quote:

---

Originally posted by Spiffy:
For all the issues I have with their treatment of women, persons of color, single people and GLBTQ people, I must admit that I am envious of the tight-knit communities the LDS church creates. I also wish my parish had a quarter as many events every week as the typical LDS stake.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by goperryrevs:
Of every faith I've looked into, I simply can't grasp how any reasonable person can be ...

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Og, King of Bashan:
I love South Park, but you have to admit that they didn’t “just present” the LDS story- unless having a chorus singing “Dumb dumb dumb dumb dumb” in the background the whole time is your idea of “just presenting” a story.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Og, King of Bashan:
I love South Park, but you have to admit that they didn’t “just present” the LDS story- unless having a chorus singing “Dumb dumb dumb dumb dumb” in the background the whole time is your idea of “just presenting” a story.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Organ Builder:

quote:

---

Originally posted by goperryrevs:
Of every faith I've looked into, I simply can't grasp how any reasonable person can be ...

---

Fill in the blank. You will find someone who would be willing to put in any faith you could possibly think of. There are certainly those who don't think Christianity in general is all that reasonable, much less the particulars of any specific denomination. If someone filled it in with my church--or your church--I think we would expect more than just "apologies for any offense.." before we were willing to take the discussion seriously

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Organ Builder:

We do have at least one Mormon on the ship. I don't know if he'll feel called upon to comment, or if the tone of the OP may lead him to believe a response is beneath him

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Lyda*Rose:
Mormonism seems just a little goofier than some.

---

• There should be archaeological traces of all these people somewhere in the Americas; where are they?
• Dodgy source stories for texts, which, as have been said, follow the KJV a little too closely for comfort
• A hilariously inaccurate translation of an Egyptian funerary text

quote:

---

Originally posted by Queen Mousie:
are they trying to hide something? Makes one wonder.

---

quote:

---

I remember a woman I worked with told me she could not attend her own son's wedding (he converted) because it was in the temple and she wasn't a Mormon. What are they afraid of - what's the big deal - are they trying to hide something? Makes one wonder.

---

quote:

---

An Insider's View of Mormon Origins

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Lyda*Rose:
Paul said it (paraphrased): "God chose the foolish to confound the wise." Even Paul could see how goofy Christianity looks from the outside. The same can be said of most other religions. Just ask our atheists and humanists here. Mormonism seems just a little goofier than some.

---

Well said.

Speaking as a nontheist, Lyda is absolutely right, I have said it before that Christianity is a cult plus 2000 years.

Mormonism looks slightly wacky because there hasn't been 2000 years to fake the record, cleanup the inconsistencies by forgetting them, altering them, losing them, or actually eliminating the competition.

If you ask me, Christianity looks crazier the longer I am out of it, Mormonism looks crazier than that, and Scientology looks batshit-stark-raving-nuts, and just shy of Jim Jones territory. Given that semi-observation if you notice, the Mor-men have had a while to clean up their mess, so they don't look quite so batshit crazy. Christians have had longer still. Okay, I maybe wrong, but I swear it looks like it to me.

There are things in the NT that are nonsense, flat out. Virgin births, water to wine, dead man walking. All B.S. So what if the mormen think the Indians are lost Jews? Not much crazier than Lazurus the Zombie up and walking around.

The problem with criticising One faith is that all are suibject to the same root problem. We are not talking about things that are measurable, verifiable, and logical. We are talking about FAITH. People revel in the fact that their faith is BLIND. "Blessed are those that HAVE NOT seen and yet still believe". Not the other way around.

If you're gonna believe in something, it might as well be hooking up with multiple women and following a prophet. Oh wait, that's right, that's the OLD Testament.


 

---

Posted by Sylvander (# 12857) on :
 
Mormonism has some 12-13 million members, about the same number as there are Jews in the world. Just as you can call it a "cult" you might call it a "world religion" - and a vibrant one with close-knit congregations. Frankly, if the rest of the world copied nothing but their politeness (as neighbours or missionaries) it would be a nicer place. (Ok, to Americans this politeness might be an ordinary thing but over here in Europe it definitely makes Mormons stick out!).

The funniest thing about Mormonism is their belief that God is literally a bloke living (with his wife and his son Jesus) on his throne in on the planet "Kolob" in the galaxy "Kokaubeam". He used to be an ordinary man but developed into a God (like we all could do!).

I used to think this was meant metaphorically but I once asked a Mormon - an ex-professor of physics, too! - and he said no, there is nothing metaphorical there. This is how it is. Somehow the teaching is perfectly in line with the children's books illustrations that don all their publications. It is hilarious and quaint in a way, no?

But then ... the idea that God becomes man (or is it "fathers a child" through his spirit?) to sacrifice his son in order to be able to forgive the world ... I mean, it does not exactly sound like cutting edge rational logic, does it?
 

---

Posted by antSJD (# 13598) on :
 
Mormonism in a nutshell
 

---

Posted by goperryrevs (# 13504) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mad Geo:
[QUOTE]
The problem with criticising One faith is that all are suibject to the same root problem. We are not talking about things that are measurable, verifiable, and logical. We are talking about FAITH. People revel in the fact that their faith is BLIND. "Blessed are those that HAVE NOT seen and yet still believe". Not the other way around.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by antSJD:
Mormonism in a nutshell

---

Scary. I wonder which parts of this are wrong, according to Mormons.
 

---

Posted by Mad Geo (# 2939) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by goperryrevs:
....I do think there are a differences nevertheless:

On the time since the faiths started, as far as I know, the earliest manuscript from the NT dates to 125 AD, so in terms of 'faking the record' over time, I'm not sure if that's really viable. Christianity has been around for a long time, yes, but what it has taught has been in the public domain since the beginning and has always been open to investigation.

---

quote:

---

I think I'd re-phrase your statement to "There are things in the NT that SEEM nonsense", then I'd agree.

---

No rephrasing allowed.

I beg to differ. Virgin births, with the exception of sharks, is nonsense. Full stop. End of debate. Can't happen. Anywhere anytime. I am as sure of that as I am that gravity works, which is the level of acceptance anyone should require.

That someone wishes it to be otherwise, is faith. That is doesn't happen is accurate, rational, reasonable.

quote:

---

There are certainly things in every faith that seem nonsense. I'm not a Christian because I want to believe nonsense things and find them in Christianity. I'm a Christian because I encountered Christ, and because I'm a Christian, I have to take these seemingly nonsense things on board. But that doesn't mean that I can't investigate those things and decide if they are at least reasonable, if not provable. The fact that people like Lionel Luckhoo and Lee Strobel who set out to see if the NT witness was reasonable, found that in their view it was, suggests that the NT is not so much unbelievable nonsense, but perhaps surprisingly believable nonsense.

---

quote:

---

But I just don't think that Mormonism holds up to the same standard. We can look at the earliest manuscripts of the NT and compare them, see how it has changed and verify it as historical documents. We can't look at the gold plates.
The New Testament has consistently answered the archaeological and most questions of historical accuracy.

---

quote:

---

I don't know of any archaeological backup for the BOM, instead the archaeological evidence speaks strongly against it. Plus the history - steel, horses etc.

---

quote:

---

Virgin births seem incredulous, but we don't really have any way to prove it either way.

---

quote:

---

Horses and steel in America, plagiarised manuscripts we do have the ability to prove as false. That's the difference for me.

---

Well, when you can show me a virgin with a baby popping out, I'll agree with you.
 

---

Posted by Figbash (# 9048) on :
 

quote:

---

MadGeo said:
Archaeology has not proven the Virgin Birth, water into wine, walking on water, hell it hasn't even been able to prove that Jesus said nearly anything that he said! Certainly none of the important bits.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mad Geo:
Actually there is more than one way to fake a record. We have actual evidence from early manuscripts that things have been added, redacted, accidentally changed, and otherwise affected. Tale a course in biblical literature if you doubt it.

