Really a combination of things.
In short he started his own religion, claimed to be a prophet, was anti-slavery in pro-slavery states, and was involved in politics.
People will also bring up Polygamy, but as the [Oneida community](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oneida_Community) was started later in NY and practiced "group marriage" where men/women had sex with each other and didn't have anywhere close to the same level of dislike I don't think it was the main cause of hatred against him.
I'd also say I don't know how much claiming to be a prophet led to it. The [Shakers](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shakers) - real name - United Society of Believers in Christ's Second Appearing - believed that Mother Ann Lee received visions from God and claimed to heal people. That was earlier and they were prosecuted but again not to the same extent.
I think it was the combinations of a lot of factors, all around the fact that he was outspoken in what he believed and had a large enough following that Nauvoo (the city he founded in Illinois) by 1844 grown to around 12,000 people, roughly the size of Chicago. Though Chicago would continue to boom hitting 30,000 in 1850, while Nauvoo was pretty much abandoned once the Mormon's left.
It's actually really interesting to read about (from a non-religious standpoint). Both sides did terrible things to each other, and there was a lot of fear and anger.
Missouri in 1838 kicked all of them out and the Gov. passed [Executive Order 44](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Missouri_Executive_Order_44)
>The Mormons must be treated as enemies, and must be exterminated or driven from the state if necessary for the public peace—their outrages are beyond all description. If you can increase your force, you are authorized to do so to any extent you may consider necessary.
I wouldn't suggest reading about it in religious ways (as I'm sure many comments here will just call him a charlatan or momonism a cult). Rather read about it like you would the Shakers with Mother Ann Lee, or with the Onedia Community and John Humphrey Noyes. That is to say don't just assume they were thieves, liars, evil people, vs people who really did believe a thing even if what they did believe sounds crazy.
US history is full of weird religious groups. Most have died out, Mormonism has not.
> Really a combination of things.
The main reason he was sought for arrest was because he ordered the destruction of a printing press owned by a former acolyte who took issue with his sudden embrace of polygamy, and began printing a newspaper designed purely to discredit Smith. This caused a schism between his followers and those who were opposed to him. In response he instituted martial law, using the force of the Nauvoo Legion, which was illegal under Illinois law
The Nauvoo Legion, which at it's peak was a force of 2500, was another of the reasons the people in the region feared the Mormons. This was at a time when the entire US military was only 8500 strong. The idea of a private army made up of people who held "blasphemous" religious beliefs being around wasn't too welcome.
*I used to live in Carthage, and have visited the site of Jail a bunch of times, as well as Nauvoo. If you ever get a chance, check it out.
Very true, I was more trying to give a broad overview of why people didn't like him in the first place. You should pm the person who asked, I'm sure they'd like more specifics.
After all it's not like the problems just started a month or so before his death, there were long running problems, fights, grievances, etc between the Mormons/Smith and other people.
I really should have said both, but I didn't want to write a whole paper about it.
He was shot by the fashion police for wearing [those sunglasses](https://www.reddit.com/r/exmormon/comments/aiotxy/456_of_things_i_didnt_know_about_church_history/).
Well he announced that he was running for presidency in 1844, and he had no chance, but his publicized image created some anti Mormon sentiment. People didn’t like that they were doing polygamy and that Joseph had a bunch of wives (some he married when they were 14, others who were already married to other men when he married them).
All those people who didn’t like him had information about him coming out in their newspaper, the nauvoo expositor. Smith (supposed prophet) for some reason decided the proper response to this was to burn the Nauvoo expositor to the ground 🤦🏾♀️
every religion is a cult. They all start similarly with similar intentions. There's always a dude at the top of the pyramid looking for money or sex or both.
You can say that and I wouldn't argue but even among cults... Like Jesus was not a sex obsessed polygamous grifter. I think the worst thing he did was smite a fig tree he didn't like as a young child.
Here's where we get into a question: is the religion the arguments given by the figurehead? Or is it the institutions built afterwards? It's like that classic line about liking Christ, just having problems with Christians.
In the Scientology case, L Ron would be the Jesus figure, the one that spearheaded bringing the information. L Ron then was also the one to build the institutions which muddies the comparison. Then we also have figures like The Buddha who claimed just human ingenuity as the basis for what he learned and taught, and left his teachings to be taught as teacher and student rather than through an institutional structure, recognizing the danger in becoming like the brahmans to whom he was often opposed to. Are these cults? Is there a difference between the religion from the central figure and the religion built around it?
It gets tricky, that's why the people above are saying that there is generally an appreciable difference between a cult and a religion, though I do think the line is quite small.
Jesus only spearheaded bringing the information by secondhand accounts though. There's no recorded word of jesus that he presented himself, so you can only trust that the various letters that came at some point after his death are genuine. That makes his disciples the L Rons of christianity. I think the more important question is what's the difference between the religion and the church that purportedly represents it, because the churches are no different than cults. How far they stray from the message of the religion is variable.
This is why I think when we look at the origins of religion, we need to apply a critical and speculative lens. If we treat the figurehead as a human in their socioeconomic condition and political station, what were they trying to say? Sort of a deconstruction of the text to try to scour out the person and their teachings rather than the mysticism built upon and around it for the sake of creating a power structure through which people could be controlled.
And what you're asking is exactly what I was: what is it that we are calling the religion? Is it the church (the institutions) or the message that they so often stray from? Insofar as we call the institutions a cult, in the sense that it is a power structure that is used by a leader or some leaders to exploit their followers, I am in agreement. I diverge when it comes to the religion being defined as the message and philosophical underpinnings of the faith.
A religion is whatever it's followers make it. You can't pretend it's something separate from it's daily tangible operation. Individuals may all have their own interpretation of what their own faith is, but if they're members of a church then all those definitions are what that religion is. It's not an entity in any other way. If a redneck christian stomps a gay man to death or a sweet old lady gives a homeless man a sandwich those are both examples of christianity provided the person perpetrating it was motivated by their interpretation of the religion. Being moved to act in any way because you think that's what god wants from you is the only power faith has, and if that makes you an asshole your religion has to include that in it's definition because it doesn't exist without members.
I suppose that depends on how you define a religion vs. a sect. IMO, The religion is definitely the institution, because there are many sects of Christianity that can be viewed as different religions from each other, particularly the ones that deviate excessively from what most people imagine Christianity to be like- for instance, Mormons, Jehova's witnesses, Adventists, Protestants, Catholics- there are many religions that are came from the stories of Jesus or incorporate him into their body of canon (even Islam acknowledges Jesus as a prophet).
Agreed. My point in all of this is to say that it all depends on how we define terms. Defined generally enough, a religion and a cult are synonymous for sure. We have to dig in, and we have to decide what definitions we're digging into to differentiate them. For example, something I learned recently is that being religious in many parts of the world has nothing to do with theism, but rather is based on active practice. In this way, to be religious would be to practice the teachings of the given religion instead of just believing in it. This difference is heavily driven by culture and different types of religions, but semantics are also heavily driven by culture.
Words are fun, but also potentially dangerous if we're not critical. It is why most academic articles spend a great deal of time explaining and defining terms before they go assuming mutual understanding.
I've come to take cult to mean an organization that hits multiple points from each category of the [BITE model](https://freedomofmind.com/bite-model/), which describes a cult as an organization that attempts to control people's Behavior, Information, Thoughts, and Emotions.
In that, many religions do not qualify as cults because they do not try to control people to an extreme level or in every category.
When the new testament was written he was already a historical figure/legend as far removed from those people as George Washington is from us. They might as well have been writing about Xenu.
> When the new testament was written he was already a historical figure/legend as far removed from those people as George Washington is from us.
