Some random thoughts in response to what I just read today on your main page...

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints (Mormon's) is not and never has been a "cult". ALL "mainstream" churches started out small and that didn't make them a cult. No matter how you try to defend it the word cult has a negative image.

Old Nauvoo wasn't some cult compound like you make it sound, Joseph Smith and other church members simply created a city like any other in the country and that small town still thrives today and now has it's LDS Temple rebuilt.

Just because you (the press does it too) may not see LDS Prophets as true prophets and seers receiving true revelation from God that doesn't mean you have to put quote marks around any word refering to these things to devalue them (that's what it does, no matter how you may deny it).

Why are you so sure the Lamanites and Nephites mentioned in the Book of Mormon are "mythical"?

And in no way has the LDS (Mormon) Church been trying to suppress free speach on the Main Street Plaza in Salt Lake, they are only trying to prevent the rampant descrimination and out right rude behavior that has risen on the Plaza next to Temple Square in Salt Lake since the recent court ruling ("preachers" yelling rude comments through a bull horn at a couple taking their wedding pictures on their wedding day at the temple for example). The church only wants to maintain a peaceful spot there on the Plaza for member AND non-member alike to enjoy in the middle of the busy city. The protesters have all the city blocks surrounding Temple Square to speak their peace and behave how they want, they don't need that one small spot as well.

For a better understanding of these comments see the original article at [www.cultnews.com]

What is a cult?

See [www.culteducation.com]

Is the Book of Mormon historical or fiction?

See the following links:

[www.culteducation.com]

[www.culteducation.com]

[www.culteducation.com]

I'm new to this site and hope that when people dispute what the website is saying that they and their posts aren't just deleted... thankyou for not doing that to my first one.

Again, I realize the official statement of this website is that the word "cult" is not neccesarily meant to infer something bad... but the general public does take that word to mean something negative (that the religion is some off the wall thing that has harmful effects on its members etc.). Though I disagree, I can see how when the LDS church was first founded/restored it could've back then been seen as a "cult" by many... but it is no longer the case today. Today it is worldwide (more members outside of USA than inside) and large enough that in my book it is "mainstream".

About you trying to defend that the Book of Mormon is a work of fiction (or that others see it that way), the same could be said about the Bible. All relgion is basically supposed to be based on Faith and present day physical proof isn't supposed to be "needed" (just a nicety or a plus).

In response to your links on this subject...

I quote from the first link the National Geograpic's statement: "So far as we know there is no archaeological evidence to verify the history of early peoples of the Western Hemisphere as presented in the Book of Mormon." Notice they said so far as they know. In other words nothing has been concretely proven or found YET. It's common knowledge that the jungles of South and Central America are very dense and most likely hide many cities or buildings (just as the desert in Egypt does under the sand). And the LDS church teaches that the Nephites/Lamanites weren't the first people over here, so it is easy to see that over time they most likely meshed with the other people (in fact, unless I'm mistaken, it states this blending happened in the later part of the Book of Mormon) and any references to them specifically now could be quite hard to find (plus the other people living there may not refer to them by the names of Nephite and Lamanite).

Also, just because ties have not yet been found as claimed between new world and old world (as in writing, building style or language) doesn't prove the Book of Mormon to be false for the same reasons listed above (the blending of cultures/societys and structures buried by jungle overgrowth).

First of all, in answer to your question all posts that are not in violation of the rules are posted.

But RI reserves the right to delete posts and/or refuse to post those that violate the stated rules.

Also, a "flame war" taken to excess will not be tolerated.

Having said that, You are free to share your views and I welcome your opinions.

Obviously you are a devoted Mormon and believe the stories written by Joseph Smith as a history.

Based upon your logic we should all believe in Santa.

After all, "So far as we know" there is no proof of Santa. But perhaps somewhere near the North Pole there may be evidence?

There is no archaelogical proof whatsoever for the Book of Mormon and the book contains claims about technology, animals and artifacts that are clearly not historical for the Americas before Columbus.

See [www.culteducation.com]

Mormons may make whatever spiritual claims they wish, but you cannot make historical claims without proof and there is none.

The Book of Mormon is clearly a fictional mythology created by Joseph Smith.

Yes, I attend the LDS church (Mormon is a nickname, not the true name). And clearly you're one of those who must have physical proof for everything before you'll believe.

Until it is proven otherwise, I will remain firm in my belief that the Book of Mormon is what it claims to be... a historical record with spiritual teachings translated (not written by) Joseph Smith. Who's to say those temples, pyramid structures, etc. already found in South America weren't used as well by the people mentioned in these scriptures? And there is plenty yet to be discovered about the different cultures and civilizations who lived long ago down there.

We all know however that Santa Claus is a story created by man... loosely derived from a Catholic Saint (Saint Nicholas), though what exactly he did I can't remember at the moment. I myself don't care for the Santa legend as he's the symbol of the commercialism of the holiday and distracts from the true meaning of what is supposed to be being celebrated.

No religion that I'm aware of has concrete physical proof for everything they believe.

On another line, has anyone else been following what's happening in reguards to the Main Street Plaza in Salt Lake City?

It has been "proven otherwise," but I understand your reluctance to accept that.

See [www.culteducation.com]

And [www.culteducation.com]

Obviously, when Mormons disagree with what the church claims is somehow "historical" they risk "excommunication," no matter how compelling the evidence is.

Much has been published in newspapers about the controversy surrounding Temple Square. It has regularly come up through the news wire services.

See the following:

[www.culteducation.com]
[www.culteducation.com]
[www.culteducation.com]
[www.culteducation.com]
[www.culteducation.com]
[www.culteducation.com]
[www.culteducation.com]

Originally posted by rrmoderator
"It has been 'proven otherwise,' but I understand your reluctance to accept that."

