Talk Elections

General Discussion => Religion & Philosophy => Topic started by: Yelnoc on January 27, 2012, 07:07:36 PM



Title: Is Mormonism a Religion or a Cult
Post by: Yelnoc on January 27, 2012, 07:07:36 PM
I realize that there are different definitions of cult.  I want your gut feeling.


Title: Re: Is Mormonism a Religion or a Cult
Post by: Joe Republic on January 27, 2012, 07:11:31 PM
Both words mean the same thing to me.


Title: Re: Is Mormonism a Religion or a Cult
Post by: Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home. on January 27, 2012, 07:28:21 PM
thread question makes about as much sense as "is an apple a fruit or is it red?"


Title: Re: Is Mormonism a Religion or a Cult
Post by: afleitch on January 27, 2012, 07:38:17 PM
thread question makes about as much sense as "is an apple a fruit or is it red?"

Some apples are green.


Title: Re: Is Mormonism a Religion or a Cult
Post by: Joe Biden 2020 on January 27, 2012, 08:46:25 PM
It is both a religion and a cult.


Title: Re: Is Mormonism a Religion or a Cult
Post by: Yelnoc on January 27, 2012, 09:03:14 PM
thread question makes about as much sense as "is an apple a fruit or is it red?"
As I said, I want to gauge your gut-level reaction.


Title: Re: Is Mormonism a Religion or a Cult
Post by: Penelope on January 27, 2012, 09:09:46 PM

This.


Title: Re: Is Mormonism a Religion or a Cult
Post by: Sbane on January 27, 2012, 09:29:10 PM


Title: Re: Is Mormonism a Religion or a Cult
Post by: The Mikado on January 27, 2012, 09:50:12 PM
False dichotomy.


Title: Re: Is Mormonism a Religion or a Cult
Post by: John Dibble on January 27, 2012, 11:13:28 PM
In the modern sense of the word cult and the particulars of the behaviors we associate with cults, I would say the modern LDS is perhaps 'cult-lite'. They have a number of habits that are typical of cults, but they aren't nearly as oppressive to their members as groups like Scientology are, and you probably wouldn't be too hard pressed to find some Christian churches that have a similar level of cult behavior.

Now on the other hand, the fundamentalist Mormon groups that still practice polygamy, force male children onto the street to do so, and stay very isolated are most definitely full blown cults.


Title: Re: Is Mormonism a Religion or a Cult
Post by: Joe Biden 2020 on January 28, 2012, 07:17:07 AM
In the modern sense of the word cult and the particulars of the behaviors we associate with cults, I would say the modern LDS is perhaps 'cult-lite'. They have a number of habits that are typical of cults, but they aren't nearly as oppressive to their members as groups like Scientology are, and you probably wouldn't be too hard pressed to find some Christian churches that have a similar level of cult behavior.

Now on the other hand, the fundamentalist Mormon groups that still practice polygamy, force male children onto the street to do so, and stay very isolated are most definitely full blown cults.

I believe the mainstream LDS church has nothing to do with the fundamentalist LDS like we saw in West Texas and polygamist leader Warren Jeffs.  I'm sure even Joseph Smith would be turning over in his grave knowing what Warren Jeffs has done with the church he founded.



Title: Re: Is Mormonism a Religion or a Cult
Post by: greenforest32 on January 28, 2012, 09:38:40 PM


Title: Re: Is Mormonism a Religion or a Cult
Post by: Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home. on January 30, 2012, 10:17:26 AM
thread question makes about as much sense as "is an apple a fruit or is it red?"
As I said, I want to gauge your gut-level reaction.

ok, but just understand I don't do "gut-level reaction" to such things, rather I compare to scripture in order to make an objective decision.


Title: Re: Is Mormonism a Religion or a Cult
Post by: Lief 🗽 on January 30, 2012, 01:14:50 PM
Its intensely secretive nature and its demand that all adherents give the church 10% of their income are the most cult-like aspects of Mormonism


Title: Re: Is Mormonism a Religion or a Cult
Post by: Is Totally Not Feeblepizza. on January 30, 2012, 06:35:48 PM
Its intensely secretive nature and its demand that all adherents give the church 10% of their income are the most cult-like aspects of Mormonism
All the Mainline Protestant churches I've visited in the past have urged their members to tithe 10% of their income every year. Is Christianity a cult as well?


Title: Re: Is Mormonism a Religion or a Cult
Post by: Person Man on January 30, 2012, 07:19:38 PM
Tithing is a normal thing. I am guessing the question is whether or not Mormonism is something that you would be comfortable associating with.


Title: Re: Is Mormonism a Religion or a Cult
Post by: Is Totally Not Feeblepizza. on January 30, 2012, 08:09:25 PM
I have no problem being associated with Mormonism. I have Mormons in my family, and I have Mormon friends. They're just like anybody else, from any other religion you can think of. They drink tea, coffee, even alcohol. No reason to fret because their church is one of very, very many which say you should tithe 10% of your income.


Title: Re: Is Mormonism a Religion or a Cult
Post by: Oswald Acted Alone, You Kook on January 30, 2012, 11:01:14 PM
A "religion". The only significant difference between a "cult" and a "religion" is that a "religion" is bigger. Mormonism is popular enough to count as a "religion".

https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=147888.0


Title: Re: Is Mormonism a Religion or a Cult
Post by: Vote UKIP! on February 01, 2012, 01:56:36 AM
First, when Christians, particularly evangelicals as myself, refer to a sect as a cult, they do not mean a cult in the way David Koresh or Jim Jones' groups were cults. In the evangelical lexicon, a "cult" is a religion that have the trappings of Christianity, but differ greatly in essential doctrine from traditional Christian beliefs (Divinity of Jesus, Trinity, nature of God,.etc.) One example of a cult would be JW's, who deny that Jesus was God but Michael, etc.

Mormons embrace many beliefs that run contradictory to the Bible as well as traditional Christianity.
  • That God is not Three-in-One but three seperate gods
  • That men can become gods, and enjoy physical pleasure with their spouses in the afterlife
  • That the Canon (I.e., Holy Scriptures) is not closed as is stated in the last chapter of Revelation
  • That Christ came to North America after being in Israel, when the Bible States.Christ has yet to return


Title: Re: Is Mormonism a Religion or a Cult
Post by: they don't love you like i love you on February 01, 2012, 02:18:56 AM
First, when Christians, particularly evangelicals as myself, refer to a sect as a cult, they do not mean a cult in the way David Koresh or Jim Jones' groups were cults. In the evangelical lexicon, a "cult" is a religion that have the trappings of Christianity, but differ greatly in essential doctrine from traditional Christian beliefs (Divinity of Jesus, Trinity, nature of God,.etc.) One example of a cult would be JW's, who deny that Jesus was God but Michael, etc.

This stupid re-definition of words is probably part of the reason so many people have issues with evangelicals, another example being how they often used the word "Christian" to simply mean "evangelical", I've noticed this is common amongst evangelicals even if they don't claim that Catholics and mainline Protestants aren't Christians and may even deny that they think that, but then say things that in context seems to imply that only evangelicals are Christians.


Title: Re: Is Mormonism a Religion or a Cult
Post by: © tweed on February 01, 2012, 05:46:26 AM
thread question makes about as much sense as "is an apple a fruit or is it red?"
As I said, I want to gauge your gut-level reaction.

ok, but just understand I don't do "gut-level reaction" to such things, rather I compare to scripture in order to make an objective decision.

have you read the Book of Mormon?


Title: Re: Is Mormonism a Religion or a Cult
Post by: Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home. on February 01, 2012, 11:46:14 AM
ok, but just understand I don't do "gut-level reaction" to such things, rather I compare to scripture in order to make an objective decision.
have you read the Book of Mormon?

no, at least not all of it, but I am familiar with a good portion of their doctrine through my extensive study of Armstrongism.  They have MANY damnable heresies: God was not always God, but was once a created man who went on to become God...Jesus and Satan were once brothers...earthly man can become god after death...no salvation without accepting Joseph Smith...LDS racist doctrinal past...salvation of those who died lost...etc, etc, etc

I am not even sure if the book of Mormon touches upon those things.


Title: Re: Is Mormonism a Religion or a Cult
Post by: © tweed on February 01, 2012, 12:16:32 PM
the LDS Church instructs us to read the entirety of the Book of Mormon, and then pray to our Heavenly Father and ask him if it is true.  I am embarking on this journey now.  I am about 2% of the way through the Book.  I ask you to join me before summarily rejecting the Holy Text.


Title: Re: Is Mormonism a Religion or a Cult
Post by: Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home. on February 01, 2012, 12:35:07 PM
you're Mormon?!  When did this happen?  I thought you were atheist?

---

the LDS Church instructs us to read the entirety of the Book of Mormon, and then pray to our Heavenly Father and ask him if it is true.

what?  Is that how the bible tells you to determine truth – just simply pray about it?  If all truth is simply determined through prayer, then what is the role of scripture?

---
 
  I am embarking on this journey now.  I am about 2% of the way through the Book.  I ask you to join me before summarily rejecting the Holy Text.

are you telling me I can't put Mormon doctrine (which may not even be mentioned in the Book of Mormon) to the test without first reading the Book of Mormon?  Can’t I simply take the Mormon statement of beliefs for face value?


Title: Re: Is Mormonism a Religion or a Cult
Post by: John Dibble on February 01, 2012, 01:14:33 PM
you're Mormon?!  When did this happen?  I thought you were atheist?

No, he had missionaries visit him and give him the book. (seemingly more out of curiosity that actual interest)

https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=147413.0

Quote
the LDS Church instructs us to read the entirety of the Book of Mormon, and then pray to our Heavenly Father and ask him if it is true.

what?  Is that how the bible tells you to determine truth – just simply pray about it? If all truth is simply determined through prayer, then what is the role of scripture?

I think the specifics of the doctrine is something like that you read the scriptures to get the specific knowledge, and then when you pray to God he somehow shows you that what you just read is true. From my outsider perspective it doesn't seem to be much different from how you describe your experience - you were studying the Bible at the time and then you felt that bonefire thing or what have you, which you say was the Holy Spirit filling you. (or something along those lines)

Also, just an FYI, it isn't uncommon for Christians of varying stripes to tell unbelievers that we just need to pray real hard and God will reveal himself to us. (failure is of course usually blamed on the person doing the praying) It's not exactly an idea that's exclusive to Mormons.
 
Quote
I am embarking on this journey now.  I am about 2% of the way through the Book.  I ask you to join me before summarily rejecting the Holy Text.

are you telling me I can't put Mormon doctrine (which may not even be mentioned in the Book of Mormon) to the test without first reading the Book of Mormon?  Can’t I simply take the Mormon statement of beliefs for face value?

Do you think someone could really test Christian doctrine without first reading the Bible, and only taking the statement of beliefs for their face value?


Title: Re: Is Mormonism a Religion or a Cult
Post by: Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home. on February 01, 2012, 01:31:09 PM
are you telling me I can't put Mormon doctrine (which may not even be mentioned in the Book of Mormon) to the test without first reading the Book of Mormon?  Can’t I simply take the Mormon statement of beliefs for face value?

Do you think someone could really test Christian doctrine without first reading the Bible, and only taking the statement of beliefs for their face value?
 

You could test Christian doctrine without reading the NT, simply by comparing it to the OT (which is EXACTLY how Jesus and the Apostles taught others).  After all, the NT doesn’t invent anything that wasn’t already mentioned in the OT.

And since the Book of Mormon is simply suppose to be an addendum (doesn’t introduce a new covenant), why not simply compare Mormon doctrine to the OT and NT?



Title: Re: Is Mormonism a Religion or a Cult
Post by: Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home. on February 01, 2012, 01:43:37 PM
Tweed,

If the Apostles didn't have knowledge of the Book of Mormon, why is it necessary for you to have it?  Why is it necessary to add something to what the Apostles taught?


Title: Re: Is Mormonism a Religion or a Cult
Post by: Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home. on February 01, 2012, 01:47:51 PM
Tweed,

"read our material thouroughly, then pray about it" is a common cult brain-washing tactic


...it should be obvious to you that you should examine their claims point by point, before willingly sitting through a brain washing session that is aimed at feeding upon your need to feel a part of something important.

Remember how Satan deceived Eve?  He told her a tale of being a part of something bigger beyond the word of God:

Gen 2:1   He said to the woman, “Did God actually say, ‘You shall not eat of any tree in the garden’?” 2 And the woman said to the serpent, “We may eat of the fruit of the trees in the garden, 3 but God said, ‘You shall not eat of the fruit of the tree that is in the midst of the garden, neither shall you touch it, lest you die.’” 4 But the serpent said to the woman, “You will not surely die. 5 For God knows that when you eat of it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing good and evil.”

Read the above passage carefully, and notice how Eve had no trouble understanding the word of God on her own – she correctly quoted and understood what God had told her – because she took it for face value.  She only became deceived when she allowed someone else to interpret it for her, and that deception fed upon her desire to be a part of something bigger.

The problem with Eve is that she didn’t compare what she was being told to the word of God that she already knew.


Title: Re: Is Mormonism a Religion or a Cult
Post by: Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home. on February 01, 2012, 02:03:51 PM
I think the specifics of the doctrine is something like that you read the scriptures to get the specific knowledge, and then when you pray to God he somehow shows you that what you just read is true. From my outsider perspective it doesn't seem to be much different from how you describe your experience - you were studying the Bible at the time and then you felt that bonefire thing or what have you, which you say was the Holy Spirit filling you. (or something along those lines)

Also, just an FYI, it isn't uncommon for Christians of varying stripes to tell unbelievers that we just need to pray real hard and God will reveal himself to us. (failure is of course usually blamed on the person doing the praying) It's not exactly an idea that's exclusive to Mormons.
 

Interesting topic.  Let me do a quick search and see if there are any scriptural examples we could use in this discussion…I’ll get back to you.


Title: Re: Is Mormonism a Religion or a Cult
Post by: John Dibble on February 01, 2012, 02:23:58 PM
After all, the NT doesn’t invent anything that wasn’t already mentioned in the OT.

That's arguably not the case. Most translations of the OT don't mention hell. (some do, but it's likely a mistranslation of a different concept, 'sheol', where the concept of hell is applied retroactively) Jews don't believe in hell and you would imagine that since the OT is a significant part of their theological texts they would if it contained the concept. There is a place of fire where some dead go, but it's rather a place of purification where they are cleansed for up to twelve months, with only the utterly wicked being destroyed completely.

I'm not trying to argue this view is a correct interpretation, just that it's a view that some people take. The view that the OT and NT mesh perfectly may well have a good deal of Christian bias in it. Have you ever asked someone well versed in Jewish theology, such as a Rabbi, why they don't feel the NT meshes up with their theology?


Title: Re: Is Mormonism a Religion or a Cult
Post by: Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home. on February 01, 2012, 02:36:30 PM
Dibble:

I can't find any scriptural example of hearing a message that was supposedly the word of God and then praying to God to test the message.  Doesn't mean that one doesn't exist in scripture, just that a) I don't remember such an example, and b) I haven't found an example by searching passages that include the word "pray" (which includes: pray, prayed, prayer, etc).

However, there are examples in scripture of people testing a message, but that test is done by comparing the message to scripture:

Acts 17:11 "Now the Bereans were of more noble character than the Thessalonians, for they received the message with great eagerness and examined the Scriptures every day to see if what Paul said was true."

...which is why the NT is full of scriptural proofs and doesn't attempt to prove what it is saying by asking people to pray about whether what it says is actually the word of God.

---

Look at it this way:  what if Tweed prays after reading the Book of Mormon and hears a spirit tell him, “Yes, the Book of Mormon is the word of God”…what does that prove other than there is a spiritual force behind the Book of Mormon?  Doesn’t mean the spirit talking to him is a truthful spirit and it certainly doesn’t exempt the Book of Mormon from having to agree with the OT and NT, since the LDS is claiming they are an extention of those books.

So why not simply begin by comparing Mormon doctrine to the OT and NT, before attempting to contact the spirit behind the book?


Title: Re: Is Mormonism a Religion or a Cult
Post by: Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home. on February 01, 2012, 02:50:56 PM
After all, the NT doesn’t invent anything that wasn’t already mentioned in the OT.

That's arguably not the case. Most translations of the OT don't mention hell. (some do, but it's likely a mistranslation of a different concept, 'sheol', where the concept of hell is applied retroactively) Jews don't believe in hell and you would imagine that since the OT is a significant part of their theological texts they would if it contained the concept.

So, you think Jesus and the Apostles, who were all Jewish, simply introduced the concept?  Clearly, the concept of eternal punishment is in the OT:

Daniel 12:2:  "And many of those who sleep in the dust of the earth shall awake, some to everlasting life, and some to shame and everlasting contempt."