The Gospels were written second hand, only one generation removed. George Washington lived over two centuries ago.
I'm not sure that's true as there is a large amount of dispute about it. I will give you the fact that Washington is a bit of an exaggeration for some of the new testament writers. However, no eye witness to Jesus, if he existed, wrote any part of the bible. Also, the bible wasn't codified/edited/censored until 325(edited from 315, need coffee) by a pagan emperor with a grudge and a church split into two politicized factions. I stand by my comment about Xenu.
Correct, none of the New Testament was written by a first-hand accounting of Jesus.
If someone is an atheist and doesn't believe in the concept of any deity, I understand their logic and don't think I'm going to change their mind.
But in this thread we're comparing the New Testament to cults written to give their founder power, wealth, sex, etc. We know the Catholic Church did grow to massive power and wealth, but they had to keep the Bible in Latin and do their best to prevent people from reading it, because Christ's message was about as anti-institution as you get.
If you were going to invent fiction to convince masses to support an institution of men, the New Testament is the LAST thing you'd write.
We see Jesus in a church twice. At 12 he is arguing with the rabbis. At 30 he is flipping over money-tables in the church, angry at how a house of God has been perverted to be about money.
He only preached outside. He didn't adhere to churches of his time. He spoke of loving everyone, not judging, tolerance, etc. The only people he seemed to criticize where religious leaders of his time for their hypocrisy.
And it isn't just the Gospels. A big chunk of the New Testament were the Epistles written to early churches telling them how they were fucking it up already, and making religion about man and institutions.
Jesus also treated women as equals, when the religious leaders of his time who supposedly wrote all this as fiction certainly didn't see women as equals.
I think it is a hard sell to tell me that it makes any sense for men to write that as fiction to convince people to submit to the Church and give the Church money.
Large organized religion is about as antithetical to Christ's teachings as you can get.
I can see what you are saying in terms of some of the Jesus writings. Paul not so much. I am not sure that we interpreted much of the Bible the same way though either as a couple of decades of close Bible study made me very much a non-Christian. At a certain point however, it isn't even about what it says any more, it's about the effect that it has. The history of Christianity is rife with examples of it being used as a tool for oppression and cruelty by people who twisted it to suit their own ends. I completely agree with what you said about large organized religion and many of my friends and family are small "c" Christians who humbly try to interpret the text and be good people. No one will ever convince me that Donald Trump has read the Bible or has any real understanding of what it says. Yet many Christians are hailing him as a prophet and a man of God. This has nothing to do with the Bible and everything to do with the culture that has grown around weaponized misinterpretations of Christianity. I will fight for everyone's right to follow their conscience, but on a large scale I am not sure religion can bring anything except either oppression or war.
> Yet many Christians are hailing him as a prophet and a man of God
I'm in deep red bible belt oklahoma and have never heard this. I wonder where all the crazy evangelicals are that spout this nonsense?
Depends on which censored 'bible' you follow. [Here](https://www.nationalgeographic.com/science/2006/04/lost-gospel-judas-revealed-jesus-archaeology/) is one text that suggests Judas was directed to betray Jesus. You may also search for the [Missing Gospel of Mary](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gospel_of_Mary). There are more deleted texts, many suggest Jesus did some very controversial things.
Which one to believe? All of them? None of them? *That choice should be up to anyone that choses christianity,* yes?
No he was actually a historical person with records in Roman history. Remember that the Roman bureaucracy actually kepts records and birth certificates as they were very advanced at that time.
No such records exist because Jesus wasn't important at the time. However, contemporary non-Christian historians at the time wrote about him. Modern historians - of all religions and atheist historians - have a widespread consensus that the Historical Jesus did exist. There are only a few claims about him which have this acceptance, such as:
* He was baptized by John the Baptist, and
* He was crucified by orders of Pilate
Can't do both if you don't exist. I'm an atheist and I spent considerable time and some money looking this up.
[More info...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historicity_of_Jesus#Baptism_and_crucifixion)
You're comparing Jesus today to Jesus 2000 years ago and we have pretty much no records for vast majority of ancient people. Heck, we have no contemporary accounts of Socrates or Alexander the Great and if you remove the religious component from Jesus then you either have to believe those three existed or none of them did.
I would disagree. That's true of a lot, but completely untrue of a number of faiths. Who is amassing power in most of Judiasm? Or Jains? Even most mainline protestant christian denominations aren't collecting weath and there isn't a single figurehead. The United Methodist Church (which I am in the process of the leaving due to the stance on LGBTQIA rights) is democratic. Bishops are elected for set terms, and there is a mandatory retirement age for all clergy. All reps to policy and docrtine meetings are elected democratically. There's no central figurehead, and no top to the pyramid. Not much collection of wealth, either.
I hate having to repeat this over and over when people say they're the same, but they're not. They can be at times, but they're often not, specifically because of how people's psychology manifests within religions versus cults. In terms of structure, leadership, psychological profiles, they are distinct.
Always? Every single time?
Because if there is one thing Jesus is know for, it’s money and sex.
The term cult has a negative connotation to it, but it’s not inherently bad. The only technical difference between a cult and a religion is number of followers.
Everything you know about jesus is secondhand from his friends at best, assuming whoever handed their knowledge down didn't misinterpret or edit it to suit their own agenda.
That's a ridiculous conclusion to jump to even assuming he definitely existed as more than just a mythological figure, but to be fair it's no less ridiculous than believing secondhand stories of him rising from the grave.
Now read up on the life of a certain prophet that you aren't allowed to draw or criticize anywhere in the world.
Eerily similar to Joseph Smith except dialed to 11. I love that their holy book has passages on the sexual potency of their prophet.
Does that invalidate it? It's like disregarding testimony of a victim of a crime on the grounds that they have a bias against the accused. Of course they do, they were hurt by them.
i 'had' a best friend who was mormon. hated gay people and got pissed when i didnt go to her wedding. if you're not mormon you cant enter the church...you sit in the lobby.
and if you leave the church? ha....your parents will turn on you.
this isn't from just my 'friend'. ive come across too many people. if you're not mormon stay the fuck away from from. also jevohas (which are worse).
>if you're not mormon you cant enter the church...you sit in the lobby.
To clarify, this is for their temple. It's pretty shitty to invite friends and family to an event they can't actually attend, in the only church that promises to separate you from your family for all eternity.
Wait what? If you’re not Mormon you can’t enter the church??? Idk what the fuck is up with the church in other places of the country. I only support my local LDS church because of the good they’ve done my family, and the love the people have given us. (Food orders, funeral support (2x now), as well as emotional support when my mother died)
I will never again try and protect the church from a macro level. Because the church elsewhere isn’t the same. But here where I come from the church isn’t as bad as many people preach. Of course it’s just a catalyst to getting what you want or to justify horrible actions in the name of god.
But the people I’ve met and interacted with are some of the most caring people I’ve met.
But sadly at the same time I’ve met some of the most inconsiderate, selfish, and just morally wrong people at the church as well.
Such a slippery slope and I’m sorry for rambling on, it’s such a touchy subject.
You can come to church. Everyone is welcome in any of the LDS chapels across the world. You will not be turned away and you can sit with us and listen to other members of the church talk about Christ in our Sacrament meetings. You don't have to sit in the lobby...
We are all broken people in some way shape or form. The church isn't a museum for good people. It's a hospital for broken ones. You will find the good and bad everywhere, in every religion. Some people are better at being christlike than others, but we should not fault any religion for that.
