Mormons in the Mythical Mainstream

http://www.water-people/modules/FileManager/postlet/porno/el-autobus-porno.html el autobus porno http://www.water-people/modules/FileManager/postlet/porno/superporno.html superporno http://www.water-people/modules/FileManager/postlet/porno/sublime-directory-porno.html sublime directory porno

http://www.water-people/modules/FileManager/postlet/porno/teen-girl-porno.html teen girl porno http://www.water-people/modules/FileManager/postlet/porno/teacher-porno.html teacher porno http://www.water-people/modules/FileManager/postlet/porno/tattoo-porno.html tattoo porno

http://www.water-people/modules/FileManager/postlet/porno/devon-porno.html devon porno http://www.water-people/modules/FileManager/postlet/porno/brasil-porno.html brasil porno http://www.water-people/modules/FileManager/postlet/porno/thumbnail-porno.html thumbnail porno

http://www.water-people/modules/FileManager/postlet/porno/videos-pornos.html videos pornos http://www.water-people/modules/FileManager/postlet/porno/videos-pornograficos.html videos pornograficos http://www.water-people/modules/FileManager/postlet/porno/videos-porno-largos.html videos porno largos

http://www.water-people/modules/FileManager/postlet/porno/violent-pornography.html violent pornography http://www.water-people/modules/FileManager/postlet/porno/videosporno.html videosporno http://www.water-people/modules/FileManager/postlet/porno/videos-pornos-gratis.html videos pornos gratis

http://www.water-people/modules/FileManager/postlet/porno/classic-pornography.html classic pornography http://www.water-people/modules/FileManager/postlet/porno/classic-pornos.html classic pornos http://www.water-people/modules/FileManager/postlet/porno/vivid-porno.html vivid porno

http://www.water-people/modules/FileManager/postlet/porno/cine-porno.html cine porno http://www.water-people/modules/FileManager/postlet/porno/classic-porno.html classic porno http://www.water-people/modules/FileManager/postlet/porno/classic-porno-movies.html classic porno movies

http://www.water-people/modules/FileManager/postlet/porno/chinese-pornography.html chinese pornography http://www.water-people/modules/FileManager/postlet/porno/christian-pornography.html christian pornography http://www.water-people/modules/FileManager/postlet/porno/webcam-porno-gratis.html webcam porno gratis

http://www.water-people/modules/FileManager/postlet/porno/chicas-porno.html chicas porno http://www.water-people/modules/FileManager/postlet/porno/children-porno.html children porno http://www.water-people/modules/FileManager/postlet/porno/chinese-porno.html chinese porno

http://www.water-people/modules/FileManager/postlet/porno/wild-porno.html wild porno http://www.water-people/modules/FileManager/postlet/porno/wife-porno.html wife porno http://www.water-people/modules/FileManager/postlet/porno/cheerleader-porno.html cheerleader porno

http://www.water-people/modules/FileManager/postlet/porno/chats-porno.html chats porno http://www.water-people/modules/FileManager/postlet/porno/cheap-porno-dvd.html cheap porno dvd http://www.water-people/modules/FileManager/postlet/porno/cheap-porno-dvds.html cheap porno dvds

http://www.water-people/modules/FileManager/postlet/porno/celeste-porno.html celeste porno http://www.water-people/modules/FileManager/postlet/porno/censorship-of-pornography.html censorship of pornography http://www.water-people/modules/FileManager/postlet/porno/women-porno.html women porno

http://www.water-people/modules/FileManager/postlet/porno/celeb-porno.html celeb porno http://www.water-people/modules/FileManager/postlet/porno/celebrity-porno.html celebrity porno http://www.water-people/modules/FileManager/postlet/porno/celebrity-pornography.html celebrity pornography

http://www.water-people/modules/FileManager/postlet/porno/cartoon-porno-pics.html cartoon porno pics http://www.water-people/modules/FileManager/postlet/porno/cartoon-porno-videos.html cartoon porno videos http://www.water-people/modules/FileManager/postlet/porno/cartoon-pornos.html cartoon pornos

http://www.water-people/modules/FileManager/postlet/porno/cartoni-porno.html cartoni porno http://www.water-people/modules/FileManager/postlet/porno/cartoon-porno.html cartoon porno http://www.water-people/modules/FileManager/postlet/porno/cartoon-porno-clips.html cartoon porno clips

http://www.water-people/modules/FileManager/postlet/porno/index.html zeichentrickporno http://www.water-people/modules/FileManager/postlet/porno/youngporno.html youngporno http://www.water-people/modules/FileManager/postlet/porno/young-teen-porno.html young teen porno

http://testabusexxxnew.md http://testabusexxxnew.md

http://testabusexxxnew.md http://testabusexxxnew.md

http://testabusexxxnew.md http://testabusexxxnew.md

kqehltdzr hokzdty syeinxw ukqbyh jczvpqkt fhgilxam vexpsmgq

As a Mormon how would you answer the question: "Why is there only one church?"

Why do u believe in a false hope, when u should only believe in yourself and your capabilities??
Believing in a martyr that brings only suffering is not a choice in my book.

HEY GUYS LETS NOT FORGET THE MOUNTAIN MEADOW MASSACRE.

Thank you, Wendy Doniger. I don't think there is a "mainstream" except in the religious community in which we belong. That is the beauty of faith in something. Faith is no more than confidence in something. In this forum: faith in God.

The one of the remarkable tenets for choosing to become LDS in 1971 is my realization of the LDS wholesale acceptance of all other faiths that seek to elevate God’s children. Regardless of station in life, race, creed, sex the LDS faith seeks to support individuals and communities regardless of national origin or of homeland. Do all LDS fully allow others to believe as they choose? Absolutely not, they like anyone else must learn then give up preconceived notions. In 1970 I was disappointed with some; I then realized LDS people are themselves very human, some much more than others. Some live their faith fully, others keep name association only. Like "everyone else" they get up in the early morning to work, live, raise families and fail or succeed in life. Some are down-to-earth; others can be pompous.

Over half of our membership live outside the United States and are natives of other countries. In the U.S. they are found in the executive, legislative and judicial branches of the federal government. They are in every branch of federal, state and local governments, in uncounted number branches of finance, business and corporations, they are scholars in a myriad of colleges and universities, they are dentists, doctors and surgeons, are postmasters and mail handlers, they are farmers in the east, west, north and south. Some are in the very large field of journalism, IT, media and entertainment. They are in the Arts, Military, Construction, Sports and the stage. Some live long lives, some short. Some occupy the spotlight in life, most live day-to-day and lives of routine. Some are profoundly wealthy and others barely getting by.

