The Book of Mormon
discussion
Is Mormonism a form of Christianity?
John,FlufferNutter has ALWAYS been called FlufferNutter, but there are NO nuts in it.
A hamburger has no ham in it. No eggs in an eggplant.
It doesn't matter what you call yourself, it's the beliefs that matter.
M'Goy,
Monkey
Monkey,Yes, it is indeed “the beliefs that matter.” Unfortunately you consistently and stubbornly adhere to a caricature of those “beliefs” even when you are disabused of misconceptions and/or misrepresentations. This is becoming absolutely absurd! We have proven beyond a doubt that every criterion you have attempted to employ doesn’t hold up under scrutiny.
You set up your straw man, take up your weapon of special pleading and then begin to soundly thrash the silage out of him. You then loudly declare victory over your victim whom you declare to be the “Mormon’s” and their erroneous claim to being Christian. You then are presented with evidence that establishes that your opponent is merely a figment of your imagination, that no such contrivance accurately represents LDS belief.
Your response? ‘Oh, yes it does!’ Followed by a litany of quotations culled from the internet in support of your allegation. We then demonstrate that the quotations do not support your conclusions regarding LDS belief. We don’t just declare it, we demonstrate it! Your response? ‘No, you’re wrong. It does indeed support me.' No counter argument, no careful examination of our response to demonstrate we are mistaken in rebuffing you. No additional sources which would further establish your case. No, simply blind insistence that you are right and we are wrong. That you know LDS belief and we, adherents thereto, do not. Indeed, not only do we not know our belief but you are obviously the ultimate source of appeal on LDS belief, defining it without reference to context or contravention. There is no alternative, only Monkey’s definitions and declarations.
Even when you admit a point you do so grudgingly. If indeed the “Mormon’s” do believe salvation is in Jesus Christ than it must have changed at some point. Or you appeal to a non sequitur like “FlufferNutter” having “NO nuts in it” or “A Hamburger” having “no ham in it.” Yes, there is also no pine and no apples in pineapple but it’s utterly irrelevant. By every criterion you have so far provided large segments of what you argue is authentically Christian end up being excluded even up to and including those to whom the term was originally applied.
You tout yourself as a seeker of truth but all I see is deliberate misrepresentation as ignorance simply can no longer be an excuse.
- Matt
Monkey,Matt said it all.
We've shown you the beliefs. They bounce off you like water off a ducks back.
But I do disagree with Matt on his final conclusion. Based on your responses, I don't think you are making deliberate misrepresentations, I really believe you are simply incapable of making a coherent argument. And unless you can demonstrate that sad conclusion is incorrect by giving a coherent response to my posts 157 and 159, I'm done here.
It's been interesting.
John
Monkey,There is no dance and no point in continuing. Once again you failed to respond with anything of substance, bolding declaring victory when you haven't even bothered to engage counter-arguments. This is a waste of time.
- Matt
Monkey,Thanks for deciding to start a new thread. And, assuming you will use the "Is Mormonism a cult?" question as the subject of the new thread, I particularly appreciate that you are starting with definitions of "cult" so we will have a basis for the discussion.
Regarding your statement that we "have no argument that shows anyone that Mormonism meets the accepted definition of Christianity," I'm a bit confused. I tried a number of times to get you to give a definition of Christianity and you consistently refused to do so. So I'm wondering what exactly is the "accepted definition of Christianity" you speak of? Now that the discussion is over will you finally tell us what you think it is? I'm anxious to see it.
Friends,I’m unsure why you keep asking about my definition of Christianity when you can go to the original post and extract it, but, since you seem both single-minded and unable to use the back-button on your browser, I will oblige you:
In Christianity, God is incorporeal, and is not human with flesh and blood. Christianity is monotheistic; Humans are not gods, nor do they become gods. Jesus was conceived by the Holy Spirit, and not by God literally having sex with Mary. There is no “pre-existence.” Adam was not god. When you die, you are judged by God through the grace of Jesus, not by Joseph Smith and Eloheim. Other religions can be Christian too.
Below is the original post so you don’t have to search too hard.
Ah mee tou fo,
Monkey
1. God was once a man who lived on another planet.
Mormons believe that God was once a mortal man on another planet who progressed by living in obedience to the laws and ordinances of the gospel he had on his world, then he died. He became a resurrected man and evolved to become a god. He is still married now (some early leaders say he is a polygamist) and created this world. Mormons worship only the one true god, which is really one god among millions or billions or more. Mormons believe that they will follow in God's footsteps by becoming perfect and they too will become Gods and Goddesses creating spirit children and peopling other worlds.
Reference: Journal of Discourses Vol. 6 Page 4, 1844. Joseph Smith speaking:
"...you have to learn to be Gods yourselves, and to be kings and priests to God, the same as all Gods have done before you, - namely, by going from one small degree to another..."
Reference: Journal of Discourses Vol. 6 Page 275, 1852. Brighan Young speaking: "After men have got their exaltations and their crowns - have become Gods..."
2. We are co-eternal with God.
They believe we have all existed for all eternity. First we existed as "intelligences", which has never been defined, then we were given spirit bodies in a heaven by our eternal parents. Our "intelligences" have existed forever just like the our God's has and we have been around him in one form or another forever. He has just simply progressed ahead of us.
Reference: Journal of Discourses Vol. 6 Page 7, 1844. Joseph Smith speaking:
"God himself, finding he was in the midst of spirits and glory, because he was more intelligent, saw proper to institute laws whereby the rest could have a priviledge to advance like himself"
3. The origin of Jesus Christ.
Jesus was begotten by physical union of God and Mary. Since God has a body of flesh and bones, he really had literal sex with Mary. The product of this union was Jesus, part man and part God. They believe Jesus was the first born in heaven by heavenly father and mother who created his spirit and our spirits using our "intelligences" as a foundation for our spirits. Our "intelligences" were floating around in the universe and needed to be organized into spirits. Since he was the first born spirit, and according to the Book of Abraham, his "intelligence" was better than the other "intelligences" out there, he is the most important spirit creation. When Jesus received his physical body by the union of God and Mary, his spirit was put into his body like our spirits were put into our bodies. His body was special though because his father was a god. The rest of us have only regular dads.
Brigham Young speaking in the Journal of Discourses Vo1 1, Page 51 1852, "Jesus our Elder Brother was begotten in the flesh by the same character that was in the garden of Eden, and who is our Father in Heaven."
Brigham Young speaking in the Journal of Discourses Vo1 15, Page 770 1853, "Now remember from this time forth, and for ever, that Jesus Christ was not begotten by the Holy Ghost... if the Son was begotten by the Holy Ghost, it would be a very dangerous to baptize and confirm females, and give the Holy Ghost to them, lest he should beget children..."
6. Saving dead ancestors.
Mormons believe they have temples where they get the handshakes and passwords that allow them to become gods. They also baptize by proxy dead people so they too can become Mormons.
7. Adam is God.
Brigham Young's taught the Adam-God Doctrine, that "Adam is our Father in Heaven". This doctrine was also taught and believed by Wilford Woodruff, Lorenzo Snow, Hosea Stout, William Clayton and others. Spencer Kimball pronounced this a false doctrine in October 1976.
References: Journal of Discourse Vol. 1, pg. 50-51; Vol. 2, pg. 6, 143; Vol. 3, pg. 319; Vol. 4, pg. 271; Vol. 5, pg. 331; vol. 6, pg. 275,285; vol. 8, pg. 53, 208; vol. 12, pg. 97.
8. LDS leaders have taught that Jesus is a polygamist.
"Jesus Christ was married at Cana of Galilee, that Mary, Martha, and others were his wives and that he begat children."
Reference: Apostle Orson Hyde, J of D vol. 2, pg. 80 and 84. Apostle Orson Pratt, The Seer, pg. 172 and the Second Counselor to Brigham Young, Jedadiah Grant, Journal of Discourses., Vol. 1, pg. 346.