---

There is a place of fire where some dead go, but it's rather a place of purification where they are cleansed for up to twelve months, with only the utterly wicked being destroyed completely.

Yet that is not a concept presented in the OT – it’s basically made up out of whole clothe.

---

I'm not trying to argue this view is a correct interpretation, just that it's a view that some people take. The view that the OT and NT mesh perfectly may well have a good deal of Christian bias in it. Have you ever asked someone well versed in Jewish theology, such as a Rabbi, why they don't feel the NT meshes up with their theology?

Yes, the Jews see even more meshing between the NT and OT than I (a Gentile) do, after all, the NT was written by Jews.  They can point out Jesus’ Jewishness much better than I can.

They simply don’t believe Jesus was the Messiah.  Of course, they’ve gone out of their way to cover up the proofs of Jesus being the Messiah (e.g. most of them no longer call the Messiah the “Son of Joseph”, because there are simply too many parallels between the life of Jesus and the life of Joseph.)


Title: Re: Is Mormonism a Religion or a Cult
Post by: © tweed on February 01, 2012, 02:56:12 PM
I don't reply in detail to all of this.  after all I've only read through the first nine chapter of 1 Nephi, and I've yet to quit caffeine or alcohol.  but allow me to say.  as I am affected by postmodern thinking, I reject the Christian binary.  that one must accept something as Canonical or not, as 'true' or not.  no, there is a Holy Spirit: and so much around us is influenced by that Spirit.  to accept or reject any text in totality is to err.  I find the Book of Mormon is dripping in the Holy Spirit: whether this means it is inerrant, well, I am not qualified to say.


Title: Re: Is Mormonism a Religion or a Cult
Post by: opebo on February 01, 2012, 03:02:21 PM
Whenever I see two fat and sassy young bastards dressed up in black dress slacks and a white short sleeved shirt.. and ties.. and to top it all off they have the effrontery to ride around on bicycles!

But one time, I saw two fat pale boys dressed up in black trousers, white short sleeved dress shirts, riding in a tuk-tuk, and I thought - 'damned Mormons!'  or 'Mormons go home' or 'fqing Mormons' (you know how your thoughts are sometimes emotions rather than an actual monologue, and can contain several phrases per instant) - but as it turned out these were ordinary desperate miserables - namely teachers - and they've become I won't say friends of mine, but anyway they're tolerable, despite being americans more or less.

But aside from that one time, I used to try to speak to the actual Mormon Missionaries, just as an experiment, and I was gratified by their discomfort and obfuscy in having to deal with a terrible sinner, except for one time one of a pair of them was friendly, and kept talking to me after my initial intrusion, to the obvious consternation of both myself and his symbiote.  I could not help but speculate that this poor enthusiast (who even raved about the Isaan food a I do!) would soon be ejected from the Church and find a happier existence with an amoral girl.  At least I could hope so...

()


Title: Re: Is Mormonism a Religion or a Cult
Post by: Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home. on February 01, 2012, 03:11:26 PM
I reject the Christian binary.  that one must accept something as Canonical or not, as 'true' or not.  no, there is a Holy Spirit: and so much around us is influenced by that Spirit.  to accept or reject any text in totality is to err.  I find the Book of Mormon is dripping in the Holy Spirit: whether this means it is inerrant, well, I am not qualified to say.

well, if you're not qualified to qualify it, then you'll simply be blindly following whoever you believe is qualified to decide, and if whoever you choose to follow is also blind...



Title: Re: Is Mormonism a Religion or a Cult
Post by: © tweed on February 01, 2012, 03:16:05 PM
I rented a book last year titled 'On Being a Christian'... by a 'distinguished' Catholic theologian, Hans Kung.  and he claims belief in God is "a confidence based in reality itself".  so I don't find myself looking for proof of objective truth, but rather, that confidence... this I told my LDS missionaries on Sunday, and they agreed with the general sentiment.


Title: Re: Is Mormonism a Religion or a Cult
Post by: Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home. on February 01, 2012, 03:26:01 PM
I rented a book last year titled 'On Being a Christian'... by a 'distinguished' Catholic theologian, Hans Kung.  and he claims belief in God is "a confidence based in reality itself".  so I don't find myself looking for proof of objective truth, but rather, that confidence... this I told my LDS missionaries on Sunday, and they agreed with the general sentiment.

I'm not sure what belief in God has to do with determining whether Mormonism is true - a lot of religions believe in God.  I just assumed by your statement “I’m going to read the Book of Mormon and then ask God whether it is true”, that you were actually looking for truth.

My point about truth is – if the Book of Mormon claims to be additional “scripture” yet doesn’t agree with the OT/NT (which Mormonism itself acknowledge as scripture), then, obviously, Mormonism itself is full of beans.

If [Y] says, “[X] is True”  and “[Y]=[X]”…then it follows that *if* [Y] does not equal [X], then obviously [Y] is NOT telling the truth, regardless if [X] is true or not.


Title: Re: Is Mormonism a Religion or a Cult
Post by: John Dibble on February 01, 2012, 03:31:43 PM
Yes, the Jews see even more meshing between the NT and OT than I (a Gentile) do, after all, the NT was written by Jews.  They can point out Jesus’ Jewishness much better than I can.

They simply don’t believe Jesus was the Messiah.

If the Jews see more meshing than you, why would they not believe it? And how do you know they see more meshing? Have you even bothered asking one, or are you just making a bald assertion about their beliefs?

Quote
Of course, they’ve gone out of their way to cover up the proofs of Jesus being the Messiah

Yeah, the Jews had a grand conspiracy to cover up the 'proofs'. ::)

Quote
(e.g. most of them no longer call the Messiah the “Son of Joseph”, because there are simply too many parallels between the life of Jesus and the life of Joseph.)

Popular terminology changes over time for a variety of reasons. Do you have any actual evidence that they didn't change which terminology they favored for other reasons?


Title: Re: Is Mormonism a Religion or a Cult
Post by: Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home. on February 01, 2012, 03:55:38 PM

If the Jews see more meshing than you, why would they not believe it?

Big picture answer: because God hasn’t called them yet.  Small picture answer: every unbeliever, Jew or Gentile, claims to have some excuse.

---

And how do you know they see more meshing? Have you even bothered asking one, or are you just making a bald assertion about their beliefs?

I’ve spoken with Jews on several occasions.  They’ve actually educated me on the Jewish roots of many of the details of the NT.

---

Quote
Of course, they’ve gone out of their way to cover up the proofs of Jesus being the Messiah

Yeah, the Jews had a grand conspiracy to cover up the 'proofs'. ::)

Quote
(e.g. most of them no longer call the Messiah the “Son of Joseph”, because there are simply too many parallels between the life of Jesus and the life of Joseph.)

Popular terminology changes over time for a variety of reasons. Do you have any actual evidence that they didn't change which terminology they favored for other reasons?


The Jews didn’t expect the Messianic analogy of Joseph to include many of the aspects of the story of Joseph which reflect poorly upon the Jews and favorably upon the Gentiles…their Jewish pride is offended, and the Christian use of the detailed aspect of the analogy become too much for them to bear. so the analogy is swept under the rug.


Title: Re: Is Mormonism a Religion or a Cult
Post by: The Mikado on February 01, 2012, 04:21:49 PM
TBH, and I'm being completely serious here, one of the biggest problems with saying that only people that have read the BoM can criticize Mormonism is that the BoM is a hard book.  As someone that has read both the Bible (OT and NT) and the Koran, I can say that they're both far less frustratingly dull than the BoM is (though the Koran's bizarre formatting and tedious repetition comes close).


Title: Re: Is Mormonism a Religion or a Cult
Post by: John Dibble on February 01, 2012, 04:36:06 PM

If the Jews see more meshing than you, why would they not believe it?

Big picture answer: because God hasn’t called them yet.  Small picture answer: every unbeliever, Jew or Gentile, claims to have some excuse.

I love how it's an 'excuse' if we don't accept your claims. It can't be a reason, it has to be an excuse, because you are most definitely right and there's no way that anyone could possibly have a legitimate reason not to believe your claims. I swear it's like arguing with a mule.

Quote
And how do you know they see more meshing? Have you even bothered asking one, or are you just making a bald assertion about their beliefs?

I’ve spoken with Jews on several occasions.  They’ve actually educated me on the Jewish roots of many of the details of the NT.

Are these Jews who have converted to Christianity? Or are these Jews who still didn't think the NT meshed enough to believe it?

Quote
Quote
Of course, they’ve gone out of their way to cover up the proofs of Jesus being the Messiah

Yeah, the Jews had a grand conspiracy to cover up the 'proofs'. ::)

Quote
(e.g. most of them no longer call the Messiah the “Son of Joseph”, because there are simply too many parallels between the life of Jesus and the life of Joseph.)

Popular terminology changes over time for a variety of reasons. Do you have any actual evidence that they didn't change which terminology they favored for other reasons?


The Jews didn’t expect the Messianic analogy of Joseph to include many of the aspects of the story of Joseph which reflect poorly upon the Jews and favorably upon the Gentiles…their Jewish pride is offended, and the Christian use of the detailed aspect of the analogy become too much for them to bear. so the analogy is swept under the rug.

Ok... and I should accept that this is their actual viewpoint because...?


Title: Re: Is Mormonism a Religion or a Cult
Post by: Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home. on February 01, 2012, 05:11:19 PM
Big picture answer: because God hasn’t called them yet.  Small picture answer: every unbeliever, Jew or Gentile, claims to have some excuse.

I love how it's an 'excuse' if we don't accept your claims. It can't be a reason, it has to be an excuse, because you are most definitely right and there's no way that anyone could possibly have a legitimate reason not to believe your claims. I swear it's like arguing with a mule.

That’s because you’re ignoring the big picture part.

---

Are these Jews who have converted to Christianity? Or are these Jews who still didn't think the NT meshed enough to believe it?

Both Christian and nonChristian Jews.

---


Ok... and I should accept that this is their actual viewpoint because...?

…it’s the most plausible answer given a) Jewish pride, and b) the historical record of decreasing emphasis on referring to the Messiah as the “Son of Joseph”, and c) the fact that Christianity drew much deeper parallels to the story of Joseph.

Also, understand these parallels aren’t explicitly mentioned in the NT (though they are alluded to by the fact Jesus was supposedly the son of Joseph – Luke 3:23 “He was the son, so it was thought, of Joseph…”), yet they are undeniably engrained into the NT story and NT historicity (proving that the parallels weren’t simply contrived by later generations of Christians) – unless someone wants to claim that the parallels are mere coincidence.

Not only is Joseph a central character in Genesis (the blueprint of God’s plan for man), but more chapters of Genesis are dedicated to Joseph’s story than any other character:

Abraham – 12 chapters (Gen ch 12-23)
Isaac – 3 chapters (Gen ch 24-26)
Jacob – 10 chapters (Gen ch 27-36)
Joseph – 14 chapters (Gen ch 37-50)

An analogy to Joseph prophesying to his own brothers that he would be their savior, then being rejected by his fellow Hebrew brothers, handed over by Jews to Gentiles, being placed into the earth and rising out of it, his fellow Jews conspiring with Gentiles and lying about the location of his body, him being accepted as lord by the Gentiles, with Joseph marrying a Gentile bride, then finally revealing himself to the Jews which previously rejected him…is a bridge too far for Jewish pride.


Title: Re: Is Mormonism a Religion or a Cult
Post by: John Dibble on February 01, 2012, 11:06:42 PM
Big picture answer: because God hasn’t called them yet.  Small picture answer: every unbeliever, Jew or Gentile, claims to have some excuse.

I love how it's an 'excuse' if we don't accept your claims. It can't be a reason, it has to be an excuse, because you are most definitely right and there's no way that anyone could possibly have a legitimate reason not to believe your claims. I swear it's like arguing with a mule.

That’s because you’re ignoring the big picture part.

I'm not ignoring it, I just don't accept it as valid and true because no good reason has been given to me to do so. Are you really so dense that after this much time you still don't get that? If your skull is really so thick that you can't understand something so basic then there's no point in continuing this conversation.


Title: Re: Is Mormonism a Religion or a Cult
Post by: Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home. on February 02, 2012, 10:48:43 AM
I'm not ignoring it, I just don't accept it as valid and true because no good reason has been given to me to do so. Are you really so dense that after this much time you still don't get that? If your skull is really so thick that you can't understand something so basic then there's no point in continuing this conversation.

Hey, hey, hey…easy with the personal attacks. 

Let’s approach it from another, hopefully more production, direction, shall we?

Remember the test I gave Tweed for Mormonism – you can’t prove something is true, but you can prove something is false:  if Y claims X =True and Y claims X=Y, if Y<>X, then Y is False.

So, let’s look at the claims Christianity has made in regard to winning the acceptance of the Jews:

Did not Christianity, from the beginning, claim that it would be more accepted among the Gentiles than the Jews?  And did not Christianity, from the beginning, claim this would be the case throughout the church age?  Did not Christianity, from the beginning, claim that it would be preached to all nations?

So, even though this particular test doesn’t prove Christianity is true, it does prove Christianity passed this particular test with flying colors – its prophecy concerning Jewish/Gentile degrees of acceptance was spot on.


Title: Re: Is Mormonism a Religion or a Cult
Post by: Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home. on February 02, 2012, 11:31:53 AM
Tweed,

Still haven’t found a scriptural example for the approach, “Read our scriptures, then pray to our Heavenly Father and ask him if it is true”.  On the surface, this may seem like a proper religious practice, but it is actually brain-washing (which is why it is not scriptural).  This is no different than saying, “Whenever you read your bible, make sure you have [the study guide we provided you] handy at all times.”

It’s brainwashing because it takes a person who is not normally religious (or one whose previous involvement in religion was lukewarm), and asks them to engage in a religious activity (praying and/or reading the bible) while having the cult’s doctrine on their mind – so that at the very least, their experience with the cult makes them feel more religious and a part of something bigger than themselves.

That is NOT the way Jesus and the Apostles spread the gospel, rather they simply preached the message.  And to the members of their audience who already knew the scriptures, they welcomed scriptural examination of their claims against an exterior source (the OT).  They relied upon God to open the spiritual eyes of their audience, they NEVER attempted to brainwash their listeners by having nonChristians engage in religious activities in the context of Christianity.

But, by saying, “Read the Book of Mormon, then pray to our Heavenly Father and ask him if it is true” is asking nonMormons to engage in religious activities (praying) in the context of Mormonism.  That’s NOT lifting up Christ, rather that is lifting up the Mormon Church.  Obviously, for the non-religious, the simple act of praying is going to make them feel more “religious”, and thus brainwash them into believing the Mormon church is true, for, after all, they do feel more religious.  

I would rather the Mormon Church simply say, “Please examine our beliefs against exterior sources (the OT/NT)”.


Title: Re: Is Mormonism a Religion or a Cult
Post by: John Dibble on February 02, 2012, 04:22:45 PM
I'm not ignoring it, I just don't accept it as valid and true because no good reason has been given to me to do so. Are you really so dense that after this much time you still don't get that? If your skull is really so thick that you can't understand something so basic then there's no point in continuing this conversation.

Hey, hey, hey…easy with the personal attacks.

I'm sorry if it offends you that I called you thick skulled, but you really don't seem to have any capacity whatsoever to even try considering someone else's perspective with any degree of honesty. Do you have any idea how utterly and completely arrogant it is to say that the reasons others have for not believing as you do are mere excuses?

Quote
Let’s approach it from another, hopefully more production, direction, shall we?


Quote
Remember the test I gave Tweed for Mormonism – you can’t prove something is true, but you can prove something is false:  if Y claims X =True and Y claims X=Y, if Y<>X, then Y is False.

So, let’s look at the claims Christianity has made in regard to winning the acceptance of the Jews:

Did not Christianity, from the beginning, claim that it would be more accepted among the Gentiles than the Jews? And did not Christianity, from the beginning, claim this would be the case throughout the church age?  Did not Christianity, from the beginning, claim that it would be preached to all nations?

So, even though this particular test doesn’t prove Christianity is true, it does prove Christianity passed this particular test with flying colors – its prophecy concerning Jewish/Gentile degrees of acceptance was spot on.

