]
9/9/96-9/26/96 Nikaia, Xerigordon (then turkish), thousands respectively. [WW25-27]
Until Jan 1098 a total of 40 capital cities and 200 castles conquered (number of slain unknown) [WW30]
after 6/3/98 Antiochia (then turkish) conquered, between 10,000 and 60,000 slain. 6/28/98 100,000 Turks (incl. women & children) killed. [WW32-35]
Here the Christians "did no other harm to the women found in [the enemy's] tents—save that they ran their lances through their bellies," according to Christian chronicler Fulcher of Chartres. [EC60]
Marra (Maraat an-numan) 12/11/98 thousands killed. Because of the subsequent famine "the already stinking corpses of the enemies were eaten by the Christians" said chronicler Albert Aquensis. [WW36]
Jerusalem conquered 7/15/1099 more than 60,000 victims (jewish, muslim, men, women, children). [WW37-40]
(In the words of one witness: "there [in front of Solomon's temple] was such a carnage that our people were wading ankle-deep in the blood of our foes", and after that "happily and crying for joy our people marched to our Saviour's tomb, to honour it and to pay off our debt of gratitude")
The Archbishop of Tyre, eye-witness, wrote: "It was impossible to look upon the vast numbers of the slain without horror; everywhere lay fragments of human bodies, and the very ground was covered with the blood of the slain. It was not alone the spectacle of headless bodies and mutilated limbs strewn in all directions that roused the horror of all who looked upon them. Still more dreadful was it to gaze upon the victors themselves, dripping with blood from head to foot, an ominous sight which brought terror to all who met them. It is reported that within the Temple enclosure alone about ten thousand infidels perished." [TG79]
Christian chronicler Eckehard of Aura noted that "even the following summer in all of palestine the air was polluted by the stench of decomposition". One million victims of the first crusade alone. [WW41]
Battle of Askalon, 8/12/1099. 200,000 heathens slaughtered "in the name of Our Lord Jesus Christ". [WW45]
Fourth crusade: 4/12/1204 Constantinople sacked, number of victims unknown, numerous thousands, many of them Christian. [WW141-148]
Rest of Crusades in less detail: until the fall of Akkon 1291 probably 20 million victims (in the Holy land and Arab/Turkish areas alone). [WW224]

Already in 385 C.E. the first Christians, the Spanish Priscillianus and six followers, were beheaded for heresy in Trier/Germany [DO26]
Manichaean heresy: a crypto-Christian sect decent enough to practice birth control (and thus not as irresponsible as faithful Catholics) was exterminated in huge campaigns all over the Roman empire between 372 C.E. and 444 C.E. Numerous thousands of victims. [NC]
Albigensians: the first Crusade intended to slay other Christians. [DO29]
The Albigensians...viewed themselves as good Christians, but would not accept roman Catholic rule, and taxes, and prohibition of birth control. [NC]
Begin of violence: on command of pope Innocent III (greatest single pre-nazi mass murderer) in 1209. Bezirs (today France) 7/22/1209 destroyed, all the inhabitants were slaughtered. Victims (including Catholics refusing to turn over their heretic neighbours and friends) 20,000-70,000. [WW179-181]
Carcassonne 8/15/1209, thousands slain. Other cities followed. [WW181]
subsequent 20 years of war until nearly all Cathars (probably half the population of the Languedoc, today southern France) were exterminated. [WW183]
After the war ended (1229) the Inquisition was founded 1232 to search and destroy surviving/hiding heretics. Last Cathars burned at the stake 1324. [WW183]
Estimated one million victims (cathar heresy alone), [WW183]
Other heresies: Waldensians, Paulikians, Runcarians, Josephites, and many others. Most of these sects exterminated, (I believe some Waldensians live today, yet they had to endure 600 years of persecution) I estimate at least hundred thousand victims (including the Spanish inquisition but excluding victims in the New World).
Spanish Inquisitor Torquemada alone allegedly responsible for 10,220 burnings. [DO28]
John Huss, a critic of papal infallibility and indulgences, was burned at the stake in 1415. [LI475-522]
University professor B.Hubmaier burned at the stake 1538 in Vienna. [DO59]
Giordano Bruno, Dominican monk, after having been incarcerated for seven years, was burned at the stake for heresy on the Campo dei Fiori (Rome) on 2/17/1600.