9. That salvation is not through accepting Jesus Christ, but Joseph Smith.
[There is:] "no salvation without accepting Joseph Smith. If Joseph Smith was verily a prophet, and if he told the truth...no man can reject that testimony without incurring the most dreadful consequences, for he cannot enter the kingdom of God"
- Joseph Fielding Smith, Doctrines of Salvation, vol. 1, p.190
"No man or woman in this dispensation will ever enter into the celestial kingdom of God without the consent of Joseph Smith...every man and woman must have the certificate of Joseph Smith, junior, as a passport to their entrance into the mansion where God and Christ are"
- Prophet Birgham Young, Journal of Discourses, vol. 7, p.289
"He that confesseth not that Jesus has come in the flesh and sent Joseph Smith with the fullness of the Gospel to this generation, is not of God, but is anti-christ"
- Prophet Brigham Young, Journal of Discourses, vol. 9, p.312
"If we get our salvation, we shall have to pass by him [Joseph Smith:]; if we enter our glory, it will be through the authority he has received. We cannot get around him [Joseph Smith:]"
- Prophet George Q. Cannon, as quoted in 1988 Melchizedek Priesthood Study Guide, p. 142
"I tell you, Joseph holds the keys, and none of us can get into the celestial kingdom without passing by him. We have not got rid of him, but he stands there as the sentinel, holding the keys of the kingdom of God.. But I tell you, the pinch will be with those that have mingled with us, stood next to us, weighed our spirits, tried us, and proven us: there will be a pinch, in my view, to get past them. The others, perhaps, will say, If brother Joseph is satisfied with you, you may pass. If it is all right with him, it is all right with me. Then if Joseph shall say to a man, or if brother Brigham say to a man, I forgive you your sins, "Whosoever sins ye remit they are remitted unto them;" if you who have suffered and felt the weight of transgression—if you have generosity enough to forgive the sinner, I will forgive him: you cannot have more generosity than I have. I have given you power to forgive sins, and when the Lord gives a gift, he does not take it back again."
- Apostle Orson Hyde, Journal of Discourses, Vol. 6, p.154
10. That other churches are not Christian.
"Both Catholics and Protestants are nothing less than the 'whore of Babylon' whom the Lord denounces by the mouth of John the Revelator as having corrupted all the earth by their fornications and wickedness. Any person who shall be so corrupt as to receive a holy ordinance of the Gospel from the ministers of any of these apostate churches will be sent down to hell with them, unless they repent"
- Apostle Orson Pratt proclaimed, The Seer, p. 255
"After the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints was organized, there were only two churches upon the earth. They were known respectively as the Church of the Lamb of God and Babylon. The various organizations which are called churches throughout Christendom, though differing in their creeds and organizations, have one common origin. They all belong to Babylon"
- George Q. Cannon said, Gospel Truth, p.324
"When the light came to me I saw that all the so-called Christian world was grovelling in darkness."
- Prophet Brigham Young, Journal of Discourses 5:73
"With a regard to true theology, a more ignorant people never lived than the present so-called Christian world."
- Prophet Brigham Young, Journal of Discourses 8:199
"The Christian world, so-called, are heathens as to the knowledge of the salvation of God"
- Prophet Brigham Young, Journal of Discourses 8:171
"Christians—those poor, miserable priests brother Brigham was speaking about—some of them are the biggest whoremasters there are on the earth, and at the same time preaching righteousness to the children of men. The poor devils, they could not get up here and preach an oral discourse, to save themselves from hell; they are preaching their fathers' sermons —preaching sermons that were written a hundred years before they were born. ...You may get a Methodist priest to pour water on you, or sprinkle it on you, and baptize you face foremost, or lay you down the other way, and whatever mode you please, and you will be damned with your priest.
- Apostle Heber C. Kimball, Journal of Discourses, 5:89
"The Gospel of modern Christendom shuts up the Lord, and stops all communication with Him. I want nothing to do with such a Gospel, I would rather prefer the Gospel of the dark ages, so called"
- Prophet Wilford Woodruff, Journal of Discourses, vol. 2, p.196
"But as there has been no Christian Church on the earth for a great many centuries past, until the present century, the people have lost sight of the pattern that God has given according to which the Christian Church should be established, and they have denominated a great variety of Christian Churches ... But there has been a long apostasy, during which the nations have been cursed with apostate churches in great abundance"
- Apostle Orson Pratt, Journal of Discourses, 18:172
"What! Are Christians ignorant? Yes, as ignorant of the things of God as the brute best."
- Prophet John Taylor, Journal of Discourses 13:225
"What does the Christian world know about God? Nothing... Why so far as the things of God are concerned, they are the veriest fools; they know neither God nor the things of God."
- John Taylor, Journal of Discourses 13:225
"Doctrines were corrupted, authority lost, and a false order of religion took the place of the gospel of Jesus Christ, just as it had been the case in former dispensations, and the people were left in spiritual darkness." (p. 266). "For hundreds of years the world was wrapped in a veil of spiritual darkness, until there was not one fundamental truth belonging to the place of salvation ...Joseph Smith declared that in the year 1820 the Lord revealed to him that all the 'Christian' churches were in error, teaching for commandments the doctrines of men."
- Prophet Joseph Fielding Smith, Doctrines of Salvation, vol. 3, p.282
"...the Book of Mormon remains secure, unchanged and unchangeable, ...But with the Bible it was not and is not so....it was once in the sole and exclusive care and custody of an abominable organization (Christianity), founded by the devil himself, likened prophetically unto a great whore, whose great aim and purpose was to destroy the souls of men in the name of religion. In these hands it ceased to be the book it once was."
- Apostle Bruce R. McConkie, The Joseph Smith Translation, pp. 12, 13
"And also those to whom these commandments were given, might have power to lay the foudation of this (Mormon) church, and to bring it forth out of obscurity and out of darkness, the only true and living church upon the face of the whole earth..."
- Supposedly Jesus Christ Himself, Doctrine and Covenants
It's as if we never responded. This is precisely the source of my frustration. You don't even alter your arugments to account for your misconceptions about LDS belief! Misconceptions which have been corrected more than once. Amazing...
Monkey,In your most recent post (166) you say,
"I’m unsure why you keep asking about my definition of Christianity when you can go to the original post and extract it, but, since you seem both single-minded and unable to use the back-button on your browser, I will oblige you:
"In Christianity, God is incorporeal, and is not human with flesh and blood. Christianity is monotheistic; Humans are not gods, nor do they become gods. Jesus was conceived by the Holy Spirit, and not by God literally having sex with Mary. There is no “pre-existence.” Adam was not god. When you die, you are judged by God through the grace of Jesus, not by Joseph Smith and Eloheim. Other religions can be Christian too."
I was so embarrassed that your definition was right there in your original post and I apparently had missed it! So, to show that I really do know how to migrate back to the first of the discussion, I went back to your original post and looked for your definition. And I looked some more. Gosh, try as I might I just couldn't find in your original post the definition of Christianity that you gave in your post 166.
So it appears you told a little fib there, Monkey. Nevertheless, I appreciate that you finally produced the definition of Christianity that you are using to decide the question of whether Mormonism is a form of Christianity. You could have saved a lot of discussion had you actually produced it in your original post. The first part of the first sentence is sufficient for a conclusion. "In Christianity, God is incorporeal..." Based on this part of the definition alone, Mormonism is not a form of Christianity, because we believe God has an immortal, glorified body of flesh and bones. So that takes care of your question according to the definition you gave for Christianity. But, as has been pointed out earlier in the thread, by other definitions (for instance the Merriam-Webster definition) Mormonism is a form of Christianity. But then, I suppose you don't consider a Merriam-Webster definition as "accepted". I mean, who is Merriam-Webster compared to Monkey? Of course, Monkey's definition must be the "accepted" one.
I am really interested to learn where you got your so-called "accepted definition of Christianity". Who, other than yourself, accepts the definition you gave in your post 166? I challenge you to produce evidence that even one authority on Christianity accepts the definition you gave. I'm confident you can find an authority on Christianity who considers an incorporeal God as part of the definition, but the full definition you gave? Not a chance.
Monkey,I am not your “friend.” At best we are acquaintances. You wrote:
“In Christianity, God is incorporeal, and is not human with flesh and blood. Christianity is monotheistic; Humans are not gods, nor do they become gods. Jesus was conceived by the Holy Spirit, and not by God literally having sex with Mary. There is no “pre-existence.” Adam was not god. When you die, you are judged by God through the grace of Jesus, not by Joseph Smith and Eloheim. Other religions can be Christian too.”
Not only is this a misrepresentation of historically orthodox (creedal) Christianity but it is a misrepresentation of LDS Christianity as well. I have great difficulty understanding what could possibly motivate you to pursue such a dishonest and disreputable course. Fine, you don’t think “Mormons” are Christians. There are indeed perfectly good reasons to draw a distinction between historically orthodox Christianity and LDS Christianity and one can then employ those distinctions (erroneously in my opinion) to refuse one group or the other the title Christian.
