We've all, of course, heard the official LDS line before:

Grave-robbing, necro-dunking Mormons preach and teach from both their canonized scripture and General Conference pulpit that the imperialist marauder/slaughterer Christopher Columbus was divinely led by the LDS Holy Ghost to "discover" the so-called "New World"--which (again according to LDS marauding imperialist doctrine) led to the subjugation of the supposedly sinful and therefore heaven-punished/brown skin-cursed Native peoples of the Western Hemisphere, which also according to Mormonism's revoltingly racist gospel, then helped blaze the trail for the establishment in the good ol' U.S. of A. of the White supremacist Mormon God's international base of operations for spreading Latter-day Saintism to all the lesser non-Mormon peoples across the planet.

(see: "Christopher Columbus is an LDS High Priest," under "Latter-day Saint Conservative: God, Family, Faith, Freedom, Peace," at: http://www.latterdayconservative.com/blog/christopher-columbus-lds-high-priest/; and "Is the Mormon Church Stuck With an Embarrassing Book It Cannot Historically Support?," by Rick Ross, 16 May 2002, at: http://www.rickross.com/reference/mormon/mormon34.html)
_____


With me so far? It gets better.

The Mormon Church's highest leaders have also traditionally taught that the Catholic Church is the "Great and Abominable Church of the Devil," that prostituted "Whore of Babylon" squatting on the seven hills of Rome, from where it has spread apostasy and corruption around the globe--which could only be defeated by a woefully under-educated 14-year-old farm boy-turned peep-stoning conman Joseph Smith whom the Mormon God tapped out for that mission.

(see: "Why the Mormon Church Hates the Catholic," by "Deconstructor," on "Recovery from Mormonism" bulletin board, 19 February 2004, at: http://www.exmormon.org/mormon/mormon327.htm; and "Mormon Stumpers," under "Catholic Answers: Faith," at: http://www.catholic.com/library/Mormon_Stumpers.asp)
_____


Still with me? Good.

Here comes the latest.

Now we have Roman Catholic Jesuit priests paying out a near-record sum for their long history of child sexual-molestation abuse--and in the following article, this pedophilic priestly class is directly compared to the Mormon-guided Christopher Columbus of Native American-enslaving/decimating fame:

"' . . . A clergy organization representing Jesuit priests in Western states has reached a $166.1 million agreement to settle approximately 524 claims of clergy sex abuse. The settlement is one of the largest in U.S. history relating to the Roman Catholic Church sexual abuse scandal.

"'Under the settlement, the Oregon Province of the Society of Jesus--which represents Oregon, Washington, Idaho, Alaska and Montana--will pay $48.1 million into a trust for the victims, while one of its insurance carriers will pay $118 million. In addition, the society will publicize the names of perpetrators, issue a written apology to victims, release their medical records to them and take steps to protect children from future sexual abuse…'

"From scanning various news sites, newspapers and blogs, they all tend to lead with the huge amount of money that may change hands. Is this really the meat of the story? Is it really all about money?

"This tragedy, repeated globally, just doesn’t want to come to a close. How do you 'move on' as a victim, or as one who has overseen the victimizers? Are we all ready to accept a dollar amount for any trespass? Allow clerics to shake the guilt off their hands while asking everyone in sight to move forward through the broken bones of spirits destroyed? Is the carpet of money promised going to reconstruct the destroyed childhood of thousands? No-

"Maybe its time for the 'holy men' to come down off the mountain, and live where the rest of us dwell, garnering forgiveness through living the words they profess. Get out of your buildings, dismiss your bodyguards, cooks, wine merchants, spokes people, drivers, lawyers, insurance agents, realtors, art advisors, and the bevy of apologists who rush to your defense--come to where your people are suffering.