I don't know the specific passages you are referring to, but let me give you some feedback on these notions before you give them:

1. If the passages are from Paul, this is problematic. Paul is not "at the beginning of Christianity", rather he would be after it since he would have been persecuting Christians before his conversion. As such he would have noted how much the Jews did not accept the new theology before writing anything that ended up in the Bible, so it wouldn't necessarily be predictive since he would have already had observational data.
2. The Gospels are also somewhat problematic in the same regard, though possibly less so since they are supposedly accounts of the words of Jesus himself rather than someone coming after the fact, because they were actually written down decades after the crucifixion, with not all necessarily by the apostles who supposedly authored them, and we lack the original manuscripts. The same observations Paul made could have been inserted. (while we lack the original manuscripts, early manuscripts show that later ones which made it into the Bible contain at least some forged content)
3. An evangelical religion claiming that it would one day be preached across the world is not unusual, and that one happened to be successful doesn't indicate any veracity to the events being due to divine prophecy.


Title: Re: Is Mormonism a Religion or a Cult
Post by: Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home. on February 02, 2012, 04:52:28 PM
I'm sorry if it offends you that I called you thick skulled, but you really don't seem to have any capacity whatsoever to even try considering someone else's perspective with any degree of honesty. Do you have any idea how utterly and completely arrogant it is to say that the reasons others have for not believing as you do are mere excuses?

Again, you’re taking my words out of context – first I stated a bigger picture:  God hasn’t called them (which is exactly what the NT says, so blame the arrogance on its author).  Second, as a result of the bigger picture, I gave an individual’s explanation from the nonbeliever’s perspective:  they name some excuse, even in the face of contrary evidence.

---  


I don't know the specific passages you are referring to, but let me give you some feedback on these notions before you give them:

1. If the passages are from Paul, this is problematic. Paul is not "at the beginning of Christianity", rather he would be after it since he would have been persecuting Christians before his conversion. As such he would have noted how much the Jews did not accept the new theology before writing anything that ended up in the Bible, so it wouldn't necessarily be predictive since he would have already had observational data.
2. The Gospels are also somewhat problematic in the same regard, though possibly less so since they are supposedly accounts of the words of Jesus himself rather than someone coming after the fact, because they were actually written down decades after the crucifixion, with not all necessarily by the apostles who supposedly authored them, and we lack the original manuscripts.

Prophesies related to the Messiah’s message being rejected by the Jews and received by the Gentiles originate in the OT, not the NT...then, it is reiterated in the Gospels by Jesus (which , Viewed from a secular perspective, was a very bold prediction since he didn’t even preach to Gentiles), and then reiterated throughout the rest of the NT.

---

The same observations Paul made could have been inserted. (while we lack the original manuscripts, early manuscripts show that later ones which made it into the Bible contain at least some forged content)

There’s what, 5600 ancient copies of the NT, with 99.5% agreement within those copies?  Both the number of copies and agreement between the copies is basically unparalleled in human history.

And, if you use the bible’s own rule of using two or three witnesses, the corruption of the additions and translational errors (the 0.5% that is not in agreement) will fall by the wayside.

---

3. An evangelical religion claiming that it would one day be preached across the world is not unusual, and that one happened to be successful doesn't indicate any veracity to the events being due to divine prophecy.

As I already stated, you can’t prove it true, but you can prove it false if its claims do not hold up…and it did pass that particular test, thus it has not been proven false by its own claims.

It’s easy to prove something wrong if its own claims do not hold water – which is why I recommended that Tweed start by examining the claims of Mormonism PRIOR to subjecting himself to a brainwashing session.


Title: Re: Is Mormonism a Religion or a Cult
Post by: Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home. on February 02, 2012, 05:59:03 PM
@Tweed

There’s what, 5600 ancient copies of the NT, with 99.5% agreement within those copies?  Both the number of copies and agreement between the copies is basically unparalleled in human history.

(Note:  I stated 5600 just to avoid argument and take the lowest possible number…the real number is somewhere in the neighborhood of 25000.)

I’ve heard, due to the contradictions between the bible and Mormon doctrine, that the LDS claims the bible, along with the “true” Gospel, became corrupted and that the Book of Mormon is more accurate…but since the Gospel had already spread to many many countries during the lifespan of the original Apostles, why is there such a high degree of agreement between the manuscripts if at some point corruption was introduced?  Barring an implausible conspiracy across many non-unified nations with language and geographical barriers, doesn’t the very high degree of agreement between the texts prove that the writings of the Apostles have been preserved and that no vast corruption was introduced, contrary to LDS claims?


Title: Re: Is Mormonism a Religion or a Cult
Post by: John Dibble on February 02, 2012, 07:47:33 PM
I'm sorry if it offends you that I called you thick skulled, but you really don't seem to have any capacity whatsoever to even try considering someone else's perspective with any degree of honesty. Do you have any idea how utterly and completely arrogant it is to say that the reasons others have for not believing as you do are mere excuses?

Again, you’re taking my words out of context – first I stated a bigger picture:  God hasn’t called them (which is exactly what the NT says, so blame the arrogance on its author).  Second, as a result of the bigger picture, I gave an individual’s explanation from the nonbeliever’s perspective:  they name some excuse, even in the face of contrary evidence.

*bangs head on desk* For crying out loud man, that's exactly how I interpreted it. The problem is that you don't have any real evidence for your big picture assertion. If you can't back up your big picture argument with something real (no, scripture alone does not count) then asserting anyone who disagrees with you on it is merely giving an excuse is nothing short of arrogance.

Quote
Prophesies related to the Messiah’s message being rejected by the Jews and received by the Gentiles originate in the OT, not the NT...then, it is reiterated in the Gospels by Jesus (which , Viewed from a secular perspective, was a very bold prediction since he didn’t even preach to Gentiles), and then reiterated throughout the rest of the NT.

Give the specific passages, please.

Quote
There’s what, 5600 ancient copies of the NT, with 99.5% agreement within those copies? Both the number of copies and agreement between the copies is basically unparalleled in human history.

And, if you use the bible’s own rule of using two or three witnesses, the corruption of the additions and translational errors (the 0.5% that is not in agreement) will fall by the wayside.

The oldest, most reliable copies and the copies that actually were used in the Bible are the ones that matter the most. Agreement between latter copies amongst themselves have a bit less relevance.

Furthermore, not only where there additions (John 7:53 to 8:11, for instance) and mistranslations there are also ones where entire portions of the gospels seem to be copied significant amounts from other Gospels. (specifically Matthew and Luke appear to be very much based on Mark due to the similarity of the Greek wording, which would not likely have been the case if they had either been written directly by the Apostles or simply been solely written from it being orally passed down) Plagiarism kind of makes the two witnesses thing problematic, because it will by necessity agree with the first witness.


Title: Re: Is Mormonism a Religion or a Cult
Post by: © tweed on February 02, 2012, 08:03:15 PM
jmf, I appreciate the degree of attention, but as I am but a novice in LDS history and doctrine, I must indefinitely suspend meaningful conversation on these points.


Title: Re: Is Mormonism a Religion or a Cult
Post by: The Mikado on February 02, 2012, 09:05:36 PM

10 to 1 he's going to say Isaiah 52-53.


Title: Re: Is Mormonism a Religion or a Cult
Post by: they don't love you like i love you on February 03, 2012, 02:53:44 AM
53 certainly fits very well.

Quote from: Isaiah 53
1 Who has believed our message?
      To whom has the LORD revealed his powerful arm?
 2 My servant grew up in the LORD’s presence like a tender green shoot,
      like a root in dry ground.
   There was nothing beautiful or majestic about his appearance,
      nothing to attract us to him.
 3 He was despised and rejected—
      a man of sorrows, acquainted with deepest grief.
   We turned our backs on him and looked the other way.
      He was despised, and we did not care.

 4 Yet it was our weaknesses he carried;
      it was our sorrows that weighed him down.
   And we thought his troubles were a punishment from God,
      a punishment for his own sins!
 5 But he was pierced for our rebellion,
      crushed for our sins.
   He was beaten so we could be whole.
      He was whipped so we could be healed.
 6 All of us, like sheep, have strayed away.
      We have left God’s paths to follow our own.
   Yet the LORD laid on him
      the sins of us all.

 7 He was oppressed and treated harshly,
      yet he never said a word.
   He was led like a lamb to the slaughter.
      And as a sheep is silent before the shearers,
      he did not open his mouth.
 8 Unjustly condemned,
      he was led away.
   No one cared that he died without descendants,
      that his life was cut short in midstream.
   But he was struck down
      for the rebellion of my people.
 9 He had done no wrong
      and had never deceived anyone.
   But he was buried like a criminal;
      he was put in a rich man’s grave.

 10 But it was the LORD’s good plan to crush him
      and cause him grief.
   Yet when his life is made an offering for sin,
      he will have many descendants.
   He will enjoy a long life,
      and the LORD’s good plan will prosper in his hands.
 11 When he sees all that is accomplished by his anguish,
      he will be satisfied.
   And because of his experience,
      my righteous servant will make it possible
   for many to be counted righteous,
      for he will bear all their sins.
 12 I will give him the honors of a victorious soldier,
      because he exposed himself to death.
   He was counted among the rebels.
      He bore the sins of many and interceded for rebels.


Title: Re: Is Mormonism a Religion or a Cult
Post by: Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home. on February 03, 2012, 11:48:51 AM
jmf, I appreciate the degree of attention, but as I am but a novice in LDS history and doctrine, I must indefinitely suspend meaningful conversation on these points.

novice or expert...I'm just warning you of what should be obvious brainwashing techniques which feed upon the one's desire to be apart of something bigger than one's self.


Title: Re: Is Mormonism a Religion or a Cult
Post by: © tweed on February 03, 2012, 11:57:32 AM
jmf, I appreciate the degree of attention, but as I am but a novice in LDS history and doctrine, I must indefinitely suspend meaningful conversation on these points.

novice or expert...I'm just warning you of what should be obvious brainwashing techniques which feed upon the one's desire to be apart of something bigger than one's self.

I'm only heading towards a Grand Inquisitor (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Grand_Inquisitor) style anti-faith: my defenses are strong.


Title: Re: Is Mormonism a Religion or a Cult
Post by: they don't love you like i love you on February 03, 2012, 11:58:11 AM
jmf, I appreciate the degree of attention, but as I am but a novice in LDS history and doctrine, I must indefinitely suspend meaningful conversation on these points.

novice or expert...I'm just warning you of what should be obvious brainwashing techniques which feed upon the one's desire to be apart of something bigger than one's self.

Uh, you are aware that Christian churches do that sort of thing all the time? It's not "brainwashing".


Title: Re: Is Mormonism a Religion or a Cult
Post by: Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home. on February 03, 2012, 01:45:35 PM
Uh, you are aware that Christian churches do that sort of thing all the time? It's not "brainwashing".

NO!, that is NOT the practice of all Christian churches.  I have been going to the same church for 19 years, and I have NEVER heard my pastor say something along the lines of, “Make sure you have this study guide handy when you read your bible”…nor have I ever heard him say something like, “Here’s our statement of beliefs, read them and pray to God about them.”

Instead we are told just he opposite, “Don’t rely on a study guide when you read your bible.”

And I agree with that approach, because I didn’t start going to my church until 5 months AFTER I was saved, and in those 5 months (and for a over a year afterward), I was dealing with “Christians” who were taught to be terrified of attempting to read the bible without an official study guide from their church.  And they thought I was attempting to deceive them by asking them, “Put down your study guide, start at the beginning of a book of the bible, read a section, then tell me what you think it means…then read the next section, then tell me what you think it means…and keep going until you reach the end of that particular book.  I am simply going to sit here and listen and not say a word.”…and they, for the most part, had NO TROUBLE AT ALL understanding what they had just read. 

For example, when I had them read the book of Hebrews, they completely and without question understood the New Covenant was currently in effect.  When they finished reading and stating their interpretation:

I said, “I agree with your interpretation…So, just to be clear, from what you read from the book of Hebrews, you believe the New Covenant is currently in effect, right?”

…and they answered, “Well, of course it is, it just said so over and over again. In fact, the whole book of Hebrews I just read to you was all about the New Covenant being in effect and how it superseded the old!  Why do you ask?”

Then, I would spill the beans: “Because your church says that the New Covenant is NOT yet in effect.  But that it is a future covenant…..here, look what your church says in this article, and in this other article, and here, and here, and here…”

And they would be very upset, and then after I couple of days I would receive a phone call: “[jmfcst], I just called to let you know that I have prayed about it and now I see how the New Covenant  has not been put into effect yet.”

Me: “But what about what you read in book of Hebrews”

Them: “I don’t want to read the bible anymore without first checking with my church’s study guide.  I’m too afraid of being deceived.”

---

I am somewhat an expert on brainwashing techniques of cults, not because I have studied the subject, but because I have witnessed it firsthand for 18 straight months.  I myself went and attended a cultish church for 18 months with my friends (their church’s services were on Saturday, so after finding my church 5 months into it, for the remaining 13 months I attended their church on Saturday and mine on Sunday)

I lived and breathed their church’s doctrine for 18 months and became an expert on their doctrinal beliefs, so much so that I knew their doctrine better than 99% of their members.  I read everything they published, past and present – in order to learn their doctrinal roots and how their doctrine had changed over the years…I searched and acquired older books published by their church which their church had previously told their members to get rid of or burn (they would make changes to their doctrine - yet claim it really wasn’t a change since they were, after all, “the true church” and could make no doctrinal errors – so they would instruct their members to get rid of some of their previous books and magazines so that the members couldn’t trace the history of their doctrine and wouldn’t think they had fundamentally changed some beliefs).

Their services were NOT open to the public, and they took attendance at the door.  If you were a visitor, they took you aside and asked you a series of questions like, “Why are you here?  What is your motive? Was our staff expecting you?”.  In fact, in order for me to attend their services in Houston, I had to first write to the church’s headquarters in California (the address was provided on their weekly TV show).  They then replied by mail and sent be the phone number to one of their local pastors, which I had to call and discuss my interest BEFORE even being invited and given their address to where their weekly services were located.  Once inside, everyone who could write was expected to take notes, and all the men were dressed in suits and brought brief cases to keep their bible and notepad in, and all the women, if they couldn’t fit it in their purse, would do likewise (I kid you not!), so that they all appeared as clones of each other.  If your attendance wasn’t up to par, you received a phone call.  If your tithing wasn’t up to par, you received a phone call.  If you brought a quest, you were expected to check with your pastor BEFORE bringing them to church.  And the only unforgivable sin was for a baptize member of their church to leave the cult

---

This isn’t some game that is being played.  This is real varsity level brain washing and deception.  And it is demonic, even if it doesn’t involve pentangles and human sacrifice.  I didn’t buy into it because God had already opened my eyes before sending me to them.

This is why I warned Tweed not to attempt to pray to or petition the spirits seeking to gain insight into Mormon scripture, because he is simply opening himself up the spiritual force behind the Book of Mormon.  If one wants to pray a Christian prayer, then lift up Christ in prayer.  If one wants to seek what is proper Christian doctrine, then don’t consult the spirits, rather consult the bible.

This is not something to play around with.  If you want to check out Mormonism (or any other “Christian” church, no matter how benign it appears), than check it out by comparing it to the OT/NT, since every church claims to be in agreement with the OT/NT.


Title: Re: Is Mormonism a Religion or a Cult
Post by: John Dibble on February 03, 2012, 01:54:07 PM
Uh, you are aware that Christian churches do that sort of thing all the time? It's not "brainwashing".

NO!, that is NOT the practice of all Christian churches.  I have been going to the same church for 19 years, and I have NEVER heard my pastor say something along the lines of, “Make sure you have this study guide handy when you read your bible”…nor have I ever heard him say something like, “Here’s our statement of beliefs, read them and pray to God about them.

Another problem of yours you should be aware of - you tend to construe general statements as blanket statements and personal attacks against you or your church. Case in point, notice that BRTD didn't say 'all Christian churches', just 'Christian churches'. I'm pretty sure BRTD wasn't even necessarily saying that a majority does it. (IMO, I'd say the majority of Christian churches in America don't even encourage their followers to read the Bible in the first place - probably why only 1 in 10 American Christians have read the whole thing)


Title: Re: Is Mormonism a Religion or a Cult
Post by: Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home. on February 03, 2012, 01:58:27 PM

*bangs head on desk* For crying out loud man, that's exactly how I interpreted it. The problem is that you don't have any real evidence for your big picture assertion. If you can't back up your big picture argument with something real (no, scripture alone does not count) then asserting anyone who disagrees with you on it is merely giving an excuse is nothing short of arrogance.

Why do you always fall back on your empty argument of, “I agree with the interpretation, but you haven’t shown me proof!”…haven’t I been telling you for years that proof and faith are contradictory terms and that you are only shown the proof once you called by God because only God can reveal what is unseen?  So why do you keep going back to your contradictory argument?

So, since I have clearly stated that you can’t prove the claims true, but you can prove a claim false, why don’t you instead focus on the simply test of: “If Y claims X is True, and Y claims X=Y, if Y<>X, then the claims of Y are False”?