But come on, how many times must I state that LDS Christians (collectively) simply do not accept the concept of “God literally having sex with Mary.” Nor do we believe that “Adam was… god” or that we are “judged… by Joseph Smith and Eloheim” and we certainly do not deny that “Other religions can be Christian too.” In fact, it is the creedal, historically orthodox crowd which prefers to deny others the title. We may label them apostate even while they label us heterodox but these terms stress the differences in our beliefs, not a refusal to acknowledge a commitment to Christ.
Modern historically orthodox Christians do indeed have a different conception of God than do LDS Christians. Although incorporeality is debatable given the incarnation we do indeed differ in regards to precisely how the three are one and yet still three (the Trinity versus what LDS Christians would refer to as the Godhead). This is indisputable and entirely accurate. If indeed it is conformity with Nicene Trinitarianism that is to be the standard of who is and who is not a Christian then you’re absolutely right, Latter-day Saints aren’t Christians. Of course, neither are all the Christians who preceded Nicaea (and even those thereafter who refused to demure to the creed). Even the apostles of Jesus Christ would fail to measure up to this standard.
Monotheism is also problematic and on the same basis. It isn’t that I fault your reasoning in relation to drawing a clear distinction between LDS belief and modern historically orthodox belief, but rather that it amounts to a egregious example of special pleading or what is more commonly referred to as a double-standard. The Christianity of Latter-day Saints is to be assessed on a standard that Christians at various points (even some modern Christians) could not measure up to.
Christians and Jews accepted some conception of premortal existence although again, you’re right, modern historically orthodox Christians who accept the tenants of Christianity as they have evolved over the centuries do indeed reject the concept of preexistence as LDS Christians understand it. Again, a brilliant although rather obvious observation; historically orthodox Christians are not LDS Christians.
What I am asking for here is quite simple and can be relayed in two simple points:
1. Equity: what is sauce of the goose is sauce for the gander. This is not simply a matter of courtesy but it is entirely rational.
2. Charity. No, I am not referring to giving a dollar to the man down on his luck but rather adhering to the principle of charity, a philosophical concept. Basically, the principle of charity states that interpreters should seek to maximize the rationality of others’ arguments and claims by rendering them in the strongest way reasonable and certainly not is misrepresenting their beliefs altogether.
The former avoids the fallacy of special pleading and thereby strengthens ones arguments and the latter avoids the straw man fallacy wherein one is criticizing a silly caricature of another’s position rather than the position itself. Now, if you can’t adhere to either than there’s really no point in discussing the matter further.
- Matt
Matt,You say we are not friends? And then you ask for charity? Are you confused?
I've done a quick survey, and the Muslims and Jews in my office all say that God is incorporeal, so it seems that Mormonism is not only not a form of Christianity, but not even a form of Abrahamic religion!
But you have a point: Every
But then you have to bring in historical Christians. I mean, seriously, who hasn't read the Gnosic Gospels (a.k.a. the Nag Hammadi Library)? You want some serious theism? How about some womb-worship? I mean, if you REALLY want to get sideways, let's not forget Anton Levay's Satanic Bible. Where does it stop?
Or should it?
Here is the cut-off point: You are focused on the end product: You have the answers and find the evidence to fit. I have no answers, but a very strict method for filtering out the mass of information. Call it a "Bullsh1t Detector." Cognitive Bias is your enemy.
Seriously: check out that wiki. The brain can be fooled. You need to be on guard.
And sometimes the places you find the answers take you to where you are afraid to go.
Be bold! Be Brave! Take the journey to knowledge!
You think you are already there, but what you carry with you is what holds you back.
Say "I don't know!"
Still BFF,
Monkey
Not up to answering my post 168, Monkey?And are you going to start the "cult" thread, or were you just kidding about that?
And what about my post 151? Any comment about your adherence (or non-adherence) to Lord Shiva?
And, speaking of friends, I invited you to be a friend on Goodreads. Did you ignore my invitation?
Have a happy day,
John
Now, what on earth? They have their own bat-shit crazy bible about Jesus coming to America. They're a knock of Christianity, sure, but cmon, they literally invented their own bible.
Caleb,I think you hit the nail on the head. I mean, it's ALL crazy, should we distinguish between gradients?
John,
You ask for a definition, then complain when I give you one. You take my example of the wonders of the world that I gave to Noel and try to turn me into a Hindu.
You admit that an incorporeal god is part of Christianity, which Mormonism rejects.
Christianity also states that there is only one god, whereas the LDS says that Mormons (that follow the rules, tithe 10% of their total income, etc.) become gods and make their own planets.
So yes, the Catholic Church has repeatedly dismissed this doctrine and reaffirmed that there is only one god.
Do you really need a link for that?
When you agree to this point, we will move on to the Mormons almost Buddhist belief in pre-existance.
BFF,
Monkey
Monkey,Your response to my post 168 appears to be, "You ask for a definition, then complain when I give you one."
I'm sorry, I didn't consider what I said to be a complaint about your definition. In fact I said that I appreciated that you finally gave your definition. What I complained about was your characterization of your definition as the "accepted definition of Christianity." And, since you didn't respond to that issue, I see that you agree that your definition is in no way an "accepted definition of Christianity." Again, by your lack of response, I see that you agree that you fibbed about your definition of Christianity appearing in your original post.
Your response to my post 151 is, "You take my example of the wonders of the world that I gave to Noel and try to turn me into a Hindu."
What I said was, "I notice that you referred Noel to a web site about the February 26, 2006 Maha Shivaratri night. Does this mean you are a devotee of the Lord Shiva?" It is just a simple question, Monkey. If you aren't a devotee of the Lord Shiva, all you had to say was, "No." Since you consider the Maha Shivaratri night an "example of the wonders of the world" I thought you might be Hindu and just thought I'd ask. Thanks for clearing that up.
You then claimed, "You admit that an incorporeal god is part of Christianity, which Mormonism rejects."
I stated that Mormonism rejects an incorporeal God, but I didn't "admit that an incorporeal god is part of Christianity." If you think I did, I challenge you to show where I made such an admission.
It isn't clear to me what the doctrines of the Catholic Church have to do with the discussion. After all, by some definitions, Catholics aren't considered Christians either. See for example, http://www.justforcatholics.org/a19.htm .
Since everyone agrees that by your definition of Christianity Mormonism isn't a form of Christianity there is no reason to move on to our belief in pre-existance. If you wish to ask questions about our belief in pre-existance, why don't you start a new thread on that issue?
There are still a couple of things you haven't responded to, so I'll repeat them.
Are you going to start the "cult" thread, or were you just kidding about that?
And, speaking of friends, I invited you to be a friend on Goodreads. Did you ignore my invitation?
Hope you're having a nice day,
John
Monkey,Are you going to read the books I suggested? I hope so, I'm reading The Great Divorce right now.
Here, I'll re-list them for you:
The Screwtape Letters
Mere Christianity
The Abolition of Man
The Problem of Pain
Miracles
I would start with Mere Christianity
And, just curious, are you a guy or gal.
God bless,
Mason
You truly are thick aren’t you Monkey? That’s right, I did say we aren’t friends and you can be certain that it is not merely a statement but a fact. And there is no contradiction in stating that I am not your friend and then in requesting that you adhere to a recognized principle of rational dialogue, the principle of charity. I even defined it! What the hell is the matter with you?Feel free to scroll up a bit (if those primate digits can manipulate your mouse) and re-read it. Better yet, let me make it really simple for you:
“2. Charity. No, I am not referring to giving a dollar to the man down on his luck but rather adhering to the principle of charity, a philosophical concept. Basically, the principle of charity states that interpreters should seek to maximize the rationality of others’ arguments and claims by rendering them in the strongest way reasonable and certainly not is misrepresenting their beliefs altogether.”
If there is anyone who suffers from an interminable amount of confusion it seems to be you. How simply can I spell it out for you before you will be able to grasp it? But no, you prefer allegation and insinuation to actually interacting with the content of my posts. For someone so obsessed with facts you suffer from a suffocating dearth of such.
I am glad your office is so eclectic in its religious sentiments. Handy to be able to poll the local Muslims and Jews on their personal belief and then to impose that understanding onto each and every Muslim or Jew who has ever claimed the title. Can you say special pleading? Can you say fallacy of composition? Can you say fallacy of argumentum ad populum? Pick any of the above or better yet all three apply quite well.
