Religion had good intentions, but nature has better

[LivingNumbers6.626]

I've recently found a copy of The Changing World of Mormonism. I'm skipping around, hitting chapters of particular interest first. I've already confirmed Joe (and the subsequent leaders and hierarchy) really were/are making it up as they go along. I'd be very hard pressed to say Joe had good intentions beyond looking out for Joe.

Mormonism is really an amazing pile of poop, it almost seems as though there have been times church leadership has been interested in nothing beyond seeing how many hoops they can get the flock to jump through. Internal consistency should have been much easier for Joe as compared to the bible writers, but it doesn't seem to have been a concern at all. Between the KJV bible, Pearl of Great Price, Doctrines and Covenants, and the Book of Mormon there is just an incredible amount of confusion.

And then we have the Book of Abraham . . .

Unfortunately, you're so right. Mormonism is a shit hole, made my shit people, with shit plans. But are all religions so sinister in nature?

After reading everyone's response, I'm afraid my worst fear has been realized: all religions have/had sinister intentions probably initially and perpetually. How sad. This world certainly is fucked up.

Worst part is, I'm back with my family. That isn't the bad part. That's the best part, but what that insinuates is the worst. The local bishop wants to reactivate me and my old religious "brothers and sisters" want to chat with me and see me in church. The whole situation is almost seducing. The people are always so nice at face value, but after considering what their friendship insinuates it makes me sick to my stomach. Why is human-ship and friendship dependent upon something so fickle and sinister?

But yeah, the mormon faith is a bag of paintchips, nothing but complete intellectual stupidity and dishonesty and millions are feasting like mad! Luckily, they're all seen as pretty crazy by most, if not all, of the Christian community. Heard of Zelph? Oh, fuck me silly. Joe really was watching after #1.

[vorlon13]

After 1820, Joseph Smith was supposedly tasked, by God, to restore the actual 'One True Faith' Jesus Christ established on earth.

therefore

the 1820s are less than 200 years ago, we have, thanks to the Mormons themselves, copious records and testimonials of virtually the entire Mormon movement, despite sometimes vigorous efforts of the LDS church itself, to rewrite it's own history, practices, scriptures, tracts, creeds, dogma, rites, revelations, pronouncements, tomes, edicts, and doctrines.

Joseph Smith himself noted the Book of Mormon to be the most perfect book ever written, and then in less than 2 centuries, the church hierarchy has changed it over 3000 times!

What's with all the rewrites ?? Joe didn't get it right the first time ?? What else are we to conclude upon that first change to professed sacred writings ?? If Joe didn't get everything right the first time, did he get anything right at all ??

The Mormon God is a total doofus. We have proof.

[abaris]

Not to forget that Joe Smith was a professional con man to begin with. He's got a rap sheat as long as his arm.

Founding his church seems to be an effort to cater to his own interests. Mainly satisfying his dick and ending up with - what was it - 42 wives?

[smax]

I don't think religion ever had any "good intention". Religion is a tool for controlling people and spreading propaganda. It is man made just like weapons and war and every other destructive thing we can conjure up.

[Confused Ape]

I don't think religion ever had any "good intention". Religion is a tool for controlling people and spreading propaganda. It is man made just like weapons and war and every other destructive thing we can conjure up.

Humans can turn anything into a tool for controlling people and spreading propaganda. Even atheism could be turned into an ideology and used to control people.

[abaris]

Even atheism could be turned into an ideology and used to control people.

Nope. Atheism isn't enough, since it's only disbelief. You'd had to attach some ideology to pull that trick. Communism is an example. It was led by atheists, but it wasn't an atheist movement, since the absence of god didn't make up the belief system.

[Confused Ape]

Even atheism could be turned into an ideology and used to control people.

Nope. Atheism isn't enough, since it's only disbelief. You'd had to attach some ideology to pull that trick. Communism is an example. It was led by atheists, but it wasn't an atheist movement, since the absence of god didn't make up the belief system.

I came across some very scary atheists in another forum who tried to turn it into an ideology. They insisted that atheists should do this and not do that and it was every atheist's duty to stamp out religion etc etc etc. Sam Harris was regarded as a heretic because he meditates and Richard Dawkins wasn't atheist enough for them either. After all, he's only a 6.999 on the scale of probability instead of a 7 and he declared himself a cultural Christian. Oh, the horror, because he still sends Christmas cards and likes singing carols.

So, that's how atheism could be turned into an ideology - declare it to be THE TRUTH and coerce the gullible into believing that a world without religion will be an Utopia. Luckily the really scary atheist fanatics are unlikely to get into power and start a 'cleansing' to rid the world of religious people.

[FatAndFaithless]

I don't see how that's an "atheist" ideology, that's some bizarre supremacy complex and a violently anti-theistic viewpoint. They can say "atheists should do this and not that" all they like, but there is no atheist 'doctrine' to which they can appeal. If they're trying to form a clubhouse of maniacal douchebags that happen to be atheist, fine, but its the 'maniacal douchebag' part that is driving their actions.

[Confused Ape]

I don't see how that's an "atheist" ideology, that's some bizarre supremacy complex and a violently anti-theistic viewpoint. They can say "atheists should do this and not that" all they like, but there is no atheist 'doctrine' to which they can appeal. If they're trying to form a clubhouse of maniacal douchebags that happen to be atheist, fine, but its the 'maniacal douchebag' part that is driving their actions.

It's attaching beliefs about atheism onto atheism and turning those beliefs into an ideology. You're right about there being no atheist doctrine at the moment but if maniacal douchebag atheists got into power they'd invent an atheist doctrine and use it to control the population with.

Religion in itself is neutral. It can bring comfort and strength to people or be taken over by maniacal douchebag's who invent doctrines to control people.

Was Hitler an atheist or religious? The way I see it, the question is irrelevant because, either way, he'd have been the same maniacal douchebag. The same for Stalin, Pol Pot and other monsters of history.

[abaris]

It's attaching beliefs about atheism onto atheism and turning those beliefs into an ideology. You're right about there being no atheist doctrine at the moment but if maniacal douchebag atheists got into control they'd invent an atheist doctrine and use it to control the population with.

Yes, they're attaching beliefs to something that's only disbelief. I repeat, you have to attach something, since there's no ideology in not believing in any kind of higher being.