It’s a pretty simple test, as long as you are willing to be a neutral judge.  In fact, back in Oct ’92 when I was an unbeliever and decided to look into the claims of Herbert Armstrong, I didn’t foolishly ask, “Hey, just show me some proof!’  Rather I tested their claims against something (the bible) that they stated their claims were in agreement with.



---


The oldest, most reliable copies and the copies that actually were used in the Bible are the ones that matter the most. Agreement between latter copies amongst themselves have a bit less relevance.

Furthermore, not only where there additions (John 7:53 to 8:11, for instance) and mistranslations …

Yet, you are fully aware that by not basing a doctrine on a single passage, the additions and mistranslations don’t influence doctrine…so what is your point?

---

…there are also ones where entire portions of the gospels seem to be copied significant amounts from other Gospels. (specifically Matthew and Luke appear to be very much based on Mark due to the similarity of the Greek wording, which would not likely have been the case if they had either been written directly by the Apostles or simply been solely written from it being orally passed down) Plagiarism kind of makes the two witnesses thing problematic, because it will by necessity agree with the first witness.

1) your plagiarism claim is pure speculation.

2) you can still get to two or three witness even if you throw out Matthew and Luke, and only use Mark and John.

2) And you are fully aware the complete doctrine of the Gospel can be taught by using only the OT (which is exactly what Jesus and the Apostles did), so what is your point?  The NT never claims to stand on its own, but rather claims to have the OT as it’s foundation.

---

Quote
Prophesies related to the Messiah’s message being rejected by the Jews and received by the Gentiles originate in the OT, not the NT...then, it is reiterated in the Gospels by Jesus (which , Viewed from a secular perspective, was a very bold prediction since he didn’t even preach to Gentiles), and then reiterated throughout the rest of the NT.

Give the specific passages, please.


Well, I would have to quote hundreds upon hundreds of verses if I listed them all, so I’ll just pick a few:

Messiah would be a rejected by the Jews and accepted by the Gentiles:

Foreshadowing of Messiah being rejected by the Jews yet accepted by the Gentiles, within the story of Joseph:  Genesis chapters 37-50  

One of Moses last prophesies that because of Israel’s rejection of God, they would be envious and understand less that the Gentiles who know nothing:  Deut 32:21 “I will make Israel envious by those who are not a people; I will make them angry by a nation that has no understanding.”

Isaiah agrees with Moses’ Prophesy that the Messiah will save the Gentiles, and that the Gentiles will understand the mysteries of God: Isa 52:15 “He will sprinkle many nations, and kings will shut their mouths because of him. For what they were not told, they will see, and what they have not heard, they will understand.” (This is why Gentiles like me can take OT stories like the life of Joseph and explain them more perfectly than Jews who have been studying them for thousands of years.)

Prophesy that the Jews, who were supposed to be the masters of the word of God, would reject the Messiah, and those who do accept him will marvel at the plan of God.  Psalm 118:22 “The stone the builders rejected has become the capstone; the LORD has done this, and it is marvelous in our eyes.”

And a similar prophecy is found in Isaiah – a prophesy that the Stone would bring salvation to anyone who trusts in him:  Isa 28:16 “See, I lay a stone in Zion, a tested stone, a precious cornerstone for a sure foundation; the one who trusts will never be dismayed.”

Prophesy that the Messiah will save the Gentiles, and that the Gentiles will understand the mysteries of God Isa 52:15 “He will sprinkle many nations, and kings will shut their mouths because of him. For what they were not told, they will see, and what they have not heard, they will understand.”

Prophesy that God’s plan would have the Jews rejecting the Messiah: Isa 53:1-10  “Who has believed our message and to whom has the arm of the LORD been revealed?...he was despised, and we esteemed him not…Yet it was the LORD’s will to crush him and cause him to suffer..”

Isaiah also includes a prophecy concerning ignorant Gentiles achieving the knowledge of the Messiah: Isa 55:5 “Surely you will summon nations you know not, and nations that do not know you will hasten to you, because of the LORD your God, the Holy One of Israel, for he has endowed you with splendor.””

Messiah would be a light unto the Gentiles:

Prophecy given to Abraham that his seed, the Messiah, would be accepted by the Gentiles:  Genesis 18:18; 22:18 “Through your seed, all nations will be blessed.”

Prophecy given to Isaac that his seed, the Messiah, would be accepted by the Gentiles:  Genesis 26:4 “Through your seed, all nations will be blessed.”

Prophecy given to Jacob that nations would bow down to his seed, the Messiah: Genesis 27:29 “Through your seed, all nations will be blessed.”

God himself will be exalted among the Gentiles: Psa 46:10 “Be still, and know that I am God; I will be exalted among the nations, I will be exalted in the earth.”… Psa 98:2 “The LORD has made his salvation known and revealed his righteousness to the nations.”…Psa 102:15 “The nations will fear the name of the LORD, all the kings of the earth will revere your glory.”…


Prophesy of David that the Messiah would be a blessing to the Gentiles:  entire 72nd Psalm


Prophesy that the Messiah will be a banner to all nations:  Isa 11:10 “In that day the Root of Jesse will stand as a banner for the peoples; the nations will rally to him, and his place of rest will be glorious.”… Isa 49:22 ““See, I will beckon to the Gentiles, I will lift up my banner to the peoples.”


Prophesy that the Messiah will call the Gentiles to God: Isa 9:1-3 “In the future God will honor the Gentiles…2 The people walking in darkness have seen a great light; on those living in the land of the shadow of death a light has dawned.”

The Messiah will, in himself, be a covenant that gives light to the Gentiles: Isa 42:1 “Here is my servant, whom I uphold, my chosen one in whom I delight; I will put my Spirit on him and he will bring justice to the nations.”…Isa 42:6 “I will keep you and will make you to be a covenant for the people and a light for the Gentiles, to open eyes that are blind, to free captives from prison, and to release from the dungeon those who sit in darkness.”…Isa 49:6 “I will also make you a light for the Gentiles, that you may bring my salvation to the ends of the earth…Isa 60:3 “Nations will come to your light, and kings to the brightness of your dawn.”

Prophesy that anyone can call on the name of the Lord and be saved:  Joel 2:32 “And all who call upon the name of the Lord will be saved.”

etc, etc, etc…






Title: Re: Is Mormonism a Religion or a Cult
Post by: Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home. on February 03, 2012, 02:13:44 PM
Uh, you are aware that Christian churches do that sort of thing all the time? It's not "brainwashing".

NO!, that is NOT the practice of all Christian churches.  I have been going to the same church for 19 years, and I have NEVER heard my pastor say something along the lines of, “Make sure you have this study guide handy when you read your bible”…nor have I ever heard him say something like, “Here’s our statement of beliefs, read them and pray to God about them.

Another problem of yours you should be aware of - you tend to construe general statements as blanket statements and personal attacks against you or your church. Case in point, notice that BRTD didn't say 'all Christian churches', just 'Christian churches'.

I never said it was a direct attack on me or my church…rather I was simply making the point that not all churches are ignorant of or practice brainwashing, and that the behavior I spoke of is in fact brain washing....so it seems I don't have the problem you speak of...not that I view your statement was a personal attack on me or anything ;)

There are some churches who don’t use brainwashing techniques because:

1)   they can recognize brain washing techniques when they see them
2)   they understand such techniques are contrary to the truth and find them sickening and misguided
3)   they have witnessed the damage that such brainwashing does
4)   they have something real that doesn’t require something fake


Title: Re: Is Mormonism a Religion or a Cult
Post by: Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home. on February 03, 2012, 02:26:39 PM
jmf, I appreciate the degree of attention, but as I am but a novice in LDS history and doctrine, I must indefinitely suspend meaningful conversation on these points.

novice or expert...I'm just warning you of what should be obvious brainwashing techniques which feed upon the one's desire to be apart of something bigger than one's self.

I'm only heading towards a Grand Inquisitor (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Grand_Inquisitor) style anti-faith: my defenses are strong.
  then what was all this "the Book of Mormon is dripping in the Holy Spirit" stuff?


Title: Re: Is Mormonism a Religion or a Cult
Post by: © tweed on February 03, 2012, 02:45:22 PM
I don't see the contradiction.  it's clear the author felt a transcendental inspiration while penning it.


Title: Re: Is Mormonism a Religion or a Cult
Post by: Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home. on February 03, 2012, 03:02:49 PM
I don't see the contradiction.  it's clear the author felt a transcendental inspiration while penning it.

I'm talking about you, not Joseph Smith...by YOU stating "the book is dripping in the Holy Spirit", you're saying that you believe you have discerned a spiritual force behind the book.

And since you are saying you've tapped into something spiritual, I'm advising you to be careful and test the spirits BEFORE you dabble in the spirits.  And I've given you a very simple method to conduct such a test, a test that was used throughout scripture.

Since the LDS claims the bible and the Book of Mormon are both from God, then simply COMPARE the two.  If they are in disagreement, then you’ll know the LDS has been proven false without subjecting yourself to unnecessary spiritual contact.

If you believe in the transcendental, do not deceive yourself into thinking you’re stronger than it.  Do not think you can dabble in it and not be overcome by it.  Do not think you can dabble in the supernatural and escape unscathed – both Eve and Samson thought the same, and they were wrong, dead wrong.

just like in the movie Marked for Death:

Max: Well?
John Hatcher: One thought he was invincible... the other thought he could fly.
Max: So?
John Hatcher: They were both wrong.


Title: Re: Is Mormonism a Religion or a Cult
Post by: John Dibble on February 03, 2012, 03:08:43 PM
Why do you always fall back on your empty argument of, “I agree with the interpretation, but you haven’t shown me proof!”…haven’t I been telling you for years that proof and faith are contradictory terms and that you are only shown the proof once you called by God because only God can reveal what is unseen?  So why do you keep going back to your contradictory argument?

So, since I have clearly stated that you can’t prove the claims true, but you can prove a claim false, why don’t you instead focus on the simply test of: “If Y claims X is True, and Y claims X=Y, if Y<>X, then the claims of Y are False”?

1. I'm well aware that you have completely absurd standards by which you choose to believe in your religion. Faith is not a good way to determine what the truth is, for reasons that I have explained to you again and again over the years.

2. I have not used the word proof. I hate how that word gets thrown around so casually. Proofs are for math. For pretty much everything else you've got evidence, and the weight of the evidence for a claim determines how reasonable it is to believe in a claim.

3. Agreeing with you on how a book's author meant it to be interpreted does not mean I have to agree that the actual contents are true. You could probably find a Muslim with whom you could agree with on the author's intended interpretation of the Koran is, but that doesn't mean you'd have to accept the Koran is true. The notion of reading comprehension is rather basic, so I'm not sure why you insist my agreement on matters of interpretation has to mean anything more than that.

Quote
The oldest, most reliable copies and the copies that actually were used in the Bible are the ones that matter the most. Agreement between latter copies amongst themselves have a bit less relevance.

Furthermore, not only where there additions (John 7:53 to 8:11, for instance) and mistranslations …

Yet, you are fully aware that by not basing a doctrine on a single passage, the additions and mistranslations don’t influence doctrine…so what is your point?

My point, which includes more than just the part you included there, is that the Bible is a very unreliable document for a variety of reasons.

Also out of curiosity, where else in the Bible does it say that the stoning of adulterers should stop?

Quote
1) your plagiarism claim is pure speculation.

No, it's based on the study of many theologians who have analyzed the texts. As I said, the idea is based on the original wording being similar - if you were a teacher and you had two students hand in papers that had mostly identical wording in addition to identical content you'd expect that they would have copied one another. And again, if the authors had entirely based their writings off of oral traditions you would expect widely different wording. At the very least the closeness in the wording indicates that the authors of Luke and Matthew used Mark as a template, even if what they had been told orally was roughly identical in content.

Quote
2) you can still get to two or three witness even if you throw out Matthew and Luke, and only use Mark and John.

Evidence suggests that John may have been written decades after all of the other canonical gospels. Even if John was based largely off of something orally passed down, there's enough time for cross-contamination - I think it would be rather absurd to think that whomever wrote John down hadn't heard about the other gospels and at least their basic contents by that point.

Quote
2) And you are fully aware the complete doctrine of the Gospel can be taught by using only the OT (which is exactly what Jesus and the Apostles did), so what is your point?  The NT never claims to stand on its own, but rather claims to have the OT as it’s foundation.

...which is why Jews where historically just like Christians. Oh wait, they weren't. If you don't have the lens of the New Testament when looking at the Old Testament you're going to come to some very different conclusions.


Title: Re: Is Mormonism a Religion or a Cult
Post by: Redalgo on February 03, 2012, 04:28:27 PM
Mormonism is a mainstream social institution organized around ceremonies and beliefs geared toward recognizing what is sacred, which is enough to convince me that it ought to be labeled as a religion. Its teachings deviate just enough from established societal norms that I can see how traditionalists would be tempted to think of it as a cult, but I know a number of Mormons and none of them have ever struck me as being deviant, or fundamentally different than other Christians.

The designation of "cult" is something I reserve for systems of spiritual belief and sects that prescribe teachings which differ so radically from those embraced by the vast majority of people in society as to lack a reputation of legitimacy (e.g. Scientology)... yet even then I tend not to use the word in practice since it might be construed as pejorative or make me sound like an ethnocentric bigot. It's not a big deal though either way - people define words like cult and religion differently.


Title: Re: Is Mormonism a Religion or a Cult
Post by: Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home. on February 03, 2012, 04:54:15 PM
Agreeing with you on how a book's author meant it to be interpreted does not mean I have to agree that the actual contents are true.

Granted.  But since you are admitting you can’t discount my testimony/doctrine (which I claim was birthed from the spirit that inspired the bible) based on the fact it is in agreement with the bible, can I assume you’re also admitting that Mormonism is not in agreement with the bible and is therefore full of beans?

---

My point, which includes more than just the part you included there, is that the Bible is a very unreliable document for a variety of reasons.

Well, considering the gospel was taught to dozens of nations in many languages during the life of the Apostles, and what has remained is thousands of documents across those many nations and languages that are 99.5% in agreement (MUCH more that any other set of ancient documents that had widespread dissemination), I’m not sure what you find lacking.  Guess maybe you’re expecting to discover some bronze plates that are supposedly the original copy. :P

----


Also out of curiosity, where else in the Bible does it say that the stoning of adulterers should stop?

You mean, outside of John 7:53-8:11? Then how about the parable of the weeds:

Matthew 13:24 Jesus told them another parable: “The kingdom of heaven is like a man who sowed good seed in his field. 25 But while everyone was sleeping, his enemy came and sowed weeds among the wheat, and went away. 26 When the wheat sprouted and formed heads, then the weeds also appeared.
   27 “The owner’s servants came to him and said, ‘Sir, didn’t you sow good seed in your field? Where then did the weeds come from?’
   28 “‘An enemy did this,’ he replied.
  “The servants asked him, ‘Do you want us to go and pull them up?’
   29 “‘No,’ he answered, ‘because while you are pulling the weeds, you may root up the wheat with them. 30 Let both grow together until the harvest. At that time I will tell the harvesters: First collect the weeds and tie them in bundles to be burned; then gather the wheat and bring it into my barn.’”


As I have told you many times, capital punishment of the immoral was a foreshadowing of the coming judgment and the executioners where symbolic of God pouring out his wrath…but now that the reality of God himself was come to us (in the body of Jesus Christ), the foreshadowing has ceased.

If you want another example outside of the 4 gospels, then 1Cor ch 5 instructs the church to expel (not kill) immoral members…then, in 2Cor ch 2 the same church is instructed to receive back into fellowship the same person they were previously instructed to expel.

If you want an example from the OT prior to the Law of Moses, then you can look at the fall of Adam or Eve for examples – they weren’t stoned due to their failures.  Or, even in the story of Cain, God allowed him live even after he sinned by killing his brother.

The foreshadowing of judgment by killing was simply temporary, but it was not like that from the beginning (Adam, Eve, Cain werent killed).

---

Quote
1) your plagiarism claim is pure speculation.

No, it's based on the study of many theologians who have analyzed the texts. As I said, the idea is based on the original wording being similar - if you were a teacher and you had two students hand in papers that had mostly identical wording…

But the bible claims that there is only one true author of the bible, Jesus Christ.  So there is nothing stopping God from giving multiple people the same exact message, if he chose to do so (though, even the books you mentioned aren’t carbon copies of each other).

---

 
Quote
2) you can still get to two or three witness even if you throw out Matthew and Luke, and only use Mark and John.

Evidence suggests that John may have been written decades after all of the other canonical gospels. Even if John was based largely off of something orally passed down, there's enough time for cross-contamination - I think it would be rather absurd to think that whomever wrote John down hadn't heard about the other gospels and at least their basic contents by that point.