"Ironically, for the disclosed Jesuit trespasses, it was the great American Native Sagoyewatha ('Red Jacket.' Chief of the Seneca. Why do we need to Anglicize this name?) Who brought a great deal of reality to the missionary Reverend Cram, from the Boston Missionary Society, who was convinced the 'savages' needed a load of Christianity to make their lives better. At Buffalo Creek, in 1805, this 'savage' spoke the truth:

“'. . . Brother, we are told that you have been preaching to the white people in this place. These people are our neighbors; we are acquainted with them; we will wait, a little while and see what effect your preaching has upon them. If we find it does them good, makes them honest and less disposed to cheat Indians, we will then consider again what you have said . . .'

"Well, we know the rest of the story. The Native peoples were essentially destroyed for a myriad of reasons. Their fate was sealed the moment Columbus set foot on their land. That priests would further torment these people speaks volumes to their commitments to their own theologies.

"Religious leaders, of all stripes, embrace the words of Akbar when he addressed scholars, including Jesuits, in the 1500’s. He concluded that no single religion could claim the monopoly of truth, suggesting religious members of all faiths go forward doing no harm.

"Naïve? Perhaps.

"It is time to change the paradigm if there is going to be any credibility left to those who pontificate."

("Its Not About the Money!!," posted by "connemaraproductions," under "CHS Capitol Seattle Blog," at: http://capitolhillseattle.com/2011/03/26/its-not-about-the-money)

*****


Leave it to Mormons to hold up a culture-ravaging, wrapped-in-God-talk White guy like Christopher Columbus as a supposedly divinely-inspired point man in these the latter-days for the establishment of their racist church.

Given what Mormons believe, who should be surprised?



Edited 34 time(s). Last edit at 03/27/2011 03:16PM by steve benson.

"...Mormons preach and teach from both their canonized scripture and General Conference pulpit that the imperialist marauder/slaughterer Christopher Columbus was divinely led by the LDS Holy Ghost to "discover" the so-called "New World"..."

Converts don't see this part of things, in my experience. I couldn't even figure out how to borrow a book from the church library (only allowed for certain teachers re specific topics - not my idea of a library) or how to ever get a different answer to my questions than "it's not essential for your salvation".

I can only wish I had ever heard a talk anywhere in Mormonism about Columbus because that would have jazzed things up a lot. We had a lot of missionary farewells (not very skilled or interesting talks) and few given by knowledgeable people with something of substance to impart. That's why when a visiting 70 actually discussed the atonement one Easter I was all excited, first that some substance was coming from the podium and second that somebody somewhere in my Mormon confines remembered it was Easter and made it OK that year - you know, like, more Christian.

The situation with the Jesuits is sick-making. I'm beyond disillusioned with the lot of them. Please, just for once, don't anybody say it wasn't all Jesuits or this accounts for only a small percentage of priests or any other comments that minimize the life-long suffering of the victims. It just goes on and on with these ped priests and it's appalling, what they did, and how it was tolerated and covered up and allowed to continue, everywhere, for decades. I see no way to sugarcoat it and no way to minimize or explain or excuse it.

"He concluded that no single religion could claim the monopoly of truth, suggesting religious members of all faiths go forward doing no harm."

That approach resonates with me. First, do no harm, is a guiding principle in medicine. Surely it should be so in religion too.

Among the biggest harm I see is the apparent utter cluelessness of religionists who lumber around doing major harm, physically or psychologically or culturally. As a JW missionary in Quebec moons ago, even though young and inexperienced and clueless and naive myself, I could recognize that ripping a Catholic person from their family group by "converting" and baptizing them to another faith, causing them to be shunned by the family, then leaving them in the midst of their loneliness and confusion and moving on, was culturally insensitive.

Thankfully we didn't act like rampaging imperialists but what we did was bad enough.

To the conquerors go the spoils, indeed. History is rife with examples of that brutality. Sure, we can say we Christians are better today, not so obvious in our attempted take-overs perhaps. But does that really excuse the historical wrongs or put to rest the criticism? No. And especially not if our mindset is still along the same lines, to conquer, convert, whatever we call it.

I remember a war refugee I met, who was being sponsored by a church, saying to me that his country was converted by the sword, then converted back by the sword and "we aren't interested in being converted any more".