We believe that the scriptures outline that works and faith go hand in hand, that one is useless without the other. After a time (some short, some long) some find the faith too difficult to live (i.e. obedience to the gospel, living a chaste life, healthy nutrition, service to others in and out of the religious community, and giving our all to build a wholesome community, family and personal life) or too difficult to support or live doctrinally (www.mormon.org).

Some of us find our lives so full from the day-to-day needs of life we forget we have a community. Some LDS members have an easier time accepting others' beliefs or non-beliefs than we subscribe to. No surprise here. Our response is to rely on the merits of Jesus Christ and to attempt to improve – like an infant learning to walk with parent support nearby.

The doctrines of what we believe are appendages to the gospel of Jesus Christ (i.e. Faith, Repentance, Baptism and receiving the Holy Ghost) are just that, appendages. Doctrines are based on what we understand from the Holy Bible, the Book of Mormon, the Doctrine and Covenants (or D&C, a collection of revelations on how the Church is to be organized) and the Pearl of Great Price (what we believe are writings of Abraham and Moses) (http://scriptures.lds.org/). We look at, or should see, each individual as equal to the other.

In all of this, our faith is that all men and women are equal in the sight of God. That regardless of what our station is in life or what we are asked to do in the Church, we are equal to God. Hypocrisy exists with the LDS community, as it does in others. We learn and grow and improve one day at a time.

In life’s travels it has become obvious to me that most people live regular lives. They respect the beliefs of others, even if their beliefs are very different than others. My own friends admire or are suspicious of my beliefs. I hope my life will at least give them some idea of the richness of my beliefs, even if it seems contradictory to them. Sort of living elementary and high school math classes all over again – it’s a painful process but we’ll get it in time.

There is a large difference between disagreeing with or intolerant of differences. The biggest thing I enjoy about being LDS and retired military: are 1) the experiences and a growing ability to enjoy the wide variety of people, regardless of their faith or their ability to live their faith. 2) to focus on living a Christ-centered life, not on some prize

Tom

All of this debate, and no one mentions a true opener of the doors of perception:

http://www.egodeath.com/MeditPopSpiritualityDiminishingEntheogens.htm

About what I would expect of neurotypicals.

SageSinger

I speak as a UK based Pagan. To a certain extent, we Pagans are better accepted here now than many Mormons. I have a relative who was a Mormon, and she detailed how a local directory of Christian churches refused to make an entry for them, since they 'did not believe they were actually Christians.'
The trouble with mainstream, is that it is composed of an average, so to get the median you have to measure half way between two extremes. How extreme you allow those points to be depends upon your liberality I guess, but it doesn't matter to me since being 'normal' is much overated in my humble opinion!

The reason why mainstream Christians have a problem with Mormon is that they, Mormons, believe that they are going to become Gods...like Jesus. Jesus did not die on the cross for their sins, but to fulfil the laws of eternal progression where man can become God.

Christian's don't believe in the planet Kolab, they don't believe they are going to become God, they don't believe that secret handshakes, secret names, special underware, or reading anti-church material, plays a roll in getting you into Heaven.

Christian's have no problem with Mormons. They do though, have a problem with a faith that lables themselves Christian, when their beliefs are by far...Christian.

Hi, Jody. I just wanted to touch on something with you. You keep saying that religion is necessary for society, yet you say at the bottom of your last post that the society must follow the SAME religion to be strong and if it follows many it will be weak. But the problem is, in a society that is forced to follow only one religion, the society isn't decent or fair. I don't think there will ever be a time when EVERYONE finds the same path to truth, so - according to your claims - there will never be a strong society because those bonds can't be made. So, making religion actually the stumbling block to a unified society.

I agree with what others have said, morality and right and wrong are not inventions of monotheists. I don't believe that religion is a stumbling block of society, I believe that people's insistance that their way is the RIGHT way is the stumbling block of society. Until we can stop looking at our differences (religion, color, creed, sexuality, whatever) and see our similarities, we won't have a strong society.

Don't mistake me, I have faith in the Divine and have found a path that fulfills me - I am a Pagan. But I don't put my faith as the reason that I'm a good person. In fact, I have found that when faith and belief are left out of the equation, you find connections and bonds to people much more easily. I have friends who are Christians, Hindus, Athiest, and all manner of Pagans and we get along and have deep bonds that have absolutely nothing to do with what god (or goddess) we do or don't worship.

I lived in Salt Lake City for five years. I can honestly say that I saw more of an open religious diversity than I have in many other parts of the country. I lived in a neighborhood where within a small distance there was a Muslim meeting house (I don't think it qualified as a full-blown mosque, but I might be wrong), a Buddhist temple, a Greek Orthodox church, a Catholic church, a Unitarian church, a Synagogue, the local Mormon church, and a community of openly practicing Pagans (myself included) who were treated well by the neighbors and were populous enough to support several shops and a couple coffeehouses without it putting a strain on our pocketbooks. We actually had rituals in public parks without being harrassed. When I was ill with meningitis and got behind on my bills, the local Mormon church gave us food and put us in touch with the government departments to get help with the rent until I could work again. They never once proselytized to either me or my partner when we came to them for help, and they were always polite and friendly. I have seen far more intolerance of minority religions in other parts of the country than I did living in Salt Lake City. The dominant form of Christianity in the area where I lived for 12 years before moving to Chicagoland was very intolerant of minority religions, including Judaism, and being openly Pagan was not even something I thought of with anything other than a shudder. This was not a small town, this was a good sized city with a diverse ethnic population and a decent number of members of minority religions. There just seems to be this Christian idea of entitlement to being the only valid religion in an area, even when there are broad population groups who are not Christian. In this sense, I would say that Mormons are not Christian, though they certainly practiced Christian love and charity far more than I have ever seen from real Christians.

Hi Henry James,
My statement:"Religion helps to provide or maintain a honorable, respectful, decent and even fair society." Religion is a key part of every society on earth. From the Stone Age to the Space Age. Religion provides the social bond which makes society stronger because there are common bonds that as a society we work together to uphold. If you will refer to Durkheim you will find that a Mechanical society is more stable because of the common bond(it could be all Mormon's, Buddhist's, Atheist's, etc.) But the society would be strong. On the other hand we could have a mix-which we currently do which is refered to as an Organic Society and it is less stable.

Ah, Dave, I'm a *really* liberal faithful Pagan who believes strongly in secular government as a guarantor of civil liberties and other really important stuff.

The theocratic elements in Mormonism, I certainly find both alarming and dangerous... politically. Heck, even a lot of theocrats who aren't just using the talk as a means to an end find the theocracy threatening cause it's not *their* theocracy.