In addition, there is the little matter that the victors decided what books to include that fit what they wanted to say. That is a form of faking the record as well. Fortunately we have recovered many of the other books such as the Gospel of Thomas, and Gospel of Judas, etc. and so we know that selective culling of the record occurred.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mad Geo:

I beg to differ. Virgin births, with the exception of sharks, is nonsense. Full stop. End of debate. Can't happen. Anywhere anytime. I am as sure of that as I am that gravity works, which is the level of acceptance anyone should require.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mad Geo:
[QUOTE]
Well, when you can show me a virgin with a baby popping out, I'll agree with you.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mad Geo:
Lyda is absolutely right, I have said it before that Christianity is a cult plus 2000 years.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by goperryrevs:
In terms of the Canon, the books that were kept in were done so for 2 main reasons - reliable authorship and frequent use.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Figbash:

quote:

---

MadGeo said:
Archaeology has not proven the Virgin Birth, water into wine, walking on water, hell it hasn't even been able to prove that Jesus said nearly anything that he said! Certainly none of the important bits.

---

Archaeology isn't good at seeing specific events at the level of the individual person, so I wouldn't expect to see these events in the record. What record would a virgin birth or water into wine leave? None.

However, the Book of Mormon makes claims about large communities existing in the Americas over hundreds / thousands of years. Surely they should have left some trace?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by goperryrevs:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mad Geo:
Actually there is more than one way to fake a record. We have actual evidence from early manuscripts that things have been added, redacted, accidentally changed, and otherwise affected. Tale a course in biblical literature if you doubt it.

In addition, there is the little matter that the victors decided what books to include that fit what they wanted to say. That is a form of faking the record as well. Fortunately we have recovered many of the other books such as the Gospel of Thomas, and Gospel of Judas, etc. and so we know that selective culling of the record occurred.

---

Tiny copying mistakes don't bother me - you don't invent a virgin birth with accidental copying changes.

---

quote:

---

In terms of the Canon, the books that were kept in were done so for 2 main reasons - reliable authorship and frequent use.

---

quote:

---

Those that were kept in were done so because they were the most reliable historical documents.

---

quote:

---

The ones that didn't make it in were left out because they were of dubious authorship or because they didn't 'fit' with the most reliable documents (you might call it culling - I would call it common sense.

---

quote:

---

If an unreliable document conflicts with a reliable one which would you believe more?). The fact that we still have Thomas, Judas and the others shows that they weren't censored - just ignored by the majority because they were known to be innacurate (or less accurate).

---

quote:

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mad Geo:

I beg to differ. Virgin births, with the exception of sharks, is nonsense. Full stop. End of debate. Can't happen. Anywhere anytime. I am as sure of that as I am that gravity works, which is the level of acceptance anyone should require.

---

I think we're coming around to Mr Atheist's (I think) thread on the supernatural. I, along with many people in this world believe that the miraculous is possible, and that scientific laws, which are otherwise steadfast and defined, can be broken. This means that, given exceptional circumstances, I can believe that virgin birth is possible, though surprising.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Alogon:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mad Geo:
Lyda is absolutely right, I have said it before that Christianity is a cult plus 2000 years.

---

Correct. And this cult-plus gave us the civilization in which we all live. For me, in my doubting moments, that's one of the bottom lines.

---

quote:

---

Following this line of reasoning then, we must ask what the LDS folk find so unacceptable or lacking in our civilization that they must so drastically revise its received religion. What's the pudding that the proof is in? The church gave us Dante, Shakespeare, Michelangelo, and Bach. I understand that the Mormons speak of "cultural activities," too, and I won't knock the the Mormon Tabernacle Choir, but it seems to be sheer tokenism: at the local level, they are very little in evidence. Just take a peek inside any stake house. It's culture only in an anthropological sense. The atmosphere is stultifyingly philistine.

---

quote:

---

That plus their homophobia and what they've done to the Boy Scouts is quite enough to raise one's suspicions.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:

quote:

---

Originally posted by goperryrevs:
In terms of the Canon, the books that were kept in were done so for 2 main reasons - reliable authorship and frequent use.

---

Ooh, you trusting soul. You don't think that politics or the prejudices of those who convened to set the canon had anything to do with it?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Alogon:
Just take a peek inside any stake house. It's culture only in an anthropological sense. The atmosphere is stultifyingly philistine.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by goperryrevs:
Tiny copying mistakes don't bother me - you don't invent a virgin birth with accidental copying changes.

In terms of the Canon, the books that were kept in were done so for 2 main reasons - reliable authorship and frequent use. Those that were kept in were done so because they were the most reliable historical documents. The ones that didn't make it in were left out because they were of dubious authorship or because they didn't 'fit' with the most reliable documents (you might call it culling - I would call it common sense. If an unreliable document conflicts with a reliable one which would you believe more?).

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Odiprofanum:

Irenaeus and Eusebius took trouble to compare and contrast different texts, looking for inconsistencies of style or point of view, in order to form a view on whether a document was canonical or not.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mad Geo:

I beg to differ. Virgin births, with the exception of sharks, is nonsense. Full stop. End of debate. Can't happen. Anywhere anytime. I am as sure of that as I am that gravity works, which is the level of acceptance anyone should require.

---

[Irrelevant tangent]

(Irrelevant because, as someone pointed out, the point of a miracle is it's meant to be miraculous.)

I believe the chance of pregancy without sperm making contact with egg in humans is poorer than a billion to one . However, there are billions of humans on the planet at the moment - plus everyone who ever lived - therefore it is likely to have happened at least once. However, it may well have happened to a woman in a sexual relationship already, who just thought their daughter looked extremely like them. (Not sure you could get a male this way though.) And human embryos have been produced via artificially induced parthenogensis. (That last link tells you everything you ever wanted to know about parthenogensis and it is commoner than you'd think in other species - salamander sperm hardly ever make it.)

[/Irrelevant tangent]
 

---

Posted by Figbash (# 9048) on :
 
Sorry, having thought about it a bit more, I think that in my previous post I asserted too strong a position.

So, it's not impossible to winnow a selection of texts in order to arrive at what one believes is a coherent and reliable subset.

BUT

There is always going to be some selection bias. The idea of an agenda-free historian is meaningless: all historians bring their own bias to the table. And thus those who selected the canon brought their selection bias. Which is where dogma enters in.

So my proposal is that there was rather more concern for dogmatic correctness and less for 'historical accuracy'. Which probably wasn't a meaningful concept back then anyway: the appropriate concept of 'rightness' is not 'is this what really happened' but 'does this tell a truth that is important'.


Back to Mormonism

Finally, note to MadGeo: I think that Mormonism is actually considerably wackier than Christianity simply because, as I have already said, Christianity doesn't actually make claims that can be disproved. It may offend against reason, but it doesn't offend against history / archaeology / you name it like Mormonism does.

[ 13. January 2009, 18:50: Message edited by: Figbash ]
 

---

Posted by Figbash (# 9048) on :
 
Sorry for the double post, but this reminded me of something I read long ago:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Doublethink:

I believe the chance of pregancy without sperm making contact with egg in humans is poorer than a billion to one . However, there are billions of humans on the planet at the moment - plus everyone who ever lived - therefore it is likely to have happened at least once. However, it may well have happened to a woman in a sexual relationship already, who just thought their daughter looked extremely like them. (Not sure you could get a male this way though.) And human embryos have been produced via artificially induced parthenogensis. (That last link tells you everything you ever wanted to know about parthenogensis and it is commoner than you'd think in other species - salamander sperm hardly ever make it.)

---

quote:

---

Mouse eggs can be manipulated by nuclear transplantation to have either two paternal genomes or two maternal genomes, and can be reimplanted into a mouse for further development . . . Although both kinds of embryo have a diploid number of chromosomes, their development is abnormal. The embryos with two paternal genomes have well-developed extra embryonic tissues, but the embryo itself is abnormal, and does not proceed beyond a stage at which several somites are present. By contrast, the embryos with diploid maternal genomes have relatively well-developed embryos, but the extra-embryonic tissues - placenta and yolk sac - are poorly developed. These results clearly show that both maternal and paternal genomes are necessary for normal mammalian development . . . This is the reason that mammals cannot be naturally produced parthenogenetically, by activation of an unfertilised egg.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mad Geo:
I beg to differ. Virgin births, with the exception of sharks, is nonsense. Full stop. End of debate. Can't happen. Anywhere anytime. I am as sure of that as I am that gravity works, which is the level of acceptance anyone should require.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Doublethink:
I believe the chance of pregancy without sperm making contact with egg in humans is poorer than a billion to one .