I think that respecting where other people are at, including their desire to not be converted, upholds the "do no harm" principle. Along with the "let my people go" mantra, maybe we could add "leave my people alone". A lot of trouble and pain are caused by the "one true church" belief. I wish people could lay off on that.

As for Columbus, he's not really a big hero here in Canada, that I've ever been aware of. I don't know that much about what all went on with the explorers. Once again I see I've got a lot of reading to do. When it comes to those we hold in high esteem or consider heroes, it's worth taking a peek to see if their feet are clay. In some cases, we can perhaps still celebrate the positives, unless the negatives are much too much to overlook or ignore as, sadly, seems to be the case with many of them.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 03/27/2011 03:11AM by Nightingale.

"Application of the Critical Theory
"'Columbus not a hero, doesn't deserve national holiday'
"by Steve Covieo


"Today is the day we officially observe Columbus Day, a national holiday that celebrates the crimes of one of the greatest mass-murderers in the history of the planet.

"Columbus wrote in his first letter to the king and queen of Spain that he 'had taken some Indians by force from the first island that (he) came to.'

"It is true that Columbus did indeed believe the world to be round, but so did most intelligent Europeans of his time. Years earlier it was found that the world cast a circular shadow on the moon. It is even known now that the Greeks understood the world to be round about 2,000 years before Columbus' proclamation.

"Little is said about what happened when Columbus and his crew actually landed on this 'New World' they discovered. Stories of befriending the Indians are plenty, as are the tales of Columbus' good-natured reasons for the exploration. Unfortunately, these accounts are false.

"The true desire behind the journey was Columbus' greed for wealth and power. He wanted the gold and general resources he could find in the New World.

"The Native Americans Columbus encountered have generally been recorded as savages, but true accounts paint a somewhat different picture. For example, there are several narratives of the Spaniards stringing Indians up on wide gallows. Hans Koning, in 'Columbus: His Enterprise,' writes, 'These executions took place in lots of thirteen,' in memory of the Spaniards' Christian Redeemer and his 12 apostles. Koning goes on to state 'Men, women and children . . . were hacked to pieces" and sold "to the Spaniards for feeding their dogs.'

"In 'Lies My Teacher Told Me,' James W. Loewen says 'history must not judge Columbus by standards from our own time,' but it is unreasonable to absolve Columbus of his actions simply because he lived in a less civilized time. What makes genocide more acceptable 500 years ago?

"Loewen continues by saying that to 'attack Columbus for doing what everyone else did would be unreasonable.' He is referring to Columbus' part in enslaving the Indians. Although Columbus was not actually the first person to enslave others, he did bring slavery across the Atlantic Ocean for the first time. . . .

"What happened to the original residents of Haiti is just one example of the effects of Columbus' slavery. Loewen reports 'estimates of pre-Columbian population range as high as eight million people. By 1555, they were all gone.' He continues saying 'Haiti under the Spanish is one of the primary instances of genocide in all human history.' . . . Yet, he still insists it would be unreasonable for us to attack Columbus, our 'first American hero,' for his role in this slaughter. How can it be reasonable to ignore the slave trading and murders that occurred by Christopher Columbus, our national hero?

"The fact that the Italian-born explorer working under the Spanish flag never actually stepped foot upon U.S. soil must have successfully escaped American minds. If the fact that he did not discover the land that is now the United States shouldn't deny this holiday, the fact that he was a murderer who slaughtered nations of people should.

"(Steve Covieo is a Contributing Columnist at WMU Herald. This article was published in the Herald on October 13, 1997)"

http://www127.pair.com/critical/food-04.htm

 



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 03/28/2011 04:51AM by steve benson.

"these ped priests"

pedopriests?

Nolo Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> "these ped priests"
>
> pedopriests?

Yes. Priests who are pedophiles.

two self-interested, corrupt organizations, each of which claims to be the true representatives of gawd on earth, with a direct line to him, who govern from the top down, ironically, as representatives of gawd, do not do the moral thing unless forced to by secular law, and government.