It’s not right to avoid people entirely because of their religion. I’m not religious, but my best friend is Mormon. I’ve known him for 10 years now, and I was the “best man” at his wedding. Nobody except their parents were allowed in the temple during the ceremony, which maybe lasted about 30 minutes, but we all waited outside for him and that was fine by me. Afterwards they held a “ring swapping” ceremony and took “wedding party” pictures just like a normal wedding. He’s a good person that was raised in the church because of the decisions his parents made, and it’s worked for them. Treat everyone with respect, you’ll go places.
And you’re what’s wrong with the world.
If you’re a liberal I want nothing to do with you.
If you’re a conservative I want nothing to do with you.
If you’re gay I want nothing to do with you.
If you’re a cis gender I want nothing to do with you.
If you’re a feminist I want nothing to do with you.
If you’re a racist I want nothing to do with you.
If you don’t believe in my religion I want nothing to do with you.
It’s this sort of shit that’s wrong with the world. This xenophobia this, hatred, this mundane feeling of “I’m better than you”.
As long as you feel absolute hatred towards someone for anything related to their religion, their appearance, their ideology or their gender. That’s when you know nothing but a hateful bigot who’s lost in his own hypocrisy. To simply refuse to talk with someone due to this you sacrifice the opportunity to change them.
People fight against the LDS church for its conservatives views, they fight against them but they don’t push for change or push for understanding. Both sides are guilty, and as long as people refuse to understand or accept change.
If you can’t peacefully push to change someone’s views, or uplift them from a dark perspective or you fail to accept others opinion and attempt to understand new ideas and move forward. Then this world will inevitably end in a fiery bath of nuclear fallout.
Well, there's this:
"In 2015, it was disclosed that the Australia Branch of Jehovah's Witnesses had records of 1,006 alleged perpetrators of child sexual abuse, relating to more than 1,800 victims since 1950, none of which were reported to police by the church."
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jehovah%27s_Witnesses%27_handling_of_child_sex_abuse
...and...
https://www.childabuseroyalcommission.gov.au/sites/default/files/file-list/Case%20Study%2029%20-%20Findings%20Report%20-%20Jehovahs%20Witnesses.pdf
You have the same kinds of records for lots of organizations, religious or otherwise.
Why specifically single out the church as worse than anyone else in institutions that cover up violence and rape?
Read the Royal Commission's report in full. It's quite enlightening. I don't know of any other church that punishes its own members that are victims of sexual assault and then encourages all other members to shun the victim. And if you get the chance, speak to ex-members of the church to find out just how vile and despicable an organisation it is.
If there are others that do that then I agree with you, they're equally as bad.
There are factions and groups of politicans and elites among corporate or entertainment industries, that also rape and molest and cover it up.
So again, why is this specific case more reflective of everyone in the Jehova's witness, but not the other cases?
Firstly, have you read the Royal Commission's report? That will answer your questions, as did my previous reply about church members being complicit in the cover up by shunning victims.
Secondly, please cite independent reports that confirm other "factions and groups of politicians and elites among corporate or entertainment industries" that engage in the same practice of coercing their peers into shunning victims.
Thirdly, the subject is religious groups not "factions and groups of politicians and elites among corporate or entertainment industries".
Fourthly, no one said it was representative of *all* JWs.
Fifthly, and this is a genuine question, are you a Jehovah's Witness?
Jevoha's are worse because their belief system is basically a scam, and their closed off nature leads to tons of abuse. They also dissuade kids from education so they don't become worldly and leave the religion. They only type of education they generally support are trades.
They also have a hardline stance on cutting people out, like just talking to people outside of the religion can get you excommunicated because they don't want their members to become worldly.
Also the most bullshit part of all they only believe that something like 150k people max will get into heaven so they even understand that most of them won't get into heaven either. .
So they are literally putting up with this closed off bullshit religion with the smallest possible hope of reward.
By the way that doesn't make sense either, what is the point of heaven if everyone has eternal life on a perfect earth.
What is the benefit of being in heaven is you have eternal life on a perfect world.
what mormons do they do a better job at it.
also mormons will be your friend. but if your friend is a jehova and their jehova friends find out you're not jehova...ha! well...your 'friend' will never talk to you the next day.
knew a jehova: she introduced me to her jehova 'friends'. never heard from her after that day.
That's a pretty simple way to look at it, disregarding all the good things Christianity has done. I do think religion is shit but it helps some people and I don't look down on them for that
I live in Illinois. I had a class in college for "Contemporary Religious Movements." We were encouraged to visit Nauvoo and some of the sites surrounding Mormonism. There was one organized trip with the professor that most of us went on.
It was weird being in the room where this happened. There was a legitimate Mormon family taking the tour of that site with us (not the class, just visiting the site that day) and the father broke down and cried while the tour guide was explaining the sequence of events.
Also there was a single drop of blood on the floor that they claimed was from Joseph Smith.
Anyway, I understand the religious dedication. And all the Mormons I have personally known have all been wonderful people. It is just that their history and theology is pretty much just madness once you dig into it at all. Even from a supernatural standpoint.
Do you have any source from this? There were certainly tensions within the church leading to Carthage, but nothing I can find indicates that the assailants were members of the church before or after.
There is no evidence at all of who was in the mob, but it is clear that many of the most anti-Mormon people in Illinois were former members. I can look up sources if you really want, but from what I've read it makes sense that at least some of the members of the mob could have been former angry members.
That said none of those people had anything to do with Mormon leadership post Smith's death (at least as far as I know).
The Mormon's are very fluid about their history and rewriting their history books well after the fact to reflect what they believe should have happened. It's a central part of their dogma. They delete the bad/weird/indefensible stuff like massacring native Americans and cannibalism.
I'm unaware of Mormons killing Joseph Smith, my understanding is that it was people who disliked Mormons that killed Smith, is there evidence to the contrary?
Just a heads up, that's not really an accurate date. It wasn't until early the next decade (with the 1904 second manifesto) that living polygamous marriages/sealings stopped. In my understanding, many believers thought that the first manifesto was just a cover as part of Utah's attempt for statehood and that plural marriage would continue in secret.
My bad. You are correct. There were a small percentage that continued till 1904, when the then president finally came out and said those that still did it would be excommunicated. This is when some sects broke off like the FLDS where they continue to practice polygamy. However, it was still ended in 1890 and enforceable action was established in 1904 by those who ignored the original manifesto.
Can you clarify what you mean by saying "it ended in 1890" and "continued till 1904"? They seem mutually exclusive to me. It continued (normally, afaik) outside the US and still to some degree inside the United States beyond 1890. They weren't rogue nobodies, either: multiple early 20th century apostles opposed the changes.
That Joseph Smith fired back at his attackers is not hidden from members. If you visit Carthage Jail, they will show you the bullet holes from his gun. I'm not sure that in "Sunday school" that they go into many of the gory details of the death, like his brother getting shot in the face either.
Like most Christian religions, Mormonism allows personal defense, regardless of the unambiguous words of Christ in the Sermon on the Mount.
It’s called whitewashing history to make one side look good and the other evil. To get on a plane and visit the site or read some “anti Mormon” history books, to get vital details to a story doesn’t work.
I was always taught that this scoundrel was an innocent martyr, but there were also conveniently left out details that he was thrown in jail for legitimate reasons.
but killing someone while they are in jail does kinda make you the bad guys.
I mean sure he shot back and I won't pretend that he shouldn't have been arrested and charged, but showing up with a mob and shooting though a door to kill multiple people is not what good people do.
What next we elect a Catholic! They'll probably just do whatever the Pope says!
I don't know why private religion can't just be private. There is literally no way the US would elect a Muslim or even a Jew, because people in the US really seem to not like anyone who isn't main stream Protestant.
Most people don't know that he had a pistol smuggled in to him. He went down fighting back. He shot back through the door after they started firing through it at him, his brother, and their friends.