Quote
2) And you are fully aware the complete doctrine of the Gospel can be taught by using only the OT (which is exactly what Jesus and the Apostles did), so what is your point?  The NT never claims to stand on its own, but rather claims to have the OT as it’s foundation.

...which is why Jews where historically just like Christians. Oh wait, they weren't. If you don't have the lens of the New Testament when looking at the Old Testament you're going to come to some very different conclusions.

You’re forgetting the early church did NOT have the NT and had only the OT, yet were Christian, proving that the NT is NOT a prerequisite to becoming Christian…In fact, in the book of Acts, there are several stories where people were converted after only a paragraph or two of explanation (just as I was).  

Such was the case of the Ethiopian eunuch: Phillip explained to him that the OT was all about Jesus, the eunuch believed and was baptized on the spot, then Phillips vanished and the Ethiopian eunuch continued on his way to Ethiopia without any further connection with the Apostles and without a NT - all he had was his faith in Christ and an OT.


Title: Re: Is Mormonism a Religion or a Cult
Post by: Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home. on February 03, 2012, 05:19:03 PM
@Dibble


...which is why Jews where historically just like Christians. Oh wait, they weren't. If you don't have the lens of the New Testament when looking at the Old Testament you're going to come to some very different conclusions.

You’re forgetting the early church did NOT have the NT and had only the OT, yet were Christian, proving that the NT is NOT a prerequisite to becoming Christian…In fact, in the book of Acts, there are several stories where people were converted after only a paragraph or two of explanation.  

Such was the case of the Ethiopian eunuch: Phillips explained to him that the OT was all about Jesus, the eunuch believed and was baptized on the stop, then Phillips vanished and the Ethiopian eunuch continued on his way to Ethiopian without any further connection with the Apostles and without a NT - all he had was his faith in Christ and an OT.

Also, look at it from this angle:

Obviously, if you read the OT using something other than a Christ-centered approach, you’re going to reach a different conclusion.  In fact, you could turn it into anything, including a recipe book for lamb chops.  But the Jews DO believe in a Messiah, so the approaches aren’t vastly different.

The question for you, Dibble, is: If you had to compare both the Christian viewpoint verses the Judaism viewpoint, to the OT, which viewpoint better meshes with the WHOLE of the OT?


Title: Re: Is Mormonism a Religion or a Cult
Post by: John Dibble on February 03, 2012, 06:28:01 PM
Granted.  But since you are admitting you can’t discount my testimony/doctrine (which I claim was birthed from the spirit that inspired the bible) based on the fact it is in agreement with the bible, can I assume you’re also admitting that Mormonism is not in agreement with the bible and is therefore full of beans?

1. I have no reason to believe your particular testimony was anything special, as there are people of other religions who have claimed religious experiences that mesh with their own beliefs. You could probably find a Mormon with such an experience. It's not really useful as evidence.
2. Mormonism is full of beans for plenty of reasons beyond any lack of agreement with any particular interpretation of the Bible, so I really don't care that much.

Quote
Well, considering the gospel was taught to dozens of nations in many languages during the life of the Apostles, and what has remained is thousands of documents across those many nations and languages that are 99.5% in agreement (MUCH more that any other set of ancient documents that had widespread dissemination), I’m not sure what you find lacking.

Aside from the differences between early manuscripts and later ones (which I'm not sure where you are getting 99.5%), we have uncertain authorship, the indications of copying, etc. Also fantastical claims without any supporting evidence is rather disconcerting.

Quote
But the bible claims that there is only one true author of the bible, Jesus Christ.  So there is nothing stopping God from giving multiple people the same exact message, if he chose to do so (though, even the books you mentioned aren’t carbon copies of each other).

Invoking circular logic and ghost writing through magical intervention does not exactly strengthen your case.

Quote
You’re forgetting the early church did NOT have the NT and had only the OT, yet were Christian, proving that the NT is NOT a prerequisite to becoming Christian…In fact, in the book of Acts, there are several stories where people were converted after only a paragraph or two of explanation (just as I was).

They still had the stories of Jesus, which is more than the pre-Jesus Jews would have had. Also, how many of those converts you mention are ones who had actually read the OT before hearing about Jesus? If they only read the OT afterwards, their interpretation is going to be colored by their new found beliefs.

Also, look at it from this angle:

Obviously, if you read the OT using something other than a Christ-centered approach, you’re going to reach a different conclusion.  In fact, you could turn it into anything, including a recipe book for lamb chops.  But the Jews DO believe in a Messiah, so the approaches aren’t vastly different.

The Jews don't believe in your Messiah though, and many of the passages you consider prophetic they don't, and there are many passages that they do consider prophetic that Jesus didn't fulfill.

Quote
The question for you, Dibble, is: If you had to compare both the Christian viewpoint verses the Judaism viewpoint, to the OT, which viewpoint better meshes with the WHOLE of the OT?

The Christian one meshes better with the Christian interpretation of prophecy and the Judaic viewpoint meshes better with the Judaic interpretation of prophecy. Having vague, non-specific prophecies gives you that problem - too many ways to interpret, no good way to demonstrate which one is right.


Title: Re: Is Mormonism a Religion or a Cult
Post by: Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home. on February 03, 2012, 07:48:09 PM
Granted.  But since you are admitting you can’t discount my testimony/doctrine (which I claim was birthed from the spirit that inspired the bible) based on the fact it is in agreement with the bible, can I assume you’re also admitting that Mormonism is not in agreement with the bible and is therefore full of beans?

1. I have no reason to believe your particular testimony was anything special, as there are people of other religions who have claimed religious experiences that mesh with their own beliefs. You could probably find a Mormon with such an experience. It's not really useful as evidence.
2. Mormonism is full of beans for plenty of reasons beyond any lack of agreement with any particular interpretation of the Bible, so I really don't care that much.

Yeah, I know, everything is a shade of gray, isn’t it?  Doesn’t matter if other religions have contradictions and mine doesn’t, we’re all right exactly on the same level of legitimacy.

In fact, if I were to claim that Houston Texas was the place where Jesus Christ was crucified, such an obvious contradiction with the bible (which I claim as my foundation) wouldn’t move me up or down a peg at all in your mind, would it?

---

Aside from the differences between early manuscripts and later ones (which I'm not sure where you are getting 99.5%), we have uncertain authorship, the indications of copying, etc. Also fantastical claims without any supporting evidence is rather disconcerting.

Well, if you want to get downright technical about it, 85% is IDENTICAL, the other 15% includes mostly misspellings or differences in word order that are easy to spot,,,after all these obvious copying errors are corrected, you’re down to <1%, and none of that <1% affects doctrine.

In fact, there are more differences between theEnglish translations (e.g. NIV vs. KJV) than there are between the early manuscripts.  But the differences between the English translations are not due to manuscript differences, but are almost entirely due to the approach the publisher was following:  literal vs annotated, etc, etc.

Which is why I have stated for years on this forum that if your doctrinal approach is correct, your doctrine won’t be depended upon a particular translation.

---

Quote
You’re forgetting the early church did NOT have the NT and had only the OT, yet were Christian, proving that the NT is NOT a prerequisite to becoming Christian…In fact, in the book of Acts, there are several stories where people were converted after only a paragraph or two of explanation (just as I was).

They still had the stories of Jesus, which is more than the pre-Jesus Jews would have had.
 Also, how many of those converts you mention are ones who had actually read the OT before hearing about Jesus? If they only read the OT afterwards, their interpretation is going to be colored by their new found beliefs.

I think most of the conversion examples in the NT involved people who were very intimately familiar with the OT.  Which is why the Apostles referenced the OT to prove their points.  Peter converted 3000 Jews who knew the OT with his very first sermon in Acts ch 2.  Throughout Acts, even many of the Gentile converts were familiar with the OT scriptures before their conversion.  Most scenes have the Apostles preaching in synagogues to both Jews and God-fearing Gentiles (probably Gentile converts to Judaism).

In fact, you probably have to fast forward all the way to Acts ch 17 when Paul preached on Mars Hill in Athens before you could point to a possible example of converts without knowledge of the OT.

---


The Christian one meshes better with the Christian interpretation of prophecy and the Judaic viewpoint meshes better with the Judaic interpretation of prophecy. Having vague, non-specific prophecies gives you that problem - too many ways to interpret, no good way to demonstrate which one is right.

Oh, really?   Was Joseph rejected by his blood Jews, by the plan of God, yet accepted among the Gentiles to the point where he even married a Gentile bride?  Yes or No?  Obviously, this is what Genesis says.

Now, you may say, “Well, the Jews will say that portion isn’t prophetic.”  But that only means Christianity has more parallels to the story of Joseph than even Judaism does.  What’s more, those added parallels between Christianity and the story of Joseph came to pass historically - the Jews did reject Jesus and the Gentiles did accept him.

Also, given that Judaism has had thousands of years to get its story straight, how do you explain that the historical story told in the four Gospels and the book of Acts can mesh so completely with the WHOLE of the OT, both the pre-Moses law portion and after Moses Law?  How did a group of uneducated men (the original Apostles prior to Paul) fabricate such a tale that meshes entirely with the whole of the OT, and did so to the point that it meshes with the OT in parts that the NT doesn’t even explicitly tie together (e.g. the parallels between Joseph and Jesus I’ve been discussing aren’t even mentioned in the NT)?  How exactly did they pull that rabbit out of that hat?

“A guy named Otto Octavius ends up with eight limbs. What are the odds?”

It’s simply beyond the realm of possibility.



Title: Re: Is Mormonism a Religion or a Cult
Post by: John Dibble on February 03, 2012, 10:53:28 PM
Yeah, I know, everything is a shade of gray, isn’t it?  Doesn’t matter if other religions have contradictions and mine doesn’t, we’re all right exactly on the same level of legitimacy.

You know, the Mormons probably say there are no contradictions with their religion as well. Doesn't make it true. The Bible in fact seems to have a number of contradictions... with reality. The description of the creation process (which the Bible itself can't seem to decide which order events occurred in) contradicts what we find in actual evidence. There's no geological evidence for a worldwide flood - such an event would leave some rather big signs. There's no archeological evidence for a number of Biblical events. If you want Biblical contradictions within itself, you can use Google.

Quote
In fact, if I were to claim that Houston Texas was the place where Jesus Christ was crucified, such an obvious contradiction with the bible (which I claim as my foundation) wouldn’t move me up or down a peg at all in your mind, would it?

Like I said, I just don't care that much. They may add an extra layer of absurdity, but it doesn't make the previous layers any better.


Title: Re: Is Mormonism a Religion or a Cult
Post by: they don't love you like i love you on February 04, 2012, 12:15:03 AM
Uh, you are aware that Christian churches do that sort of thing all the time? It's not "brainwashing".

NO!, that is NOT the practice of all Christian churches.  I have been going to the same church for 19 years, and I have NEVER heard my pastor say something along the lines of, “Make sure you have this study guide handy when you read your bible”…nor have I ever heard him say something like, “Here’s our statement of beliefs, read them and pray to God about them.”

Instead we are told just he opposite, “Don’t rely on a study guide when you read your bible.”

As Dibble pointed out, I never said all do. And I agree that the study guide thing often is as used as such, because the "study guides" are often intended to railroad someone into one interpretation. I know this is a big indoctrination tactic used by Jehovah's Witnesses based on something I read awhile back about their recruitment practices.

But at far more liberal churches than your's or Mormons I have heard things such as praying for guidance and that you seek the truth in reading the Bible, etc.

And I agree with that approach, because I didn’t start going to my church until 5 months AFTER I was saved, and in those 5 months (and for a over a year afterward), I was dealing with “Christians” who were taught to be terrified of attempting to read the bible without an official study guide from their church.  And they thought I was attempting to deceive them by asking them, “Put down your study guide, start at the beginning of a book of the bible, read a section, then tell me what you think it means…then read the next section, then tell me what you think it means…and keep going until you reach the end of that particular book.  I am simply going to sit here and listen and not say a word.”…and they, for the most part, had NO TROUBLE AT ALL understanding what they had just read. 

For example, when I had them read the book of Hebrews, they completely and without question understood the New Covenant was currently in effect.  When they finished reading and stating their interpretation:

I said, “I agree with your interpretation…So, just to be clear, from what you read from the book of Hebrews, you believe the New Covenant is currently in effect, right?”

…and they answered, “Well, of course it is, it just said so over and over again. In fact, the whole book of Hebrews I just read to you was all about the New Covenant being in effect and how it superseded the old!  Why do you ask?”

Then, I would spill the beans: “Because your church says that the New Covenant is NOT yet in effect.  But that it is a future covenant…..here, look what your church says in this article, and in this other article, and here, and here, and here…”

And they would be very upset, and then after I couple of days I would receive a phone call: “[jmfcst], I just called to let you know that I have prayed about it and now I see how the New Covenant  has not been put into effect yet.”

Me: “But what about what you read in book of Hebrews”

Them: “I don’t want to read the bible anymore without first checking with my church’s study guide.  I’m too afraid of being deceived.”

---

I am somewhat an expert on brainwashing techniques of cults, not because I have studied the subject, but because I have witnessed it firsthand for 18 straight months.  I myself went and attended a cultish church for 18 months with my friends (their church’s services were on Saturday, so after finding my church 5 months into it, for the remaining 13 months I attended their church on Saturday and mine on Sunday)

I lived and breathed their church’s doctrine for 18 months and became an expert on their doctrinal beliefs, so much so that I knew their doctrine better than 99% of their members.  I read everything they published, past and present – in order to learn their doctrinal roots and how their doctrine had changed over the years…I searched and acquired older books published by their church which their church had previously told their members to get rid of or burn (they would make changes to their doctrine - yet claim it really wasn’t a change since they were, after all, “the true church” and could make no doctrinal errors – so they would instruct their members to get rid of some of their previous books and magazines so that the members couldn’t trace the history of their doctrine and wouldn’t think they had fundamentally changed some beliefs).

Their services were NOT open to the public, and they took attendance at the door.  If you were a visitor, they took you aside and asked you a series of questions like, “Why are you here?  What is your motive? Was our staff expecting you?”.  In fact, in order for me to attend their services in Houston, I had to first write to the church’s headquarters in California (the address was provided on their weekly TV show).  They then replied by mail and sent be the phone number to one of their local pastors, which I had to call and discuss my interest BEFORE even being invited and given their address to where their weekly services were located.  Once inside, everyone who could write was expected to take notes, and all the men were dressed in suits and brought brief cases to keep their bible and notepad in, and all the women, if they couldn’t fit it in their purse, would do likewise (I kid you not!), so that they all appeared as clones of each other.  If your attendance wasn’t up to par, you received a phone call.  If your tithing wasn’t up to par, you received a phone call.  If you brought a quest, you were expected to check with your pastor BEFORE bringing them to church.  And the only unforgivable sin was for a baptize member of their church to leave the cult

---

This isn’t some game that is being played.  This is real varsity level brain washing and deception.  And it is demonic, even if it doesn’t involve pentangles and human sacrifice.  I didn’t buy into it because God had already opened my eyes before sending me to them.

This is why I warned Tweed not to attempt to pray to or petition the spirits seeking to gain insight into Mormon scripture, because he is simply opening himself up the spiritual force behind the Book of Mormon.  If one wants to pray a Christian prayer, then lift up Christ in prayer.  If one wants to seek what is proper Christian doctrine, then don’t consult the spirits, rather consult the bible.

This is not something to play around with.  If you want to check out Mormonism (or any other “Christian” church, no matter how benign it appears), than check it out by comparing it to the OT/NT, since every church claims to be in agreement with the OT/NT.

Yes that church indeed sounds quite bizarre and cult-like. But the type of indoctrination tactics they use are quite different from what's described here. Mind you I'm familiar with a lot of the indoctrination tactics Mormons use and it's not much different from evangelical churches. I don't have a problem with that either really. The problem with Mormonism is the other aspects that are quite similar to the church you described.


Title: Re: Is Mormonism a Religion or a Cult
Post by: Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home. on February 06, 2012, 11:45:27 AM
But at far more liberal churches than your's or Mormons I have heard things such as praying for guidance and that you seek the truth in reading the Bible, etc.

praying for guidance when reading the bible is one thing...but asking some to read your supposed extra book and then pray in reference to said book is something entirely different. That's brainwashing, regardless if it comes from liberal or conservative churches… and that method simply unheard of in the NT - that is NOT how they won converts.

the bible says that Satan himself masquerades as an angel of light - you do NOT simply believe whatever some spirit has told you in prayer, rather you "test the spirits".  And if a spirit is telling you something contrary to scripture, then OBVIOUSLY, it ain’t the same spirit that inspired the bible.