With Columbus and others, LD$ always try to co-opt what they see as the leaders in society or the best known outside of them to make them privileged insiders. Forget about the quiet heroes. So you think Methodism is great? John Wesley was baptized by proxy, and HE came to us, because we have the truth! You are a heathen? Well, Ben Franklin came to join us too. The USA? We had that covered when the founders, and George Washington came to join us. LD$ claim the stamp of approval of notables from the afterlife. To add credibility for the sheeple, they are told THEY came to the profits, and apostles in the temple to ask for membership. TSCC does not seem to notice the hypocrisy even if it does come back to bite them. So Columbus was not the idealized image from JS’s time? They just make up more things in the tradition of JS, like the example that Moroni was so great he inspired Columbus, and others. Imaginary beings are used to bolster the reputation of the heroes, and make the story, and destiny of TSCC all the more glorious. Yeah, right.

Many who supposedly requested baptism are not known today, and I wonder how many heroes uncovered by revisionist history showed up in the temple, and of course the unsung ones. None, because they made it up. No one appeared, they just chose names of esteemed people at the time. For example, members also do not notice that Charlotte Corday allegedly came to be baptized in the temple too. She is not well known today, and not famous with a life to be exploited for the LD$ cause like the founders. I think her story is complicated, but she was a murderer, and admired at the time. No one knows who she is today, I think her example is yet another proof of LD$ fraud. It would be difficult to hold her up as a heroine today, and TSCC conveniently overlooks her life, as well as the atrocities of Columbus.

Once they co-opt heroes into the fold they have to keep talking them up, even if their hero status is tarnished. To admit their flaws might hint that TSCC is flawed. The link that commented about George Washington got to me in this way. I really cannot agree with the fringe that George Washington should be worshipped for his "timeless wisdom", and as one of our best presidents, because he was the first, and made a statement that inspires people today about defending the constitution. I do not believe he could relate well today. George Washington would not know how to deal with the country, because it has changed so much. How would he really feel about the freed slaves? Would he be able to fathom WWII? The economy alone would baffle him. I think he would be overwhelmed, and his principles, although some would be valuable still, some would be outdated. Think of duels. They used to be considered a good way to settle disputes among the upper classes.

I allow people their freedom to believe what they want, but this is kind of ironic to me in a non-PC way. One could actually consider the Catholic Church an abomination to some extent, because it established xstianity as a dominant religion, and allowed it to gain a foothold in Western Europe to abuse without opposition. Likewise Christopher Columbus did the same to the Native Americans. He established Catholic dominance to enable them to abuse without opposition. If Protestants are her daughters, then TSCC is absolutely a son. In the end, they are all the same to me - all cut from the same jeezus shroud of turin.

As a side note, I wonder how Catholic immigration or maybe Protestant religious opinion at the time may have influenced JS's ideas. The KKK opposed Catholics later in the century, but there was Catholic immigration throughout the 1800's. I would have to read a lot more, but I do know they were working on building canals, and railroads. Maybe they were seen as taking jobs from Anglo-Americans, and it is common everywhere for citizens to dislike recent immigrants.

TSCC, and the Catholic Church have more in common. It took a law suit to get the Catholic Church to do what they should have done in the first place, since they operate under the banner of a so-called xstian organization, except this has not yet happened to TSCC.

They both choose victimization, and follow authoritarian paths. The tragedy mentioned does not want to “come to a close”, because the leaders at the top of the top down organization refuse to end it. They refuse to do the right thing, which one would think would be the ethical thing or expect as the “xstian” thing. They act like what they are - autocrats with no concern for the welfare of others, who are only concerned with preserving their own power.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 03/27/2011 07:31PM by atheist&happy:-).

It's amazing to me how many diverse-seeming topics intersect. Who knew that Columbus had any connection to Mormonism? I'll get back to the Jesuits, the situation that initially drew my attention, but I got off on a tangent about Columbus. I wasn't fully aware until recently of the controversy over his true nature and accomplishments and/or bad acts. I don't think the 'presentism' charge holds much weight when examining history and 'heroes'. As the author of the article linked in Steve's second post on this thread says "when is genocide not genocide?". Good point.