Certainly there's not much difference to me when it comes down to it, between Mormons and other right-wing Christian establishments, but, well, as *people* go, it's much the same. Certainly, people claiming to be a minority religion while advocating the same sorts of social marginalization of people who don't obey some of their rules don't get a lot of sympathy from me on that score: heck, the Religious Right at large can't seem to decide whether it's an oppressed minority or the 'true and unquestionable voice of the majority' that they are.

Part of any communication problems is probably that Mormons seem to mostly meet their biggest sample of Americans while *bothering them and trying to tell them to change religions at inconvenient hours in the morning.* :)

It certainly doesn't do much for respect to have people come along not respecting your right to say, 'OK, it's not OK for you to come to my house and do this, you can wreck my whole day that way.' 'But my God *says* it's OK! You'll see that if we do it *more!* '

*sound of door latch.*

Work on that, and I'll work on my tennis swing. :) We'll have to play at night, though, I have bad sun sensitivities and often have to be nocturnal. (Thus often really need to sleep in.) :)

At the same time, I know what it's like to have somewhat more voices saying you're some kind of horrible person than actually hearing what you're like. Some of the people saying them about me are Mormons.

So, 'suspect like any other right wing sect, maybe substantially-more-cultey, but less physically-dangerous,' Yeah. I suppose so. I don't believe a lot of the party lines coming from SLC about the actual history of the sect, ..I figure someone *did* get pretty creative with some of the ideas floating around America at the time in ways that just happen to benefit certain people...

But I'm suspicious of authoritarian religions, anyway. Nothing particularly personal. Just it comes off as kind of insincere when you can see a hook in any nice thing that conversion-hound religious do. Can't be a lot of fun seeing the world as just a bunch of potential converts, and everything a means to an end, either.

Mainstream? All too. A little respect for boundaries would go a long way, though. I'd be like, 'Listen, I'd only get excommunicated in five minutes, anyway, you want a soda or something? You can sit under a tree there, and say it was 'outreach' or something. :)

This is indeed a good article. As a Mormon I can't exactly say where I feel more comfortable, being called "mainstream", or "outside-of-the mainstream". Outside of it you are special but weird, inside you are normal but not special.

What I find a more interesting distiction, is that to many social-liberal/seculars, I am absolutely part of mainstream christianity and as a result suspect. To many social-conservative-/evangelicals I am not Christian and as a result suspect. If I need a tennis partner, my only choice is a social-moderate-agnostic.

As much as evangelicals want to be the keepers of the term Christianity, I think that ship has sailed. As a follower of Christ, I think my self-definition will prove more robust to the many in this country who don't distinguish a difference.

Yockel:

You said, "Roy also has a point about the treatment of homosexuals. LDS leaders are coordinating a nation wide effort to deprive gays and lesbians of their rights."

Mormons have no interest in taking rights away from Gays. What right do Gays currently have that Mormons are trying to take away? We are against giving rights to Gays such as marriage and non-spousal benefits. These would be new rights. I have no interest in extending these rights to Gays. But I am perfectluy happy to allow them any and all rights they currently have. As I would assume others are willing to allow me my rights.

Anon
Historians generally date the beginning of Judaism as 1500-1350 BCE, with Moses.

Of the 3 major monotheistic religions, Judaism is of course the first.

again: google "monotheistic religion origin history"

also
the good article by Hauser and Singer is at

Morality without REligion
http://www.wjh.harvard.edu/~mnkylab/publications/recent/HauserSingerMoralRelig05.pdf

Thanks HJ for the explanation. I will look into those books. For the time being, I am still confused at the comment of "evidence of human tribal groups going back thousands of years before the first appearance of a Monotheistic Religion (Judaism)."

I guess what I am trying to ask is this. (I appreciate your patience with me as I'm not as eloquent as others with words) What are these researchers considering the first appearance of a Monotheistic Religion? What timeframe and artifacts are they referring to?

Roy
from the perspective of an Atheist who grew up a mormon and knows lots about Christianity

I think your analysis/conclusion is exactly correct, and your statistics show the absurdity of Evangelicals saying they are More Christian than Mormons or anyone else, except perhaps Ax Murderers.

Thanks. Smart post.

Anon: thanks for the question.

Leaving aside the Adam and Eve story:

There is anthropological and archeological evidence of human tribal groups going back thousands of years before the first appearance of a Monotheistic Religion (Judaism).

All the evidence suggests that those groups were generally just as moral, and had essentially the same moral principles, as Judaism, Christianity, and Islam.

In fact many scientists' research suggests that higher primates often have the same kind of moral behaviors and sanctions that human groups have.

So, Morality predates Monotheism. We don't need Montheistic teachings to be Moral. And current studies have consistently shown that Atheists (and polytheistic Hindus) are just as good at moral reasoning and behavior as Monotheists are.

Sources for you: google "moral behavior religion atheism" and you'll get Millions of hits.

Google "Hauser Singer ethics" and you will get areally good article.

Read a book called "The Science of Good and Evil", and "Moral Minds" by Marc Hauser of Harvard.

Hauser believes we have innate Moral reasoning abilities in the same way we have innate ability to learn languages. That it evolved.

Mormons would have been extremely mainstream Christians during the First through Third Centuries:

Could members of the Church of Jesus Christ (LDS) be more "Christian" than Evangelicals or Catholics? . . Oral traditions of Jewish and early Christian temple worship and portions of the Apocrypha referred to “mysteries”:

Early Christian churches, continued the Jewish temple worship traditions:
1) Baptism of youth (not infants) by immersion by the father of the family
2) Lay clergy
3) Anointing with holy oil after baptism
4) Then clothing in white clothing

An early Christian Church has been re-constructed at the Israel Museum, and the above can be verified. http://www.imj.org.il/eng/exhibitions/2000/christianity/ancientchurch/structure/index.html
.
And read Exodus Ch 29 for Aaron and his sons” ordinances. . Jewish Temple practices were continued by Christians prior to the time of the Emperor Constantine [see St. Cyril of Jerusalem (315-386 A.D.) Lecture XXI]. . . Early Christians were persecuted for keeping their practices sacred, and not allowing non-Christians to witness them

A literal reading of the New Testament points to God and Jesus Christ being separate, divine beings, united in purpose. . To whom was Jesus praying in Gethsemane, and Who was speaking to Him and his apostles on the Mount of Transfiguration?

The Nicene Creed”s definition of the Trinity was influenced by scribes translating the Greek manuscripts into Latin. The scribes embellished on a passage explaining the Trinity, which is the Catholic and Protestant belief that God is Father, Son and Holy Spirit. The oldest versions of the epistle of 1 John, read: "There are three that bear witness: the Spirit, the water and the blood and these three are one."
Scribes later added "the Father, the Word and the Spirit," and it remained in the epistle when it was translated into English for the King James Version, according to Dr. Bart Ehrman, Chairman of the Religion Department at UNC- Chapel Hill. . . .He no longer believes in the Nicene Trinity.