And here’s a news flash for you, every religion is a cult. That’s right, all of them. Even by the most standard definition out there each and every religion has at one point met one of more of the acknowledged definitions of that term. The term has become a handy pejorative however, a nifty 50-cent insult that conjures up images of beady-eyed monks in black robes dissecting a virgin on a stone slab while a low chant ebbs through the crowd (or other more recent examples of humans leaving off their sanity like mass suicides in Nikes'). It tells us nothing other than that you don’t like the religion to which you are applying the label or that you believe it to be spurious. Of course, its value as a slur is also quite handy.
Have you read the Gnostic (from the Greek gnosis but it’s not spelled Gnosic) Gospels? Really? You’ve read them? My “Bullshit Detector” is certainly screaming at the moment. Just like you’ve read the Book of Mormon I suppose? (Which you stated did not involve Jerusalem, a piece of information obviously culled from your familiarity with the text no doubt.) Somehow I doubt you have read even a large portion of any of these texts. I think rather that you have read the criticisms of them and are regurgitating these criticisms to justify your lack of belief. Why bother. Believe or don't believe for I could care less.
This little tidbit is a priceless pearl of wisdom:
“The brain can be fooled. You need to be on guard.”
No! Really? Now think about that statement for about a week (as it seems that this is about the time which might be required for you to realize the problem) and then attempt to convince me that I should listen to anything you have to say. If anything with which you disagree can be dismissed with this staggeringly brilliant and painfully obvious observation then how can one trust ones brain to determine anything. What methods should one adhere to to make sure one is not being fooled? And wouldn't any method you suggest still require that I strain the information through my allegedly fallible noodle? And if I cannot trust my own faculties why the hell should I trust yours anyway! I could go on and on about this one...
It’s certainly not fear that keeps me from accepting your tripe, it’s the absolute lack of any substantial reasoning. Go ahead, if the “facts” are on your side show me where I am wrong. Go back to any one of my posts in which I provided a substantive reason as to why I fell there exists room for belief and demonstrate that no such leeway is allowed by the “facts.” Prove that God does not exist. Prove that Mormons are not Christians. Prove it to my satisfaction and guess what, I’ll leave the instant you have. Otherwise, take a long walk off a short pier.
Matt,You seem to be upset. Does this conversation disturb you? I'm just asking questions, relax, have a
Our brains can be fooled. Anyone who has tried to figure out which line is longer in an optical illusion knows this. There are other cognitive biases (which I directed you to) which we know can make us believe in things that are demonstrably not true.
You have a good question: "What methods should one adhere to to make sure one is not being fooled?" Glad you asked!
Science! It is distributed, meaning that people all over the world with different faiths and cultural biases work on it, it is empirical, meaning that only outcomes that are repeatable no matter who or where you are are accepted, it is open, meaning that even a teenager in their basement can use the principles to verify the outcomes, or come up with their own results!
Now, as I'm sure you well know, no one can prove a negative. You can't prove that there is NOT a small, ceramic teapot orbiting Jupiter. If you can prove that there isn't, I'll wash your car.
What we have to go on is what we CAN prove. We have proof that the universe began at a highly compacted, hot point about 13 billion years ago. We have proof that complex organisms evolved from less complex ones. All without the need for a god complicating things.
You seem well-educated, how is it that you don't accept scientific principles?
A licky boom boom down,
Monkey
I'm reminded of Jack Skellington from the Nightmare Before Christmas. In order to understand Christmas he used the scientific method, but no matter how hard he tried he couldn't understand it that way."Christmastime is buzzing in my skull.
Will it let me be? I cannot tell.
There's so many things I cannot grasp.
When I think I've got it and then at last.
Through my bony fingers it does slip,
like a snowflake in a fiery grip.
Something here I'm not quite getting,
though I try I keep forgetting,
like a memory long since past.
Here in an instant, gone in a flash.
What does it mean? What does it mean?
In these little bric-a-brac,
a secrets waiting to be cracked.
These dolls and toys confuse me so,
confound it all, I love it though.
Simple objects, nothing more,
but something's hidden through a door,
though I do not have the key.
Something's here I cannot see.
What does it mean? What does it mean?
What does it mean? Hmm..
I've read these Christmas books so many times.
I know the stories and I know the rhymes.
I know the Christmas carols all by heart.
My skull's so full it's tearing me apart.
As often as I've read them, something's wrong.
So hard to put my bony finger on.
Or perhaps it's really not as deep as I've been led to think.
Am I trying much too hard? Of course. I've been too close to see.
The answer's right in front of me.
Right in front of me.
It's simple really, very clear,
like music drifting in the air.
Invisible, but everywhere.
Just because I cannot see it doesn't mean I can't believe it."
Such a good movie, I want to watch it again now.
You wrote:“You seem well-educated, how is it that you don't accept scientific principles?”
I don’t recall ever saying that I “don’t accept scientific principles.” In fact, I have before stated that such is a gross misrepresentation (also known as a filthy lie). It is your assumption that an acceptance of faith necessarily entails a rejection of “scientific principles” not mine; and it is a faulty assumption at that. I simply do not accept “Science” as the monolithic and infallible source of truth that you do.
Monkey,You said, "We have proof that the universe began at a highly compacted, hot point about 13 billion years ago."
When I read this I couldn't decide whether to laugh or cry. I finally decided on the former. There is absolutely no proof "that the universe began at a highly compacted, hot point about 13 billion years ago." The Big Bang Theory (the name of the event you say is proven) is a theory based on the current scientific understanding of the universe. It involves a number of assumptions that cannot be proven for the simple reason that the only direct data comes from the last (to be generous) few hundred years.
But what I'm really interested in is this: why are you ignoring my post 174 made on May 23rd? You seem to thrive on bouncing around like a rubber ball from one subject to another without really following through on anything. Why don't you reply directly to the issues in my post 174? Let's get them resolved.
To make it easy, why don't you just take them one at a time? Here's the first one. The definition of Christianity that you gave and claimed was the "accepted definition of Christianity" is not really the accepted definition of Christianity, is it? Why don't you just admit you are wrong about that and then we can get on with the second issue.
Your response?
John
John,You're a Big Bang denier? How interesting. Tell you what, I'll answer your question if you answer mine:
1. Where, exactly, is the radiation measured by NASA's Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe (WMAP) coming from?
2. Why is the universe homogeneous on the large (hundreds of millions of light years) scale?
3. Why is there such an abundance of helium in the universe?
4. Why are there fluctuations in the cosmic microwave background radiation (CMBR)?
5. Why do photons from the CMBR show a gravatational redshift?
6. Why is the ratio of baryons to photons consistent with the ratio of deuterium to helium predicted from primordial nucleosynthesis? Why is the Hubble constant consistent with measurements from distant supernovae, the Tully-Fisher relation and the surface brightnesses of galaxies? Why is the cosmological model from the WMAP measurements consistent with measurements of large scale structure from surveys like the Sloan Digital Sky Survey (SDSS) and the Two-Degree Field Survey (2dF)?
The Big Bang theory explains all these. WITHOUT the need for a god. If you have an alternative explanation, please, enlighten us. You will be lauded and praised by all.
I'll even go first and answer your question:
My definition of Christianity was to show the differences, which are many and fundamental, between pre-Mormon and Mormon forms of Jesus worship. Sure, if you want to take a big view of things, Protestantism and Catholicism are the same. You can even lump Judaism and Islam in and call them all forms of Christianity. My point was that, because of it's belief in pre-existence, polytheism, the corporeal nature of god, and many basic changes in the mythology (Eden being in Missouri, for one), it could be considered a different religion.
Now, your turn. Pick one of the questions above and answer it (and if your answer is "god did it", then you will also have to explain why).
You see, science doesn't claim to have all the answers (like religion), just methods for finding them.
Tarvu tarvooti,
Monkey
Monkey,If you go back and reread my post 180 you will see that you have misrepresented what I said. All I denied is your assertion that "We have proof that the universe began at a highly compacted, hot point about 13 billion years ago." (italics added) I don't know for sure whether the Big Bang Theory is correct and neither does anyone else. It's a theory and is not and cannot be proved. If you wish to say there is evidence "that the universe began at a highly compacted, hot point about 13 billion years ago" then you will get no argument from me. But if you continue to maintain that such an event is proven, you are simply wrong.