---

quote:

---

However, there are billions of humans on the planet at the moment - plus everyone who ever lived - therefore it is likely to have happened at least once.

---

quote:

---

And human embryos have been produced via artificially induced parthenogensis.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Figbash:
...

Finally, note to MadGeo: I think that Mormonism is actually considerably wackier than Christianity simply because, as I have already said, Christianity doesn't actually make claims that can be disproved. It may offend against reason, but it doesn't offend against history / archaeology / you name it like Mormonism does.

---

You are not seriously trying to pin down just how less wacky your religion is than the next guy?

No. Really?



You're splitting hairs. Your religion is wacky. Mormonism is wacky. As you said, you offend against reason, as do they. I could argue just how non-historical non-archeological X Christian Church is on a case by case basis, but there is really no need, you admitted the problem and that is REASON.

There is a lack of reason somewhere in all Christian sects, it's just splitting hairs us to who is MORE unreasonable. Rather hypocritical too, to those of us watching from outside.

Mormen believe in Joseph Smith. Catholics believe in Ratzinger and that women should be held down while Mary is all important. Baptists and others believe in Rapture. You all believe in Virgin Births, and zombies raising from the dead, and monotheism with three gods (father, son, and holy spigot). UU possibly exempted.

Go figure.
 

---

Posted by Mad Geo (# 2939) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Timothy the Obscure:

But Mormonism hinges on one thing--whether Joseph Smith was a true prophet. And if a self-proclaimed prophet makes numerous demonstrably false statements, it pretty much puts paid to the whole corpus. That's the difference between Mormonism and the others.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mad Geo:
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Figbash:
[qb]
You're splitting hairs. Your religion is wacky. Mormonism is wacky.

---

• Who said it was my religion?
• If you think that the difference between highly unlikely but not disprovable events and highly unlikely and disprovable events is splitting hairs then that's your problem. Remember, the aspects of Mormonism that I am complaining about aren't those that invoke miraculous events, they're bits that purport to describe the early history of the Americas. If Christianity told an easily disproved parallel history for first century Palestine then you might have a point.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mad Geo:
Your writers got to rewrite the prophecy to fit the history. Again 2000 years cures a lot of blunders.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mad Geo:
I am not really disputing that I find their religion unlikely. I am merely saying it's only slightly less likely than Anglicanism (your religion according to your profile, oops).

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mad Geo:
Hmmmm, where shall we begin? How about something foundational to Christian (and Anglican if I am not mistaken) belief: How about Jesus birth prophecy.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mad Geo:
Hmmmm, where shall we begin? How about something foundational to Christian (and Anglican if I am not mistaken) belief: How about Jesus birth prophecy.

---

Actually, I don't see that prophecy as foundational at all--maybe some Christians do, but I'm not sure I've ever met one. If Isaiah was talking about something else, and Matthew was just stretching to fit Jesus into the OT tradition for his Jewish audience...well, whatever--it doesn't affect my ideas about who Jesus is one way or the other, and never has, really.

Viewed purely through a secular, historiographical lens, the Bible and the BOM are not comparable as sources. Figbash summed it up nicely.
 

---

Posted by Oreophagite (# 10534) on :
 
The Western mystery tradition (and at least some of the eastern traditions) tells us that there is our own world that we perceive with our 5 senses, and that there's also another realm that can be visited by meditation, contemplative prayer, lucid dreaming, astral projection, or whatever you want to call it.

I'm told that the latter world has its own native life, and that some of these folks like to play practical jokes (or even mean tricks) on neophyte travelers from our own realm.

Thus, the traveler ought to have substantial spiritual preparation to enter the other realm, and to discern the "masters" from the deceivers. This is a major plot-line in Wagner's Parsifal.

There also needs to be a competent spiritual director for debriefing.

From reading Joseph Smith's account of his first vision, I would speculate that he somehow learned how to enter that other realm, and ran across some astral wildlife who told him some of the things that he later wrote down. Furthermore, one's own dreams and fantasies can come alive in that realm, and I would speculate that this contributed to it. Lastly, on awakening, a newbie doesn't remember all the things said and done during the journey. I would guess that he consciously or subconsciously filled in the memory gaps.

I would further venture that he taught his friends how to project (a big no-no unless you know exactly what you're doing), and that they had similar astral experiences of a magnitude that led them to believe that he was a prophet, and that they were also big-shots.

Lastly, I would guess that subsequent high-level LDS leaders learned how to make the journey with proper discernment skills, and have been going nuts for 100 years, trying to figure out how to repair the damage done by Smith and his early followers.

Complete speculation on my part, of course. Still, I'll bet that there are bits and pieces of Truth to be found lurking in Mormonism. It could be that they're better off than some of the modern American Progressive Episcopalians.
 

---

Posted by goperryrevs (# 13504) on :
 
Okay, Mad Geo, here you go:

If I told you that I saw a ghost when I was at the cinema last week, what would your response be?

You don't believe in ghosts, so you'd dismiss what I said as a lie.

Someone else might be more open minded to the possibility of the existence of ghosts, but might still skeptical. They'd have no way of knowing whether I saw it, but they could at least look into my story to see if it's trustworthy. They might see if the film I said I saw was actually on on that day, whether anyone saw me there, whether anyone else saw the ghost. If the mundane parts of my story don't add up, then they can probably dismiss the ghost part as well. If they do, then, although it's no proof that the ghost was there, the fact that the rest of my story held up means that they might entertain the notion that I was telling the truth, especially if they can find no motive that I had to lie. Perhaps they might go to the cinema to see if they can see the ghost for themselves.

This is the difference between Mormonism and Christianity for me. Not just quantitative, but qualitative. The mundane parts of Christianity do add up. The mundane parts of Mormonism don't. I don't discount Mormonism because of the Angel, the fact that Jesus might have teleported to America post-death, or any of the other supernatural stuff. I believe God exists, so I am not surprised by the existence of supernatural phenomenon, although some of the aspects of the supernatural side of the Mormon story make me suspicious. I discount it because other people have translated the Book of Abraham for what it is, the issues on horses and steel, the genetic makeup of Native Americans, and the suspicions of plagiarism.

So Mormonism isn't just a bit wackier than Christianity, it's falls into a completely different category.
 

---

Posted by Mad Geo (# 2939) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Timothy the Obscure:
Actually, I don't see that prophecy as foundational at all--maybe some Christians do, but I'm not sure I've ever met one. If Isaiah was talking about something else, and Matthew was just stretching to fit Jesus into the OT tradition for his Jewish audience...well, whatever--it doesn't affect my ideas about who Jesus is one way or the other, and never has, really.

---

quote:

---

Viewed purely through a secular, historiographical lens, the Bible and the BOM are not comparable as sources. Figbash summed it up nicely.

---

With all due respect, as viewed through a "secular, historiographical lens," the Bible and the BOM are BOTH completely shot through with bovine scatology. That's the POINT.

Secularists/historian's love the literature of the bible, on a good day. The ones I know make NO bones about it being a cute piece of mythological fiction, historiographically or otherwise.
 

---

Posted by Figbash (# 9048) on :
 
You know, Mad Geo, you really sound like a recent convert to Atheism who doesn't want to admit to their shameful roots.

One last try, and then I give up.

Yes, the Bible has problems. For instance, much of the Deuteronomic history is dubious in the extreme. But then, one doesn't need to believe in the book of Joshua as history in order to accept Christ's message.

The problem with Mormonism is simply that the validity of the BOM (let alone the other writings) is predicated on any number of testable hypotheses. Which include its basic premise: that there were these peoples in the Americas in antiquity. That is provably false. A comparable problem would be if it was provable that there was no nation of Israelites in Palestine in the first millenium BC.

And then there's the fact that in the case of the Book of Abraham, Smith's rendition of the Egyptian text is demonstrably false. Nobody can say that translations of the Bible. Slanted, yes. Small errors, yes. But fabricated from whole cloth? No.

Thus though there are issues with the veracity of the Bible, it is not plagued by the basic problems that affect the BOM. To borrow your refrain, in 2000 years it will still be the case that the BOM is predicated on a falsehood, while the OT is a polemical 'history' (written at a time when people didn't have our understanding of history anyway, so saying what ought to be true was OK) and the NT, though containing some clearly 'miraculous' events, is more or less compatible with what we know of the history of the time.
 