from the beginning of Christianity to 1484 probably more than several thousand.
in the era of witch hunting (1484-1750) according to modern scholars several hundred thousand (about 80% female) burned at the stake or hanged. [WV]
incomplete list of documented cases:
The Burning of Witches - A Chronicle of the Burning Times

15th century: Crusades against Hussites, thousands slain. [DO30]
1538 pope Paul III declared Crusade against apostate England and all English as slaves of Church (fortunately had not power to go into action). [DO31]
1568 Spanish Inquisition Tribunal ordered extermination of 3 million rebels in (then Spanish) Netherlands. Thousands were actually slain. [DO31]
1572 In France about 20,000 Huguenots were killed on command of pope Pius V. Until 17th century 200,000 flee. [DO31]
17th century: Catholics slay Gaspard de Coligny, a Protestant leader. After murdering him, the Catholic mob mutilated his body, "cutting off his head, his hands, and his genitals... and then dumped him into the river [...but] then, deciding that it was not worthy of being food for the fish, they hauled it out again [... and] dragged what was left ... to the gallows of Montfaulcon, 'to be meat and carrion for maggots and crows'." [SH191]
17th century: Catholics sack the city of Magdeburg/Germany: roughly 30,000 Protestants were slain. "In a single church fifty women were found beheaded," reported poet Friedrich Schiller, "and infants still sucking the breasts of their lifeless mothers." [SH191]
17th century 30 years' war (Catholic vs. Protestant): at least 40% of population decimated, mostly in Germany. [DO31-32]


  • Already in the 4th and 5th centuries synagogues were burned by Christians. Number of Jews slain unknown.
  • In the middle of the fourth century the first synagogue was destroyed on command of bishop Innocentius of Dertona in Northern Italy. The first synagogue known to have been burned down was near the river Euphrat, on command of the bishop of Kallinikon in the year 388. [DA450]
  • 17. Council of Toledo 694: Jews were enslaved, their property confiscated, and their children forcibly baptized. [DA454]
  • The Bishop of Limoges (France) in 1010 had the cities' Jews, who would not convert to Christianity, expelled or killed. [DA453]
  • First Crusade: Thousands of Jews slaughtered 1096, maybe 12.000 total. Places: Worms 5/18/1096, Mainz 5/27/1096 (1100 persons), Cologne, Neuss, Altenahr, Wevelinghoven, Xanten, Moers, Dortmund, Kerpen, Trier, Metz, Regensburg, Prag and others (All locations Germany except Metz/France, Prag/Czech) [EJ]
  • Second Crusade: 1147. Several hundred Jews were slain in Ham, Sully, Carentan, and Rameru (all locations in France). [WW57]
  • Third Crusade: English Jewish communities sacked 1189/90. [DO40]
  • Fulda/Germany 1235: 34 Jewish men and women slain. [DO41]
  • 1257, 1267: Jewish communities of London, Canterbury, Northampton, Lincoln, Cambridge, and others exterminated. [DO41]
  • 1290 in Bohemian (Poland) allegedly 10,000 Jews killed. [DO41]
  • 1337 Starting in Deggendorf/Germany a Jew-killing craze reaches 51 towns in Bavaria, Austria, Poland. [DO41]
  • 1348 All Jews of Basel/Switzerland and Strasbourg/France (two thousand) burned. [DO41]
  • 1349 In more than 350 towns in Germany all Jews murdered, mostly burned alive (in this one year more Jews were killed than Christians in 200 years of ancient Roman persecution of Christians). [DO42]
  • 1389 In Prag 3,000 Jews were slaughtered. [DO42]
  • 1391 Seville's Jews killed (Archbishop Martinez leading). 4,000 were slain, 25,000 sold as slaves. [DA454] Their identification was made easy by the brightly colored "badges of shame" that all jews above the age of ten had been forced to wear.
  • 1492: In the year Columbus set sail to conquer a New World, more than 150,000 Jews were expelled from Spain, many died on their way: 6/30/1492. [MM470-476]
  • 1648 Chmielnitzki massacres: In Poland about 200,000 Jews were slain. [DO43]
(I feel sick ...) this goes on and on, century after century, right into the kilns of Auschwitz.