Title: Re: Is Mormonism a Religion or a Cult
Post by: they don't love you like i love you on February 06, 2012, 12:27:00 PM
Well of course not because it's in the New Testament. The Bible wasn't completed at that time.

Now yes what you describe here is different but I've seen conservative evangelical websites advise to do that all the time. I'd like to note that it would have no effect on anyone who isn't already a Christian of some type, although granted that's probably where the Mormons and Jehovah's Witnesses draw most of their converts from.

the bible says that Satan himself masquerades as an angel of light - you do NOT simply believe whatever some spirit has told you in prayer, rather you "test the spirits".  And if a spirit is telling you something contrary to scripture, then OBVIOUSLY, it ain’t the same spirit that inspired the bible.

Ha, at the church that afleitch thinks is some evil right wing holy roller abomination (and thus just like you according to him) a few months ago in the sermon the guy actually spoke about listening to the voice of God (and gave some example about how he had a dream about a friend of his committing cheating on his wife so he talked to his friend saying "Hey I know this sounds crazy but..." and then his friend broke down and admitted that he was considering and planning adultery.) So are you saying you agree with afleitch?


Title: Re: Is Mormonism a Religion or a Cult
Post by: Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home. on February 06, 2012, 12:33:51 PM
Yeah, I know, everything is a shade of gray, isn’t it?  Doesn’t matter if other religions have contradictions and mine doesn’t, we’re all right exactly on the same level of legitimacy.

You know, the Mormons probably say there are no contradictions with their religion as well. Doesn't make it true.

Like I said, it’s all just a shade of gray to you.  You choose to enter into these conversations, yet you learn nothing in the process.

---


The Bible in fact seems to have a number of contradictions... with reality. The description of the creation process (which the Bible itself can't seem to decide which order events occurred in) contradicts what we find in actual evidence.

There’s contradictions with Genesis and the evidence and/or within Genesis itself?  How so?

The bible says God created the whole universe out of nothing – science is now in agreement.
The bible says the universe has not always existed – science is now in agreement (even though science used to believe differently)


There's no geological evidence for a worldwide flood - such an event would leave some rather big signs.

You mean that there is no geological evidence for a natural flood, but the bible doesn’t claim it was a natural flood, but rather a supernatural flood…The bible never claims the world was covered with mud from the flood.  In fact, the story suggests just the opposite:

Gen 8:11 “When the dove returned to him in the evening, there in its beak was a freshly plucked olive leaf! Then Noah knew that the water had receded from the earth.”

If the flood had covered the world in a thick layer of mud, then the events of Gen 8:11 would have been impossible.  What’s more, Noah and the animals would have died of starvation after disembarking from the ark if the world had been covered in mud.

You need to actually read the whole story before jumping to assumptions.

---

There's no archeological evidence for a number of Biblical events.
   assuming we would have found archeological for every event in the bible is simply being dishonest.  The question is whether or not there is evidence to the contrary.

e.g. Muslims claim Jerusalem was never the site of a Jewish temple – yet that is contrary to archeology and the recorded human history of the surrounding nations.

--

If you want Biblical contradictions within itself, you can use Google.

You mean, like others use google to attempt to prove homosexuality is acceptable within the bible?  Haven’t you learned by now that the internet is full of hacks?   If you’re going to use google to attempt to debate with someone who is knowledgeable of scripture, then you’re going to be bringing a knife to a gun fight.


Title: Re: Is Mormonism a Religion or a Cult
Post by: Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home. on February 06, 2012, 12:54:52 PM
Well of course not because it's in the New Testament. The Bible wasn't completed at that time.

But even without a NT, the Apostle’s did NOT say to unbelievers, “Hey, here is our doctrine: [xyz].  Now go and pray to God about our doctrine.”

---

Now yes what you describe here is different but I've seen conservative evangelical websites advise to do that all the time.

I don’t care if it is conservative churches doing this or not – it is BRAIN-WASHING!  Even if the rest of doctrine is 100% correct, in this area they are still WRONG.  I’m not saying they are committing a deadly sin, rather I am just saying this particular practice is misguided.

---

the bible says that Satan himself masquerades as an angel of light - you do NOT simply believe whatever some spirit has told you in prayer, rather you "test the spirits".  And if a spirit is telling you something contrary to scripture, then OBVIOUSLY, it ain’t the same spirit that inspired the bible.

Ha, at the church that afleitch thinks is some evil right wing holy roller abomination (and thus just like you according to him) a few months ago in the sermon the guy actually spoke about listening to the voice of God (and gave some example about how he had a dream about a friend of his committing cheating on his wife so he talked to his friend saying "Hey I know this sounds crazy but..." and then his friend broke down and admitted that he was considering and planning adultery.) So are you saying you agree with afleitch?

Obviously, the difference between Andrew and me is that my viewpoint actually meshed with scripture.  No matter how many hoops he attempted to jump through, his views were contradicted by the very passages he was attempting to corrupt.

So, I am not against connections with and messages from the spiritual realm, rather I am simply saying those messages have to be tested against scripture.


Title: Re: Is Mormonism a Religion or a Cult
Post by: John Dibble on February 06, 2012, 01:57:16 PM
Yeah, I know, everything is a shade of gray, isn’t it?  Doesn’t matter if other religions have contradictions and mine doesn’t, we’re all right exactly on the same level of legitimacy.

You know, the Mormons probably say there are no contradictions with their religion as well. Doesn't make it true.

Like I said, it’s all just a shade of gray to you.  You choose to enter into these conversations, yet you learn nothing in the process.

It has nothing to do with shades of gray - shades of gray has to do with moral issues and our inability to absolutely know what is most moral at any given time, not matters of fact. You claim that there are no contradictions in your religion. I don't think the facts bear out on that.

Quote
There’s contradictions with Genesis and the evidence and/or within Genesis itself?  How so?

The bible says God created the whole universe out of nothing – science is now in agreement.
The bible says the universe has not always existed – science is now in agreement (even though science used to believe differently)

Ok, you really want to get into this?

Ok, let's start with Genesis 1. Let's look at the order of events.

1. God creates the heavens and the earth. Waters are mentioned in the second sentence, so clearly matter advanced enough to make H20 exists.
2. God creates light, and makes day and night.

I can find contradiction with scientific knowledge right here. Science indicates that after the 'birth' of the universe with the Big Bang the only matter available was hydrogen and helium. In order for heavier elements to be made available so that molecules like water, which requires oxygen, stars had to be formed first to fuse atoms together. How could the Earth and water exist before light if the component elements necessary for it to exist require stars, which are sources of light, to exist first?

Moving on...

3. God creates land.
4. God creates vegetation on land.

No mention of plants in the water is made at all, even though plants clearly are there, and would have been there first if evolutionary theory holds.

5. God creates the stars in the sky.

See previous statement - stars had to come before any of this other stuff.

6. God creates the sun and the moon.

A couple of problems with this. First off, all data indicates the sun preceded the Earth. Second, all the lands and waters would have been frozen without the light of the sun to bring heat.

7. God creates the creatures of the sea.
8. God creates birds to populate the sky.
9. The next 'day', (I won't insist on the literal 24 hour day since you don't insist on it either) God creates the land animals.

The sea creatures coming first agrees with science in a way, but evolutionary theory indicates land animals coming before any flying ones.

10. God creates mankind.

Man is recent, so I suppose you could say this agrees with the correct order of events if you like.

Moving on to Genesis 2, the second story of creation.

1. The heavens and Earth are created. No plants or animals exist yet.
2. God creates the first man out of dirt.

Science indicates we evolved from prior species, so the notion we were made from dirt contradicts science.

3. God creates plants and the Garden of Eden.
4. God creates all the wild animals of ground and sky to try to make a companion for Adam.

Again, evolution. Prior species required for humans.

5. God creates the first woman out of Adam's rib.

If I have to explain to you why this contradicts evolutionary theory, I'm afraid you need to educate yourself on the subject.

So, not only do we have contradictions with science in both accounts, we have the two accounts not agreeing with one another on the order of events.

Quote
There's no geological evidence for a worldwide flood - such an event would leave some rather big signs.

You mean that there is no geological evidence for a natural flood, but the bible doesn’t claim it was a natural flood, but rather a supernatural flood…

Explaining away the absurdity of a claim with magic does not make the claim any less absurd.

Quote
There's no archeological evidence for a number of Biblical events.
   assuming we would have found archeological for every event in the bible is simply being dishonest.  The question is whether or not there is evidence to the contrary.

I never claimed that there had to be complete evidence for every event described. Rather, there are some things for which we would expect there to be at least some evidence should have been found by now - for instance, if Moses had really led two million freed slaves from Egypt and wondered around a desert for forty years that would definitely leave a footprint of some kind. Nomadic groups much smaller than that have left evidence, so why can't we find evidence of a wandering group two million strong?


Quote
If you want Biblical contradictions within itself, you can use Google.

You mean, like others use google to attempt to prove homosexuality is acceptable within the bible?  Haven’t you learned by now that the internet is full of hacks?   If you’re going to use google to attempt to debate with someone who is knowledgeable of scripture, then you’re going to be bringing a knife to a gun fight.

Ok, here. I expect you won't agree with all of them, but it's a decent list.

http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/jim_meritt/bible-contradictions.html


Title: Re: Is Mormonism a Religion or a Cult
Post by: Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home. on February 08, 2012, 12:10:46 PM

Ok, let's start with Genesis 1. Let's look at the order of events.

1. God creates the heavens and the earth. Waters are mentioned in the second sentence, so clearly matter advanced enough to make H20 exists.
2. God creates light, and makes day and night.

I can find contradiction with scientific knowledge right here. Science indicates that after the 'birth' of the universe with the Big Bang the only matter available was hydrogen and helium. In order for heavier elements to be made available so that molecules like water, which requires oxygen, stars had to be formed first to fuse atoms together. How could the Earth and water exist before light if the component elements necessary for it to exist require stars, which are sources of light, to exist first?

Dang, dude, can’t you read?

Gen 1:1  In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.

The context here is the THE WHOLE UNIVERSE.  And the text doesn’t imply the universe immediately coming into existence, nor does the text imply a process.  So we can’t say, from the text, if this was immediate or the results of a long sequence of events.

Gen 1:2 Now the earth was (or perhaps became) formless and empty, darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God was hovering over the waters.

Here, the locational context of the darkness is the EARTH, not the entire universe.

Gen 1 3 And God said, “Let there be light,” and there was light.

There has been no change in context, so the context here is STILL the EARTH.

---

I didn’t read your reply for days because I knew it would be butt-stupid and therefore a total waste of time.  And, sadly, you proved me correct.


Title: Re: Is Mormonism a Religion or a Cult
Post by: John Dibble on February 08, 2012, 01:37:35 PM
Clearly you don't quite understand the notion of order of events, which the Bible quite clearly lays out.

Quote
16 God made two great lights—the greater light to govern the day and the lesser light to govern the night. He also made the stars. 17 God set them in the vault of the sky to give light on the earth, 18 to govern the day and the night, and to separate light from darkness. And God saw that it was good. 19 And there was evening, and there was morning—the fourth day.

So again, if the stars were only created on the fourth 'day', and yet science tells us stars have to come before we can get water (or the rocks that make up the Earth to boot), exactly where did the water in all the prior 'days' to this come from?


Title: Re: Is Mormonism a Religion or a Cult
Post by: Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home. on February 08, 2012, 02:17:39 PM
Clearly you don't quite understand the notion of order of events, which the Bible quite clearly lays out.

Quote
16 God made two great lights—the greater light to govern the day and the lesser light to govern the night. He also made the stars. 17 God set them in the vault of the sky to give light on the earth, 18 to govern the day and the night, and to separate light from darkness. And God saw that it was good. 19 And there was evening, and there was morning—the fourth day.

So again, if the stars were only created on the fourth 'day', and yet science tells us stars have to come before we can get water (or the rocks that make up the Earth to boot), exactly where did the water in all the prior 'days' to this come from?

Point 1) So, God, who created the whole universe out of nothing, doesn’t have the power to make water without fusion from stars?  That’s illogical.

Point 2) And, on a wholly separate point which doesn’t rely upon Point 1…Gen 1:1 already has the heavens and the earth in existence, with an unspecified time WITHIN Gen 1:1 and BETWEEN Gen 1:1 and the 4th “day” when the objects that mark time (Sun, Moon, visible stars…” let them serve as signs to mark seasons and days and years”) were put into place.

So, I could either argue God has the power to make water without stars AND/OR I could argue the water came from the unspecified processes of the universe during the unspecified timeframe of Gen 1:1.

---

Genesis is simply too much of a general summary (e.g. doesn’t define length of time intervals, doesn’t define process or lack of process), and God’s power too unlimited, to make cut and dry declarations.

Aside from being literal yet vague, Gen ch 1 is also allegorical:   “Let there be light” is allegorical for the Word of God…the Sun is Jesus, the Moon is the church which reflects the Sun’s light, the stars are the believers…the separation of light from darkness is the judgment...etc, etc.

Same thing with Adam/Eve.  They were literal, but what is written is an extremely brief summary of only a couple of chapters.  But the allegorical meaning could fill volumes:  Adam is Jesus who longed for a companion, but none of the created things of the earth were a match, so God took part of Jesus and created the Church out of the body of Jesus.  The bride of Adam was deceived, just as the Jesus’ bride, the church, was once deceived.  In order for Adam to be with his deceived bride, he had to die for her…just as Jesus died for his church.  In order for Adam to be with his bride and share her flawed humanity, he had to leave paradise…just as Christ had to leave heaven to share with his bride’s humanity.

But then the contrasts to Adam and Christ are even more striking:  Adam was the first man from earth, Christ is the first man from Heaven…Adam died because he sinned in order to be with his bride, Christ died because he was righteous in order to be with his bride. 

This is what I meant when I said the Apostles could not have created a story that so completely meshes with the scripture.


Title: Re: Is Mormonism a Religion or a Cult
Post by: John Dibble on February 08, 2012, 02:58:22 PM
Point 1) So, God, who created the whole universe out of nothing, doesn’t have the power to make water without fusion from stars?  That’s illogical.

Point 2) And, on a wholly separate point which doesn’t rely upon Point 1…Gen 1:1 already has the heavens and the earth in existence, with an unspecified time WITHIN Gen 1:1 and BETWEEN Gen 1:1 and the 4th “day” when the objects that mark time (Sun, Moon, visible stars…” let them serve as signs to mark seasons and days and years”) were put into place.

So, I could either argue God has the power to make water without stars AND/OR I could argue the water came from the unspecified processes of the universe during the unspecified timeframe of Gen 1:1.

1. I never said that an all-powerful God couldn't do it, just that our knowledge from science indicates that stars would have had to exist first. If you ask for a contradiction with science that's what you're going to get.

2. All available scientific evidence on the subject suggests that stars existed long before the Earth did. Gen 1 says they came after. (as clearly indicated by God making sky, sea, and land in previous 'days') The amount of time in between 'days' is completely irrelevant to that, it's still a contradiction between the two.

3. You can argue for some unspecified process if you like, but you have absolutely no evidence for it. Until you can specify what the process is and then provide evidence for it, your claim would be utterly worthless - it wouldn't even be an argument, just a bald assertion.

Quote
Genesis is simply too much of a general summary (e.g. doesn’t define length of time intervals, doesn’t define process or lack of process), and God’s power too unlimited, to make cut and dry declarations.

And yet when this unlimited being dictated this summary to Moses he somehow stated an order of events contradicted by what reality actually indicates happened, and then have the order of events differ from one chapter to the next? I just don't buy it.


Title: Re: Is Mormonism a Religion or a Cult
Post by: Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home. on February 08, 2012, 03:33:56 PM
1.   I never said that an all-powerful God couldn't do it, just that our knowledge from science indicates that stars would have had to exist first. If you ask for a contradiction with science that's what you're going to get.

The supernatural is NOT contrary to science, it is just outside the observable realm of science.

---

2.   All available scientific evidence on the subject suggests that stars existed long before the Earth did. Gen 1 says they came after. (as clearly indicated by God making sky, sea, and land in previous 'days') The amount of time in between 'days' is completely irrelevant to that, it's still a contradiction between the two.

The context of the celestial objects created on the 4th day (Sun, Moon, stars), is in the context of those which give light on the earth and are used for keeping time:

Gen 1:14 “Let there be lights in the expanse of the sky to separate the day from the night, and let them serve as signs to mark seasons and days and years, 15 and let them be lights in the expanse of the sky to give light on the earth.”

Which celestial objects have been used to mark the seasons, days, and years?  Answer:  the Sun, Moon, and visible starts.  Do those represent the entire universe?  No.