---

Posted by Myrrh (# 11483) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Figbash:

The problem with Mormonism is simply that the validity of the BOM (let alone the other writings) is predicated on any number of testable hypotheses. Which include its basic premise: that there were these peoples in the Americas in antiquity. That is provably false. A comparable problem would be if it was provable that there was no nation of Israelites in Palestine in the first millenium BC.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mad Geo:
The point is that Christian groups have played that game over the centuries. Moving shit around to hide information. Actually killing off competing viewpoints. Erasing history, or conveniently having it erase itself given the time involved etc.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Figbash:
....Back to Mormonism

Finally, note to MadGeo: I think that Mormonism is actually considerably wackier than Christianity simply because, as I have already said, Christianity doesn't actually make claims that can be disproved. It may offend against reason, but it doesn't offend against history / archaeology / you name it like Mormonism does.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Oreophagite:
....I would further venture that he taught his friends how to project (a big no-no unless you know exactly what you're doing), and that they had similar astral experiences of a magnitude that led them to believe that he was a prophet, and that they were also big-shots.
...

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mad Geo:

quote:

---

Originally posted by goperryrevs:
Tiny copying mistakes don't bother me - you don't invent a virgin birth with accidental copying changes.

---

Yes, you invent it out of thin air, or worse, you invent it because you heard it from someone who heard it from someone, who heard it from the religion of their forefathers.

---

Or, against expectations, it actually happened!

Okay, although this has become a bit of a tangent, and probably deserves its own thread (although it may be a dead horse...), to answer your stuff on the canon:

Yes, the books in the New Testament have changed from the originals - most Christians are aware of this - it's not some big secret. When you read a footnote saying "The earliest and most reliable documents do not contain...", you can see where the changes between the different documents we have are. Much as I love the story of the woman caught in adultery, it probably wasn't in the original. However, all these changes are minor, often meanings of words or whatever. There are no theological implications of accepting one over the other (the only contentious one would be the obvious later 'insertion' of the trinity in 1 John 5 - better left out).

On to the Gospel of Thomas. Firstly, far from being a big problem to the accounts in the 4 NT Gospels, the bulk of it contains material found in them. It backs up the NT gospels' historicity, and certainly doesn't directly contradict them. It does however contain the problem that the strange verse about Mary M becoming a man was likely a later addition. This does have theological implications on the rest of the biographies of Jesus, and makes you wonder whether the group that used it added any of the other sayings.

In the NT, we have two biographies written by eye-witnesses, one by a close associate of an eye-witness, and the fourth by Dr Luke. When you ask "Kinda makes you wonder what ELSE they banned, doesn’t it? ", I don't know - but I'm sure that Luke did. Here's his introduction to his gospel:

"Many have undertaken to draw up an account of the things that have been fulfilled among us, just as they were handed down to us by those who from the first were eyewitnesses and servants of the word. Therefore, since I myself have carefully investigated everything from the beginning, it seemed good also to me to write an orderly account for you, most excellent Theophilus, so that you may know the certainty of the things you have been taught."

Luke specifically researched, interviewed and compiled all the different testimonies (surely including Thomas and the others we no longer have), and formed his gospel from it. As an objective researcher, you can't ask for much more. I'm therefore much more inclined to trust Luke as historical document than any other biography of Jesus, NT or otherwise.

Quick note on diversity in the gospels. As Lee Strobel points out in his book, when you have a variety of testimonies to an event, there is usually some minor contradictions. If they're too diverse, you worry about the accuracy. If they're too similar, then you suspect they fabricated the story together. Interesting how (apparently) the gospels differ by just the right amount that it their historicity convincing. You might not like Strobel, but it's an important point.

Next: gnostics. By accusing the Church of censorship, I think you're over-estimating the power it had prior to Constantine. Governments and institutions have the ability to censor. A (then) small but growing sect, still fairly organic and yet to become the institution it would later be really doesn't have that power.

Here would be a modern-day equivalent. If I wrote an unauthorised biography of Gandhi, and in it asserted that he popped over to Germany and gave Hitler a hand with the extermination of the Jews, what would the response of his more accurate biographers be? Ridicule and argument against my version.

Paul was clashing with the gnostics fairly early on in the Church's existence. If they were claiming that Jesus taught or did something that the reliable eye-witnesses and biographers were contradicting, of course they'd be suppressed and argued against. But that's not censorship, that's reasonably ignoring them (or at least ignoring the parts that didn't match other eye-witness testimonies).

2000 years later someone finds my copy of Gandhi's biography, and rejects the genuine historical versions, because they like conspiracy theories, and because my version was 'censored', it must be right...

You often hear the argument that the New Testament must be unreliable, but that's usually because people don't like the supernatural elements and want to edit them out. However, what you don't hear is a suggestion of HOW they have been altered - or indeed how they could have been altered. Because to fit into a non-miraculous world-view, they have to be altered fairly substantially. The only attempt I know to do this was the Jesus Seminar, and what a load of bollocks that was.

If the NT gospels aren't reliable, then either they were fabricated when written, or were changed a hell of a lot from the originals. The first doesn't seem convincing - these guys were persecuted and murdered for their faith. If they'd fabricated the gospels, would they really have taken it that far? The second isn't convincing either. There simply wasn't time for the amount of changes that would be required to turn them from mundane biographies of a rabbi into the documents that we have now. Also, if Jesus hadn't been so extraordinary, why (as Luke points out) would so many people have attempted to write biographies of him?

End of Tangent (I hope...).

Merlin the Mad, thanks so much for replying. Rather than make this post any longer for now, , it would be interesting to know why you're no longer the believing sort of Mormon. Your status says you a Deist-hopeful-Christian-catholic. What made you reject Mormonism, but retain Christianity?
 

---

Posted by kankucho (# 14318) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by antSJD:
Mormonism in a nutshell

---

quote:

---

Cartoon banned by the Mormon church

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by MerlintheMad:
You want a Mormon, here I am. No longer a believing sort, but actively attending church as a family solidarity thing.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Freddy:

quote:

---

Originally posted by MerlintheMad:
You want a Mormon, here I am. No longer a believing sort, but actively attending church as a family solidarity thing.

---

Nice to have you on the thread!

What do you mean by "no longer a believing sort"? You seem to be accepting of Mormon history.

---

quote:

---

Is the cartoon posted earlier an accurate description of Mormon beliefs?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mad Geo:
Hmmmm, where shall we begin? How about something foundational to Christian (and Anglican if I am not mistaken) belief: How about Jesus birth prophecy.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Oreophagite:
....(His decision to use Elizabethan and Jacobean language for the translation is puzzling. The LDS concept of underwear is also puzzling, but that's a topic for another thread...)

---

quote:

---

I've also assumed that when JS came out of his visions, he had partial memory of what he had read, and wrote down what he could remember - filling in the gaps. If all that were so, then others coming into that realm could also have seen the tablets if they knew where to look.

---

quote:

---

....
If JS's friends could have visions ONLY in his presence, that would suggest that they were encountering projections originating from his own mind. Can't prove any of that, of course. Pure speculation from the cookie eater.

---

quote:

---

The real questions in my mind are whether modern Mormons have learned how to visit the other places, whether they have learned discernment, and whether they are receiving edifying teachings in the temples of learning that are supposed to be there. From the way that some LDS friends don't answer direct questions, I would wonder about that.

---

Ironically (because of the double standard vis-a-vis "faith promoting history", and the full truth), the church has always taught that each member is duty-bound to get their own testimony of the truth of the restored gospel (i.e. of JS's prophetic calling from God); by studying out of "the best books." There comes from time to time, a warning to not dabble too much in "controversial issues", but rather to concentrate on the doctrines of salvation. Church history is good to know, but not too much
 

---

Posted by goperryrevs (# 13504) on :
 
Thank Merlin, very helpful. Would you extend what you believe now beyond Christianity to other faiths? Would I be right in saying that you believe that God essentially reveals himself to each person as he deems is right for them, as they search for him, and that could be in a whole manner of ways?