  • Beginning with Columbus (a former slave trader and would-be Holy Crusader) the conquest of the New World began, as usual understood as a means to propagate Christianity.
  • Within hours of landfall on the first inhabited island he encountered in the Caribbean, Columbus seized and carried off six native people who, he said, "ought to be good servants ... [and] would easily be made Christians, because it seemed to me that they belonged to no religion." [SH200]
    While Columbus described the Indians as "idolators" and "slaves, as many as [the Crown] shall order," his pal Michele de Cuneo, Italian nobleman, referred to the natives as "beasts" because "they eat when they are hungry," and made love "openly whenever they feel like it." [SH204-205]
  • On every island he set foot on, Columbus planted a cross, "making the declarations that are required" - the requerimiento - to claim the ownership for his Catholic patrons in Spain. And "nobody objected." If the Indians refused or delayed their acceptance (or understanding), the requerimiento continued:
I certify to you that, with the help of God, we shall powerfully enter in your country and shall make war against you ... and shall subject you to the yoke and obedience of the Church ... and shall do you all mischief that we can, as to vassals who do not obey and refuse to receive their lord and resist and contradict him." [SH66]
  • Likewise in the words of John Winthrop, first governor of Massachusetts Bay Colony: "justifieinge the undertakeres of the intended Plantation in New England ... to carry the Gospell into those parts of the world, ... and to raise a Bulworke against the kingdome of the Ante-Christ." [SH235]
  • In average two thirds of the native population were killed by colonist-imported smallpox before violence began. This was a great sign of "the marvelous goodness and providence of God" to the Christians of course, e.g. the Governor of the Massachusetts Bay Colony wrote in 1634, as "for the natives, they are near all dead of the smallpox, so as the Lord hath cleared our title to what we possess." [SH109,238]
  • On Hispaniola alone, on Columbus visits, the native population (Arawak), a rather harmless and happy people living on an island of abundant natural resources, a literal paradise, soon mourned 50,000 dead. [SH204]
  • The surviving Indians fell victim to rape, murder, enslavement and spanish raids.
  • As one of the culprits wrote: "So many Indians died that they could not be counted, all through the land the Indians lay dead everywhere. The stench was very great and pestiferous." [SH69]
  • The indian chief Hatuey fled with his people but was captured and burned alive. As "they were tying him to the stake a Franciscan friar urged him to take Jesus to his heart so that his soul might go to heaven, rather than descend into hell. Hatuey replied that if heaven was where the Christians went, he would rather go to hell." [SH70]
  • What happened to his people was described by an eyewitness:
    "The Spaniards found pleasure in inventing all kinds of odd cruelties ... They built a long gibbet, long enough for the toes to touch the ground to prevent strangling, and hanged thirteen [natives] at a time in honor of Christ Our Saviour and the twelve Apostles... then, straw was wrapped around their torn bodies and they were burned alive." [SH72]
    Or, on another occasion:
    "The Spaniards cut off the arm of one, the leg or hip of another, and from some their heads at one stroke, like butchers cutting up beef and mutton for market. Six hundred, including the cacique, were thus slain like brute beasts...Vasco [de Balboa] ordered forty of them to be torn to pieces by dogs." [SH83]
  • The "island's population of about eight million people at the time of Columbus's arrival in 1492 already had declined by a third to a half before the year 1496 was out." Eventually all the island's natives were exterminated, so the Spaniards were "forced" to import slaves from other caribbean islands, who soon suffered the same fate. Thus "the Caribbean's millions of native people [were] thereby effectively liquidated in barely a quarter of a century". [SH72-73] "In less than the normal lifetime of a single human being, an entire culture of millions of people, thousands of years resident in their homeland, had been exterminated." [SH75]
  • "And then the Spanish turned their attention to the mainland of Mexico and Central America. The slaughter had barely begun. The exquisite city of Tenochtitln [Mexico city] was next." [SH75]
  • Cortez, Pizarro, De Soto and hundreds of other spanish conquistadors likewise sacked southern and mesoamerican civilizations in the name of Christ (De Soto also sacked Florida).
  • "When the 16th century ended, some 200,000 Spaniards had moved to the Americas. By that time probably more than 60,000,000 natives were dead." [SH95]
Of course no different were the founders of what today is the US of Amerikkka.