"Obviously, when Mormons disagree with what the church claims is somehow 'historical' they risk "excommunication," no matter how compelling the evidence is."

Excommunication is a tool of every religious group that I know of. In orthodox Judaism a person can be called a variety of names like "apikorsus" or "acum" or be called a person who "shmadded" himself. Shmad means spiritual extinction.
I never heard of a scientist who talked about another this way.
But this problem isn't limited to any particualr religion.

No, it hasn't been proven without a doubt that the Book of Mormon and LDS teachings by Joseph Smith and each prophet since are false.

Did that man test the DNA of every Amercian Indian, Central and South American native? He didn't prove that every individual in these areas is not a decendant from people in the middle east area. Exactly how does DNA prove what location an individual lived in anyhow? All DNA does is tell a person's genetic makeup, what they look like. And after well over 1,000 years of cross breading between the people from these diverse areas aren't the Nephite and Lamanites (the same race different "tribe" names) bound to take on the characteristics of the people who were living in the America's before them? An example would be a black person marrying a white and having kids, then their kids marrying another white person, and those kids marrying white... eventually the decendants are indistinguishable from other caucasian people (or the other way around if you reverse the situation). I know people like this and have seen it with my own eyes. People evolve and change. So without a test of each strain of native North, Central and South American that man's "findings" are in doubt.

With the LDS church you have to understand they believe that their prophets are no different that those from the Bible, that their revelation comes direct from God Himself. So rejecting certain church teachings is seen as rejecting the word of God which ANY church pretty much frowns on. And to spread this is seen as doing harm to others besides themselves... so naturally they want to stop that, thus church punishment (which doesn't always go as far as excommunication). I see nothing wrong with this. Name one organization that likes people going around bad mouthing it.

About the Main Street Plaza in Salt Lake, I live in Salt Lake City and I've been following it in detail by newspaper and TV already. So I know all about it. I was wondering what other people's opinions are on it (but I can pretty much guess what they'd be from the regular visitors here). Is anyone reading this besides me and the moderator?

In a nutshell to set things straight, the LDS church didn't seek out to buy that small section of Main Street... the city came to them with an original plan of starting with that spot to close down a couple blocks or so of that street to create a pedestrian plaza to help revitalize shopping and commerce there which is in a major slump. Since then (after the church built their part) those plans were scrapped. So it wasn't the LDS church trying to push itself on the public. At the time of original sale the City gave the church the impression that it was going to allow the restrictions the church wanted to keep the area nice, peaceful and relaxing... then a year later the ACLU and the 10th Circuit court shot that to pieces. Thus the present situation.

If people would quietly speak their minds (like those that just hand out pamphlets) the LDS church would probably be willing to bend and let the public easement through their property remain and allow such quiet behaviors to continue (though grudgingly I admit). But people just can't be respectful it seems (yelling at brides on their wedding day at the temple through a bull horn). So naturally why wouldn't the church want to get rid of the easement to prevent such things? Is it too much to ask for these "preachers" (protesters) to leave this small piece of land alone and take their message a few feet down to the sidewalks surrounding Temple Square (a very large area for them)?

"Originally posted by richardmgreen" Originally posted by rrmoderator

Excommunication is a tool of every religious group that I know of. In orthodox Judaism a person can be called a variety of names like "apikorsus" or "acum" or be called a person who "shmadded" himself. Shmad means spiritual extinction.
I never heard of a scientist who talked about another this way.
But this problem isn't limited to any particualr religion."


Oh, so other mainstream chrisitian churchs kick member's out for similar things these LDS people do and have done?

"If people would quietly speak their minds (like those that just hand out pamphlets) the LDS church would probably be willing to bend and let the public easement through their property remain and allow such quiet behaviors to continue (though grudgingly I admit). But people just can't be respectful it seems (yelling at brides on their wedding day at the temple through a bull horn). So naturally why wouldn't the church want to get rid of the easement to prevent such things? Is it too much to ask for these "preachers" (protesters) to leave this small piece of land alone and take their message a few feet down to the sidewalks surrounding Temple Square (a very large area for them)?"

Neilfan,
So why should the LDS church be given the ability to dictate to people where, when, and how they are allowed to practice free speech in a public arena?
Granted I'm sure a person utilitizing a bull horn directed towards a wedding party was annoying but if I understand what you've said of this particular incident it occured outside in a public area correct?
If that is correct then that is just a risk anyone takes with holding any kind of event outside in a public area or near one -- the annoyances of other people expressing their viewpoints.

In this country we have the right to express our views in the public arena, even loudly. If there was no physical altercations then what is the problem here as far as the LDS position? I'm sorry I just do not understand why this is such a big deal. And I am taking into account in my thoughts that Salt Lake City is populated by more LDS members than non and that dealing with dissenting views of the LDS is probably not something they are overly accustomed to within a few feet of their places of worship certainly. But you must agree even in Salt Lake City there still exists the right of free speech and freedom of expression? Right? Even within a few feet of LDS church owned property of any kind there still exists those rights you know.

I'm relatively sure that the city of Salt Lake has some form of a noise ordinance as most other US cities have and if that particular incident did not violate the noise ordinance and the person with the bull horn was not charged with distrubing the peace then it would seem clear to me the LDS church has no leg to stand on regarding this event.

And please do not take my words here as any type of condemnation of the LDS church or it's members...for they are not that. I'm just curious to know why you think the LDS church has any authority to tell that person or anyone where, how, and when they can express their constitutional right to free speech and freedom of expression?