In terms of Mormonism, it seems that for your common-or-garden Mormon, it boils down to taking Joseph Smith's word for it. E.g. there isn't any archaeological evidence yet, but there might be one day - anyway, is doesn't matter because you can know Joseph Smith was right through faith. Is that a fair description?

What would the Mormon answers to the other issues? Mainly:

- The AV 'mistakes' in the BOM
- How they can revise the BOM despite no access to source documents
- The genuine translations of the Book of Abraham
- Joseph Smith's occultish leanings

Also, I appreciate the point that many criticisms are against the way that the Church was, but am I not right in thinking that JS thought that the Christian Church in his lifetime was apostate, and he was putting it right. If so, wouldn't he view the major changes in doctrine or practice as anathema?

One other question - I'm led to believe that if a Mormon encounters a contradiction between the bible and the BOM, then they ignore the bible as they believe it's been doctored to an extend. Is that true?

Thanks!
 

---

Posted by goperryrevs (# 13504) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by MerlintheMad:
[QUOTE]
On the KJV passages in the BofM (of which there are a great many), the first edition (1830) repeated the errors in a late 18th century edition of the KJV; thus proving that JS used one to "copy down" the equivalent passages found on the "gold plates": apologetic explanation says this was easier than struggling with the translation process: when the biblical mirroring parts ended, JS was back at the "seer stones" to translate

---

Sorry, cross-post! Thanks Merlin - that's the first time I've heard a reasonable answer on that issue. Is this something that was raised in JS's lifetime, and a response he gave, or is it a later explanation?
 

---

Posted by Dixit Domine (# 14069) on :
 
Mormons - the religion with the superfluous middle consonant.

[Duplicate with spello deleted]

[ 15. January 2009, 19:25: Message edited by: Barnabas62 ]
 

---

Posted by Freddy (# 365) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by MerlintheMad:

quote:

---

Is the cartoon posted earlier an accurate description of Mormon beliefs?

---

Not very. It starts out better than it ends. About midway it starts to make some false statements: mainly, that Joseph Smith taught he had contributed more to salvation than even JC. Not true, not remotely true.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by MerlintheMad:
The theology expounded regarding our Existence, and the "line of Gods" we are all part of, is essentially "true", from an early church perspective. But the late president/prophet of the LDS people, Gordon B. Hinckley, when asked about the famous couplet, As man is, God once was, and as God is, man may become, said: "I don't know much about that; and I don't know anyone who does know much about that."

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by goperryrevs:
Thank Merlin, very helpful. Would you extend what you believe now beyond Christianity to other faiths? Would I be right in saying that you believe that God essentially reveals himself to each person as he deems is right for them, as they search for him, and that could be in a whole manner of ways?

---

quote:

---

In terms of Mormonism, it seems that for your common-or-garden Mormon, it boils down to taking Joseph Smith's word for it. E.g. there isn't any archaeological evidence yet, but there might be one day - anyway, is doesn't matter because you can know Joseph Smith was right through faith. Is that a fair description?

---

quote:

---

What would the Mormon answers to the other issues? Mainly:

- The AV 'mistakes' in the BOM

---

quote:

---

- How they can revise the BOM despite no access to source documents

---

quote:

---

- The genuine translations of the Book of Abraham

---

quote:

---

- Joseph Smith's occultish leanings

---

quote:

---

Also, I appreciate the point that many criticisms are against the way that the Church was, but am I not right in thinking that JS thought that the Christian Church in his lifetime was apostate, and he was putting it right. If so, wouldn't he view the major changes in doctrine or practice as anathema?

---

quote:

---

One other question - I'm led to believe that if a Mormon encounters a contradiction between the bible and the BOM, then they ignore the bible as they believe it's been doctored to an extend. Is that true?

Thanks!

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by goperryrevs:

quote:

---

Originally posted by MerlintheMad:
[QUOTE]
On the KJV passages in the BofM (of which there are a great many), the first edition (1830) repeated the errors in a late 18th century edition of the KJV; thus proving that JS used one to "copy down" the equivalent passages found on the "gold plates": apologetic explanation says this was easier than struggling with the translation process: when the biblical mirroring parts ended, JS was back at the "seer stones" to translate

---

Sorry, cross-post! Thanks Merlin - that's the first time I've heard a reasonable answer on that issue. Is this something that was raised in JS's lifetime, and a response he gave, or is it a later explanation?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Freddy:
....So then it is true that Mormons believe that Elohim is just the God of our particular earth? And that his son Satan was angry that his brother Jesus was sent to earth to be the savior, and so went down to oppose Jesus?

---

quote:

---

I understand that religions have their kooky beginnings, but the idea that people can become gods and have their own planet seems like a fairly important mormon idea. Are you saying that this is not taught in the mormon scriptures or accepted by the church?

---

I am saying that most of the popular conceptualizing of the afterlife is not taught in detail by the leaders of the church anymore, and not for a long time. But these concepts are as much a part of Mormon culture as the very name. Most people do indeed expect to have nuclear family members surrounding themselves in "the celestial kingdom"; and to increase said-family by procreating and thereby having "spirit" children, who will then "do down" and experience mortality like we are now. Like it or leave it. I left.

To me it is all unknown and metphysical imagination: it is founded on JS's metaphysical imagination. If others join with it, fine, I don't have a problem allowing them to have all that in the "hereafter". But plenty of people don't relate, at all. I want something a whole lot bigger than being some kind of cosmic "gardener", terraforming worlds without number ad nauseum forever and ever and ever; fucking countless wives. Wait, that part does sound rather neat. But, hey, what's good for this goose must be good for the ganders; so lots of endless sex with "soul mates".

(Section 132 in the Doctrine and Covenants makes very, very interesting reading in the light of a polyandry concept; and it was "revealed" at the height of JS's polygany, to Emma, the "first wife": she tore it up -- but there was a copy, just in case! Anyway, she wasn't impressed with an offer of "what's good for the goose is good for the gander": any interpretation of D&C 132, in this way, is of course anathema from a TBM perspective )
 

---

Posted by booktonmacarthur (# 14308) on :
 
[QUOTE]Oooh, that's quite a gauntlet. It's also mighty convenient. Your writers got to rewrite the prophecy to fit the history. Again 2000 years cures a lot of blunders. [QUOTE]

Mormon Anthropologists, even, admit that the Book of Mormon is totally wrong

[ 16. January 2009, 18:52: Message edited by: booktonmacarthur ]
 

---

Posted by goperryrevs (# 13504) on :
 
Thanks so much for taking the time to answer things, Merlin!

Just a note, AV = Authorised Version = KJV. You answered my question very well.

It does seem that you, along with the testimonies people on the site that RossWeisse linked to, 'left' the Mormon Church because, despite warm friendships and enjoying their life in the Church, simply couldn't ignore the voice in the back of their head that said "all these claims simply can't be backed up." Now, most ex-Christians I know don't generally abandon the faith for that reason - they backslide, they become disillusioned with Church, they give in to doubt.

It's good to know that there are some reasonable Mormon answers to the criticisms levelled (and some, to be polite, weak answers too). I'm glad for you that you're more settled in a faith that is more coherent. How do your Mormon friends and family feel about your faith now?
 

---

Posted by MerlintheMad (# 12279) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by goperryrevs:
....It does seem that you, along with the testimonies people on the site that RossWeisse linked to, 'left' the Mormon Church because, despite warm friendships and enjoying their life in the Church, simply couldn't ignore the voice in the back of their head that said "all these claims simply can't be backed up." Now, most ex-Christians I know don't generally abandon the faith for that reason - they backslide, they become disillusioned with Church, they give in to doubt.

It's good to know that there are some reasonable Mormon answers to the criticisms levelled (and some, to be polite, weak answers too). I'm glad for you that you're more settled in a faith that is more coherent. How do your Mormon friends and family feel about your faith now?

---

As I attend Sunday services weekly with my family, and have nothing to say, most of my friends at church don't know that I have "left", so to speak. I share still our concern for each other, and I participate at social functions. My personal faith does not require sharing, i.e. coming into conflict with Mormons or anyone else. The church members and leaders would not appreciate airing of any of my "interesting" views on JS, Mormon doctrine, or even history. So mostly I keep my mouth shut.