Now for your questions. I don't know the answer to any of your 6 questions. Scientists have proposed answers, such as the Big Bang Theory, to account for the observations upon which your questions are based. While the Big Bang Theory currently seems to be the most popular, other reasonable theories have been put forth. For example, Dr. Hannes Alfvén and colleagues have proposed the Alfvén-Klein model as an alternative to the Big Bang Theory. The Steady State Theory developed principally by Fred Hoyle, Thomas Gold, and Hermann Bondi is another alternative to the Big Bang. As I said, the Big Bang is just a theory.
Now on to your answer to my question. While I appreciate your statement about your definition of Christianity, that statement doesn't directly answer my question. My question was, "The definition of Christianity that you gave and claimed was the 'accepted definition of Christianity' is not really the accepted definition of Christianity, is it?" I do notice that you now call it "my definition of Christianity", so by this you have at least indirectly answered my question. So I will accept this as your answer that no, your definition of Christianity is not the accepted definition of Christianity. And I will stipulate once again that, according to your definition of Christianity, Mormonism is not a form of Christianity. Of course, by other definitions (Merriam-Webster's for instance), Mormonism is a form of Christianity.
OK, now that's taken care of, let's proceed to the next issue from my post 174. The issue is whether you fibbed about your definition of Christianity appearing in your original post. The question is this, since your definition of Christianity doesn't appear in your original post, did you fib by claiming that it is in your original post?
Your response?
John
John,According to the dictionary, a tomato is a fruit. "The ripened ovary or ovaries of a seed-bearing plant."
Would you put a tomato in a fruit salad?
No. And I would not lump Mormonism in with Christianity.
Your obsession with personal attacks has led you off the path of this conversation:
"Is Mormonism a form of Christianity?" Not "Is Monkey's definition in the dictionary."
While I appreciate your efforts to derail the conversation, (and yes, I too am guilty, see below), my original post pointed out 10 fundamental discrepancies between the LDS and Christianity.
While I am exceedingly happy that you have agreed that, according to the divergences I listed, that Mormonism is not a form of Christianity, the discussion has now moved away from name-calling and onto "Where do we draw the line?"
Usually this line is drawn when a new prophet comes along and make fundamental changes to the current "parent" religion (usually resulting in a new book).
Parent Religion Hinduism
Prophet/Book Siddhartha Guatama
New Religion Buddhism
Parent Religion Hinduism/Islam
Prophet/Book Guru Granth Sahib
New Religion Sikhism
Parent Religion Confucianism
Prophet/Book Lao Zi/Tao de Ching
New Religion Taoism
Parent Religion Taoism/Buddhism
Prophet/Book Bodhidharma
New Religion Zen
Parent Religion Judaism
Prophet/Book Jesus
New Religion Christianity
Parent Religion Christianity
Prophet/Book Joseph Smith
New Religion LDS/Mormons
Would you claim that Buddhism is a form of Hinduism? That Islam is a form of Judaism?
Where do you draw the line?
Om Mani Padme Om,
Monkey
P.S. The Steady State Theory has been rubbished by the discovery of cosmic microwave background radiation, and the Alfvén-Klein model is not a theory because it does not produce any testable descriptions. So far the Big Bang Theory has stood up to all empirical tests, and predictions based on it have been verified (Something that can not be said for the Book of Mormon). Your misunderstanding is of the definition of the word "theory." You are using it to mean "speculation" whereas, in this use, the correct definition is "A plausible body of principles used to explain phenomena."
You're welcome.
Damn, I'm off topic here. Can we get back to the OP? I'd really like to hear how polygamy fits in with mainstream Christian theology.
Monkey,I've got to hand it to you; you are an expert at avoiding direct answers to questions. I asked the question, "since your definition of Christianity doesn't appear in your original post, did you fib by claiming that it is in your original post?" and you respond with a body of material that, once again, avoids a direct answer to the question.
You did, however, give an indirect answer, i.e. "... my original post pointed out 10 [actually 8; you left out numbers 4 and 5:] fundamental discrepancies between the LDS and Christianity." Since you point out what your original post contains and the contents you mention doesn't include your definition of Christianity, we can reasonably conclude that your answer to the question, if you ever actually gave it, would be yes. I admit that another possible conclusion (other than that you fibbed), is that what you really meant is that your definition of Christianity could be implied from your original post. Should this be the case, it would just be another example of your lack of precision in expressing your ideas.
Now on to your questions.
I assume the one about tomatoes and fruit salad was rhetorical and doesn't require an answer from me. But just in case you do expect my answer, I agree with you that the answer is no.
"Would you claim that Buddhism is a form of Hinduism?" I'd have to learn more about both Buddhism and Hinduism to give an informed answer, but based on the little I do know, I'd say no.
"That Islam is a form of Judaism?" If I understand correctly, they spring from common roots, but I believe they have diverged sufficiently that the answer is no.
"Where do you draw the line?" If you're talking about a line between Christianity and Mormonism, I thought that had already been agreed upon; i.e. that according to your definition of Christianity, there is a line to be drawn between Mormonism and Christianity, but according to other definitions of Christianity, there is no line.
Now let's move on to the second to last question in my post 174. "Are you going to start the 'cult' thread, or were you just kidding about that?"
Your response? And, Monkey, please give a direct answer to the question this time. Thank you.
John
P.S. Thank you, I am perfectly happy with the definition for "theory" that you wish to apply to the Big Bang Theory. As you should know from reading the first paragraph of my post 182, my point is that the Big Bang is not proven. I'm assuming that you know the difference between something that is a theory and something that is proven. In your post 177 you said in effect that "we have proof" for the Big Bang. I'm simply pointing out that we don't have any such proof. The Big Bang is a "plausible body of principles used to explain" the origin of the universe. While it is plausible, it isn't proven. Is that so hard for you to understand?
Yes, this is off topic. But what do you mean by getting back to the "OP"? "Original proposition" perhaps? Or do you mean the original question; i.e. is Mormonism a form of Christianity? I thought we already agreed on an answer to that. Sorry for my confusion on this. You'll have to explain.
Dude monkey, you sure like to study about Mormonism a lot. Are you sure you aren't harboring any secrety desire to get baptized? come on now... ;)
John,As much as I appreciate your attempts to turn this topic into "All about Monkey", you can not avoid the topic.
Once again, for those of you who have forgot:
"Is Mormonism a form of Christianity?"
Here is the next question:
The Mormon Church condones polygamy. Joseph Smith had many wives, one of whom was only 14. This can be confirmed on the LDS websites.
The Church owns and runs the www.familysearch.org website. On this website, you can search records and find various bits of genealogical information.
Here's Joseph Smith's record, with an impressive list of wives:
http://www.familysearch.org/Eng/Searc...
From there, we click on someone like Helen Mar KIMBALL:
http://www.familysearch.org/Eng/Searc...
And we see that lil' Helen was born on 20 Aug 1828 and married Joseph Smith in May 1843, making her 14 years old when she married him.
Although apologists will claim it is no longer condoned, it is still in the Doctrines and Covenants:
http://scriptures.lds.org/en/dc/132/5...
"61 And again, as pertaining to the law of the priesthood—if any man espouse a virgin, and desire to espouse another, and the first give her consent, and if he espouse the second, and they are virgins, and have vowed to no other man, then is he justified; he cannot commit adultery for they are given unto him; for he cannot commit adultery with that that belongeth unto him and to no one else.
62 And if he have ten virgins given unto him by this law, he cannot commit adultery, for they belong to him, and they are given unto him; therefore is he justified.
63 But if one or either of the ten virgins, after she is espoused, shall be with another man, she has committed adultery, and shall be destroyed;"
Ouch. A man can have ten virgins, but if a woman fools around she will be destroyed.
Is this Christian?
Disturbed,
Monkey
Monkey,Once again you refuse to respond to a simple question. Keep in mind that the issue of starting a "cult" thread was raised in this thread by you, not by me. See your post 163 where you said, "Well, This [Is Mormonism a cult?:] is off the topic thread, so I'll get another one started. Been great writing to you." I've been watching for it, and the last time I checked I didn't see that you had started such a thread. If you don't plan to start one, just say so. Seems strange that it's so hard for you to answer a simple question.
Thanks for reminding us of the topic of this thread. Knowing the topic and knowing that the question has been answered, why do you continue to raise it? If you want to discuss polygamy, why not start a new thread?
Are you going to answer the question about starting a "cult" thread, so should we just assume, since you haven't started one, that you were just kidding about that?