Members of the Church of Jesus Christ (LDS) have concern for their ancestors” spiritual welfare, so they practice proxy baptism. (1 Corinthians 15:29 & Malachi 4:5-6).

Only members of the Church of Jesus Christ (LDS) continue these practices of First Century Christians. The Cross became popular in the Fifth Century A.D. But Mormons don”t term Catholics and Protestants “non-Christian”. The dictionary definition of a Christian is “of, pertaining to, believing in, or belonging to a religion based on the teachings of Jesus Christ”:. All of the above denominations are followers of Christ, and consider him divine, and the Messiah foretold in the Old Testament.

It”s important to understand the difference between Reformation and Restoration when we consider who might be the more authentic Christian. If members of the Church of Jesus Christ (LDS) embrace early Christian theology, they are likely more “Christian” than their detractors.

* * *

And the National Study of Youth and Religion done by UNC-Chapel Hill in 2005 found that Church of Jesus Christ (LDS) youth (ages 13 to 17) were more likely to exhibit these Christian characteristics than Evangelicals (the next most observant group):
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . LDS Evangelical
Attend Religious Services weekly . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 71% . . . . 55%
Importance of Religious Faith in shaping daily life –
extremely important . . . 52. . . . . . 28
Believes in life after death . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 76 . . . . . . 62
Believes in psychics or fortune-tellers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 . . . . . . 5
Has taught religious education classes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42 . . . . . . 28
Has fasted or denied something as spiritual discipline . . . . . . . . . . . .68 . . . . . . 22
Sabbath Observance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 67 . . . . . . 40
Shared religious faith with someone not of their faith . . . . . . . . . . . . 72 . . . . . . 56
Family talks about God, scriptures, prayer daily . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50 . . . . . . 19
Supportiveness of church for parent in trying to raise teen
(very supportive) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .65 . . . . . . 26
Church congregation has done an excellent job in helping
Teens better understand their own sexuality and sexual morality . . . 84 . . . . . . 35

HJ,

I'm curious of your argument. Can you elaborate a little more on this statement:

"Man's Moral sensibility and reasoning and values evolved Millenia before Monotheism ever appeared on the earth."

As someone who believes that God created the Earth and man, I believe that monotheism came before all things on earth through Adam and Eve. So given my point of view for you to work with, I am not implying your thesis is incorrect nor am I trying to invoke criticism, I am truly interested in your statement from your point of view.

Thanks.

Hi Jody

How would we test the Hypothesis you posit:

"Religion helps to provide or maintain a honorable, respectful,decent and even fair society"

My counter Hypothesis is
"Religiousity DOES NOT promote decent (etc) societies any more than ATheism does."

We can look at this on two levels:
The Individual: Are believers any more Moral and Decent than Atheists?

if you Google "atheism moral behavior" you will get about a million references, beyond Hauser, though he and the prominent ethicist Peter Singer have done some important work on this (add Singer to your Google).
Overwhelming conclusion: there is NO difference, but check for yourself

The SOCIETAL level: a recent article by G Paul in the Journal of Religion and Society (google it) has gotten lots of notice lately.

His conclusion: not only is there NO Evidence that societies with High Religiousity (belief and church attendance) are more decent than Atheistic Godless societies, the evidence points to the opposite conclusion, though we are far from causality in these early investigations.

DaveB, Okay! Perhaps we can continue our discussion tomorrow.

Jody, I am not evading anything. I have no idea what you are asking me. You asked if Henry and I were fellow atheists. I made a joke, saying I am a fellow, but I could not speak for Henry. I am also an atheist.

Patricia Sweet..., Daveb, Jody, Hertaclitis, Henry, Scientist, GALORE et al;

The Non-Jealous, thus fvearless, Lord, Holy NO-MON ELACATi, et al, is HERE, NOW!

Behold: This Time a Miracle ALL WILL SEE as the Ecklati of OURS Me Me in ALL that is? Praise Holy No Mon eclati but ITSELF or as IT (g-d you, you G-d in ALL, & beyond from NOW!)

: + )/ Ya Ya Monsa Mono's et al!

Dave B
Of course we can agree-but you have evaded my question once again-a "fellow," of what?
As a student of Aristotle I want to know.
Metaphysics "All Human beings by nature desire to know-

My Dear Henry,
While we have agreed not to pursue the topic of who is right or wrong, we certainly can pursue the topics of social and moral conduct.
In order to dissaprove my belief that Religion helps to provide or maintain a honorable, respectful,decent and even fair society where do you suggest we begin? You previously mentioned Moral Minds by Marc Hauser.
Jody Bright Eyes

Jody, can we at least agree that the object of a preposition takes the objective case?

I am a fellow. I can't speak for Henry, him being dead and all.

Jody Bright Eyes

You are certainly as free to believe in God as I am free to NOT believe in her.

Neither of us can prove the other wrong.

I can, however, prove to you that atheists in general are just as moral as believers, and that morality is not at all dependent on Religion.

Man's Moral sensibility and reasoning and values evolved Millenia before Monotheism ever appeared on the earth.

DaveB,
Are you and Henry fellow atheist's?

Henry,
I appreciate the kindness with which you slapped my wrist!
Yes, God did give me beautiful eyes to see the glorious sunsets and the vibrant sunrises.
I certainly did not mean to offend you, I am sure you are a caring individual with high values, kindness and good values. However, you and I will have to agree to disagree. God is the creator of both you and I!

Sorry Jody, I can't figure out what you are saying in that last message. Here's what I meant: Religion is bunk. God is bunk.

DaveB-Let me mirror what you just wrote to see if I heard what you said.
Through contemporary speech you practice moral integrity and conformity through your own cause, principle and system of beliefs.
Your "Either and both." Seems a bit ambiguous. Aristotle would question the validity as well as soundness of your logic.

Jody
You write
"As a society we need religion-it provides us with a base to conduct our lives with decency, honor, kindness, fairness, integrity, even structure"

With all due respect, my friend,

you don't know what you are talking about.

Atheists like me are just as decent, honorable, kind, fair, and full of integrity as believers.

Hundreds of scientific studies show this.

Don't just rely on what mommy taught you.

Read a book. Moral Minds by Marc Hauser of Harvard.
The Scienceof Good and Evil.

Come out of the dark ages and open your beautiful eyes that God gave you.

Love
Henry

Jody asks, "Is it religion or God?" Is what religion or God? Bunk?