  • Although none of the settlers would have survived winter without native help, they soon set out to expel and exterminate the Indians. Warfare among (north American) Indians was rather harmless, in comparison to European standards, and was meant to avenge insults rather than conquer land. In the words of some of the pilgrim fathers: "Their Warres are farre less bloudy...", so that there usually was "no great slawter of nether side". Indeed, "they might fight seven yeares and not kill seven men." What is more, the Indians usually spared women and children. [SH111]
  • In the spring of 1612 some English colonists found life among the (generally friendly and generous) natives attractive enough to leave Jamestown - "being idell ... did runne away unto the Indyans," - to live among them (that probably solved a sex problem).
    "Governor Thomas Dale had them hunted down and executed: 'Some he apointed (sic) to be hanged Some burned Some to be broken upon wheles, others to be staked and some shott to deathe'." [SH105] Of course these elegant measures were restricted for fellow englishmen: "This was the treatment for those who wished to act like Indians. For those who had no choice in the matter, because they were the native people of Virginia" methods were different: "when an Indian was accused by an Englishman of stealing a cup and failing to return it, the English response was to attack the natives in force, burning the entire community" down. [SH105]
  • On the territory that is now Massachusetts the founding fathers of the colonies were committing genocide, in what has become known as the "Peqout War". The killers were New England Puritan Christians, refugees from persecution in their own home country England.
  • When however, a dead colonist was found, apparently killed by Narragansett Indians, the Puritan colonists wanted revenge. Despite the Indian chief's pledge they attacked.
    Somehow they seem to have lost the idea of what they were after, because when they were greeted by Pequot Indians (long-time foes of the Narragansetts) the troops nevertheless made war on the Pequots and burned their villages.
    The puritan commander-in-charge John Mason after one massacre wrote: "And indeed such a dreadful Terror did the Almighty let fall upon their Spirits, that they would fly from us and run into the very Flames, where many of them perished ... God was above them, who laughed his Enemies and the Enemies of his People to Scorn, making them as a fiery Oven ... Thus did the Lord judge among the Heathen, filling the Place with dead Bodies": men, women, children. [SH113-114]
  • So "the Lord was pleased to smite our Enemies in the hinder Parts, and to give us their land for an inheritance". [SH111].
  • Because of his readers' assumed knowledge of Deuteronomy, there was no need for Mason to quote the words that immediately follow:
    "Thou shalt save alive nothing that breatheth. But thou shalt utterly destroy them..." (Deut 20)
  • Mason's comrade Underhill recalled how "great and doleful was the bloody sight to the view of the young soldiers" yet reassured his readers that "sometimes the Scripture declareth women and children must perish with their parents". [SH114]
  • Other Indians were killed in successful plots of poisoning. The colonists even had dogs especially trained to kill Indians and to devour children from their mothers breasts, in the colonists' own words: "blood Hounds to draw after them, and Mastives to seaze them." (This was inspired by spanish methods of the time)
    In this way they continued until the extermination of the Pequots was near. [SH107-119]
  • The surviving handful of Indians "were parceled out to live in servitude. John Endicott and his pastor wrote to the governor asking for 'a share' of the captives, specifically 'a young woman or girle and a boy if you thinke good'." [SH115]
  • Other tribes were to follow the same path.
  • Comment the Christian exterminators: "God's Will, which will at last give us cause to say: How Great is His Goodness! and How Great is his Beauty!"
    "Thus doth the Lord Jesus make them to bow before him, and to lick the Dust!" [TA]
  • Like today, lying was OK to Christians then. "Peace treaties were signed with every intention to violate them: when the Indians 'grow secure uppon (sic) the treatie', advised the Council of State in Virginia, 'we shall have the better Advantage both to surprise them, & cutt downe theire Corne'." [SH106]
  • In 1624 sixty heavily armed Englishmen cut down 800 defenseless Indian men, women and children. [SH107]
  • In a single massacre in "King Philip's War" of 1675 and 1676 some "600 Indians were destroyed. A delighted Cotton Mather, revered pastor of the Second Church in Boston, later referred to the slaughter as a 'barbeque'." [SH115]
  • To summarize: Before the arrival of the English, the western Abenaki people in New Hampshire and Vermont had numbered 12,000. Less than half a century later about 250 remained alive - a destruction rate of 98%. The Pocumtuck people had numbered more than 18,000, fifty years later they were down to 920 - 95% destroyed. The Quiripi-Unquachog people had numbered about 30,000, fifty years later they were down to 1500 - 95% destroyed. The Massachusetts people had numbered at least 44,000, fifty years later barely 6000 were alive - 81% destroyed. [SH118] These are only a few examples of the multitude of tribes living before Christian colonists set their foot on the New World. All this was before the smallpox epidemics of 1677 and 1678 had occurred. And the carnage was not over then.
  • All the above was only the beginning of the European colonization, it was before the frontier age actually had begun.
  • A total of maybe more than 150 million Indians (of both Americas) were destroyed in the period of 1500 to 1900, as an average two thirds by smallpox and other epidemics, that leaves some 50 million killed directly by violence, bad treatment and slavery.
  • In many countries, such as Brazil, and Guatemala, this continues even today.
[h=3]More Glorious events in US history[/h]
  • Reverend Solomon Stoddard, one of New England's most esteemed religious leaders, in "1703 formally proposed to the Massachusetts Governor that the colonists be given the financial wherewithal to purchase and train large packs of dogs 'to hunt Indians as they do bears'." [SH241]
  • Massacre of Sand Creek, Colorado 11/29/1864. Colonel John Chivington, a former Methodist minister and still elder in the church ("I long to be wading in gore") had a Cheyenne village of about 600, mostly women and children, gunned down despite the chiefs' waving with a white flag: 400-500 killed.
    From an eye-witness account: "There were some thirty or forty squaws collected in a hole for protection; they sent out a little girl about six years old with a white flag on a stick; she had not proceeded but a few steps when she was shot and killed. All the squaws in that hole were afterwards killed ..." [SH131]
    More gory details.
  • By the 1860s, "in Hawai'i the Reverend Rufus Anderson surveyed the carnage that by then had reduced those islands' native population by 90 percent or more, and he declined to see it as tragedy; the expected total die-off of the Hawaiian population was only natural, this missionary said, somewhat equivalent to 'the amputation of diseased members of the body'." [SH244]