John
And back to the topic!The LDS Church discontinued the practice of polygamy in 1890, and few modern Mormons know about Joseph Smith's wives, including:
Fanny Alger 16
Sarah Ann Whitney 17
Lucy Walker 17
Flora Ann Woodworth 16
Emily Dow Partridge 19
Sarah Lawrence 17
Maria Lawrence 19
Helen Mar Kimball 14
Melissa Lott 19
Nancy M. Winchester [14 or 15:]
And then we have this testimony:
"Joseph was very free in his talk about his women. He told me one day of a certain girl and remarked, that she had given him more pleasure than any girl he had ever enjoyed. I told him it was horrible to talk like this."
- Joseph Smith's close confidant and First Councilor, William Law, Interview in Salt Lake Tribune, July 31, 1887
Short Bios of Smith's wives:
http://www.wivesofjosephsmith.org
Did Smith have sex with his wives?:
http://www.i4m.com/think/history/jose...
Also, Joseph Smith's letter to a would-be teen bride justifying his attempted seduction is also revealing -especially since it also comes from the official History of the Church:
http://www.i4m.com/think/history/smit...
And remember, polygamy is still sanctioned by the LDS:
61 And again, as pertaining to the law of the priesthood—if any man espouse a virgin, and desire to espouse another, and the first give her consent, and if he espouse the second, and they are virgins, and have vowed to no other man, then is he justified; he cannot commit adultery for they are given unto him; for he cannot commit adultery with that that belongeth unto him and to no one else.
62 And if he have ten virgins given unto him by this law, he cannot commit adultery, for they belong to him, and they are given unto him; therefore is he justified.
-THE DOCTRINE AND COVENANTS OF THE CHURCH OF JESUS CHRIST OF LATTER-DAY SAINTS SECTION 132
Does this fit into your definition of Christianity?
Later,
Monkey
P.S. For more information on child polygamist brides, see this website:
http://www.helpthechildbrides.com
Polygamy (Plural Marriage)The family is ordained of God. Marriage between man and woman is essential to His eternal plan. At certain times and for His specific purposes, God, through His prophets, has directed the practice of plural marriage (sometimes called polygamy), which means one man having more than one living wife at the same time. In obedience to direction from God, Latter-day Saints followed this practice for about 50 years during the 1800s but officially ceased the practice of such marriages after the Manifesto was issued by President Woodruff in 1890. Since that time, plural marriage has not been approved by The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints and any member adopting this practice is subject to losing his or her membership in the Church. (lds.org)
The Church does not still sanction polygamy. Monkey, did you forget to read OFFICIAL DECLARATION—1 in THE DOCTRINE AND COVENANTS OF THE CHURCH OF JESUS CHRIST OF LATTER-DAY SAINTS?
Here are some interesting scriptures relating to polygamy:
Genesis 16:3-4,25:1-2,29:23-35,30:3-4;8-9
2 Chronicles 13:21
1 Kings 11:1-3
2 Samuel 2:2, 12:7-8
2 Samuel 12:9-12; D&C 132:39
Luke 16:19-31
D&C 132:36-37;Matthew 8:11; Luke 13:28;16:23-26
Isaiah 4:1-6
B. of M. Jacob 2:26-29,30
Mason,Did YOU read the Doctrine and Covenants?
Once more, for those in the back row not paying attention:
http://scriptures.lds.org/en/dc/132/5...
"61 And again, as pertaining to the law of the priesthood—if any man espouse a virgin, and desire to espouse another, and the first give her consent, and if he espouse the second, and they are virgins, and have vowed to no other man, then is he justified; he cannot commit adultery for they are given unto him; for he cannot commit adultery with that that belongeth unto him and to no one else.
62 And if he have ten virgins given unto him by this law, he cannot commit adultery, for they belong to him, and they are given unto him; therefore is he justified.
63 But if one or either of the ten virgins, after she is espoused, shall be with another man, she has committed adultery, and shall be destroyed;"
THE DOCTRINE AND COVENANTS OF THE CHURCH OF JESUS CHRIST OF LATTER-DAY SAINTS SECTION 132 58 - 63
Look at the website: that's not some random hick in Provost, that's official LDS hosting.
Why is it still in the Doctrines and Covenants?
Kisses and kisses and one more kiss,
Monkey
Dearest Monkey,Yes, I have read the D&C. I was just wondering if you read OD-1, because several posts back when you posted this D&C reference I told you about OD-1, hoping it would clear up any confusion.
The same reason the law of Moses is still contained in the old testament. We don't do animal sacrifice anymore, and we can eat pork, but that doesn't mean we remove all references to it, the New Testament explains all this.
I think OD-1 in the D&C explains very clearly that polygamy was officially no longer a practice of the Church since September 24th, 1890.
I hope that clears up any confusion on the subject.
God bless,
Mason
Does this remind anyone of Korihor in the Book of Mormon? He tried to lead people away from the church. Wanted solid proof, a sign, that God existed and that this was His church. He was struck dumb and was later trampled to death. Hmm.
April, Death threats aside, if Polygamy is no longer condoned by the LDS, the question then becomes: Who made the mistake?
Joseph Smith (and most Mormon men up until 1890) were polygamists. Then it became an offense that could get you excommunicated. So, in sixty years (the first Book of Mormon was printed in 1830), Polygamy went from being the word of god to a crime that gets you kicked out of the church.
Was Joseph Smith wrong for putting it in the book? Did he hear Moroni wrong, or was he just fibbing so he could get Helen Mar Kimbal in bed?
Or did Elohim make a mistake? Or Moroni? It must be tough being a celestial being, so many rules to confuse you.
Who made the error?
There was no error. Polygamy was simply instituted because there was a large number of women that needed to be taken care of. Most of them never "consummated" the marriage but were simply taken in by a man for protection and to provide support when support was unavailable. If you are familiar with the time period in which polygamy was instituted, persecution from the world was very prevalent. It was a measure of caution. When there was no longer a need, polygamy was taken away.
To those of you who expect a rational and respectful dialogue with Monkey,His last post (193) demonstrates the kind of respectful responses you can expect from him.
And if you want to see whether you can expect rational responses, take a look at my exchanges with him (they begin with my post 119) or Matthew's exchanges with him (they begin with Matthew's post 83). There's a lot there if you read them all, but it won't take you long to get the picture.
The picture is this: While Monkey started this thread ostensibly to discuss whether Mormonism is a form of Christianity, it appears that he is not really interested in having that discussion. The issue of whether Mormonism is a form of Christianity depends on how one defines Christianity. I tried to get Monkey to give his definition of Christianity and he wouldn't provide it. So finally (in my post 130), to move the discussion along, I attributed a definition to him based on one of his statements in his original post. Based on that definition, I pointed out that Mormonism is not a form of Christianity. I then mentioned that Sara's very early post 4, concluded that Mormonism is a form of Christianity if you accept the Merriam-Webster definition of Christianity. So the question is answered and it obviously depends on how one defines Christianity.
One might think Monkey would be satisfied at this point. But no. In the early part of his response (post 131), he states, "Matt and John seem hung up on my definition, yet another attempt to derail the conversation." So Monkey seems to feel that having a definition of Christianity is "yet another attempt to derail the conversation." Let's see now, the conversation is supposed to be about whether Mormonism is a form of Christianity, and insisting on a definition of Christianity is derailing the conversatiion? Go figure. [In fairness I must mention that Monkey finally gave his definition of Christianity in post 166, after which it was concluded, once again, that according to his definition of Christianity, Mormonism is not a form of Christianity.:]
At this point I should have realized that Monkey was not so much interested in whether Mormonism is a form of Christianity as he is in just bashing Mormonism. But I foolishly ignored that obvious conclusion and continued on. If you've read this far in this post, you might find it interesting to read posts 134-162. In this part of the thread Monkey often ignores or misrepresents what is written by others, thus illustrating his inability to carry on a rational, coherent discussion. Those of you who continue to post in this thread expecting to have a rational exchange with Monkey will probably see this same kind of treatment from him by and by.
Finally in his post 163, Monkey seems ready to take up another question. He says he is going to start another thread on the question "Is Mormonism a cult?" This was back on May 15th. Such a thread is yet to appear. When asked in the current thread whether he is really going to begin the "cult" thread, he refuses to answer. Why does he refuse? Who knows. It's a simple question based on an issue he raised, but expecting rational responses from Monkey is an exercise in frustration.
So, those of you who expect a rational and respectful dialogue with Monkey, good luck, but don't hold your breath.
John
P.S. If you would like to see a rational and respectful dialogue in this thread, check out posts 24-32. Kay and Sara demonstrate how it can and should be done.