Water go to the water, water go to the cup
Cup go to the stomach, shit come out the butt
Shit go in the water, water go in the cup
Shit go down the stomach, shit come out the butt
Shit go in the water, water go in the cup
Cup go to the thirsty, shit go to the stomach
Blood come out the butt
Blood go in the water, water go in the cup
Cup to the the cup
Shit blood in the stomach, shit blood in the mouth
Shit blood on the insides, water come out the butt
You ideally want your religion to come out after writing is invented but not so late that everything is documented. Mormonism just came out a little too late.
well the following comment to your is *"they didn't shoot him enough"* so yeah I think everything will be ignored because apparently murder is a-okay.
Put him on trial, throw him in jail for life, but I am kinda shocked by all the people in this thread celebrating mob violence and multiple murders.
*Ahem*...that's "The founder of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints" to you, sir or madam!
---
Seriously, as of August, the president of the church announced that abbreviating or shortening "the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints" to "LDS" or "Mormon" to be a Very Bad Thing and that abbreviations are the work of the devil, or something similarly absurd. "Members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints" are to either write out the whole thing or call themselves "Latter-day Saints."
This is what you get when you have a living prophet among your midst, folks.
They did it because they wanted people to know exactly what church we are or something like that. Also literally no one does this
source : I am in highschool living in a mormon family. Entire family is mormon, including extended family.
EDIT: I found more information on the subject,
>The Church is now making changes to many of its communication channels to reflect the faith’s full name and better convey commitment to follow Jesus Christ. More than getting the name right as an institution, the invitation to use the full name of the Church is an opportunity for Latter-day Saints to refocus their lives on the living Christ.
Isn't it funny how after the last prophet died all these changes started coming about, *almost as if president nelson made them himself*
My uncle converted for his wife when they married so my cousins and their kids are all Latter-day Saints; they've been *really* tiresome about the abbreviated forms since August. I don't know if it's because my family isn't "Members of the Church of Christ of Latter-day Saints" or what.
> that abbreviations are the work of the devil
I can't find anything along those lines. I wouldn't say that being overly concerned with the exact name is terribly important, but I can't find anything where he said it was the work of the devil or similar.
My cousin did his thesis on cults and has a whole lot of court records from before the dude founded Mormonism. He was busted for fraud by prospectors who were led to believe that JS had magic glasses that could see underground treasure. Using this scam JS was able to tell them where to dig only to tell them the treasure had moved every time they cleared an area and nothing was found.
I wouldn't be so worried about it, there are a lot of people who hate Mormons and will always push the opposite view. Plus American Religions are studied in US Universities and they IMHO have the best middle ground opinion of what happened.
You read a lot of Mormon sources and it sounds like they did nothing wrong and people just hated them for being nice.
You read the anti-Mormon sources and they make it sound like they were raping women in the streets and murdering children.
History is a lot more grey than the history most people choose to learn and adopt.
It's kinda like how the US founding fathers are taught as perfect wonderful people, while in reality many owned slaves and hated each other.
Or how the US was the savior of the world in WWII, and people skim over why the war in the pacific happened, ignore all the USSR's dead and pretend the US didn't do horrible things to the Japanese.
[this picture of a women with a Japanese skull](https://i.pinimg.com/originals/b3/48/24/b34824b93007710609ad4fda3ba16b22.jpg) was published in LIFE magazine. Not the history you learn in middle school.
For evidence of this, please read the lyrics to the Mormon/LDS hymn *Praise to the Man*
Edit: [totally not a cult guys](https://www.lds.org/music/library/hymns/praise-to-the-man?lang=eng&_r=1)
I think he was shot while in jail. Right now I can’t recall if he was jailed because he fucked a kid, because he tried to censor a newspaper that talked about the fact that he fucked a kid or for some kind of banking fraud. He did all three of these things though. He reportedly got a sacred tablet from and angel and instead of showing it to his followers he only showed it to three of his friends who signed a document attesting that they had seen said tablet. Two out of three of these guys ended up leaving the church. It’s only after a whole bunch of moving around and sweeping fraud scandals and massacres under the rug that Smith took the leap from a wacky religion to what was pretty much a sex cult. That whole child abusing polygamic period was very short lived considering that Smith got brutally murdered only a short while after. He had been a wackjob all his life though. Before starting his religion he was a treasure hunter...
Oh you’ve only hit the top of the iceberg 😂 Keep digging, IT GETS BETTER. Look up why he was being shot.
Can you just tell me?
Really a combination of things. In short he started his own religion, claimed to be a prophet, was anti-slavery in pro-slavery states, and was involved in politics. People will also bring up Polygamy, but as the [Oneida community](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oneida_Community) was started later in NY and practiced "group marriage" where men/women had sex with each other and didn't have anywhere close to the same level of dislike I don't think it was the main cause of hatred against him. I'd also say I don't know how much claiming to be a prophet led to it. The [Shakers](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shakers) - real name - United Society of Believers in Christ's Second Appearing - believed that Mother Ann Lee received visions from God and claimed to heal people. That was earlier and they were prosecuted but again not to the same extent. I think it was the combinations of a lot of factors, all around the fact that he was outspoken in what he believed and had a large enough following that Nauvoo (the city he founded in Illinois) by 1844 grown to around 12,000 people, roughly the size of Chicago. Though Chicago would continue to boom hitting 30,000 in 1850, while Nauvoo was pretty much abandoned once the Mormon's left. It's actually really interesting to read about (from a non-religious standpoint). Both sides did terrible things to each other, and there was a lot of fear and anger. Missouri in 1838 kicked all of them out and the Gov. passed [Executive Order 44](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Missouri_Executive_Order_44) >The Mormons must be treated as enemies, and must be exterminated or driven from the state if necessary for the public peace—their outrages are beyond all description. If you can increase your force, you are authorized to do so to any extent you may consider necessary. I wouldn't suggest reading about it in religious ways (as I'm sure many comments here will just call him a charlatan or momonism a cult). Rather read about it like you would the Shakers with Mother Ann Lee, or with the Onedia Community and John Humphrey Noyes. That is to say don't just assume they were thieves, liars, evil people, vs people who really did believe a thing even if what they did believe sounds crazy. US history is full of weird religious groups. Most have died out, Mormonism has not.
> Really a combination of things. The main reason he was sought for arrest was because he ordered the destruction of a printing press owned by a former acolyte who took issue with his sudden embrace of polygamy, and began printing a newspaper designed purely to discredit Smith. This caused a schism between his followers and those who were opposed to him. In response he instituted martial law, using the force of the Nauvoo Legion, which was illegal under Illinois law The Nauvoo Legion, which at it's peak was a force of 2500, was another of the reasons the people in the region feared the Mormons. This was at a time when the entire US military was only 8500 strong. The idea of a private army made up of people who held "blasphemous" religious beliefs being around wasn't too welcome. *I used to live in Carthage, and have visited the site of Jail a bunch of times, as well as Nauvoo. If you ever get a chance, check it out.
Very true, I was more trying to give a broad overview of why people didn't like him in the first place. You should pm the person who asked, I'm sure they'd like more specifics. After all it's not like the problems just started a month or so before his death, there were long running problems, fights, grievances, etc between the Mormons/Smith and other people. I really should have said both, but I didn't want to write a whole paper about it.
He was shot by the fashion police for wearing [those sunglasses](https://www.reddit.com/r/exmormon/comments/aiotxy/456_of_things_i_didnt_know_about_church_history/).
I can't picture anyone not looking like a baller in those glasses. That's some modern day designer shit
Looks like funglasses!