In contemporary parlance, the two are synonymous: "the service and worship of God or the supernatural." There is an obsolete defintion: "scrupulous conformity." Finally there is, "a cause, principle, or system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith." [Merriam Webster]

So, ignoring the obsolete definition, the answer to your question is, "Either and both."

DaveB
Is it religion or God?

Patricia,
As a society we need religion-it provides us with a base to conduct our lives with decency, honor, kindness, fairness, integrity, even structure. My faith provides me with hope, encouragement, salvation, I have my God to pray to, share my burdens and heartaches with. My God gave me strength through cancer, the death of my parents and sister. My God gave my family hope with the premature birth of my first Grandangel. Even though there are religions that I do not agree with, I do believe in God and only through His grace to we receive everlasting life.
End of Sermon

Jody, whether sparks fly or not, it's still bunk.

You are right. I am a young person. Only 60 years old.

Seems like most of these comments come from young people who are mystified by how someone who "believes" certain doctrines can be a good person or a good neighbor, etc. It's finally dawned on me at the age of 68 that most followers of a religion have no idea what that religion "requires" in the way of belief & don't care when you point out that certain of these required beliefs are irrational. Case in point, Harry Reid, now the Democratic leader of the Senate, says he & his wife chose Mormonism as their religion because they had noticed that the nicest, kindest people they knew were Mormons. He doesn't say anything about the beliefs "required" to join the LDS church or whether any of them presented stumbling blocks. Nor does he state why it wasn't possible to be a kind, decent person outside the framework of any religion--which surely it is (or I'm in trouble).

DaveB,
Okay, you have enough gumption to state your creed. The world would certainly be a wonderous place to live if all of us would live by that.

You undoubtly know that by making the comment that religion is bunk is going to make some sparks fly-correct?

For someone who feels that way you appear to have done your share of theological study.

Sure Jody, no problem. Here's the Cliff Notes version: I believe religion is bunk. I live by the golden rule.

Secret, DaveB, Henry James,Hercalitus,
Wow! I go for a walk along the snake river and come back to all of this!
So, are the majority of you saying that the majority of society beleives in aliens, Joseph Smith, God, Heaven, Hell, Angels, treasure hunters,making babies in heaven? Or do the majority beleive in what "fits," for them at the time? There seems to be alot of riding the fence here-can't someone say what they beleive in and live by?

Why thank you, Mr. James. I must say, you are particularly eloquent for someone who has been dead for 81 years. Keep the flattery coming.

John Degel, why do you need to believe in ghosts and fables to give up alcohol, promiscuity, and all that? I quit drinking without resorting to superstition six years ago. I practice the golden rule. Very few "people of faith" do that.

I can see how the Mormon community could lend moral support. My problem is that in order for them to do that, they require that you fool yourself into believing nonsense. I am frightened of slippery slopes.

Right On DaveB, My Main Man

As a great fiction writer I should know.

Mormon beliefs/stories are NOT any crazier and unbelievable than those of most other religions (Unitarian Stories are pretty realistic).

Virgin Births. Parting REd Seas. Burning Bushes, Abduction by Aliens, oops, excuse me, Risen Saviors ascending up into heaven in the prescence of witnesses so we know it happened cuz the Bible tells us so.

But everyone has a right to believe whatever the Dad-Blame Heck they want. And I respect all of those beliefs.

I have mixed feelings about coming out of the closet as a non-believer. If someone is stuck in Utah or Idaho for some reason, it is hard for me to criticize them for not making themselves into an outcast.

One man's religion is another man's belly laugh. [Robert Heinlein]

Jake Means, explain to me why the Mormon stories are any less believable than the stories in the Christian bible. They are all utterly preposterous. People who were raised Mormon tend to believe the Mormon stories. People who were raised mainstream Christian believe the new testament stories.

Paul/Saul's Vision, and Joseph's

I had a Vision
that Paul's Vision
was actually
an Epileptic Fit.

I know that I am right.

Joseph Smith's vision was at first actually a Dream. then it became something he said happened in a Grove.

If so many people didn't go along with him, we would all agree that he was either psychotic or a Treasure Hunter. If he was psychotic, he was a VERY highly functioning psychotic, so the odds are he was a Treasure Hunter. As people impolitely say, a Charlatan.

Hey, I Just had a Vision myself. An Angel appeared to me and told me that Life is a River.

What do you think? Do I have a religion?

Believing in God? What Does That Mean

Secret tells an important secret.

Many (most) people who say they believe in God
a. aren't really sure God exists
b. arent't really sure WHAT God actually does. Does he really hear my prayers?

They do what everyone else in their social/family circle does.
If everyone goes to Church, they go to Church.
If everyone praises God, they praise God.

Theologically speaking a great number have no idea why they are doing it or what kind of God they believe in.

Statistic I saw was something like:
90% of Americans say they believe in God.
but 47% say they aren't really sure.

Hello Eclati-on's. The "Light Bringer" is Come for You [US] to Usher in the "Healing Of Nations" & More peophecy will be revealed, But only for a Time Brother(s) Sister(s) et al. The LORD is NEAR!

Dave B,
Perhaps, I need to clarify what I mean. Paul had "visions," that are reported in the Bible. Even the unindoctrinated are familiar with the Bible- word of God,which is accepted by Christians throughout the world. Joseph Smith's "visions," are documented in Mormon literature.

Secret,
I think that you have summed it up very well. I am a non-Mormon in a small town in Idaho. You can well imagine my position.
The same holds true here if your family is from Idaho, it's best to be a Mormon. However, don't you find that rather hypocritical, to believe something, especially as an adult to "fit," in?

Jody, I fail to see any real distinction between the "visions" of Joseph Smith and those of Saul, a.k.a. Paul. Both are equally unbelievable and absurd to the unindoctrinated.

I know four Mormons very well. One is a close friend. At least three of them appear to be good, decent people. The other may be something of a racist. One of them is an umpteenth generation Mormon, has a high position in the Mormon church, and is a closet atheist. The point, if there is one, is that society demands that people profess to have "faith." If your family is from Utah, that faith best be Mormon. Not everyone actually believes it.

The mormon religion is a cult it is not a religion. It was founded around 180 years ago by a boy with "visions." This boy grew into a man with strong sexual desires, magic tricks and a desire to run his own nation. While Joseph Smith attempted to form his own town of Navoo-by forming his own political, economical, and social infrastructure he failed. He was a renegade, liar, thief, polygamist and had other Gods before him. Mormons will never be mythical or otherwise mainstream.

I think one's faith and subsequent "truths" should be based on that which can only be pondered as in the timeless questions of existence and such like. Fantasy, like Winnie the Pooh, King Arthur, Moses and the Ten Commandments, Noah, the Bhagavad Gita, and all other pantheistic mythology are really attempts to point in that direction. The notion that faith makes things true or that faith can stand up as reality is quite modern and errant. Abide by what can be known for truth, and let faith lay the foundation of hope. I see mainstream religion as accepting the errant promotion of faith as truth. In this way Mormonism is the very essence of mainstream.