G'day mates,So, John wants a discourse. Perhaps like April:
Quote from April:
"Does this remind anyone of Korihor ... He was struck dumb and was later trampled to death. Hmm."
I'll be sure to let you know if your god strikes me. No, nothing yet. Keep praying and we'll see how that goes.
Any condemnation for April, John? No? Because she is a Mormon? It seems you are quick to condemn those who disagree with you, but a wish for another person's death, as long as the wisher is Mormon, is ok with you.
Despite my listing 8 differences between traditional Christianity and Mormonism, John continues insisting that a formal definition is the one ingredient; the key that is missing. This is just an avoidance strategy. And then when I post a definition, he is still not happy.
John will do anything to avoid the topic. Even insisting that one tiny comment of mine ("Is Mormonism a cult?") should be the topic.
For those of you who are actually interested in this discussion, and not personal insults, derailments and attacks, please go back and read the OP (that's Original Post, John) and let's discuss the major changes that the Book of Mormon brought to Christianity.
For those of you joining the discussion late, I'll list them again:
http://www.goodreads.com/topic/show/2...
1. Mormons believe that God was once a man who lived on another planet.
2. We are co-eternal with God.
3. Jesus was begotten by physical union of God and Mary.
4. Dead people, including Hitler and Gary Coleman, can be baptized.
5. Adam is God.
6. LDS leaders have taught that Jesus is a polygamist.
7. That salvation is not through accepting Jesus Christ, but Joseph Smith.
8. That other churches are not Christian.
All of these have been or are current teachings of the Mormon church. All of them fundamentally contradict traditional Christianity.
Which brings us back to Polygamy. Contrary to what April claims, Polygamy was NOT practiced outside the Mormon church, and men DID have sex with their wives.
Sources: "Tell It All" by Fannie Stenhouse
"Wanted: 'One Mighty and Strong'-- Fundamentalists Charge LDS Church Has Fallen Into Apostacy" by Jerald and Sandra Tanner
"Mormon Polygamy" by Richard Van Wagoner
"In Sacred Loneliness" by Compton
--and many more. Google "Mormon History Polygamy" and you will be busy all day.
And polygamy was not just because there were a lot of extra women around. It was to get into heaven:
"The only men who become Gods, even the Sons of God, are those who enter into polygamy" ("Journal of Discourses," vol. 11, p. 269)
Let's be clear: Section 132 of the Doctrine & Covenants remains the official, standing doctrine of the Mormon Church and Mormons are explicitly warned in this section that if they do not follow the God's eternal law of polygamy, they will be damned.
So, seeing as how NO Christian sects of that time (approx. 1830 - 1890) practiced polygamy, should Mormonism be considered a separate religion?
Looking forward to civilized, non-threatening, on-topic conversation,
Mahalo,
Monkey
P.S. And, for John, I give you the "Is Mormonism a Cult?" thread.
John, I expect a big "thank you." Show us you are not just about ad hominem attacks.
You know, I am not interested in bantering with you. You have made it clear you are not actually here to receive answers to your questions. So I have no desire whatsoever to hear what you have to say. I made the comment about Korihor because it was funny. Was I making a death threat? Seriously? Let's be melodramatic. Wow.
Additional InformationThe Bible indicates that Abraham, Jacob, and others of the Lord’s servants had multiple wives (see Genesis 16:1–3; 29:23–30; 30:4, 9; Judges 8:30; 1 Samuel 1:1–2). Joseph Smith asked God why He had permitted this practice and was told that God had commanded it for specific purposes. One reason given by the Lord for plural marriage is mentioned in the Book of Mormon: “If I will, saith the Lord of Hosts, raise up seed unto me, I will command my people; otherwise they shall [have only one wife:]” (Jacob 2:30; see also v. 27).
After God revealed the doctrine of plural marriage to Joseph Smith in 1831 and commanded him to live it, the Prophet, over a period of years, cautiously taught the doctrine to some close associates. Eventually, he and a small number of Church leaders entered into plural marriages in the early years of the Church. Those who practiced plural marriage at that time, both male and female, experienced a significant trial of their faith. The practice was so foreign to them that they needed and received personal inspiration from God to help them obey the commandment.
When the Saints moved west under the direction of Brigham Young, more Latter-day Saints entered into plural marriages.
Influenced by rumors and exaggerated reports, the United States Congress, beginning in 1862, enacted a series of laws against polygamy that became increasingly harsh. By the 1880s many Latter-day Saint men were imprisoned or went into hiding.
In 1889 in the face of increasing hardships and the threat of government confiscation of Church property, including temples, Wilford Woodruff, President of the Church at the time, prayed for guidance. He was inspired to issue a document that officially ended the sanction of plural marriage by the Church. The document, called the Manifesto, was accepted by Church members in a general conference held in October 1890 and is published in the Doctrine and Covenants as Official Declaration 1 (see also “Excerpts from Three Addresses by President Wilford Woodruff Regarding the Manifesto” following Official Declaration 1).
Just as the practice of plural marriage among the Latter-day Saints began gradually, the ending of the practice after the Manifesto was also gradual. Some plural marriages were performed after the Manifesto, particularly in Mexico and Canada. In 1904, President Joseph F. Smith called for a vote from the Church membership that all post-Manifesto plural marriages be prohibited worldwide.
More recently, President Gordon B. Hinckley has reiterated that plural marriage is “against the law of God. Even in countries where civil or religious law allows [the practice of a man having more than one wife:], the Church teaches that marriage must be monogamous and does not accept into its membership those practicing plural marriage” (“What Are People Asking about Us?” Ensign, Nov. 1998, 72).
Groups who teach polygamy today are not part of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.
Monkey,A big THANK YOU for your post 196. It is a very good example of what I was talking about in my post 195. Unfortunately I don't have time at the moment to elaborate. We're packing for a move to California today and we leave tomorrow. My computer will soon be "dark" and may not be up for a few days. So please be patient.
John
I studied Mormonism at my university and I don't think it's really Christian. That's only a selling point for the uninformed. Christianity is a monotheism. Mormonism is not. Simple.
Christians-A name first given to believers in Jesus Christ at Antioch in Syria, about A.D. 43 (Acts 11:26). It was perhaps given contemptuously, but was accepted by followers of Christ as a fit title. See Pet. 4:16; Alma 46:15The Book of Mormon
Alma 46:15
15 And those who did belong to the church were faithful; yea, all those who were true believers in Christ took upon them, gladly, the name of Christ, or Christians as they were called, because of their belief in Christ who should come.
Godhead one in purpose not body
Mark 1:10-11;Luke 3:21-23; Matthew 3:15-17
Acts 7:55-56; 1 Peter 3:22
D&C 130:22-23
Matthew 26:39-42
John 17:3-5
John 20:17-18
John 17:20-22
Colossians 2:9; Ephesians 1:23
John 14:28
2 Corinthians 13:14
Acts 1:9-11
Exodus 15:11; Deuteronomy 10:17; Isaiah 46:9
John 14:26
John 15:26
Acts 2:38-39
Matthew 12:31-32
Acts 1:16
Matthew 28:18-20
Philippians 2:5-6
John 5:18-27
Hello April,I've still not been struck dead by god. Keep on praying, though. See if your god listens to ya.
Nobody is arguing that polygamy is taught by the main LDS church today (although let's face it, Warren Jeffs didn't get his ideas from watching Sponge Bob), but that at it's time of foundation polygamy was taught. Polygamy was NOT practiced by any other Christian church at that time. This is one link in the thesis that Mormonism is not a form of Christianity.
Zelda_of_arel,
It's true: Mormonism teaches that god was once human, and that a Mormon (if they follow all the rules and tithe their 10%) can become a god. Definitely not monotheistic.
What confuses me is the hue and cry people like Matt, John and April are making of it all. They should be proud! Say it loud, "We are a different religion and we are proud!"
I mean, they will still get their tax-exempt status (like the Scientologists have), so what's the big deal?
My best guess is that they need to glom onto traditional Christianity for validation. They put "Jesus Christ" in their name the same way BP changed it's logo to a green flower: to try and make themselves look mainstream and good.
Off to the beach,
Monkey
P.S. John; thanks for the off-topic personal attack. I'll miss you.
Mason,Yes, the Mormon Church claims (quite often and loudly) to be Christian. Nobody is contesting their frequent claims.
The question is: Does the LDS doctrine match up with classical Christianity?
Love,
Monkey
Monkey,OK, we've made our move to California (my wife and I) and our internet connection here is live. I'm sorry you missed me, but I'm back, so you can rejoice.