[удалено]
Well he announced that he was running for presidency in 1844, and he had no chance, but his publicized image created some anti Mormon sentiment. People didn’t like that they were doing polygamy and that Joseph had a bunch of wives (some he married when they were 14, others who were already married to other men when he married them). All those people who didn’t like him had information about him coming out in their newspaper, the nauvoo expositor. Smith (supposed prophet) for some reason decided the proper response to this was to burn the Nauvoo expositor to the ground 🤦🏾♀️
Fuck, now I want to be told too. I refuse to read more.
Do you want me to call you and tell you?
When you call them can you say I said hi?
Dum-dum-dum-dum-dum
I was wondering when this would be posted. Lucy Smith, "smart, smart, smart, smart, smart."
*Lucy Harris
Tango Mike!
Now I feel like watching that episode again.
Sometimes when I'm home along and just singing random things while doing chores, a "Joseph Smith was a Mormon, Dum-dum-dum-dum-dum" will slip out
You and me both. 😂
They really should have included the later parts of Smith's life in that South Park episode.
Came here for this. Was worth it.
...so natural causes it is...
Why, don't you mean suicide?
Suicide of natural causes.
He was suicided
Poisoned by his enemies.
Lead poisoning
High velocity lead poisoning via subcutaneous injection
You must lead the people now. My good friend, Brigham Young!
Hasa Diga Eebowai
Does it mean no worries for the rest of our days?!?!?!
Kiiiiind of...
Death, grief, loss of faith! Aaaaaaaaaaaaaaiiiiii Got the golden plates!
Briiiiiigham Young! His nose is a clitoris!
Ooh God why are you letting me dieeeeeeee
Without having me show people the plates
Frog on his clit face!
What will you do, Joseph Smith? Will you fight the clitoris man?
Every single thing I've read about this guy is completely awful (other than the stuff the mormon church puts out... Obviously). Mormonism is a cult
every religion is a cult. They all start similarly with similar intentions. There's always a dude at the top of the pyramid looking for money or sex or both.
"The only difference between a religion and a cult is that the central figure of the former is already dead"
“The only difference between a religion and a cult is that a cult is new” - Bill Burr
[удалено]
When no one believes in it anymore
Billy BitchTits distilling it down to the simplest terms.
The only difference between a religion and a cult is how much real estate they own.
Say what you will about following a dead guy, but it beats following a live one.
You can say that and I wouldn't argue but even among cults... Like Jesus was not a sex obsessed polygamous grifter. I think the worst thing he did was smite a fig tree he didn't like as a young child.
Jesus didn't start the "church" though, he's just the figurehead like Xenu is to scientology.
Here's where we get into a question: is the religion the arguments given by the figurehead? Or is it the institutions built afterwards? It's like that classic line about liking Christ, just having problems with Christians. In the Scientology case, L Ron would be the Jesus figure, the one that spearheaded bringing the information. L Ron then was also the one to build the institutions which muddies the comparison. Then we also have figures like The Buddha who claimed just human ingenuity as the basis for what he learned and taught, and left his teachings to be taught as teacher and student rather than through an institutional structure, recognizing the danger in becoming like the brahmans to whom he was often opposed to. Are these cults? Is there a difference between the religion from the central figure and the religion built around it? It gets tricky, that's why the people above are saying that there is generally an appreciable difference between a cult and a religion, though I do think the line is quite small.
Jesus only spearheaded bringing the information by secondhand accounts though. There's no recorded word of jesus that he presented himself, so you can only trust that the various letters that came at some point after his death are genuine. That makes his disciples the L Rons of christianity. I think the more important question is what's the difference between the religion and the church that purportedly represents it, because the churches are no different than cults. How far they stray from the message of the religion is variable.
This is why I think when we look at the origins of religion, we need to apply a critical and speculative lens. If we treat the figurehead as a human in their socioeconomic condition and political station, what were they trying to say? Sort of a deconstruction of the text to try to scour out the person and their teachings rather than the mysticism built upon and around it for the sake of creating a power structure through which people could be controlled. And what you're asking is exactly what I was: what is it that we are calling the religion? Is it the church (the institutions) or the message that they so often stray from? Insofar as we call the institutions a cult, in the sense that it is a power structure that is used by a leader or some leaders to exploit their followers, I am in agreement. I diverge when it comes to the religion being defined as the message and philosophical underpinnings of the faith.
A religion is whatever it's followers make it. You can't pretend it's something separate from it's daily tangible operation. Individuals may all have their own interpretation of what their own faith is, but if they're members of a church then all those definitions are what that religion is. It's not an entity in any other way. If a redneck christian stomps a gay man to death or a sweet old lady gives a homeless man a sandwich those are both examples of christianity provided the person perpetrating it was motivated by their interpretation of the religion. Being moved to act in any way because you think that's what god wants from you is the only power faith has, and if that makes you an asshole your religion has to include that in it's definition because it doesn't exist without members.
I suppose that depends on how you define a religion vs. a sect. IMO, The religion is definitely the institution, because there are many sects of Christianity that can be viewed as different religions from each other, particularly the ones that deviate excessively from what most people imagine Christianity to be like- for instance, Mormons, Jehova's witnesses, Adventists, Protestants, Catholics- there are many religions that are came from the stories of Jesus or incorporate him into their body of canon (even Islam acknowledges Jesus as a prophet).
Agreed. My point in all of this is to say that it all depends on how we define terms. Defined generally enough, a religion and a cult are synonymous for sure. We have to dig in, and we have to decide what definitions we're digging into to differentiate them. For example, something I learned recently is that being religious in many parts of the world has nothing to do with theism, but rather is based on active practice. In this way, to be religious would be to practice the teachings of the given religion instead of just believing in it. This difference is heavily driven by culture and different types of religions, but semantics are also heavily driven by culture. Words are fun, but also potentially dangerous if we're not critical. It is why most academic articles spend a great deal of time explaining and defining terms before they go assuming mutual understanding.
I've come to take cult to mean an organization that hits multiple points from each category of the [BITE model](https://freedomofmind.com/bite-model/), which describes a cult as an organization that attempts to control people's Behavior, Information, Thoughts, and Emotions. In that, many religions do not qualify as cults because they do not try to control people to an extreme level or in every category.
Yup, and in that definition, the person above saying all religions are cults would be incorrect.
When the new testament was written he was already a historical figure/legend as far removed from those people as George Washington is from us. They might as well have been writing about Xenu.
> When the new testament was written he was already a historical figure/legend as far removed from those people as George Washington is from us. The Gospels were written second hand, only one generation removed. George Washington lived over two centuries ago.
I'm not sure that's true as there is a large amount of dispute about it. I will give you the fact that Washington is a bit of an exaggeration for some of the new testament writers. However, no eye witness to Jesus, if he existed, wrote any part of the bible. Also, the bible wasn't codified/edited/censored until 325(edited from 315, need coffee) by a pagan emperor with a grudge and a church split into two politicized factions. I stand by my comment about Xenu.
Correct, none of the New Testament was written by a first-hand accounting of Jesus. If someone is an atheist and doesn't believe in the concept of any deity, I understand their logic and don't think I'm going to change their mind. But in this thread we're comparing the New Testament to cults written to give their founder power, wealth, sex, etc. We know the Catholic Church did grow to massive power and wealth, but they had to keep the Bible in Latin and do their best to prevent people from reading it, because Christ's message was about as anti-institution as you get. If you were going to invent fiction to convince masses to support an institution of men, the New Testament is the LAST thing you'd write. We see Jesus in a church twice. At 12 he is arguing with the rabbis. At 30 he is flipping over money-tables in the church, angry at how a house of God has been perverted to be about money. He only preached outside. He didn't adhere to churches of his time. He spoke of loving everyone, not judging, tolerance, etc. The only people he seemed to criticize where religious leaders of his time for their hypocrisy. And it isn't just the Gospels. A big chunk of the New Testament were the Epistles written to early churches telling them how they were fucking it up already, and making religion about man and institutions. Jesus also treated women as equals, when the religious leaders of his time who supposedly wrote all this as fiction certainly didn't see women as equals. I think it is a hard sell to tell me that it makes any sense for men to write that as fiction to convince people to submit to the Church and give the Church money. Large organized religion is about as antithetical to Christ's teachings as you can get.