So the only context of the 4th of Genesis is all the celestial objects used throughout the ages for keeping time…the context is NOT all the stars of the universe.

---


3.   You can argue for some unspecified process if you like, but you have absolutely no evidence for it. Until you can specify what the process is and then provide evidence for it, your claim would be utterly worthless - it wouldn't even be an argument, just a bald assertion.

Dude, it’s not an assertion.  I simply pointed to the lack of mention of whether there was or was not a process to counter the interpretation (by young earthers and some non-believers) that everything just instantly appears as soon as God commands it..  The bible doesn’t say if it immediately appeared, or if it appeared after a God ordained process.

---

And yet when this unlimited being dictated this summary to Moses he somehow stated an order of events contradicted by what reality actually indicates happened…

as I have shown above, there is no contradiction with science, rather there is only a contradiction with your assumptions.

---

and then have the order of events differ from one chapter to the next? I just don't buy it.

There is no contradiction between ch 1 and ch 2, rather you’re only creating a contradiction because you take each as separate and exhaustive descriptions, when in fact ch 2 assumes the context of ch 1 and neither are exhaustive

Your claim of contradiction is just like those who claim that one gospel has Jesus being visited in a manger by shepherds and the other has him being visited in a house by wise…and thus, “Ha! A contradiction!!!”.  When in fact, the timetable of the story allows for the house visit of the wise men to be up to two years after the birth of Jesus.


Title: Re: Is Mormonism a Religion or a Cult
Post by: John Dibble on February 08, 2012, 04:16:34 PM
1.   I never said that an all-powerful God couldn't do it, just that our knowledge from science indicates that stars would have had to exist first. If you ask for a contradiction with science that's what you're going to get.

The supernatural is NOT contrary to science, it is just outside the observable realm of science.

If the Bible say X and science says Y, it doesn't matter that you think the Bible has some magic explanation you can try to use to justify the contradiction - it's still a contradiction.

Quote
2.   All available scientific evidence on the subject suggests that stars existed long before the Earth did. Gen 1 says they came after. (as clearly indicated by God making sky, sea, and land in previous 'days') The amount of time in between 'days' is completely irrelevant to that, it's still a contradiction between the two.

The context of the celestial objects created on the 4th day (Sun, Moon, stars), is in the context of those which give light on the earth and are used for keeping time:

Gen 1:14 “Let there be lights in the expanse of the sky to separate the day from the night, and let them serve as signs to mark seasons and days and years, 15 and let them be lights in the expanse of the sky to give light on the earth.”

Which celestial objects have been used to mark the seasons, days, and years?  Answer:  the Sun, Moon, and visible starts.  Do those represent the entire universe?  No.

So the only context of the 4th of Genesis is all the celestial objects used throughout the ages for keeping time…the context is NOT all the stars of the universe.

Even if I accept your logic, science also says that the Sun came before the Earth.

Furthermore, some of the stars used to determine seasons came about AFTER the animals created on later days. For instance take the star Rigel, brightest star in the Orion constellation - scientific dating puts its age at about 8 million years, giver or take a million. That's well after the dinosaurs, some of the best known land animals, died off. The Bible doesn't mention God continuing to create stars afterward, rather the text indicates he's done doing that. Yes, I'm sure you'll object that it didn't explicitly state he didn't, but if the best you can do is state what the book that was supposedly dictated by the thing that actually performed it was sketchy on the details I don't find that particularly convincing.

Quote
3.   You can argue for some unspecified process if you like, but you have absolutely no evidence for it. Until you can specify what the process is and then provide evidence for it, your claim would be utterly worthless - it wouldn't even be an argument, just a bald assertion.

Dude, it’s not an assertion.  I simply pointed to the lack of mention of whether there was or was not a process to counter the interpretation (by young earthers and some non-believers) that everything just instantly appears as soon as God commands it..  The bible doesn’t say if it immediately appeared, or if it appeared after a God ordained process.

I didn't say anything about appearing immediately - you used the word 'process' so I actually thought you could mean something that took a while. I pointed out that if you don't have a process outside of stellar fusion for which you have evidence that making such an argument isn't worthwhile, regardless of how long your process might have taken.

Quote
And yet when this unlimited being dictated this summary to Moses he somehow stated an order of events contradicted by what reality actually indicates happened…

as I have shown above, there is no contradiction with science, rather there is only a contradiction with your assumptions.

No, you've made vague claims about the 'supernatural' and the possibility of some unmentioned process that you have no way of backing up. The contradictions are still there, like it or not.

Quote
and then have the order of events differ from one chapter to the next? I just don't buy it.

There is no contradiction between ch 1 and ch 2, rather you’re only creating a contradiction because you take each as separate and exhaustive descriptions, when in fact ch 2 assumes the context of ch 1 and neither are exhaustive

Ok, Gen 1 says animals, then man and woman. Gen 2 says man, then animals, and then woman. How exactly is that not a contradiction?


Title: Re: Is Mormonism a Religion or a Cult
Post by: Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home. on February 08, 2012, 04:51:40 PM
If the Bible say X and science says Y, it doesn't matter that you think the Bible has some magic explanation you can try to use to justify the contradiction - it's still a contradiction.

You’re confusion the assumptive statements of scientists with science.  If you want to equate the two, then science has changed its story and contradicted itself millions of times in just the past 100 years.

But when I say science, I’m referring to the known physical processes, I’m not referring to the scientific theories regarding past events that were not observed by scientists.

There is nothing in science that precludes God making H2O without the help of fusion within stars.

---

…some of the stars used to determine seasons came about AFTER the animals created on later days. For instance take the star Rigel, brightest star in the Orion constellation - scientific dating puts its age at about 8 million years, giver or take a million.

And stars are still being birthed by the natural processes put in place by God…so what’s your point?  Nothing in Genesis about the 4th day states that the starry sky has to remain constant.   In fact, since the account of the 4th day claims they will also serve as “signs”, the context is of a dynamic system, one stable enough to mark time, while also being dynamic enough to serve as signs.

---

I didn't say anything about appearing immediately - you used the word 'process' so I actually thought you could mean something that took a while. I pointed out that if you don't have a process outside of stellar fusion for which you have evidence that making such an argument isn't worthwhile, regardless of how long your process might have taken.

You missed my point - I pointed out that the bible doesn’t exclude the possibility of process in order to show that the water could have come from fusion within stars:  

“in the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth”

There is no mention of timeframe or process or lack thereof.  It doesn’t tell us if the Earth was created at the same instant as the universe, or whether the earth was produced later by a process that first started as a result of the creation of universe.

So, your statement that the bible has the earth’s water molecules being created without the help of stellar fusion is off base, for there is nothing in the account to preclude the water on the earth being formed by the undefined time period of Gen 1:1.

The only thing it excludes is that the earth’s water was NOT formed by the Sun Moon or visible stars…a fact that science is in complete agreement with.

 ---


Ok, Gen 1 says animals, then man and woman. Gen 2 says man, then animals, and then woman. How exactly is that not a contradiction?

Dude, please learn to read, there is no “then” between Gen 2:18 and 19

Gen 2:18 And the LORD God said, “It is not good that man should be alone; I will make him a helper comparable to him.” 19 Out of the ground the LORD God formed every beast of the field and every bird of the air, and brought them to Adam to see what he would call them.


Title: Re: Is Mormonism a Religion or a Cult
Post by: John Dibble on February 08, 2012, 05:42:59 PM
If the Bible say X and science says Y, it doesn't matter that you think the Bible has some magic explanation you can try to use to justify the contradiction - it's still a contradiction.

You’re confusion the assumptive statements of scientists with science.  If you want to equate the two, then science has changed its story and contradicted itself millions of times in just the past 100 years.

But when I say science, I’m referring to the known physical processes, I’m not referring to the scientific theories regarding past events that were not observed by scientists.

1. The scientific theories regarding the past use the known physical processes to make their predictions, many of which are made before the discovery of the direct physical evidence. (the Cosmic Microwave Background, being an example) We use the same type of scientific reasoning for forensics to convict criminals, even if there are no witnesses to their crimes. I don't see you trying to make excuses like "Well the gunpowder residue could have been made to appear on the suspect's jacket by supernatural means!"
2. That science has changed its theories over time to accommodate new data that was not previously available is not a problem. The contradictions are resolved by favoring the explanation that uses the most reliable data. This is not assumption, it's evidence based reasoning. That's a difference even a child can understand.

Quote
There is nothing in science that precludes God making H2O without the help of fusion within stars.

And there's nothing in science to preclude that the universe was created five minutes ago with everything being in a state where things indicate it's much older, but that doesn't mean there's any good reason to believe that it's true.

Quote
…some of the stars used to determine seasons came about AFTER the animals created on later days. For instance take the star Rigel, brightest star in the Orion constellation - scientific dating puts its age at about 8 million years, giver or take a million.

And stars are still being birthed by the natural processes put in place by God…so what’s your point?  Nothing in Genesis about the 4th day states that the starry sky has to remain constant.   In fact, since the account of the 4th day claims they will also serve as “signs”, the context is of a dynamic system, one stable enough to mark time, while also being dynamic enough to serve as signs.

Hold on there cowboy - I noticed you skipped over the Sun being older than the Earth. That's the more blatant contradiction. Please address it if you want to continue the conversation. And no, calling science 'assumptive' doesn't count - you need to show why the science that lead to the conclusion the Sun is older than the Earth is flawed.

As to this, see how I predicted your objection? Also see where I said I don't find the argument convincing?

Quote
Ok, Gen 1 says animals, then man and woman. Gen 2 says man, then animals, and then woman. How exactly is that not a contradiction?

Dude, please learn to read, there is no “then” between Gen 2:18 and 19

Gen 2:18 And the LORD God said, “It is not good that man should be alone; I will make him a helper comparable to him.” 19 Out of the ground the LORD God formed every beast of the field and every bird of the air, and brought them to Adam to see what he would call them.

Even if I accept this there's still problems with the narrative.

Quote
5 Now no shrub had yet appeared on the earth and no plant had yet sprung up, for the LORD God had not sent rain on the earth and there was no one to work the ground, 6 but streams came up from the earth and watered the whole surface of the ground. 7 Then the LORD God formed a man from the dust of the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man became a living being.

So this indicates that God didn't make plants until he made man, because there had to be rain first and man had to be there to work the ground... which makes no sense because most plant life grows without man having to till the ground. (and if you'd like to use the KJV translation and make it field plants and field herbs he hadn't made yet it still makes no sense to include the rain comment because the other plants would still require rain, and it also adds the oddity of having plants that require fields to be worked when man only had to toil to get food AFTER the fall [unless of course you believe that God knew ahead of time that the fall would happen, which just makes him a jerk who set it up to begin with])


Title: Re: Is Mormonism a Religion or a Cult
Post by: Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home. on February 08, 2012, 07:12:54 PM

Dibble, would you attempt to use science to disprove the resurrection of Christ, which the bible admits is impossible using natural processes?  Of course not, it would be a futile exercise without any hard evidence for or against.  

Nevertheless, we do have recorded eyewitness accounts of the event.

Now, if those eyewitnesses and the accounts are telling the truth… your whole argument against the Genesis account immediately become extremely foolish, for if God exists and if he did raise Jesus from the dead, there is no argument against Genesis, since no one was there to witness creation…and if God is the cause of the universe being in existence, there are infinite ways God could have gone about it.

The bible is not saying, “this is the exhaustive way God did it,.therefore, you can use your knowledge to back track into the past and arrive at a single solution”…else it would be claiming you could trace the mind of God.   But in fact, it claims that you CAN’T trace the mind of God.

So, if the bible is true, by definition, your limited knowledge of current cosmological theories will NEVER solve the equation, likewise the scientists themselves will never solve it…because 1) it didn’t begin with a natural process, and 2) God never stopped intervening in the natural process he himself started.

Summary:  The bible explicitly states God created the universe, along with the laws that govern it.  In addition, the bible explicitly states that after God initially created the universe, he intervened numerous times.  Therefore, there is not a continuous observable equation to follow to a single solution.  Which is why all scientific “solutions” are mere conjecture that run contrary to every single experiment ever conducted.

---


Hold on there cowboy - I noticed you skipped over the Sun being older than the Earth. That's the more blatant contradiction. Please address it if you want to continue the conversation. And no, calling science 'assumptive' doesn't count - you need to show why the science that lead to the conclusion the Sun is older than the Earth is flawed.

Ok, mr astronomer, what scientific evidence precludes the Earth being older than the Sun?

---


Quote
5 Now no shrub had yet appeared on the earth and no plant had yet sprung up, for the LORD God had not sent rain on the earth and there was no one to work the ground, 6 but streams came up from the earth and watered the whole surface of the ground. 7 Then the LORD God formed a man from the dust of the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man became a living being.

So this indicates that God didn't make plants until he made man, because there had to be rain first and man had to be there to work the ground

You seriously don’t know how to read.

“Now no shrub had yet appeared on the earth and no plant had yet sprung up, for the LORD God had not sent rain on the earth and there was no one to work the ground”

The reason given for no plants was that there was no rain, which is understandable even in Moses’ day…that fact that no man was there to work the ground is NOT stated as being part of the reason, you’re simply assuming it is part of the reason.

It is also obvious that plants grow without the presence of man being there to work the ground….showing that your interpretation is a hack job that not only assumes what is not being stated, but it also makes no sense even to the people of Moses’ time.  



Title: Re: Is Mormonism a Religion or a Cult
Post by: John Dibble on February 08, 2012, 09:02:25 PM
Dibble, would you attempt to use science to disprove the resurrection of Christ, which the bible admits is impossible using natural processes?  Of course not, it would be a futile exercise without any hard evidence for or against.



Quote
Nevertheless, we do have recorded eyewitness accounts of the event.

Unreliable accounts by uncertain authors making fantastical claims for which they have no further evidence. Not convincing.

Quote
Now, if those eyewitnesses and the accounts are telling the truth… your whole argument against the Genesis account immediately become extremely foolish, for if God exists and if he did raise Jesus from the dead, there is no argument against Genesis, since no one was there to witness creation…and if God is the cause of the universe being in existence, there are infinite ways God could have gone about it.

1. Okay, so IF it's true I'm wrong. So what? IF is not a convincing argument.
2. Objections are not necessarily foolish even if what's being objected to is true. IF Joseph Smith or Mohammed actually did receive divine revelation, many of your objections are perfectly reasonable because they are based on the data available to you. If no evidence for the claims can be presented, it isn't foolish to not believe them and raise objections on those grounds.
3. Even if God had infinite avenues with which to create the universe, only one would have actually happened. The order of events proposed in Genesis are supposedly the order of events used. Regardless of the number of possible permutations with which God might have done his work in the order specified, if the evidence available suggest



Quote
Ok, mr astronomer, what scientific evidence precludes the Earth being older than the Sun?

Character limits on this forum being what they are, I can't really do it justice. I also don't feel like writing a book and mailing you a copy. For now I'll just link you to Wikipedia and you can do further research from there if you are so inclined.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Age_of_the_Earth
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Helioseismic#Helioseismic_dating
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_Earth
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Formation_and_evolution_of_the_Solar_System

The age of the Earth by the data is roughly 4.54 billion years, and for the Sun 4.57 billion years.

Also, if the leading hypothesis on the Moon's formation holds, this would indicate plants coming before the moon being highly unlikely - the impact would have utterly destroyed them.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Giant_impact_hypothesis

Quote
You seriously don’t know how to read.

“Now no shrub had yet appeared on the earth and no plant had yet sprung up, for the LORD God had not sent rain on the earth and there was no one to work the ground”

The reason given for no plants was that there was no rain, which is understandable even in Moses’ day…that fact that no man was there to work the ground is NOT stated as being part of the reason, you’re simply assuming it is part of the reason.

It is also obvious that plants grow without the presence of man being there to work the ground….showing that your interpretation is a hack job that not only assumes what is not being stated, but it also makes no sense even to the people of Moses’ time.

So, uh, yeah, I kind of mentioned both of those things:

Quote
(and if you'd like to use the KJV translation and make it field plants and field herbs he hadn't made yet it still makes no sense to include the rain comment because the other plants would still require rain, and it also adds the oddity of having plants that require fields to be worked when man only had to toil to get food AFTER the fall [unless of course you believe that God knew ahead of time that the fall would happen, which just makes him a jerk who set it up to begin with])

So yeah, apparently I do know how to read, but you only know how to read selectively.

Let me clarify - if God created plants before man as Gen 1 states, why does Gen 2 state "no plants because..." and then skip all the other steps and immediately in the next sentence move to the creation of man? This indicates that either Gen 2 is a different story (or alternate retelling) with a different order of events OR it means that whomever wrote Gen 2 doesn't know how to write in a cohesive, sensible manner. Was Moses just bad at taking dictation or something?