I was particularly intrigued by the apparent connection or parallel to Mormonism in the Columbus story and so I did some more research.

I knew that European explorers decimated Native populations by introducing communicable diseases to which they had no immunity and so died in great numbers. I can give the Euros a pass on that as they did not intend to perpetrate genocide-by-germ, not being aware of the harm they would do just by showing up (as far as I understand). But the mass killings and lootings were not part of any history I learned in school or have read about since, until now.

How many bad acts, I wonder, does it take to preclude a person from becoming the hero of a nation or a person worthy of acclaim?

Here are some excerpts I found interesting in various articles I've come across since reading Steve's post about Columbus:

Good question:

“Brave explorer or genocidal maniac? Will the real Christopher Columbus stand up?”

http://blog.coreknowledge.org/2010/10/11/teaching-columbus/


One-sided exchange:

“Columbus's major contribution to history – and it's a big one – is introducing Europeans to the New World, which led to cultural exchange, commerce, and exploration, and eventually to the discovery of the real westward route to the Indies. Most would argue that the exchange was pretty one-sided: the Europeans got land, slaves, and gold, while the aboriginals got dispossessed, enslaved, and infected.”

http://www.straightdope.com/columns/read/2274/where-does-that-1492-ocean-blue-thing-about-columbus-come-from


Genocide does not heroes make:

“As history teaches us, the greatest conflicts and the bloodiest wars throughout time have been waged because of belief systems and boundaries. We can trace this from the Crusades and the Spanish Inquisition through Hitler to the "ethnic cleansing" now going on around the world. This mentality does not tolerate differing political, social and religious beliefs, and it does not hesitate to seize another's land and property if it suits a purpose.

“In 1614, a band of English explorers had landed in the vicinity of Massachusetts Bay. When they returned home, they took with them Native slaves they had captured, and left smallpox behind. By the time the Puritan pilgrims sailed the Mayflower into southern Massachusetts Bay, entire nations of New England Natives were already extinct, having been totally exterminated by smallpox.

“With Bible passages in their hands to justify their every move, the Puritans began their march inland from the seaside communities. Joined by British settlers, they seized land, took the strong and young Natives as slaves to work the land, and killed the rest.

“In our society, it is not uncommon for our modern celebrations to have arisen from evil beginnings."

“…we are charged with the responsibility of learning our true history, and of having the courage to behave with honor and dignity toward our fellow man. If the lessons of history are not learned, they will repeat themselves.”

(From East Texas Review, weekly newspaper, 2001-2004)

http://www.aaanativearts.com/article937.html


To say I'm disappointed in the Puritans would be an understatement. It seems that history is comprised of humans lusting for power, prestige and riches. In what way did religion reign in the selfishness and the blood lust, as I had expected it should? In all too many cases, the perpetrators claimed to be people of faith, but when given the opportunity the faith beliefs had no power to curb their selfish desires.

I guess you could say that is the eternal battle - good vs evil, both without and within us. It's disappointing, though, when like me you were taught and therefore expected that religion would change us for the good. In Mormonism, it's the expectation of Jesus being in one's countenance (which appealed to me at the time). In mainstream Christian faiths it's that we will be a good example of how godly living can improve our own lives and the world.

Disillusionment abounds.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 03/28/2011 03:38PM by Nightingale.

Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 03/28/2011 03:53PM by steve benson.

Not long ago, in a thread that mentioned the Holocaust, somebody posted that "Hitler liked dogs", apparently to point out that even the worst of the worst of the most evil scum could still have some fine personal qualities.

Do I even need to explain why the apparent fact that Hitler liked dogs goes nowhere towards redeeming his character?

Didn't think so.

Likewise with Chris - Navigator Extraordinaire maybe but then there's that pesky genocide thing.

Like Joseph Smith. He received a visitation from God, so the tale goes. That trumps his lying, his adultery, his violence.

Or not.