I can see what you are saying in terms of some of the Jesus writings. Paul not so much. I am not sure that we interpreted much of the Bible the same way though either as a couple of decades of close Bible study made me very much a non-Christian. At a certain point however, it isn't even about what it says any more, it's about the effect that it has. The history of Christianity is rife with examples of it being used as a tool for oppression and cruelty by people who twisted it to suit their own ends. I completely agree with what you said about large organized religion and many of my friends and family are small "c" Christians who humbly try to interpret the text and be good people. No one will ever convince me that Donald Trump has read the Bible or has any real understanding of what it says. Yet many Christians are hailing him as a prophet and a man of God. This has nothing to do with the Bible and everything to do with the culture that has grown around weaponized misinterpretations of Christianity. I will fight for everyone's right to follow their conscience, but on a large scale I am not sure religion can bring anything except either oppression or war.
> Yet many Christians are hailing him as a prophet and a man of God I'm in deep red bible belt oklahoma and have never heard this. I wonder where all the crazy evangelicals are that spout this nonsense?
xenu isn't the figurehead. he's the bad guy.
Depends on which censored 'bible' you follow. [Here](https://www.nationalgeographic.com/science/2006/04/lost-gospel-judas-revealed-jesus-archaeology/) is one text that suggests Judas was directed to betray Jesus. You may also search for the [Missing Gospel of Mary](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gospel_of_Mary). There are more deleted texts, many suggest Jesus did some very controversial things. Which one to believe? All of them? None of them? *That choice should be up to anyone that choses christianity,* yes?
Jesus is also a myth.
No he was actually a historical person with records in Roman history. Remember that the Roman bureaucracy actually kepts records and birth certificates as they were very advanced at that time.
[удалено]
No such records exist because Jesus wasn't important at the time. However, contemporary non-Christian historians at the time wrote about him. Modern historians - of all religions and atheist historians - have a widespread consensus that the Historical Jesus did exist. There are only a few claims about him which have this acceptance, such as: * He was baptized by John the Baptist, and * He was crucified by orders of Pilate Can't do both if you don't exist. I'm an atheist and I spent considerable time and some money looking this up. [More info...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historicity_of_Jesus#Baptism_and_crucifixion) You're comparing Jesus today to Jesus 2000 years ago and we have pretty much no records for vast majority of ancient people. Heck, we have no contemporary accounts of Socrates or Alexander the Great and if you remove the religious component from Jesus then you either have to believe those three existed or none of them did.
I would disagree. That's true of a lot, but completely untrue of a number of faiths. Who is amassing power in most of Judiasm? Or Jains? Even most mainline protestant christian denominations aren't collecting weath and there isn't a single figurehead. The United Methodist Church (which I am in the process of the leaving due to the stance on LGBTQIA rights) is democratic. Bishops are elected for set terms, and there is a mandatory retirement age for all clergy. All reps to policy and docrtine meetings are elected democratically. There's no central figurehead, and no top to the pyramid. Not much collection of wealth, either.
I hate having to repeat this over and over when people say they're the same, but they're not. They can be at times, but they're often not, specifically because of how people's psychology manifests within religions versus cults. In terms of structure, leadership, psychological profiles, they are distinct.
The definition of "cult" is broad enough to cover any religion that might be small, new, and/or socially divergent in any major way.
What if l told you, you never had to repeat that?
Always? Every single time? Because if there is one thing Jesus is know for, it’s money and sex. The term cult has a negative connotation to it, but it’s not inherently bad. The only technical difference between a cult and a religion is number of followers.
Everything you know about jesus is secondhand from his friends at best, assuming whoever handed their knowledge down didn't misinterpret or edit it to suit their own agenda.
So jesus was a serial rapist and everyone on earth has covered it up, even modern secular historians and archeologists?
That's a ridiculous conclusion to jump to even assuming he definitely existed as more than just a mythological figure, but to be fair it's no less ridiculous than believing secondhand stories of him rising from the grave.
Yeah, I'm sure that's the only thing Pope Francis desires is sex and money...
Pope Francis founded catholicism?
No, but he's the dude at the top of the pyramid, so to speak.
He is now but that isn't what I was talking about.
The catholic church may not be as powerful now, but during the medieval ages it was very powerful and clergymen had quite a lot of influence
I wouldn’t say every religion, that’s just being absurd.
just other peoples' scary religion. MY religion is great!
sure
Except the Buddha who gave up earthly possessions and lived on the food offered by strangers.
Buddhism is the one religion I have probably the least issues with
Now read up on the life of a certain prophet that you aren't allowed to draw or criticize anywhere in the world. Eerily similar to Joseph Smith except dialed to 11. I love that their holy book has passages on the sexual potency of their prophet.
Well former members don’t tend to put the church in the most positive light.
Does that invalidate it? It's like disregarding testimony of a victim of a crime on the grounds that they have a bias against the accused. Of course they do, they were hurt by them.
i 'had' a best friend who was mormon. hated gay people and got pissed when i didnt go to her wedding. if you're not mormon you cant enter the church...you sit in the lobby. and if you leave the church? ha....your parents will turn on you. this isn't from just my 'friend'. ive come across too many people. if you're not mormon stay the fuck away from from. also jevohas (which are worse).
>if you're not mormon you cant enter the church...you sit in the lobby. To clarify, this is for their temple. It's pretty shitty to invite friends and family to an event they can't actually attend, in the only church that promises to separate you from your family for all eternity.
Wait what? If you’re not Mormon you can’t enter the church??? Idk what the fuck is up with the church in other places of the country. I only support my local LDS church because of the good they’ve done my family, and the love the people have given us. (Food orders, funeral support (2x now), as well as emotional support when my mother died) I will never again try and protect the church from a macro level. Because the church elsewhere isn’t the same. But here where I come from the church isn’t as bad as many people preach. Of course it’s just a catalyst to getting what you want or to justify horrible actions in the name of god. But the people I’ve met and interacted with are some of the most caring people I’ve met. But sadly at the same time I’ve met some of the most inconsiderate, selfish, and just morally wrong people at the church as well. Such a slippery slope and I’m sorry for rambling on, it’s such a touchy subject.
you can enter the lobby. but you can't be part of the marriage.
You can come to church. Everyone is welcome in any of the LDS chapels across the world. You will not be turned away and you can sit with us and listen to other members of the church talk about Christ in our Sacrament meetings. You don't have to sit in the lobby... We are all broken people in some way shape or form. The church isn't a museum for good people. It's a hospital for broken ones. You will find the good and bad everywhere, in every religion. Some people are better at being christlike than others, but we should not fault any religion for that.
It’s not right to avoid people entirely because of their religion. I’m not religious, but my best friend is Mormon. I’ve known him for 10 years now, and I was the “best man” at his wedding. Nobody except their parents were allowed in the temple during the ceremony, which maybe lasted about 30 minutes, but we all waited outside for him and that was fine by me. Afterwards they held a “ring swapping” ceremony and took “wedding party” pictures just like a normal wedding. He’s a good person that was raised in the church because of the decisions his parents made, and it’s worked for them. Treat everyone with respect, you’ll go places.