My family knows about my changed faith. And my wife listens with interest, because she is interested in me. She admits being effected by my ideas and beliefs and explanations for them: but she also remains a TBM, and is a good example of someone who KNOWS what they believe to be true, because God told them it is true. I never got such a witness of the truth. And that's where we differ: she's operated from a conviction all her life (well, since she was c. 12 or 13), and I have operated from skepticism, studying to convince myself of what to believe. "Doubt not, but be believing", and "Lord I believe, help thou mine unbelief", have been two scriptural insights into the nature of my mind: I can't help thinking things over until convinced one way or the other.

Right now, the state of my understanding/knowledge can be summed up like this: "I know practically nothing, about almost everything." And it just gets worse
 

---

Posted by Rossweisse (# 2349) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by MerlintheMad:
...It is the later doctrines (mostly contained in the Doctrine and Covenants) which cause the difficulties most critics list: e.g. the "Godhead" problems that Ross and I hashed out over a year ago: she likes to refer to Mormons as polytheists. In fact, the BofM has ZERO reference to any other Godhead than a Triune one; and in fact doesn't specifically mention a Holy Ghost in a Godhead context at all. ...

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sir Pellinore (ret'd):
The late Horton Davies, a distinguished Church historian and sometime Professor at Princeton, had a brilliant and incisive article on Mormonism in his book 'Christian Deviations' published in the 1960s.

I believe the book appeared in the USA as 'The Battle of the Sects'.

My own belief is that Mormonism is not simply 'a load of rubbish' but one of those strange New World outgrowths from Christianity.

As with a lot of new religions, which it seems to have, in effect, become, it just doesn't sit together coherently enough for me.

On a historical, archaeological and anthropological level it makes no sense.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Rossweisse:
....I would like to clarify that my statement concerning polytheism was not based solely on the "godhead" business, but on the "God was once a man just like you and me, and if we do the right things we can all be gods too" theology.

Polytheism does not, to me, have anything to do with the number of gods one worships, but with how many gods one acknowledges -- and Mormonism acknowledges a ton of them. The references of various OT writers (who were surrounded by polytheists) about "gods" notwithstanding, Judaism and Christianity only acknowledge one. [/clarification]

Ross

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sir Pellinore (ret'd):
....My own belief is that Mormonism is not simply 'a load of rubbish' but one of those strange New World outgrowths from Christianity.

As with a lot of new religions, which it seems to have, in effect, become, it just doesn't sit together coherently enough for me.

On a historical, archaeological and anthropological level it makes no sense.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Margaret:
.... I've read somewhere that some liberal Mormons now believe that the BoM was actually written in the normal sort of way by JS - though they still regard it as an inspired document. I think it will be fascinating to watch what happens in the future.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by MerlintheMad:
[QUOTE]
As this thread shows: pointing fingers at another religion and saying "rubbish", "bunk", or "nonsense" is likely to echo back at you from other quarters....

---

I guess this is aimed at me ... Well, to be fair, I started the thread because I was happy to be shown to be wrong. Yes, some questions have been given reasonable answers, but I don't think I've altered my opinion that any Mormon who really looks into the background of his or her faith with an open mind will have some big, big questions - more than any other religion. Mind you, I'm sure Mad Geo et al would have the same opinion of my faith in Jesus (bit sad you've disappeared off the thread, was enjoying the banter ).

Mormonism has always stuck out like a sore thumb to me. Every other religion I've looked into seems to be at least consistent/coherent with itself and its own worldview that holds together. I think, as you say, Joseph Smith was a religious genius - I think he was also a very manipulative / influential person. But I just think there are way too many holes... I'm not really persuaded by the occult answer you gave - if God can reveal to him that the Church was apostate, surely he can reveal his thoughts on the superstitious leanings of people around him... The archaeology questions still seem way too big, and the Book of Abraham translation - well if he made that up, it follows that he likely made the rest up - especially given his 'evolving' theology (an interesting topic, and one that I wasn't aware of - thanks!).

ISTM that the only way you can be a 'reasonable' Mormon is to be a liberal one, and be content with the religious truths but not care for the historical fact. Still, that's just my opinion, perhaps 12 million Mormons can't be wrong!

By the way, I'm glad for you that despite the change in your faith, your wife has stuck with you and the church has treated you well. Having heard far too many horror stories, I'm glad things have worked out okay for you...

One last question (I promise). Having observed that the Mormon church has changed significantly from its beginnings, what are the different Mormon responses to that. The Christian Church has changed extremely significantly since Acts, and I would consider myself a member of those who think that we have lost a great deal as a result. I'd prefer that we went back to meeting in homes, with no salaried elders / apostles, living by faith a lot more etc. etc. (not trying to start another tangent here btw with people disageeing with me!). Are there Mormons that think that the Mormon Church should do the same, and be more in line with how it was in the days of Joseph Smith, or are they not bothered? (or are they unaware of how much it HAS changed?)
 

---

Posted by Figbash (# 9048) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by MerlintheMad:
"Scripture" so-defined may go through a redefining process as well. It isn't just the BofM that is under scrutiny (attack)!

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Figbash:

quote:

---

Originally posted by MerlintheMad:
"Scripture" so-defined may go through a redefining process as well. It isn't just the BofM that is under scrutiny (attack)!

---

That is some understatement, given that there's a whole school of OT scholars who believe it dates to no earlier than the 2nd century AD!

PS Not that I agree with them.

---

Whoops! Should have been BC.
 

---

Posted by MerlintheMad (# 12279) on :
 
Anatoly Fomenko "History: Fiction or Science" proposes that neither part of the bible predates the 14th century, and that the NT was written FIRST! (I think the guy is just a mad Russian)
 

---

Posted by Figbash (# 9048) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by MerlintheMad:
Anatoly Fomenko "History: Fiction or Science" proposes that neither part of the bible predates the 14th century, and that the NT was written FIRST! (I think the guy is just a mad Russian)

---

Well at least he's just a lone fruitcake. The ones I was talking about are 'reputable scholars'.
 

---

Posted by MerlintheMad (# 12279) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by goperryrevs:
... Well, to be fair, I started the thread because I was happy to be shown to be wrong. Yes, some questions have been given reasonable answers, but I don't think I've altered my opinion that any Mormon who really looks into the background of his or her faith with an open mind will have some big, big questions - more than any other religion.

---

quote:

---

....
Mormonism has always stuck out like a sore thumb to me. Every other religion I've looked into seems to be at least consistent/coherent with itself and its own worldview that holds together.

---

quote:

---

I think, as you say, Joseph Smith was a religious genius - I think he was also a very manipulative / influential person.

---

quote:

---

But I just think there are way too many holes... I'm not really persuaded by the occult answer you gave - if God can reveal to him that the Church was apostate, surely he can reveal his thoughts on the superstitious leanings of people around him...

---

quote:

---

The archaeology questions still seem way too big, and the Book of Abraham translation - well if he made that up, it follows that he likely made the rest up - especially given his 'evolving' theology (an interesting topic, and one that I wasn't aware of - thanks!).

---

quote:

---

ISTM that the only way you can be a 'reasonable' Mormon is to be a liberal one, and be content with the religious truths but not care for the historical fact. Still, that's just my opinion, perhaps 12 million Mormons can't be wrong!

---

quote:

---

By the way, I'm glad for you that despite the change in your faith, your wife has stuck with you and the church has treated you well. Having heard far too many horror stories, I'm glad things have worked out okay for you...

---

quote:

---

One last question (I promise).

---

quote:

---

Having observed that the Mormon church has changed significantly from its beginnings, what are the different Mormon responses to that.

---

quote:

---

The Christian Church has changed extremely significantly since Acts, and I would consider myself a member of those who think that we have lost a great deal as a result. I'd prefer that we went back to meeting in homes, with no salaried elders / apostles, living by faith a lot more etc. etc. (not trying to start another tangent here btw with people disageeing with me!). Are there Mormons that think that the Mormon Church should do the same, and be more in line with how it was in the days of Joseph Smith, or are they not bothered? (or are they unaware of how much it HAS changed?)

---

This is another ironic point: Mormons believe that the modern church IS a restoration of the primitive church, along with all of the OT ordinances that Christ did not "fulfil" with his atonement. So meeting in homes or churches or anywhere is seen as unimportant, just meeting is important in the right spirit.