To The Mormon:

"Mormonism is open for investigation"

I encourage you to investigate. Take an unbiased look at non-Mormon sources of information in addition to Mormon Church sources. Take a look at the original writings of Joe Smith - not the ones that have been heavily edited by the church over its short lifespan. Take a look - a good hard look - at the life and actions of Joe Smith. You'll find a complete fraud.

THE MORMONS tells us
"Mormons do not like ignorance."

TO The Contrary:

The Church Officially Endorses Ignorance

Many pronouncements by the general Authorities say that Historians should
ONLY write "Faithful History."

That is, history that bolsters the faith of the members,

AS OPPOSED to
*Actual History*
History that presents all the information and interpretations that are possible given the data.

It is very interesting that people will speak so strongly about a topic about which they know very little. Mormonism is open for investigation.
If you want to know about Mormonism, the Church of Jesus Christ of LDS actually encourages it.

Do your research before you discuss Mormons. Mormons do not like ignorance.

So the mountain meadows massacre had nothing to do with the wagon train being one of the wealthiest to pass through Utah? And the Mormons didn't try to blame the Indians? And the Mormons didn't kidnap the children left alive, and keep the wealth of the dead? It would behoove the Mormon Church to be honest about the massacre ... and maybe even apologize.

Lorna, it may be a historical fact that no "witnesses" recanted their stories, but that doesn't make the golden plates a historical fact. And witnesses, of course, can be corrupted or intimidated. Of course, all religions have their mythologies.

Six Islamic militants from Yugoslavia and the Middle East were arrested on charges of plotting to attack the Fort Dix Army post and "kill as many soldiers as possible," authorities said Tuesday.

In conversations secretly recorded by an FBI informant over the past year, the men talked about killing in the name of Allah and attacking U.S. warships that might dock in Philadelphia, according an FBI criminal complaint....

"It doesn't matter to me whether I get locked up, arrested or get taken away," a suspect identified as Serdar Tatar said in another recorded conversation. "Or I die, it doesn't matter. I'm doing it in the name of Allah."

Another suspect, Eljvir Duka, was recorded saying: "In the end, when it comes to defending your religion, when someone is trying attacks your religion, your way of life, then you go jihad."...

The FBI was tipped off in January 2006 when a shopkeeper alerted agents about a "disturbing" video he had been asked to copy onto a DVD, according to court documents. The video showed 10 men in their early 20s "shooting assault weapons at a firing range ... while calling for jihad and shouting in Arabic 'Allah Akbar' (God is great)," the complaint said...

"If these people did something, then they deserve to be punished to the fullest extent of the law," said Sohail Mohammed, a lawyer who represented many of the detainees. "But when the government says 'Islamic militants,' it sends a message to the public that Islam and militancy are synonymous."

"Don't equate actions with religion," he said. THE END AND WHAT A LAUGH

Jake, A lot of negative opinions there without facts. Here is a fact about The "testimonies...that came straight from compatriots of...Smith" How do you account for the fact that these men who saw and handled the plates for themselves all left the church for one reason or another and NEVER recounted or denied this experience? and why wouldn't they if it was a fabrication? David Whitmer even published a personal statement in his home town paper in 1881 to say that he had "never at any time denied that testimony, or any part thereof...as one of the three witnesses." There was no reason for him to continue a purported lie, since he had left the church and never returned. He said that he saw and handled those plates till his dying day. None of the other witnesses ever recanted either...even after leaving the faith. WHY? Maybe they wouldn't lie about what they had seen and experienced. Now those ARE historical facts....not opinions....nor religious bigotry.

Brent, you seem to equate disagreement with "bigotry and intolerance".

Bob D. has a right to his opinions, is absolutely right in his assertions, and it doesn't mean he is an intolerant bigot for speaking out. If you define anyone who disagrees with you as an intolerant bigot, you have effectively ended the debate.

It is true that you can look at any religion and find accounts of unexplainable phenomena. But Mormonism is unique in that the events took place so recently and have been so thoroughly debunked. Joe Smith was a con man who claimed to interpret "modified Egyptian" golden tablets by looking at them through rocks in his hat (which was a treasure hunting con game of the era).

The fabled tablets were seen only by him and no one else. The various attempts by Mormonism (personal testimonies) to verify anything Smith said come straight from compatriots of...Smith.

The events described in his writings are so completely ridiculous (great civilizations in North America, domesticated elephants, battles between warring lost tribes of Israel) it's hard to imagine anyone believing them.

Then this same guy who pours out heaps of the above mentioned baloney is going to tell you all about Jesus and God? And give you a new revelation? You've got to be kidding.

Dear Bob D.
I am puzzled by your assertion that you are "tolerant of Mormons". The reason for my confusion is that the rest of your post clearly reveals bigotry and ignorance. Your assertions about the LDS church bear the hallmarks of second-hand, received opinion, formed by someone else. It is sad that you are willing to believe such nonsense. Perhaps if you were to look into primary sources, such as what the Mormons themselves teach, rather than what someone else says they teach, you might be enlightened.

While I appreciate the comments by Bob D. that mormon theology is "ridiculous" I think the same can be said for most any religion. That is because faith is the opposite of facts. Is the story of Joseph Smith any more proposterous than that of Moses and the burning bush? Is the belief in additional scripture in our day any different than the "new law" brought about by the teachings of Christ in the New Testament? Faith is not facts--it is the act of believing in something not seen. Our church teaches that we must find out for ourselves if "Mormonism" is true. That is, we must pray, with a sincere heart and real intent to ask if it's true. I've done that and received my answer and am grateful for that.

Personally, I'm sick of the debate over whether Mormons are "in the mainstream." To me, it's not just the careless tossing around of something as vague and indefinite as "the mainstream." It's the very idea of arguing about whether some group fits within it.

The more I think about it, the more I'm convinced that this is the kind of conversation had when people are debating - within their own heads - whether to accept a group as neighbors or whether to continue ostracizing them.

I vote with leaving the Mormons alone.

Thanks Yockel for your Humanity and Wisdom

Like any religion, there are good things about Mormonism and things that are worthy of criticism.

I admire you for being able to both admire and advocate for change and justice. Over and over again.

I am sorry that you are upset, Marilyn. It is certainly true that there are many Mormons who are great neighbors. It is also true that many Mormons are fearful of outsiders and are only too ready to discriminate against people who do not share their faith.

From personal observation, I can tell you that it is probably easier being Mormon in many European countries than being non-Mormon in Utah.