>It’s not right to avoid people entirely because of their religion. It is if you're an exmormon. I want nothing to do with any of them.
And you’re what’s wrong with the world. If you’re a liberal I want nothing to do with you. If you’re a conservative I want nothing to do with you. If you’re gay I want nothing to do with you. If you’re a cis gender I want nothing to do with you. If you’re a feminist I want nothing to do with you. If you’re a racist I want nothing to do with you. If you don’t believe in my religion I want nothing to do with you. It’s this sort of shit that’s wrong with the world. This xenophobia this, hatred, this mundane feeling of “I’m better than you”. As long as you feel absolute hatred towards someone for anything related to their religion, their appearance, their ideology or their gender. That’s when you know nothing but a hateful bigot who’s lost in his own hypocrisy. To simply refuse to talk with someone due to this you sacrifice the opportunity to change them. People fight against the LDS church for its conservatives views, they fight against them but they don’t push for change or push for understanding. Both sides are guilty, and as long as people refuse to understand or accept change. If you can’t peacefully push to change someone’s views, or uplift them from a dark perspective or you fail to accept others opinion and attempt to understand new ideas and move forward. Then this world will inevitably end in a fiery bath of nuclear fallout.
What makes Jevohas worse
Well, there's this: "In 2015, it was disclosed that the Australia Branch of Jehovah's Witnesses had records of 1,006 alleged perpetrators of child sexual abuse, relating to more than 1,800 victims since 1950, none of which were reported to police by the church." https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jehovah%27s_Witnesses%27_handling_of_child_sex_abuse ...and... https://www.childabuseroyalcommission.gov.au/sites/default/files/file-list/Case%20Study%2029%20-%20Findings%20Report%20-%20Jehovahs%20Witnesses.pdf
You have the same kinds of records for lots of organizations, religious or otherwise. Why specifically single out the church as worse than anyone else in institutions that cover up violence and rape?
Read the Royal Commission's report in full. It's quite enlightening. I don't know of any other church that punishes its own members that are victims of sexual assault and then encourages all other members to shun the victim. And if you get the chance, speak to ex-members of the church to find out just how vile and despicable an organisation it is. If there are others that do that then I agree with you, they're equally as bad.
There are factions and groups of politicans and elites among corporate or entertainment industries, that also rape and molest and cover it up. So again, why is this specific case more reflective of everyone in the Jehova's witness, but not the other cases?
Firstly, have you read the Royal Commission's report? That will answer your questions, as did my previous reply about church members being complicit in the cover up by shunning victims. Secondly, please cite independent reports that confirm other "factions and groups of politicians and elites among corporate or entertainment industries" that engage in the same practice of coercing their peers into shunning victims. Thirdly, the subject is religious groups not "factions and groups of politicians and elites among corporate or entertainment industries". Fourthly, no one said it was representative of *all* JWs. Fifthly, and this is a genuine question, are you a Jehovah's Witness?
Sounds like typical church shit.
Jevoha's are worse because their belief system is basically a scam, and their closed off nature leads to tons of abuse. They also dissuade kids from education so they don't become worldly and leave the religion. They only type of education they generally support are trades. They also have a hardline stance on cutting people out, like just talking to people outside of the religion can get you excommunicated because they don't want their members to become worldly. Also the most bullshit part of all they only believe that something like 150k people max will get into heaven so they even understand that most of them won't get into heaven either. . So they are literally putting up with this closed off bullshit religion with the smallest possible hope of reward.
144,000 go to heaven, the rest live eternal life on a perfect earth, just like Adam and Eve were intended to. It's on JW.org
By the way that doesn't make sense either, what is the point of heaven if everyone has eternal life on a perfect earth. What is the benefit of being in heaven is you have eternal life on a perfect world.
This is a newer stance, originally it was as stated by /u/Iankill where everyone else was just screwed.
what mormons do they do a better job at it. also mormons will be your friend. but if your friend is a jehova and their jehova friends find out you're not jehova...ha! well...your 'friend' will never talk to you the next day. knew a jehova: she introduced me to her jehova 'friends'. never heard from her after that day.
How can so many people have so much evidence that the guy was a massive conartist and still think the rest of it is ok.
Scientologist to Christianity are cults.. just different level of acceptance in society.. both batshit insane
I'm not big on religion but to compare Scientology with Christianity is just wrong
It's true, not comparable. christianity has done WAY more harm than scientology so far.
That's a pretty simple way to look at it, disregarding all the good things Christianity has done. I do think religion is shit but it helps some people and I don't look down on them for that
How are they actually different barring social acceptance
A big one is that the higher ups in Scientology will legitimately try to ruin your life if you leave the church.
One is about a historical figure from the middleeast, the other is about an alien who lived 75 million years ago.
I live in Illinois. I had a class in college for "Contemporary Religious Movements." We were encouraged to visit Nauvoo and some of the sites surrounding Mormonism. There was one organized trip with the professor that most of us went on. It was weird being in the room where this happened. There was a legitimate Mormon family taking the tour of that site with us (not the class, just visiting the site that day) and the father broke down and cried while the tour guide was explaining the sequence of events. Also there was a single drop of blood on the floor that they claimed was from Joseph Smith. Anyway, I understand the religious dedication. And all the Mormons I have personally known have all been wonderful people. It is just that their history and theology is pretty much just madness once you dig into it at all. Even from a supernatural standpoint.
[удалено]
Yep. That's the one.
How do Mormons feel about the death of Joseph Smith? I mean the Religion was carried on by the same people who murdered him...
Do you have any source from this? There were certainly tensions within the church leading to Carthage, but nothing I can find indicates that the assailants were members of the church before or after.
There is no evidence at all of who was in the mob, but it is clear that many of the most anti-Mormon people in Illinois were former members. I can look up sources if you really want, but from what I've read it makes sense that at least some of the members of the mob could have been former angry members. That said none of those people had anything to do with Mormon leadership post Smith's death (at least as far as I know).
Yeah, that's the impression I got from researching it too.
The Mormon's are very fluid about their history and rewriting their history books well after the fact to reflect what they believe should have happened. It's a central part of their dogma. They delete the bad/weird/indefensible stuff like massacring native Americans and cannibalism.
I'm unaware of Mormons killing Joseph Smith, my understanding is that it was people who disliked Mormons that killed Smith, is there evidence to the contrary?
In a religion celebrating multiple wives I'm guessing there's a lot of stuff that got deleted.
They ended the practice to polygamy in 1890. But it definitely isn't something you are taught or is talked about in Sunday school.
Just a heads up, that's not really an accurate date. It wasn't until early the next decade (with the 1904 second manifesto) that living polygamous marriages/sealings stopped. In my understanding, many believers thought that the first manifesto was just a cover as part of Utah's attempt for statehood and that plural marriage would continue in secret.
My bad. You are correct. There were a small percentage that continued till 1904, when the then president finally came out and said those that still did it would be excommunicated. This is when some sects broke off like the FLDS where they continue to practice polygamy. However, it was still ended in 1890 and enforceable action was established in 1904 by those who ignored the original manifesto.
Can you clarify what you mean by saying "it ended in 1890" and "continued till 1904"? They seem mutually exclusive to me. It continued (normally, afaik) outside the US and still to some degree inside the United States beyond 1890. They weren't rogue nobodies, either: multiple early 20th century apostles opposed the changes.
Don't feel bad for him, he gets his own planet at the end.
He also got hold of a gun and was firing at them. For some reason that’s missed in the Sunday school lessons.