Title: Re: Is Mormonism a Religion or a Cult
Post by: Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home. on February 09, 2012, 11:57:59 AM
sorry, for my previous tone...I'll try to be more productive:

Unreliable accounts by uncertain authors making fantastical claims for which they have no further evidence. Not convincing.

What part of the story are you doubting…Do you believe Jesus Christ really existed and really was crucified by the Romans in Jerusalem?  Or are you questioning his entire existence?  Or, do you accept his existence yet question whether or not he was executed.

---

1.   Okay, so IF it's true I'm wrong. So what? IF is not a convincing argument.

Yeah, but it does show that your argument has no real merit given the fact that what the bible states is not a continuous process and that the vagueness of the account could lead to infinite solutions (since the process is not continuous).

But you are approaching it as if were a concrete continuous equation with a single solution…which is much the same mistake the Young Earthers make, they’re just making it  from a different angle - They make several assumptions about the Genesis account which are actually contrary to the account itself, then they attempt to apply it to the natural world.

---


2. Objections are not necessarily foolish even if what's being objected to is true. IF Joseph Smith or Mohammed actually did receive divine revelation, many of your objections are perfectly reasonable because they are based on the data available to you. If no evidence for the claims can be presented, it isn't foolish to not believe them and raise objections on those grounds.

You’re serious not equating my objections to those religions (which are single witnesses contradicted by recorded human history) to your objection of Christianity, are you?

---

2.   Even if God had infinite avenues with which to create the universe, only one would have actually happened. The order of events proposed in Genesis are supposedly the order of events used. Regardless of the number of possible permutations with which God might have done his work in the order specified, if the evidence available suggest

But it is explicitly not a continuous natural process.  Rather it states God stuck his hand into it numerous times, thus breaking the chain of a continuous natural process.  But you’re addressing it by assuming the world is the result of a continuous natural process, and then you attempt to compare that to an account that is not a continuous natural process.


By definition, the two sides of the equations are NEVER going to equate.  Yet you act as their inequality is proof that the bible is wrong, when it is nothing more than proof that the assumptions of both sides of the equation are totally different, and therefore their inequality is to be expected. 

Furthermore, if by chance they did equate, you would use it as evidence that  the universe didn’t require a God.  You would say, “See, God is not needed.  The biblical account is explainable by natural forces alone.”

---



Quote
Ok, mr astronomer, what scientific evidence precludes the Earth being older than the Sun?

Character limits on this forum being what they are…

Dibble, the answer is very short:  Unlike the earth and the moon, there is no current way to directly measure the age of the Sun, for the Sun is way too hot for molecules to hold together. 

Any age given for the Sun will have to be either a) a broad guess based on observing other stars, or 2)  assumed by the dating of other objects within the solar system.

Even dating techniques of the earth and moon can only prove the age of the material which they were formed out of….but that doesn’t even prove when they were formed, for that they use the age of rocks…what is left is a age range (older than the oldest rocks, but younger than the age of the compounds).

So, there are direct methods for arriving at a narrow age range for the planets…but not for the Sun.  The age of the Sun is simply inferred based a model for stars and on the assumption that it had to form before the Earth and Moon.

But, this whole point is moot, since the bible doesn’t assume a natural process.

---


Let me clarify - if God created plants before man as Gen 1 states, why does Gen 2 state "no plants because..." and then skip all the other steps and immediately in the next sentence move to the creation of man? This indicates that either Gen 2 is a different story (or alternate retelling) with a different order of events OR it means that whomever wrote Gen 2 doesn't know how to write in a cohesive, sensible manner. Was Moses just bad at taking dictation or something?

Dibble, Jesus and the Apostles referenced BOTH Gen ch 1 and Gen ch 2, multiple times, and they saw them as one and the same story.  If you don’t, then there is not a lot I can tell you.



Title: Re: Is Mormonism a Religion or a Cult
Post by: John Dibble on February 09, 2012, 03:20:58 PM
What part of the story are you doubting…Do you believe Jesus Christ really existed and really was crucified by the Romans in Jerusalem?  Or are you questioning his entire existence?  Or, do you accept his existence yet question whether or not he was executed.

I find it likely that there was a person or possibly an amalgamation of persons (there where a number of 'messiahs' at the time (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jewish_messianic_claimants)) on which the stories are based. How much of the account is accurate is uncertain, and the various miracle claims are particularly questionable.

Quote
1.   Okay, so IF it's true I'm wrong. So what? IF is not a convincing argument.

Yeah, but it does show that your argument has no real merit given the fact that what the bible states is not a continuous process and that the vagueness of the account could lead to infinite solutions (since the process is not continuous).

No, you can't set something that is unfalsifiable by your own admission to be the baseline for an argument's merit. That's absurd. The scientific arguments have merit based on the weight of the evidence backing them.

Quote
2. Objections are not necessarily foolish even if what's being objected to is true. IF Joseph Smith or Mohammed actually did receive divine revelation, many of your objections are perfectly reasonable because they are based on the data available to you. If no evidence for the claims can be presented, it isn't foolish to not believe them and raise objections on those grounds.

You’re serious not equating my objections to those religions (which are single witnesses contradicted by recorded human history) to your objection of Christianity, are you?

It depends on the objection. I imagine you have some similar objections to me - I think we would both say to Joseph Smith's claims things like "Well why couldn't you show anyone else those golden plates before destroying them?" Even if he did have the golden plates, it would be perfectly natural to be suspicious of such a fantastical claim if not even one other person had seen them because you'd think that anyone who had such artifacts would be happy to show them off, especially if he's trying to get converts. Understand?

Quote
<the rest of your argument>

Ok, I had something else written up but it seems we'd just continue going in circles if I did, so I'll respond with one thing - you throw around the word assumption a lot. In fact, you throw it around in a way that makes pretty much everything an assumption, which makes the word rather worthless. Let me clarify by posing a couple of questions to you:

Do you think it's an assumption to believe that the sun will rise in the east tomorrow? If not, why? If yes, do you think it a more reasonable assumption than someone saying that it will rise in the west instead? If yes, why?

Quote
Let me clarify - if God created plants before man as Gen 1 states, why does Gen 2 state "no plants because..." and then skip all the other steps and immediately in the next sentence move to the creation of man? This indicates that either Gen 2 is a different story (or alternate retelling) with a different order of events OR it means that whomever wrote Gen 2 doesn't know how to write in a cohesive, sensible manner. Was Moses just bad at taking dictation or something?

Dibble, Jesus and the Apostles referenced BOTH Gen ch 1 and Gen ch 2, multiple times, and they saw them as one and the same story.  If you don’t, then there is not a lot I can tell you.

So is God a bad writer or was Moses bad at taking dictation? Again, it makes no sense in terms of story structure to mention the plants not being because of no rain when the the creation of plants was discussed beforehand, and then immediately move on to man being created in the next sentence.


Title: Re: Is Mormonism a Religion or a Cult
Post by: Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home. on February 09, 2012, 05:25:47 PM
Quote
1.   Okay, so IF it's true I'm wrong. So what? IF is not a convincing argument.

Yeah, but it does show that your argument has no real merit given the fact that what the bible states is not a continuous process and that the vagueness of the account could lead to infinite solutions (since the process is not continuous).

No, you can't set something that is unfalsifiable by your own admission to be the baseline for an argument's merit. That's absurd. The scientific arguments have merit based on the weight of the evidence backing them.

By point is that by going by what the account actually says, you have no basis by which to attempt to measure it by assuming a continuous process, any more than a Young Earther has a basis to their argument by assuming no process whatsoever.

You’re attempting to the answer the following:

Does A=B?

Where:
A = continuous nature process (assumption of scientists)
B = mix of non-continuous nature and super natural process (claims of the bible)

The assumption that you can ask “Does A=B?” is faulting…because, obviously, by the completely different definitions of A & B, A is NOT going to equal B,

In other words: You’re comparing apples and oranges and stating that since an apple is not an orange, the apple must be false.

--- 

It depends on the objection. I imagine you have some similar objections to me - I think we would both say to Joseph Smith's claims things like "Well why couldn't you show anyone else those golden plates before destroying them?" Even if he did have the golden plates, it would be perfectly natural to be suspicious of such a fantastical claim if not even one other person had seen them because you'd think that anyone who had such artifacts would be happy to show them off, especially if he's trying to get converts. Understand?

My rejection of Mormonism has nothing to do with the golden plates, rather it has to do between:

a)   the contradictions within Joseph Smith’s own beliefs
b)   the contradictions between Joseph Smith’s teachings and the bible
c)   the contradictions between Joseph Smith’s claims and recorded human history

I allow Mormonism to stand or fall based on its own merit…I compare apples to apples…which is exactly the test I am trying to get you to apply to Christianity.

---


Do you think it's an assumption to believe that the sun will rise in the east tomorrow? If not, why? If yes, do you think it a more reasonable assumption than someone saying that it will rise in the west instead? If yes, why?

Because, based on my own experience and the total lack for contrary evidence and/or testimony, I have no reason to doubt otherwise,

But, in the case of Christianity, you are faced with:

1)   the testimony of witnesses, both modern and historical
2)   a historical account written by eyewitnesses that completely meshes with what is known from nonChristians historical records about the 1st Century world…proving that the NT account was written by those who lived in that geographical location within the timeframe that is claimed
3)    the complete lack of evidence, as well as plausibility, of a vast conspiracy between Jews/Christians/Rome – the existence of Jesus and the nature of his death is not made up.
4)   The short timeframe between Christ’s death and the widespread growth of Christianity across many nations and languages – thus preventing both enough time and control to concoct such a deep and profound story.
5)   Given such a brief window for conspiracy, the vast agreement between the NT and OT, the complexity, depth, and profoundness that the NT explains the OT.
6)   The inexhaustibility and profoundness of what the NT leaves unstated, so that  believers, completely unschooled in theology, who lives span across the vast centuries, have the ability to understand deep mysteries of the scripture that aren’t even mentioned in the NT…leaving no doubt that the NT was written to dovetail with these areas of the OT, even though the NT doesn’t itself point them out.
7)   The lack of external context needed for its interpretation, demonstrating it was designed for a global audience without regard to time nor place.
8 )   The generality, yet profoundness, of the concepts of the message, demonstration that is was designed to be message translatable to every language.
9)   The way the NT completely accepts people of all races, even those who killed Jesus…again demonstrating that is was intended for a global audience.
10)    Etc, etc, etc.


---

Quote
Dibble, Jesus and the Apostles referenced BOTH Gen ch 1 and Gen ch 2, multiple times, and they saw them as one and the same story.  If you don’t, then there is not a lot I can tell you.

So is God a bad writer or was Moses bad at taking dictation? Again, it makes no sense in terms of story structure to mention the plants not being because of no rain when the the creation of plants was discussed beforehand, and then immediately move on to man being created in the next sentence.

It makes complete sense:  the first account obviously was meant to offer a broad overview of creation, including the entire universe and the earth and man…the second account then backtracks and fills in addition detail in order to zone in on the need for Adam to have a mate, the relationship between Adam and Eve, and the universal covenant of marriage.

The reason it mentions the plants is simply to introduce the Garden and food, the same food given to man in Gen 1:29…and Gen 1:29 and the account of the Garden in Gen ch 2, pave the way for the fall of man in Gen ch 3.

Also, Gen ch 9:3 references the account of Gen 1:29…so Gen 1:29, Gen ch2, Gen ch3, and Gen 9:3 are all interdependent.

If you can’t see that then you’re simply being purposely dumb, once again.

 


Title: Re: Is Mormonism a Religion or a Cult
Post by: John Dibble on February 09, 2012, 05:43:20 PM
Quote
1.   Okay, so IF it's true I'm wrong. So what? IF is not a convincing argument.

Yeah, but it does show that your argument has no real merit given the fact that what the bible states is not a continuous process and that the vagueness of the account could lead to infinite solutions (since the process is not continuous).

No, you can't set something that is unfalsifiable by your own admission to be the baseline for an argument's merit. That's absurd. The scientific arguments have merit based on the weight of the evidence backing them.

By point is that by going by what the account actually says, you have no basis by which to attempt to measure it by assuming a continuous process, any more than a Young Earther has a basis to their argument by assuming no process whatsoever.

You’re attempting to the answer the following:

Does A=B?

Where:
A = continuous nature process (assumption of scientists)
B = mix of non-continuous nature and super natural process (claims of the bible)

The assumption that you can ask “Does A=B?” is faulting…because, obviously, by the completely different definitions of A & B, A is NOT going to equal B,

In other words: You’re comparing apples and oranges and stating that since an apple is not an orange, the apple must be false.

I'm sorry, but you're just being absurd. I didn't say they were equal, rather I said they contradicted. Obviously that makes them unequal because the contradiction implies at least one has to be wrong. I'm not comparing apples and oranges, I'm comparing claims about reality and examining their merits to determine which if either is more likely to be true. Being claims about reality they fall into the exact same category.

Furthermore, you are stuck on this notion of continuity - it isn't necessarily relevant if a defined order of events is being proposed. ANY claim that says that the Earth and plants came before the Sun contradicts ANY claim that says that the Sun came before the Earth and plants, regardless of processes proposed to be involved. It doesn't matter whether one claim or the other uses continuous processes or not. It would be a simple matter of fact whether one order of events was correct, and both can't be right.

Quote
Do you think it's an assumption to believe that the sun will rise in the east tomorrow? If not, why? If yes, do you think it a more reasonable assumption than someone saying that it will rise in the west instead? If yes, why?

Because, based on my own experience and the total lack for contrary evidence and/or testimony, I have no reason to doubt otherwise,

[grammar nazi]...a yes or no question is typically answered with a yes or a no, not "because".[/grammar nazi]

I'm going to think you mean to answer NO to the first question. If the standards of experience (in other words, observed evidence) and lack of contrary evidence are your standards for this, why do you object to the scientific conclusions which use the exact same standard? Why call them a mere assumption?


Title: Re: Is Mormonism a Religion or a Cult
Post by: Oswald Acted Alone, You Kook on February 11, 2012, 03:37:49 PM
Vaguely suprised at the results.

But it's a cult. They force their followers to be Republicans, prevent Non-Mormons from their temples, and make them not watch R-Rated movies.


Title: Mormonism is a is a Christian religion
Post by: BYUmormon on February 28, 2012, 09:46:43 PM
Certainly a religion! It might not be quite the same as other christian religions, but I'm a Mormon and this is what Mormons do:They go to church for 3 hours on Sunday, pay 10% tithing to the church(which is used to help the needy, build temples, fund BYU, and is not to pay anyone), they are certainly not polygamists(although some people who say they are mormons are), they have far higher standards than most other people I've met, and they have big families. On top of that, they follow the Bible more closely than most religions. For example the Bible says not to do excessive work on Sundays, we don't go to sports, we don't work, and we don't do other things that would diminish it's value as a day of rest. We are not secretive, look st Mitt Romney, he is a Mormon. He does all of these things. Is he part of a Cult? Anyone who says we are a cult should actually find out the whole story. I encourage anyone reading this to go to Mormon.org and sincerely pray asking god if Mormonism is true. If you're an atheist who won't try, or hates religion, then just don't look at us any differently from other Christians. I'm not saying other religions are bad, if everyone was a Christian the world would be a far better place. 


Title: Re: Is Mormonism a Religion or a Cult
Post by: Oswald Acted Alone, You Kook on February 28, 2012, 09:58:14 PM
Uhh.... watch out with that last sentance. Anyway, it's nice to see someone who isn't anti-mormon around here. By the way, FF means Freedom Fighter and HP means Horrible Person.


Title: Re: Mormonism is a is a Christian religion
Post by: Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home. on February 28, 2012, 11:05:39 PM
I encourage anyone reading this to go to Mormon.org and sincerely pray asking god if Mormonism is true.

there it is, the brainwashing, again...


Title: Re: Mormonism is a is a Christian religion
Post by: Joe Republic on February 28, 2012, 11:15:53 PM
For example the Bible says not to do excessive work on Sundays, we don't go to sports, we don't work, and we don't do other things that would diminish it's value as a day of rest.

I work with several Mormons, including on Sundays.  They attend Temple in the morning.


Title: BYU is awesome
Post by: BYUmormon on March 01, 2012, 01:52:08 PM
Well most don't work on Sundays unless its something serving others like hospital work. You must know some mormons if you work with them. Do they seem like members of a cult to you?


Title: Re: Is Mormonism a Religion or a Cult
Post by: BYUmormon on March 01, 2012, 01:53:33 PM
Uhh.... watch out with that last sentance.

 Well maybe not for Liberals.