    • Catholic extermination camps
      Surpisingly few know that Nazi extermination camps in World War II were by no means the only ones in Europe at the time. In the years 1942-1943 also in Croatia existed numerous extermination camps, run by Catholic Ustasha under their dictator Ante Paveli, a practising Catholic and regular visitor to the then pope. There were even concentration camps exclusively for children!

      In these camps - the most notorious was Jasenovac, headed by a Franciscan friar - orthodox-Christian serbians (and a substantial number of Jews) were murdered. Like the Nazis the Catholic Ustasha burned their victims in kilns, alive (the Nazis were decent enough to have their victims gassed first). But most of the victims were simply stabbed, slain or shot to death, the number of them being estimated between 300,000 and 600,000, in a rather tiny country. Many of the killers were Franciscan friars. The atrocities were appalling enough to induce bystanders of the Nazi "Sicherheitsdient der SS", watching, to complain about them to Hitler (who did not listen). The pope knew about these events and did nothing to prevent them. [MV]
    • Catholic terror in Vietnam
      In 1954 Vietnamese freedom fighters - the Viet Minh - had finally defeated the French colonial government in North Vietnam, which by then had been supported by U.S. funds amounting to more than $2 billion. Although the victorious assured religious freedom to all (most non-buddhist Vietnamese were Catholics), due to huge anticommunist propaganda campaigns many Catholics fled to the South. With the help of Catholic lobbies in Washington and Cardinal Spellman, the Vatican's spokesman in U.S. politics, who later on would call the U.S. forces in Vietnam "Soldiers of Christ", a scheme was concocted to prevent democratic elections which could have brought the communist Viet Minh to power in the South as well, and the fanatic Catholic Ngo Dinh Diem was made president of South Vietnam. [MW16ff]

      Diem saw to it that U.S. aid, food, technical and general assistance was given to Catholics alone, Buddhist individuals and villages were ignored or had to pay for the food aids which were given to Catholics for free. The only religious denomination to be supported was Roman Catholicism.

      The Vietnamese McCarthyism turned even more vicious than its American counterpart. By 1956 Diem promulgated a presidential order which read:
      • "Individuals considered dangerous to the national defense and common security may be confined by executive order, to a concentration camp."
    Supposedly to fight communism, thousands of buddhist protesters and monks were imprisoned in "detention camps." Out of protest dozens of buddhist teachers - male and female - and monks poured gasoline over themselves and burned themselves. (Note that Buddhists burned themselves: in comparison Christians tend to burn others). Meanwhile some of the prison camps, which in the meantime were filled with Protestant and even Catholic protesters as well, had turned into no-nonsense death camps. It is estimated that during this period of terror (1955-1960) at least 24,000 were wounded - mostly in street riots - 80,000 people were executed, 275,000 had been detained or tortured, and about 500,000 were sent to concentration or detention camps. [MW76-89].