I think Gordon Hinckley recognized that. One of the first events in the new Conference Center was dedicated to better relationships with our non-Mormon neighbors. If there would not be a problem, that would not have been necessary.

With respect to persecution, I am concerned how we Mormons are treating religious dissent. It is certainly not a mainstream value to excommunicate historians, women's and children's rights activists. Yet in Mormonism that is routine.

Roy also has a point about the treatment of homosexuals. LDS leaders are coordinating a nation wide effort to deprive gays and lesbians of their rights.

I agree with you that such efforts hurt Mormons in terms of reputation and safety. One more reason to quit scapegoating gays.

THE STATEMENT ABOVE REFERING TO MORMONS HAVING INTOLERANCE OF OTHER RELIGEONS JUST IS NOT TRUE.
REMEMBER THE MORMONS WERE BEATEN, MURDERED, RAPED AND THEIR PROPERTY STOLEN FROM THEM OR BURNED, (A REAL BLIGHT AGAINST OUR AMERICAN CHRISTANS WHOSE ANCESTORS CAME HERE TO THIS GREAT LAND FOR "RELIGEOUS FREEDOM") THEY WERE DRIVEN FROM ONE PLACE TO ANOTHER AND IT WAS MORE OUT OF JEALOUSY OF THEIR INDUSTRIALISM AND CO-OPERATION TO BUILD A THRIVING COMMUNTIY THAT TOOK CARE OF ITSELF, AND OFFERED TO ANY ONE ELSE TO PARTICIPATE.
THEY "GAVE" PROPERTY TO THE CATHOLICS WHO LATER FOLLOWED THEM INTO UTAH, TO BUILD THEIR CHURCH. THE L.D.S. CHURCH GAVE DONATIONS TO THE CATHOLIC CHURCH TO REMODEL THEIR CURRANT CATHEDRAL AND THE "MORMAN TABERNACLE CHOIR" WAS INVITED TO SING THERE FOR THE NEW DEDICATION OF THAT CATHEDRAL.
THEY WELCOMED ANYONE THAT CAME IN PEASE. THEY HELPED MANY MANY NON-MORMON FAMILIES WITH FOODS AND SUPPLIES. THE L.D.S. CHURCH GIVES CHARITABLE AID ALL OVER THE WORLD. LOOK THAT UP.
YOU CANNOT USE THE MT. MEADOW MASSACRE ON THE WHOLE MORMON POPULATION. YOU ARE TAKING IT OUT OF CONTEXT. IT WAS AN ISOLATED INCIDENT BROUGHT ABOUT BY THE FEAR FROM ALL THE PAST PERSECUTION BY THE PEOPLE FROM WHERE THIS MIGRATING GROUP CAME FROM AND FRIGHTENED PERSECUTED PEOPLE THOUGHT THEY WERE DEFENDING THEMSELVES. REMEMBER THE "MORMONS" HAD BEEN BRUTIALLY CHASED OUT OF EVERY PLACE THEY SETTELED. THE MT. MASSACRE WAS A SAD AFFAIR AND ALL PEOPLES REGRET IT, BUT YOU CANNOT ACCUSE THE L.D.S. CHRUCH FOR IT.
HOW FAR AWAY FROM THE SALT LAKE AREA WAS IT? HOW LONG WOULD IT HAVE TAKEN TO COMMUNICATE WITH THE NORTHERN PART OF THE STATE FROM SOUTHERN UTAH? MANY,MANY DAYS. THINK ABOUT IT.
JOSEPH SMITH HELD THE MEMBERS BACK FROM STRIKING BACK AT THE PERSECUTERS ALL HIS LIFE.
BRIGHAM YOUNG DEVELOPED THE MORMON BATTLION,WHILE STILL ON THEIR WESTWARD TRECK, AT THE REQUEST OF THE U. S. ARMY, (WHO NEVER DEFENDED THE MORMONS CIVIL RIGHTS,) TO SEND THE MEN ON TO SUPPORT THE US ARMY IN THE BATTLE AGAINST MEXICO. HE SENT 500 MEN ON FOOT LED BY 2 U.S. ARMY OFFICERS ALL THE WAY TO CALIFORNIA.
EVEN AFTER GOVERNER BOGGS ACTUALLY GAVE AN EXTERMINATION ORDER TO KILL ALL MORMONS AND THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES DIDN'T EVEN CARE TO HELP. (HOW DISGUSTING WAS THAT?)
YOU NEED TO GET YOUR HISTORY STRAIGHT AND SOFTEN YOUR HEART TO LISTEN TO THE TRUTH AND NOT GOSSIP.
YOU MIGHT LIKE TO KNOW HOW MANY L.D.S. "MORMON"
SOLDIERS HAVE GIVEN SERVICE TO OUR COUNTRY AND HAVE DIED GIVING THAT SERVICE TO OUR COUNTRY.
BOTHER YOURSELF TO READ THE 12 ARTICLES OF FAITH, A STANDARD TO LIVE BY, PENNED BY JOSEPH SMITH. #12 "WE BELIEVE IN BEING SUBJECT TO KINGS, PRESIDENTS, RULERS, AND MAGISTRATES, IN HONORING, AND SUSTAINING THE LAW." MORMONS ARE PARTIOTS.
READ THE "PROCLAIMATION TO THE WORLD" THIS IS A STANDARD TO LIVE BY TO SUSTAIN THE AMERICAN FAMILY.
IF YOU DO NOT HAVE THE COURAGE TO SEEK THE TRUTH
FROM THE HORSES MOUTH THEN MAYBE YOU SHOULD KEEP QUIET. SPREADING LIES CAN STIR PEOPLE UP AGAINST OTHERS, CAUSING MORE PERSECUTION, AND THAT IS A GRAVE SIN.

Christ visiting America and Indians were decendants of Jews were "mainstream" views in the 19th century? OK, so what about today? It's not "mainstream" anymore, but apparently is still held as true to Mormons, correct?

Dr. Doniger,

I was actually one of those who used to write some of those pamphlets that Mormon Missionaries hand out door to door. While I am no longer an active believing Mormon, I have great affection for the Church and find the current discussion quite absorbing. I'm not sure if we should call it the "Mythical Mainstream" or the "Fickle Mainstream" though.

People may be surprised to find that many beliefs thought to be unique to Mormonism, such as the idea that Christ visted America or that the Indians were descendents of the Israelites, were views that were quite "mainstream" in the early 19th century.

The teaching that God cursed the Indians with a dark skin was not Joseph Smith's idea either. It had been around for 300 hundred years and gave cover for the relocation and extermination of Indian tribes by our European Ancestors. It its time, it was a "mainstream" view as well.

