Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site pyuxn.UUCP
Path: utzoo!linus!decvax!harpo!eagle!mhuxt!mhuxv!mhuxa!houxm!ihnp4!cbosgd!cbdkc1!pyuxmm!pyuxnn!pyuxi!pyuxn!rlr
From: rlr@pyuxn.UUCP
Newsgroups: net.religion
Subject: Re: Enough picking on Mormons
Message-ID: <206@pyuxn.UUCP>
Date: Tue, 13-Sep-83 19:10:54 EDT
Article-I.D.: pyuxn.206
Posted: Tue Sep 13 19:10:54 1983
Date-Received: Wed, 14-Sep-83 17:44:05 EDT
References: <2213@tekmdp.UUCP>
Organization: Bell Labs, Piscataway
Lines: 45

It seems this Mormon business has gotten a little out of hand.  As (what
has been referred to as) a "religious skeptic", I applaud the notion of
showing so-called religious documents as fluff and fraud.  But why pick
on one group?  Because they are a (relatively) easier target than
Christinanity or religiondom as a whole?

My own personal belief is that the Bible and other similar religious
works are no more accurate/inspired/divine/holy/important than the
works of Joseph Smith or the writings of L. Ron Hubbard or the Gospel
According to Ubizmo. (Ahh, you've all forgotten Ubizmo; for shame...)
I'm not here to argue this point, since these are simply personal
beliefs that I am not prepared to argue about.  But, to me, all
religious writings are either 1) the works of truly inspired individuals
with something to say, or 2) the attempts of others to "cash in" on
examples of (1).  I say "cash in", but I don't necessarily mean that in a
TOTALLY negative sense; i.e., taking earlier works and leading other people in
the ways of the earlier works may be a good thing for all concerned.  But
given the way that absolute power corrupts absolutely, the way that guiding
people in religious teachings can lead to absolute power over their lives,
it doesn't matter whether the religious leaders started out with the
intention of deceiving, acquired that intention later on, or never acquired
it (explicitly) at all.  The nature of the beast (large oligarchical
bureaucracies like the church) is that such entities exist primarily to
self-perpetuate, and secondarily to perform some other function (like
enlightening the masses and bringing peace to the world). And what "organized
religion" winds up becoming is a power structure controlling people's lives.

Though I don't have hard evidence, it is my belief that most religious
movements are born out of some form of deceit, though the deceiver may think
that he/she is deceiving others for their own good, and may convince others to
do the same.  This is how modern cults like the Moonies operate.  You might say
that such cults are different from "true" religions in that the intent of the
originators of true religions was benign.  I don't see hard evidence of that.
Although we see the Rev. Iceemye Belibutan and friends living in the lap of
luxury today while their followers follow them in abject poverty and blind
obedience, what do we know about the motives, designs, etc. of those who
promoted the so-called true religions?

The point here is:  why pick on the Mormons?  Sounds like it's only because
they're an easy target.  I don't think that Mormonism is any different from
any religion in terms of validity, and there's no reason to single them out.
If this is a newsgroup containing atheists, religious skeptics, religious
fanatics, and everybody in between, all with something to say about everything,
then let's talk about concepts and ideas instead of picking on individual
groups.				Rich Rosen  pyuxn!rlr