    To support this kind of government in the next decade thousands of American GI's lost their life....
    • Rwanda Massacres
      In 1994 in the small african country of Rwanda in just a few months several hundred thousand civilians were butchered, apparently a conflict of the Hutu and Tutsi ethnic groups.
    For quite some time I heard only rumours about Catholic clergy actively involved in the 1994 Rwanda massacres. Odd denials of involvement were printed in Catholic church journals, before even anybody had openly accused members of the church.
    Then, 10/10/96, in the newscast of S2 Aktuell, Germany - a station not at all critical to Christianity - the following was stated:
    "Anglican as well as Catholic priests and nuns are suspect of having actively participated in murders. Especially the conduct of a certain Catholic priest has been occupying the public mind in Rwanda's capital Kigali for months. He was minister of the church of the Holy Family and allegedly murdered Tutsis in the most brutal manner. He is reported to have accompanied marauding Hutu militia with a gun in his cowl. In fact there has been a bloody slaughter of Tutsis seeking shelter in his parish. Even two years after the massacres many Catholics refuse to set foot on the threshold of their church, because to them the participation of a certain part of the clergy in the slaughter is well established. There is almost no church in Rwanda that has not seen refugees - women, children, old - being brutally butchered facing the crucifix.

    According to eyewitnesses clergymen gave away hiding Tutsis and turned them over to the machetes of the Hutu militia.
    In connection with these events again and again two Benedictine nuns are mentioned, both of whom have fled into a Belgian monastery in the meantime to avoid prosecution. According to survivors one of them called the Hutu killers and led them to several thousand people who had sought shelter in her monastery. By force the doomed were driven out of the churchyard and were murdered in the presence of the nun right in front of the gate. The other one is also reported to have directly cooperated with the murderers of the Hutu militia. In her case again witnesses report that she watched the slaughtering of people in cold blood and without showing response. She is even accused of having procured some petrol used by the killers to set on fire and burn their victims alive..." [S2]

















I didn’t list all this to make any Christians feel badly....I can pull up such lists for all the major religions of the world...issabellajay didn’t start this forum I’m sure to be have stones cast at her. Chill out.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Stu and SealHammer
Skarecrow

Is your point that we should therefore hate everyone or rather that we should not continue to harbor resentment for the sins of the father?
 
  • Like
Reactions: Stu
Skarecrow

Is your point that we should therefore hate everyone or rather that we should not continue to harbor resentment for the sins of the father?
That is not my point at all....nor do I believe in the sins of our Fathers’.....my point was no one religion is innocent...they have ALL committed atrocities and done things in the past that one in this day my find strange...such as Mormons and their history of polygamy. One could call any religion a “cult”...what makes one a cult and one not....the length of it being established and the amount of those who follow said religion. One could say that the Lutherans were once a cult when they broke off from the Catholic church....or any other church for that matter. My point was that we should not be trying to shoot down the religious beliefs of anyone here...they all have questionable pasts and/or ideas.
 
That is not my point at all....nor do I believe in the sins of our Fathers’.....my point was no one religion is innocent...they have ALL committed atrocities and done things in the past that one in this day my find strange...such as Mormons and their history of polygamy. One could call any religion a “cult”...what makes one a cult and one not....the length of it being established and the amount of those who follow said religion. One could say that the Lutherans were once a cult when they broke off from the Catholic church....or any other church for that matter. My point was that we should not be trying to shoot down the religious beliefs of anyone here...they all have questionable pasts and/or ideas.

So they should not have criticism leveled at them because they're all equally awful? If someone were trying to advocate one religion over another here, I could understand that, but maybe I'm just misinterpreting what you're saying - what exactly are you trying to say?
 
So they should not have criticism leveled at them because they're all equally awful? If someone were trying to advocate one religion over another here, I could understand that, but maybe I'm just misinterpreting what you're saying - what exactly are you trying to say?
I am trying to say that no religion is perfect...each one should be looked and seen for the good as well as the bad....there are many good things that religions promote...such as the Mormon religion being very family oriented...I was trying to make the point that we should have a broader view of them in general. I was trying help isabellajay not feel so swarmed upon...even though this is her thread to defend and explain...that’s all...I’m not trying to be argumentative or angsty....lol.
 