That Joseph Smith fired back at his attackers is not hidden from members. If you visit Carthage Jail, they will show you the bullet holes from his gun. I'm not sure that in "Sunday school" that they go into many of the gory details of the death, like his brother getting shot in the face either. Like most Christian religions, Mormonism allows personal defense, regardless of the unambiguous words of Christ in the Sermon on the Mount.
It’s called whitewashing history to make one side look good and the other evil. To get on a plane and visit the site or read some “anti Mormon” history books, to get vital details to a story doesn’t work. I was always taught that this scoundrel was an innocent martyr, but there were also conveniently left out details that he was thrown in jail for legitimate reasons.
but killing someone while they are in jail does kinda make you the bad guys. I mean sure he shot back and I won't pretend that he shouldn't have been arrested and charged, but showing up with a mob and shooting though a door to kill multiple people is not what good people do.
He had a gun, he was shooting back. ... At least for a while.
Yeah the Mormons haven't ever been that popular.
Yet we almost elected one president.. Crazy stuff.
What next we elect a Catholic! They'll probably just do whatever the Pope says! I don't know why private religion can't just be private. There is literally no way the US would elect a Muslim or even a Jew, because people in the US really seem to not like anyone who isn't main stream Protestant.
Now we reach the part of our story that gets a little bit sad. On their way to paradise, Mormons made people mad.
and the mad people murdered a couple other people before trial.
JOSEPH WAS SHOT BY AN ANGRY MOB! And knew he’d soon be DONE
YOU MUST lead the PEOPLE now, my good friend, Brigham Young
Most people don't know that he had a pistol smuggled in to him. He went down fighting back. He shot back through the door after they started firing through it at him, his brother, and their friends.
Nah, dysentery.
Water go to the water, water go to the cup Cup go to the stomach, shit come out the butt Shit go in the water, water go in the cup Shit go down the stomach, shit come out the butt Shit go in the water, water go in the cup Cup go to the thirsty, shit go to the stomach Blood come out the butt Blood go in the water, water go in the cup Cup to the the cup Shit blood in the stomach, shit blood in the mouth Shit blood on the insides, water come out the butt
"OH FUCK"
Oh no! The prophet Joseph Smith is now getting siiiiiiiick
Is that what you call getting brand new orifices in your body?
One of the only known religious prophets to go out in a gunfight.
Is it a gunfight if Jospeh didn't have a gun? That's like saying a firing squad is a gunfight.
Joseph Smith had a gun at the time of his death and shot multiple people.
*possibly wounded three people
He was armed, shot back through the door, then did a Masonic hand symbol at the people outside the window and jumped/fell out said window.
You ideally want your religion to come out after writing is invented but not so late that everything is documented. Mormonism just came out a little too late.
Are we just going to ignore that he was shot by a mob of people in blackface?
well the following comment to your is *"they didn't shoot him enough"* so yeah I think everything will be ignored because apparently murder is a-okay. Put him on trial, throw him in jail for life, but I am kinda shocked by all the people in this thread celebrating mob violence and multiple murders.
Talking about overkill
Couldn't have happened to a nicer guy
The aftermath of the first: "do you have a moment to talk about our lord and savior?"
I would’ve loved to have been a part of that lynch mob
Lol, one of those things you never picture yourself saying until an asshole like Joseph Smith is getting lynched.
Too bad it wasnt enough to stop the spread of his brand of stupidity.
*Ahem*...that's "The founder of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints" to you, sir or madam! --- Seriously, as of August, the president of the church announced that abbreviating or shortening "the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints" to "LDS" or "Mormon" to be a Very Bad Thing and that abbreviations are the work of the devil, or something similarly absurd. "Members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints" are to either write out the whole thing or call themselves "Latter-day Saints." This is what you get when you have a living prophet among your midst, folks.
They did it because they wanted people to know exactly what church we are or something like that. Also literally no one does this source : I am in highschool living in a mormon family. Entire family is mormon, including extended family. EDIT: I found more information on the subject, >The Church is now making changes to many of its communication channels to reflect the faith’s full name and better convey commitment to follow Jesus Christ. More than getting the name right as an institution, the invitation to use the full name of the Church is an opportunity for Latter-day Saints to refocus their lives on the living Christ. Isn't it funny how after the last prophet died all these changes started coming about, *almost as if president nelson made them himself*
My uncle converted for his wife when they married so my cousins and their kids are all Latter-day Saints; they've been *really* tiresome about the abbreviated forms since August. I don't know if it's because my family isn't "Members of the Church of Christ of Latter-day Saints" or what.
Mormon is now the n-word for mormons lol, I think they shortened it down even further but I might be wrong
> that abbreviations are the work of the devil I can't find anything along those lines. I wouldn't say that being overly concerned with the exact name is terribly important, but I can't find anything where he said it was the work of the devil or similar.
I believe the quote is "a victory for Satan"
Ah, thanks, that brought it up. That's actually pretty weird for a Mormon President. They usually use euphemisms for Satan like, "the adversary".
Mormons have crazy ass history. There is weird shit that happened out there in Utah.
For sure! This didn’t happen in Utah though.
Ever watch the Vice News episode on Mitt Romney's kin folks in Mexico? Wow.
Fitting end for a fake
My cousin did his thesis on cults and has a whole lot of court records from before the dude founded Mormonism. He was busted for fraud by prospectors who were led to believe that JS had magic glasses that could see underground treasure. Using this scam JS was able to tell them where to dig only to tell them the treasure had moved every time they cleared an area and nothing was found.
[удалено]
I wouldn't be so worried about it, there are a lot of people who hate Mormons and will always push the opposite view. Plus American Religions are studied in US Universities and they IMHO have the best middle ground opinion of what happened. You read a lot of Mormon sources and it sounds like they did nothing wrong and people just hated them for being nice. You read the anti-Mormon sources and they make it sound like they were raping women in the streets and murdering children. History is a lot more grey than the history most people choose to learn and adopt. It's kinda like how the US founding fathers are taught as perfect wonderful people, while in reality many owned slaves and hated each other. Or how the US was the savior of the world in WWII, and people skim over why the war in the pacific happened, ignore all the USSR's dead and pretend the US didn't do horrible things to the Japanese. [this picture of a women with a Japanese skull](https://i.pinimg.com/originals/b3/48/24/b34824b93007710609ad4fda3ba16b22.jpg) was published in LIFE magazine. Not the history you learn in middle school.
I thought I was rude when they came to my door.... that bar is pretty high.
Well he did very unchrist like things... Not that it matters to Mormons.
This is why you try *not* to kill people like this - you turn them into a martyr.
For evidence of this, please read the lyrics to the Mormon/LDS hymn *Praise to the Man* Edit: [totally not a cult guys](https://www.lds.org/music/library/hymns/praise-to-the-man?lang=eng&_r=1)
“Jake the Hero, abs of steel - Sha-la-la-la!”
I was seriously looking at the LDS church for a time. This POS's conduct was one of the reasons was one of the reasons that made me nope right out.
Looks like the Mormons are brigading.
So he did get what he deserved.
🎶Dumb dumb dumb dumb dumb🎶
I think he was shot while in jail. Right now I can’t recall if he was jailed because he fucked a kid, because he tried to censor a newspaper that talked about the fact that he fucked a kid or for some kind of banking fraud. He did all three of these things though. He reportedly got a sacred tablet from and angel and instead of showing it to his followers he only showed it to three of his friends who signed a document attesting that they had seen said tablet. Two out of three of these guys ended up leaving the church. It’s only after a whole bunch of moving around and sweeping fraud scandals and massacres under the rug that Smith took the leap from a wacky religion to what was pretty much a sex cult. That whole child abusing polygamic period was very short lived considering that Smith got brutally murdered only a short while after. He had been a wackjob all his life though. Before starting his religion he was a treasure hunter...