The early Mormon church per force was crude and ad hoc compared to the sleek, streamlined and wealthy modern LDS church. There are of course some individuals who believe that ALL the early (19th century) doctrines are still valid (I've been there myself). And all TBM's believe that the church is "unchanged" as far as the "saving ordinances" are concerned. Most Mormons believe that the church has not significantly changed (or essentially). It isn't my "job" to educate anyone about that or anything else.

I know the church has changed a lot. But I also know that is true of all religions. And the modern LDS church is much better than the early one.
 

---

Posted by goperryrevs (# 13504) on :
 
Thanks for all your answers, Merlin. If I have more questions, I know who to ask

I'm a bit sad that there aren't any 'orthodox' Mormons on the ship who can answer from their perspective. Your answers have been very helpful, but they're still coming from someone who in a very real sense has rejected Mormonism. Nevertheless, thanks very much!
 

---

Posted by Freddy (# 365) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by goperryrevs:
I'm a bit sad that there aren't any 'orthodox' Mormons on the ship who can answer from their perspective. Your answers have been very helpful, but they're still coming from someone who in a very real sense has rejected Mormonism.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by goperryrevs:
Would you be able to post some links to the better threads you looked at? Would be interesting...

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Freddy:
I have one particular site and thread in mind, but for some reason I think we're not allowed to post links to other christian discussion forums. It's not one of the ten commandments, I see, so am I wrong about this?

---

• That Elohim is only the God of our planet.
• That we can be gods of our own planets.
• That Elohim came to earth and had sex with Mary.
• That Jesus had sex, and children, with multiple women around Him.
• That people are the result of the "endless celestial sex" of the gods with many women.

These ideas are crude to say the least.

Yet rather than deny them on that website, the mormons respond with circular arguments that reveal minds closed as tight as traps.

I am grateful for Merlin's candid comments.
 

---

Posted by goperryrevs (# 13504) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Freddy:

To me it illustrated very clearly the absolute stranglehold on free thought that seems to exist within that religion.

---

Sigh... After Merlin giving me hope that Mormons can reasonably discuss their faith, that hope quickly fades...



Still, at least the guy likes Napoleon Dynamite (IMO Mormonism's greatest export )
 

---

Posted by Freddy (# 365) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by goperryrevs:
Still, at least the guy likes Napoleon Dynamite (IMO Mormonism's greatest export )

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Freddy:

Is there anything Mormon about Napoleon Dynamite? The wedding at the end?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by goperryrevs:

(not sure if Jon Heder's a Mormon...)

---

Wikipedia says he is
 

---

Posted by Freddy (# 365) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by goperryrevs:

quote:

---

Originally posted by goperryrevs:

(not sure if Jon Heder's a Mormon...)

---

Wikipedia says he is

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Freddy:
.... the assertions of the cartoon are so scandalous that Mormonism surely can't be considered Christian if they are true. For example:

• That Elohim is only the God of our planet.

  ---

quote:

---

That we can be gods of our own planets.

---

quote:

---

That Elohim came to earth and had sex with Mary.

---

quote:

---

That Jesus had sex, and children, with multiple women around Him.

---

quote:

---

That people are the result of the "endless celestial sex" of the gods with many women.

---

quote:

---

These ideas are crude to say the least.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Freddy:
....While it's true that most organizations of any kind, including huge Christian denominations, have many embarrassing episodes, the Mormon church seems to be particularly vulnerable. Hence the need for such strict discipline and the refusal to answer questions on the website I linked to.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by MerlintheMad:
Only over the course of time will the method of not referencing the past too much produce a mindset of acceptance: that the church is not set in stone, that it changes to suit the needs of the modern members, and does not exist to adhere to some archaic past paradigm: that the past does not need to be defended, because "that was the church then, and we should talk about the church now"....

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Freddy:
....It is one thing for a denomination to modify and modernize its doctrines. It seems like it would be more difficult to distance itself from its founder.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by MerlintheMad:
What shot my efforts to believe the church's claim on divine authority (that there is really such a thing in the first place), was finding out the full skinny on JS's "philandering", as you put it. First of all, his sexual relations were anything but casual liasons: he was an intensely religious person who required his sexuality to have righteous definition: thus the "restitution of all things" included OT partriachal marriage, a la JS style (i.e. through "revelation" just like everything else).

The trouble was, his M.O. was at variance with my concept of sexual morality: and I cannot believe that "God" would not only condone such behavior, but command it, by sending an angel with a drawn sword to threaten JS if he didn't at once enter "the practice" of patriarchal marriage. (He used this coercive story on several of his youngest and most impressionable marks; in addition to claiming, Swedenborgian style, that he and the girls were soulmates from the preexistence, and that not even all the demons of hell could keep them apart in this life, etc. Another tactic of coercion to get a balking girl to "marry" him, was to threaten her with dire events in the future if she did not follow his offer/advice/command: and in at least one situation, where the already married woman refused to marry him polyandrously and later had a misfortune, he told her that he had known it would happen and it was because she had not obeyed his counsel. Etc.) His evident behavior in tactically maneuvering both girls and their parents into agreeing with him and in keeping his "marriages" with already married LDS women a secret is what finally put me off entirely. It was the straw that broke my back.
[/QB]

---

This reminds me of the 'Nine o' Clock Service' scandal back in the 90's, with Chris Brain in Sheffield. Similarly to JS, he:

- Slowly moved from a Christian POV to a more New Age / off the wall view.
- Founded a whole community based around himself.
- Manipulated many women around him sexually, often using the same techniques you've mentioned.
- Was/is a very charismatic, engaging and gifted person who used that to full personal advantage.

And all this within the Anglican church

Do you think that the Mormon Church would have grown like it has, had JS not been martyred? As far as I know, Brigham Young was the one who really established it as a religion. Do you think it would have just fizzled out otherwise?
 

---

Posted by glockenspiel (# 13645) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by MerlintheMad:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Freddy:
...

---

They do NOT bring up church history (except in passing annecdotal ways), the defense of peculiar doctrines, or defending the church's stand vis-a-vis controversial topics. They stay safely in midstream, consistently mainstreaming the church. This all comes under the heading, "preach/teach nothing save faith and repentance unto this people". "Of tenets though shalt not speak." "The mysteries" are for private study, not general conference or the general congregation, etc.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by goperryrevs:
....Do you think that the Mormon Church would have grown like it has, had JS not been martyred? As far as I know, Brigham Young was the one who really established it as a religion. Do you think it would have just fizzled out otherwise?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by MerlintheMad:
...I hope that makes the difference in the meaning of "gods" more clear, as Mormons look at it. ...

---

I disagree with that -- but we can agree that Mormon theology is a constantly evolving moving target. Manymanymany conflicting views are current within even mainstream Mormonism. (Sometimes even in the same person's head!)

Frankly, it seems to me that Mormonism is even more fractured in its beliefs than Anglicanism.



Ross
 

---

Posted by glockenspiel (# 13645) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Rossweisse:

quote:

---

Originally posted by MerlintheMad:
...I hope that makes the difference in the meaning of "gods" more clear, as Mormons look at it. ...

---

I disagree with that -- but we can agree that Mormon theology is a constantly evolving moving target. Manymanymany conflicting views are current within even mainstream Mormonism. (Sometimes even in the same person's head!)


Ross

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by ORGANMEISTER:

What really intrigues me about early Mormonism is why did it appear in staid, rural, upstate New York? Why was this area such a hot bed of heterodoxy?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by ORGANMEISTER:
Yes, Ross, you Anglicans seem to allow for a fairly wide range of beliefs and practices, but they are within the traditional confines of orthodox Christianity........at least for the most part.

....and you have proposed a history of the Western Hemisphere that, at this point, seems utterly contradicted by science and history. I was recently reading about an study that attempted to find Semitic gene markers in a rather large cross-section of Meso-American peoples and none were found. Other studies have looked for traces of Semitic language and elements of Semitic writing in samples of Meso-American peoples and their glyphs but again, none appear. Now, finally being able to read Mayan glyphs, we find no mention of any of the great cities and civilizations that JS tells us existed prior to the European arrival. It just doesn't make sense.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Wilfried:
Upstate New York of the time was not so staid. It was the burnt over district, a place of much religious foment where a number of religious movements were founded. In that way also JS was very much a product of his time and place.