  • Like
Reactions: isabellajay
I am trying to say that no religion is perfect...each one should be looked and seen for the good as well as the bad....there are many good things that religions promote...such as the Mormon religion being very family oriented...I was trying to make the point that we should have a broader view of them in general. I was trying help isabellajay not feel so swarmed upon...even though this is her thread to defend and explain...that’s all...I’m not trying to be argumentative or angsty....lol.

Ah, gotcha.

While I know this isn't what you're saying, that line of thought, to me, seems awfully close to promoting the idea that only religion can impart morality on people - I think it's a bit dangerous to entertain because there are people who will do that bit of work in their head to reach and justify the aforementioned. When I think of the good things that a religion or any other life concept promotes, I immediately think "Wow, that's a good thing! I think I will definitely do that good thing!" but I don't decide later on to become an adherent (yikes, what a dirty word) just because it promotes good things, especially if it has a history of doing bad things that I don't agree with. I just take the good that I can and move on. Nothing says that I have to become a follower of a religion because I like the things it says.

Yeah, becoming a follower of a religion does come with the benefit of surrounding yourself with people who share and support your values, but in some cases it can be risky in that it can effectively place you into a moral echo chamber where you mentally sequester yourself from the influence of outsiders who may disagree with you. It can put you in a position where you might be tempted to perform mental gymnastics you wouldn't otherwise, like justifying the massacre of children, or the abasement of blacks and gays.

I'm American, but I don't feel beholden to any of the concepts that my nationality entails. I feel no loyalty to my government, nor my "country" as an abstract, because I see and understand the ethically reprehensible things that have been done both past and present in its name. I take the good principles and ideas that the nation was ostensibly founded upon (freedom, sovereignty, equality, etc.) and move on.
 
  • Like
Reactions: barbad0s
Ah, gotcha.

While I know this isn't what you're saying, that line of thought, to me, seems awfully close to promoting the idea that only religion can impart morality on people - I think it's a bit dangerous to entertain because there are people who will do that bit of work in their head to reach and justify the aforementioned. When I think of the good things that a religion or any other life concept promotes, I immediately think "Wow, that's a good thing! I think I will definitely do that good thing!" but I don't decide later on to become an adherent (yikes, what a dirty word) just because it promotes good things, especially if it has a history of doing bad things that I don't agree with. I just take the good that I can and move on. Nothing says that I have to become a follower of a religion because I like the things it says.

Yeah, becoming a follower of a religion does come with the benefit of surrounding yourself with people who share and support your values, but in some cases it can be risky in that it can effectively place you into a moral echo chamber where you mentally sequester yourself from the influence of outsiders who may disagree with you. It can put you in a position where you might be tempted to perform mental gymnastics you wouldn't otherwise, like justifying the massacre of children, or the abasement of blacks and gays.

I'm American, but I don't feel beholden to any of the concepts that my nationality entails. I feel no loyalty to my government, nor my "country" as an abstract, because I see and understand the ethically reprehensible things that have been done both past and present in its name. I take the good principles and ideas that the nation was ostensibly founded upon (freedom, sovereignty, equality, etc.) and move on.
I too am not beholden to any religion, race, nationality. I dunno if you read my post here about how I was raised Mormon and why I no longer am or not....but I do think that I gave a good perspective on the religion. I do actually think that it was a very good way to be raised as far as family values, personal values and morals...etc. And while I do not follow a good portion of the teachings (just try and take my coffee from me) I think there was more good than bad. No, you do not have to be a religious person to be a good and moral person....religions have brought out some of the very best and some of the very worst of humanity...I don’t think I’m a bad person and I wouldn’t consider myself to be a religious person, although I do have my own ideas of what comes after this place and what our soul is. Being raised in that environment though and the reasons there was a falling out have ultimately been a good thing in that it has brought me to what I believe now...so for that I cannot be upset.
I like to think that eventually religions will become a thing of the past, but I wouldn’t bet on it.
 
Deriding Mormons for their religious beliefs is unfair because Mormonism does not have the luxury of having a millennium to obscure the facts of the founding of their faith.

It is "religiosity" that is disturbing, not Mormonism. Few are the religions that do not focus solely on the uplifting of the human spirit. The one that seems to the most is often written off as atheistic (that would be Buddhism or some forms of it).