Yes, my post 195 (I assume that's the one you are referring to in the P.S. of your post 202) is (1) off-topic for this thread and (2) is a personal attack on you.
With respect to (1), my post 195 deals directly with posts you have made to this thread, and I didn't know where else would be more appropriate for those comments.
With respect to (2), my attack on you relates directly to the nature of your posts; i.e. your lack of respectful responses and your lack of rational responses. I cited an example of a disrespectful response by you, although I didn't explain how it was disrespectful. Perhaps I should have, to make it more clear. I assumed, perhaps incorrectly, that anyone reading your post 193 could discern the lack of respect. I further cited examples of your lack of rational response. In this case I went on to explain in detail why I felt your responses were not rational.
So I have given you the titles of Disrespectful and Irrational, and I have given evidence for the justification of both as applied to you. I'm doing this because I believe a dialogue should be respectful, and, to be effective, must be rational.
I once had a traditional Christian explain to me that she had no reason to show respect to Mormons or to show respect for their beliefs. Perhaps you feel the same way. If so, I will quit expecting respectful responses from you and others who might post on this thread will know what to expect from you in that regard.
But, while I can overlook a lack of respect in your responses, I can't overlook a lack of rational response. If you continue to respond irrationally, I will continue to point it out and criticize it. If you can't endure that, then, since it's your thread, just ask me to quit commenting and I will.
Now, down to business. In my post 199 I claimed that your post 196 was a good example of what I claimed in my post 195; i.e. that your posts are disrespectful and irrational. I will give just one example at a time (not necessarily in your order) so focus is less likely to be lost.
In your post 196 you wrote, "John will do anything to avoid the topic. Even insisting that one tiny comment of mine ('Is Mormonism a cult?') should be the topic." You claim in that quote that I will do anything to avoid "the topic," presumably the topic of this thread. Then you claim that I have insisted that "Is Mormonism a cult?" should be the topic, again, presumably of this thread. This is irrational because your reasoning is invalid. Your reasoning is invalid because I never insisted that the topic of this thread become "Is Mormonism a cult?". This is another example of you misrepresenting what I wrote. I challenge you to show where I insisted any such thing. If you can do so, I will gladly post a retraction.
A rational response from you requires one of two possible replies. (1)You admit I never insisted that the topic of this thread become "Is Mormonism a cult?", or (2) you show where I did so insist. Another possible action by you is no response, but, of course, that would not be rational, it would just be avoiding the issue.
Anxiously waiting,
John
John, For the last time, let's get your attempts to make this about me and not "Is Mormonism a form of Christianity" out of the way.
John wrote: "anyone reading your post 193 could discern the lack of respect."
Go back and read it again. After April compared me to Korihor, who "was trampled to death", I gave several scenarios that could plausibly explain why Joseph Smith wrote that polygamy was good, and why this very same doctrine was later repudiated by the church. Nothing disrespectful there. You might not like some of the possibilities, but you can't deny that they are possible.
Your hypocrisy on the topics of respect and rationality are laughable.
#1. You confuse respect for people to respect for beliefs.
I respect all people, regardless of race, colour, nation of origin, physical or mental capability or sexual orientation.
I respect only beliefs that are rational and that respect others.
Think of it this way: you have chosen to be a Mormon. You can quit at any time, be a B'hai or atheist. The same way I would not respect your beliefs if you thought the Earth was flat, I don't respect your belief that you have to give 10% of your income to get into heaven, that you get to make your own planet after you are dead and that homosexuals don't derserve the same rights as anyone else. These beliefs are neither rational nor respectful of others. You belong to a religion that would not give black people the priesthood until 1978.
THAT'S disrespectful.
#2. When it comes to rationality, religion is the exact opposite of rationality. If you actually wanted to be rational, apply the scientific method to your thinking, and demand proof for your beliefs!
John denies that he wanted an "Is Mormonism a Cult" thread. But John, you asked for it in Posts #165, 171, 174, 184, 187, and 195. Wow. You really fixated on that one comment. Strike close to the bone?
And finally, John, you stated "just ask me to quit commenting and I will."
John. Stop commenting on me. It adds nothing to the conversation. Stick to the topic, and no more personal attacks.
Back on track,
Monkey
Uh-huh... "on track." This entire discussion is so reminiscent of Alice's conversation with Humpty-Dumpty that is deserves reference:“‘When I use a word,’ Humpty Dumpty said in rather a scornful tone, ‘it means just what I choose it to mean -- neither more nor less.’
“‘The question is,’ said Alice, ‘whether you can make words mean so many different things.’
“‘The question is,’ said Humpty Dumpty, ‘which is to be master - - that's all.’”
There is really no point in Alice’s attempt to convince Humpty-Dumpty that “glory” doesn’t mean “a nice knock-down argument” or in attempting to convince Monkey, even if one should employ all the King’s horses and all the King’s men in that endeavor, that his definition of Christian is quite flawed. For just like our intrepid egg perched atop his wall in condescension of everyone and everything it would seem, when Monkey uses a word, “it means just what [he:] chooses it to mean – neither more nor less.” By Monkey’s definition, “Mormon’s” aren’t Christians. Further discussion with him on the matter (or on any other, heedless of topic) is futile.
Monkey,Thank you for your very clear statement on your views concerning respect. You have left no doubt, if there was any, about how you will treat the beliefs of Mormons commenting on this thread. I must commend you for your consistency in this regard.
You have asked me to stop commenting on you and to stick to the topic. Since the topic (Is Mormonism a form of Christianity?) has been answered a multitude of times already (see posts 2, 4, 24, 35, 39, 40, 41, 43, 46, 49, 52, 56, 69, 80, 83, 92, 95, 130, 136, 142, 144, 154, 168, 182, 183, 195, 200, 201, and 206), I have nothing more to add. And since you can't endure criticism and consequently have asked me to stop commenting on you, I will stick with my statement that if you ask me to quit commenting, I will.
So this is it for me, unless you relent and ask me to return. It's been an interesting experience.
John
Which brings back on topic!Yaaay!
Now that John has interpreted my statement so he can give up, let's continue.
The United States gives us the right to believe in whatever we want. We can believe that the L.A. Lakers are the best team in the world, or we can believe that after we die, we can make our own planets (if we are male). What the U.S. Constitution does NOT give us is the right to not be offended.
If I tell you that the Lakers have a weak defense, and the coaching staff sucks, it's the same as me telling you that Mormonism is illogical and based on false evidence. You still have the right to believe what you want, but my right to free speech trumps your right to live in ignorance. Feel free to put your fingers in your ears and go "lalalalalalalala".
So far, my assertion that Mormonism is NOT a form of Christianity has been met with one main argument:
"We call ourselves Christian! It's in our name!"
Despite this, the evidence that I have posted here, culled from Mormon sources, shows that basic tenets of Mormonism have nothing to do with Christianity.
Now the question is "Why not be proud of your differences? Why cling to the label of Christianity?"
Several possibilities:
1. Religion is a basic part of our self-image. Mormons have grown up being told they are Christian, and even a slight deviation from this is too much of a shock to their system.
2. The upper echelons of the LDS church need the veneer of respectability that Christianity provides to continue doing business.
3. They have not studied Christianity.
4. They have not studied logic.
Surf's up,
Monkey
Look, Humpty (a.k.a. Monkey), you can define Christian any way you like but don't expect us to climb up there on your wall and teeter back and forth with you.We won't acquiesce because we do not agree to having our Christianity assessed on your standards. I know, pretty cheeky; but there it is.
all discussions on this book
|
post a new topic
The Screwtape Letters (other topics)
The Great Divorce (other topics)
The Abolition of Man (other topics)
The Problem of Pain (other topics)
More...
Books mentioned in this topic
Miracles (other topics)The Screwtape Letters (other topics)
The Great Divorce (other topics)
The Abolition of Man (other topics)
The Problem of Pain (other topics)
More...
Change it's mind? What are you talking about? Do you still call yourself a rational person who is seeking the truth and cling to the notion that we ever thought salvation came only through Joseph Smith?
Go back and read my post 144 and then explain to me how that quote from Joseph Fielding Smith demonstrates that the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints believes salvation comes only through Joseph Smith.
Perhaps the term "Mormon Church" is throwing you off. "Mormon Church" is just a nickname. The real name of the Church is the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints. We have always been the Church of Jesus Christ, never the Church of Joseph Smith.