---

quote:

---

During our evening conversations, Joseph would occasionally give us some of the most amusing recitals that could be imagined. He would describe the ancient inhabitants of this continent, their dress, mode of travelling, and the animals upon which they rode; their cities, their buildings, with every particular; their mode of warfare; and also their religious worship. This he would do with as much ease, seemingly, as if he had spent his whole life among them." - Lucy Mack Smith, Biographical Sketches of Joseph Smith The Prophet, 1853, p 85.

---

quote:

---

“…our sons would endeavor to get through their work as early as possible, and say, ‘Mother, have supper early, so we can have a long evening to listen to Joseph.’ Sometimes Joseph would describe the appearance of the Nephites, their mode of dress and warfare, their implements of husbandry, etc, and many things he had seen in vision.” – Lucy Mack Smith, Wandle Mace autobiography in Milton V. Backman Jr. and Keith W. Perkins, eds, Writings of Early Latter-day Saints and Their Contemporaries, A Database Collection, 2nd ed., rev. 45.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by glockenspiel:
I have agreed to meet a couple of mormon elders for a chat on saturday afternoon - they went ahead with this idea, even though I did warn them that they would not be in for an easy ride. So - on behalf of all my shipmates, any questions or lines of enquiry/exmaination that you would like me to pursue??

---

• They look creepy. The only ones we ever see are the evangelists and they dress like 1960s IBM salesmen or evil mass murderers from very disturbing horror films. And they have name tags. No-one has name tags outside of a convention. Probably a very creepy cult-like sales convention. The JWs look a lot nicer - usually pairs of women, one nice cuddly middle-aged one and the other very often a stunner. They look like you want to talk to them. Mormon missionaries make you glad to be on the other side of the street.
• Adding stuff to the Bible looks like adding stuff to Jesus Christ.
• If they really do believe in the Trinity they could say so explicitly. They seem to vacillate.
• And its hard to know what they do believe because they are so secretive.
• the Book of Mormon is obviously full of made-up historical nonsense. They can't surely believe all that fake history of America? We suspect that they actually don't believe it but they pretend to to keep in with their temples. We really mean what we say about Jesus, we don't want to be part of a religion that pretends to believe impossible doctrines.
• The people who founded it seem to have been notorious liars
• That odd stuff about baptising the dead.
• Secrecy. Big turn-off. Why don't they let you know what hapens in their temples?
• We don't really believe they think women are equal to men. Have some women leaders and we'll start taking you more seriously. Yes, us Protestants think the same about the Catholics.
• Where is Salt Lake City anyway?
• Right-wing politics
• The religion seems totally American. Far too American. Taking it on board would be like trying to become American. If we wanted to be American we'd go to America. Even over hear almost every Mormon you actually meet is American. Even the few non-American Mormons seem to look like Americans.
• It all seems too uptight and controlled and disciplined. Its just not very attractive. Not very friendly. Like someone is always waiting for you to do or say the wrong thing. Like the scary people in a story by Ray Bradbury or Philip K Dick.
• We don't really believe they think black people are equal to white people
• Underwear. Yuck.
• Polygamy isn't really a problem. Secretly the blokes all think it sounds like an interesting idea. At least as a sexual fantasy. We don't really mind that much. What we do mind is the stories of loony weird Mormon groups taking over whole counties and exiling all their teenage boys so the older men can keep all the women. Yes, we know that's really not your fault, these are another lot and the top bosses in Salt Lake City denounced them all years ago. But we are going to blame you for it anyway. And how can we tell the nice Mormons from the nasty Mormons?
• They don't drink. Not even tea or coffee. That's weird. Even monks drink.
• Novell Netware
• Did I mention the creepy missionaries?

quote:

---

Originally posted by ken:
In reply to Merlin, a brief list of problems lots of Christians have with Mormonism

• They look creepy. The only ones we ever see are the evangelists and they dress like 1960s IBM salesmen or evil mass murderers from very disturbing horror films. And they have name tags. No-one has name tags outside of a convention. Probably a very creepy cult-like sales convention. The JWs look a lot nicer - usually pairs of women, one nice cuddly middle-aged one and the other very often a stunner. They look like you want to talk to them. Mormon missionaries make you glad to be on the other side of the street.

  ---

quote:

---

Adding stuff to the Bible looks like adding stuff to Jesus Christ.

---

quote:

---

If they really do believe in the Trinity they could say so explicitly. They seem to vacillate.

---

quote:

---

And its hard to know what they do believe because they are so secretive.

---

quote:

---

the Book of Mormon is obviously full of made-up historical nonsense. They can't surely believe all that fake history of America? We suspect that they actually don't believe it but they pretend to to keep in with their temples. We really mean what we say about Jesus, we don't want to be part of a religion that pretends to believe impossible doctrines.

---

quote:

---

The people who founded it seem to have been notorious liars

---

quote:

---

That odd stuff about baptising the dead.

---

quote:

---

Secrecy. Big turn-off. Why don't they let you know what hapens in their temples?

---

quote:

---

We don't really believe they think women are equal to men. Have some women leaders and we'll start taking you more seriously. Yes, us Protestants think the same about the Catholics.

---

quote:

---

Where is Salt Lake City anyway?

---

quote:

---

Right-wing politics

---

quote:

---

The religion seems totally American. Far too American. Taking it on board would be like trying to become American. If we wanted to be American we'd go to America. Even over hear almost every Mormon you actually meet is American. Even the few non-American Mormons seem to look like Americans.

---

quote:

---

It all seems too uptight and controlled and disciplined. Its just not very attractive. Not very friendly. Like someone is always waiting for you to do or say the wrong thing. Like the scary people in a story by Ray Bradbury or Philip K Dick.

---

quote:

---

We don't really believe they think black people are equal to white people

---

quote:

---

Underwear. Yuck.

---

You get used to it. When I wear T-shirts in summer, I leave the top (undershirt) off: In colder seasons I put on chamois button-up shirts and don the undershirt again (I am in "violation" of the "dress code", of course, during the summer, but so what). The slick, nylon kind are almost undetectable when worn, especially in arrid conditions; there's also a "net" weave of nylon that breathes even better for humid climates. The early "pioneer" kind of cotton, tied down the front, reaching to ankle and wrist, are long-gone (thank heaven).

quote:

---

Polygamy isn't really a problem. Secretly the blokes all think it sounds like an interesting idea. At least as a sexual fantasy. We don't really mind that much. What we do mind is the stories of loony weird Mormon groups taking over whole counties and exiling all their teenage boys so the older men can keep all the women. Yes, we know that's really not your fault, these are another lot and the top bosses in Salt Lake City denounced them all years ago. But we are going to blame you for it anyway. And how can we tell the nice Mormons from the nasty Mormons?

---

quote:

---

They don't drink. Not even tea or coffee. That's weird. Even monks drink.

---

quote:

---

Novell Netware

---

quote:

---

Did I mention the creepy missionaries?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by ken:
[*]The religion seems totally American. Far too American. Taking it on board would be like trying to become American. If we wanted to be American we'd go to America. Even over hear almost every Mormon you actually meet is American. Even the few non-American Mormons seem to look like Americans.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by WearyPilgrim:
...I agree with everyone here who has asserted that there is much in Mormonism that is demonstrably false, on historical, anthropological and archaeological grounds. Their theology, moreover, is about as bizarre as second-century Gnosticism: Christianity with a lot of hooey thrown into the recipe.

---

quote:

---

...

The Community of Christ, which someone mentioned, is one of the sects --- perhaps better called a denomination in this instance --- that separated itself from mainstream Mormonism early on. Originally known as The Reorganized Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints, they have a fair number of churches here in Maine. They're ecumenically active, their services resemble typical Protestant services of a modestly evangelical sort, and --- quite unlike the Salt Lake body --- they are officially gay-friendly. They seem to have distanced themselves considerably from their roots; I'm not even sure to what extent the central Mormon books are used by them except as historical curiosities.

---

© Ship of Fools 2016


UBB.classic^TM 6.5.0