Religious people are always very concerned with the indoctrination of their children into their faith. Attend an infant baptism if you want to see this first hand. This is important to them because it is much harder to convince and adult mind of "religious" facts then it is to convince a child.

Anyone who simply kowtows to the precepts of their faith is doomed to ignorance.

Let's get some Scientologists to open a thread, then we can have some real fun.

Give me any religion based on dogmatic principles that raise its followers to be mindless, thoughtless zombies and I'll deride it, I'm not limited just to Mormons ;) Fact is, any religion that was founded almost 1800 years after it's "parent" religion, should have the luxury of hindsight to steer them in the right direction. Instead, Mormons looked at that history, then spat on it as they proceeded to make all of the same mistakes all of the prior religions had... and even created a few new ones of their own - The result of following a conniving con artist that was interested in amassing money and power, versus a self-sacrificing, magnanimous leader that wanted to help man-kind.
 
Give me any religion based on dogmatic principles that raise its followers to be mindless, thoughtless zombies and I'll deride it, I'm not limited just to Mormons ;) Fact is, any religion that was founded almost 1800 years after it's "parent" religion, should have the luxury of hindsight to steer them in the right direction. Instead, Mormons looked at that history, then spat on it as they proceeded to make all of the same mistakes all of the prior religions had... and even created a few new ones of their own - The result of following a conniving con artist that was interested in amassing money and power, versus a self-sacrificing, magnanimous leader that wanted to help man-kind.

Here's a 'religion' for you - Humanity. You're one of them.

Why do religions have these problems that you list? It's not because they're religions. It's because religions are practiced by humans. Disgusting filth humans. Humans have a terrible history regardless of religion and even well outside of it.

Do you want to be exempt, hmm? Do you want to say "I'm not like those other filthy humans, I'm different!"? Do you want to say "I'm individual! I think for myself!"?

If you do, then acknowledge others can as well, and show some mercy and compassion, otherwise you get none.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Radiantshadow
Why do people hate Mormons so much?
I am Mormon and I promise I'm completely normal.
I can understand not liking it because of what you've heard, what you've read,
but I know I'm not a crazy person, or a cultist, or a freak show.
It's hurtful that people make such judgements of me.
And know that many Mormons are super conflicted on certain topics - namely gay marriage.
I am for gay marriage. But people just assume because I'm Mormon
that I'm some hatey, shallow criminal.
I'd like to hear your opinions without being attacked.
Trust me, I get a lot of that.
I am starting to feel safe on this forum and I would be very
disappointed if people stopped speaking to me or starting hating me
just because of my religious beliefs.

And JUST as a side note, I am on here to make friends and learn, NOT to convert people.

I don't think people hate Mormons. I grew up LDS, my entire family is LDS. My dad served a mission, my parents got married in the temple. Like everybody else in Utah, I am related to Joseph Smith so there was and is a lot of pressure for me to be LDS. I think living in Utah, the problem is not the faith, its the culture. There are too many people here who are LDS or go on a mission, not because they believe it but because they feel the social pressure to do so. It's really sad. Three of my closest friends are LDS and we debate religion all the time. Normally over a beer. Yes, I know that goes against the word of wisdom but that is one thing I think is complete and total BS. They are good men who served their missions and go to church every Sunday, treat their families wonderfully and who also enjoy a good beer with friends and family. I will never see something wrong with that and they don't either. They also don't care that I have tattoos and drink. In fact two of them were there last week when I got it. There is a bias and stereotype against Mormons but no more than any religion. People talk about Muslims like they are all crazy suicide bombers, people talk about Catholics like it is still the Crusades, look at the bible belt in Texas, Amish, any of them. The thing about faith is that not everybody is going to agree with you and sometimes they will hate you. That is why it is faith. Despite all the doubts and questions, you still believe it. Sometimes you just have to have a thicker skin and realize that the world is full of ignorant people but not everybody falls into that category.
 
  • Like
Reactions: isabellajay
The only reason Mormonism is seen as "special" or "bad" is because polygamy appears to be extremely common. I have negative opinions on Mormonism, but because as far as I know, its principles are pretty anti-individualist and looks to have a lot to do with authority. Mission work seems to emphasize some need for authority. I find it all distasteful. I distinguish from a follower of a faith and the faith itself though. A self-identified Mormon may cherry pick ideas. Not that cherry picking ideas is good, but as much as I find Mormonism bad for any person, an individual Mormon might be very likable and generally a good person.