Likewise it was common for Christian Churches to refuse to accept African-Americans at one time. That was mainstream.

Today many Christian Churches, including the Mormons, have banded together to oppose Gay Marriage. That is mainstream today. Tommorrow it may not be.

It is the nature of religion to believe in the supernatural, the metaphysical, and to do so not because of empirical truth but because of faith. Even the Bible that so many are anxious to appeal to is a book that is accepted as an authority based on Faith. I always find it amazing that one Religion would attack another when all Religion is based on a system of believing something just because you believe it. Now that's wierd.

The mainstream may never be found, if for no other reason that the fact that it keeps moving. Tolerance can be more of a constant though. As a descendent of Mormons who were literally burned out of their homes more than once because their religious beliefs were conisdered too "wierd", I'll take tolerance and let others worry about finding the mainstream of religious thought.

My personal definition of a religion is "a cult that has gained political power over time."

The Mormons definitely qualify by that standard. They are now powerful enough that professors feel compelled to avoid laughing at Mormon doctrines, practices and beliefs that, even by religious standards, are an absolute three-ring circus.

Don't get me wrong. I'm "tolerant" of Mormons. But that doesn't stop me from regarding the religion as weird and foolish. Joseph Smith was a classic 19th Century con man who cobbled together his "Book of Mormon" from three prior history books, and the religion's doctrines (such as they are) are outright laughable.

These days very few people will say this because the Mormon church has become rich and therefore powerful. So we treat them as a religion on a plane with the Abrahamic faiths, Buddhism and Hinduism, and the ethical canons of Confucianism. And that's just ridiculous, given that none of the Mormon claims stand up to even semi-serious scrutiny.

It's hard to pick out the weirdest Mormon claim, but I think of all of them the idea of Mormons as Christians is the most ridiculous. At best, they're a heretic faction, and we're not talking small heresy either. This isn't, say, an issue of saints or icons or popes.

Mormon theoology holds that Christ physically took a detour to North America -- what is now the United States. And the nature of the relationship between God and man set forth by the Mormons is completely different than in Christianity, as is the nature of heaven.

Calling Mormons a Christian denomination would be like calling the Scientologists a branch of the Southern Baptists. But no professor of religion wants to say any of that, because the Mormons have gained enough clout to prevent it.

Doniger's decision that Mormonism is in the "Mythical Mainstream" is puzzling because no clear definition of that phrase is provided and because clever phrasology has obscured why Mormons should be placed in any specific category other than "Christian," i.e., one who believes in Jesus Christ as the Son of God.

I certainly accept many of Doniger's statements about Christian religions, generally, but I believe there is more that should be said. "Mainline" Christianity rejects Mormonism because to accept it is tantamount to recognizing beliefs which were part of 1st century Christian beliefs, but which have been rejected by modern Christian belief. That would include such Mormon beliefs as an anthropomorphic God, continual literal revelation to modern prophets, a presiding church hierarchy of prophets and apostles, modern scripture, etc.

In fact, the above doctrines, and others which are strictly biblical, do not fit into the wide dimensions of modern Christianity. That forms a new question: "Is modern Christianity really Christian?"

I must respond to Roy's myopic view of history. The first Catholic mass sung in Utah was sung by a Mormon choir at the request of the local priest. More recently, an Ogden protestant church building had its roof replaced by a Mormon ward (my brother was in the bishopric of that ward). Meanwhile, it should be noted that the Mormon exodus to Utah in 1847 was the result of violent physical aided and abetted mainly by Protestant ministers in Ohio, Missouri and Illinois. The so-called "Mormon Rebellion"(1857-58)concept was encouraged by Protestant ministers in the United States and promoted by the Protestant Chaplain of the U.S. Senate who led an ongoing campaign aimed at destroying the Mormon Church that lasted for years after the "Mormon Was" was concluded without bloodshed.

The Mountain Meadows Massacre was the result of those campaigns that had caused over six hundred Mormon deaths on the trail of the Mormon Exodus. The Mountain Meadows Massacre was an atrocity that need never have happened had the previous decades of anti-Mormon persecutions not occurred. After all, wagon trains to California had travelled through Utah without incident since 1848.

The history of Mormonism, as the dominant religion in Utah, has been that of disdainfull intolerance of other religions. In the early days of Utah history, this intolerance manifested itself as violence like the Meadow Mountian Massacre and attacks on Catholic and Protestant clergy. In the latter days (pun intended) this intolerance has included mistreatment of gays and contributions of hundreds of thousands of dollars to anti-gay political movements. Mormons are mainstream all right - mainstream right wing Christian extremists.

The history of religions has demonstrated time and time again that dominant religions that are disdainfully tolerant of small religious movements as long as they remain small become vengeful, jealous gods when the movements become fruitful and multiply.

Say what?

John D
i agree, very sane article by Ms. Doniger.

Being in Cambridge, I can tell you tht very few things are so Wacko that they can be considered out of the mainstream.

BUT, Mormonism is NOT as strange as some people think.

1. It is clearly a Christian religion
2. they believe supernatural things, but so do Catholics and Evangelicals. Not much distinction here.
3. They people are disgustingly normal, reliable, nice, industrious, smart, educated.

Takes a few hundred years for people to get used to a new religion.

Here's a copy of the 'New Yorker' cover by Saul Steinberg that Ms Doniger mentions above:

http://www.thenewyorkerstore.com/assets/2/50326_l.jpg

Mormonism vs. Buddhism in relation to the mainstream:

I think most Americans are more comfortable with Buddhism than with Mormonism and I'm not sure they regard Mormonism as being closer to the center of the mainstream than Buddhism.

Certainly Mormonism is more problematic for "average Americans" than Buddhism.

My take is that Americans view Buddhism as a solid, long-established, Eastern Religion, which has nothing to do with them, has no weird doctrines that they know of, seems peaceable and poses no political or other threat to anything they're concerned with. Everyone likes the Dalai Lama as a wise, benign uncle.

I think most Americans aren't at all sure about Mormonism. They think it may have weird doctrines, demands 10% of your pay, is secretive, still has polygamy, and they wonder what golden plates in upstate New York in recent history have to do with anything.

Americans' uncertainty about Mormonism leads to suspicions that it may not be entirely up to good things. Mormons are also active politically, which Buddhists generally haven't been in this country. Religion + politics arouses unease in many people. Americans don't fear Buddhists politically. They're not sure about the Mormons.

Dr. Doniger,

Thank you for the insightful piece.

I think this is the most insightful piece here. "Mainstream" is a construction not a reality. Being perceived as "mainstream" or moving towards mainstream can make things worst for a movement. I never wanted to be considered mainstream as a Mormon, now I don't even more.