The Mormons

[rez]

With all this talk about supernatural religion I decided to start a thread about the Mormons and their beliefs.

Once upon a time there was a man named Joseph Smith.

At the age 14 he had his first vision of the supernatural. He was by himself in the woods where a big burst of light suddenly sprang upon him. It turns out that it was Jesus Christ and God itself right before his eyes. The first question he asked "Which of the Churches are true" in which the supernatural beings responded "none". Over the past 12 years the story evolved in which the final version was written down in 1838. As time went on he and his family would search for gold in the terrain of New England, in which he looked into magic stones to help him find this gold.

When he was 17 he was in his bedroom another column of light came down, in which an angel came and spoke with him. The angel told him where the book of Mormon was located, which was on his parents farm. He finally was allowed to take the plates in which he translated them. The way in which he did this was put this stone on the bottom of a hat and put his face in the hat and would translate the golden plates. After he was done he returned the plates to the angel. These translations would later become the book of Mormon.


So, what do you guys think of this religion?

[phoenix_fire]

I fight the urge to recite the refrain from the South Park explanation. I think the whole bit about there being a lost tribe in the Americas that Jesus made a special visit to after the resurrection to be beyond historically dodgy. Now, I know this is where a lot of atheists are going to come in and say "no more so than [blah blah blah blah blah]" and I'd normally tell them to walk. But the interesting thing is that there's no continuity in the rest of the Bible to support this aberrant tale.

Interestingly, however, if you have a Mormon somewhere in your family, then you probably won't go to Hell. They strongly believe that God won't break up families in the afterlife. They like to trace their family trees and do proxy baptisms for non-Mormon members of their family (whether the person in question would have wanted it or not) so that they can join them in Heaven. Hey, they even sprang Hitler.

[Lullaby Chainer]

It's like Christianity with a few more bad ideas.

[Winter wind]

Its a believe. I may not agree with it, but its valid. People thought Jesus was nuts, so I don't have any logical ground to stand on.
Lullaby, my batteries going to die soon so don't think i don't like you if i don't respond to something. :)

[Lullaby Chainer]

Quote by: Winter wind Its a believe. I may not agree with it, but its valid. People thought Jesus was nuts, so I don't have any logical ground to stand on. Lullaby, my batteries going to die soon so don't think i don't like you if i don't respond to something. :)

Oh, Jesus IS nuts.

Christianity and Mormonism are both funny. Talking bushes.. magic underpants..

[Winter wind]

well I'd rather be crazy then purposeless. Deluded as I am.

[Jack]

Having spent 13 years living amongst them in Idaho (and having a few in my family on my Dad's side), I can verify they are the most annoyingly decent Christians you'll ever meet. The are Ward and June cleaver all over again, straight out of the 50's. They make great neighbors, if you can tolerate the constant look of disapproval you'll get if you aren't a Mormon yourself.

[Winter wind]

Haha, I give in. There are a few Mormons at my school and they are all so nice to everyone. But one is a little patronizing to non Christians (and Christians once every blue moon).
But be careful of making a hasty generalization. that is the formula to logical disaster.

[rez]

Quote by: phoenix_fire I fight the urge to recite the refrain from the South Park explanation.

What was it?

I think the whole bit about there being a lost tribe in the Americas that Jesus made a special visit to after the resurrection to be beyond historically dodgy.

What else is dodgy?

That people actually thought he spoke to god and jesus and an angel.
He transcribed golden tablets that nobody ever saw and then returned them never to be seen again.

Now, I know this is where a lot of atheists are going to come in and say "no more so than [blah blah blah blah blah]" and I'd normally tell them to walk.

If you tell them to walk then you are invoking the blessed double standard my friend. All religion depends upon revelation. And to say Joseph Smith didn't actually receive this information form the supernatural would be dishonest on your part. All religion depends upon atleast 1 special human being without anybody else around interacting with a supernatural being.

But the interesting thing is that there's no continuity in the rest of the Bible to support this aberrant tale.

Explain.

[phoenix_fire]

Is it a double standard to say that one person has correctly cited the number of protons in a hydrogen atom to be one and another has incorrectly cited it as three? Believing one faith does not mean you have to accept them all. I know what you're going to say: proving something like that is easy. But that's beside the point. The point is that, like the hydrogen atom, God is real and sentient and has things that He is and is not. Therefore, I can cite one explanation as incorrect. Or, you know what? If you're right, then I'm still right in saying they're wrong. The real double standard here is that in mundane circumstances, you accept that some people say things that are true and others say things that aren't (either through deception, ignorance, or insanity) but when it comes to religion, you think that the faithful should have to believe every single thing they hear.

What I'm saying is that the Mormon story, especially the bit about the lost tribe, is entirely self-contained. Nowhere in the non-Mormon Bible does it say anything that would hint at this lost tribe business.

[Osborn F Enready]

I know, and have known a few Mormons. I actually tried "checking out" the religion for a while because I was considering marrying a mormon girl before I joined the service.

From the examples I have seen, personally, I have no axe to grind against mormons, and as a rule respect their dedication to their beliefs. I have much of Isherwoods take on them, and one thing I admired most was that NONE of them tried to recruit me.

Anyway, I am still agnostic, that romance long ago died, and I still have no axe to grind, but I do shake my head in amazement at the dedication to such illogical beliefs.

They keep a nice yard though....

[rez]

Quote by: phoenix_fire Is it a double standard to say that one person has correctly cited the number of protons in a hydrogen atom to be one and another has incorrectly cited it as three?

No and that is because in both cases there is supporting evidence.

Believing one faith does not mean you have to accept them all.

Well if the believer wants to be honest and fair it does. What exactly is it that you use to accept one belief and reject another? You certainly don't use evidence to do that.

The point is that, like the hydrogen atom, God is real and sentient and has things that He is and is not. Therefore, I can cite one explanation as incorrect.

I am not sure what you mean here. God has things that are real only according to your holy book. However, the holy book of the Mormons have a different take on it.

The question I ask is "how can you perfer one holy book's explanation over another?" The only thing you have to say for yourself is faith, but so do the Mormons.

Do you see the trend here? The Mormons reject the Christians using the same exact lines of reasoning.

Or, you know what? If you're right, then I'm still right in saying they're wrong.

They are wrong based on the same reasons the Mormons think you are wrong. I find that wrong.

The real double standard here is that in mundane circumstances, you accept that some people say things that are true and others say things that aren't (either through deception, ignorance, or insanity)

Well I at least base them on the supporting evidence. That is how I prefer one thing over another.

What I'm saying is that the Mormon story, especially the bit about the lost tribe, is entirely self-contained. Nowhere in the non-Mormon Bible does it say anything that would hint at this lost tribe business.

But that is not the most honest, fair, and logical conclusion because the Mormons use the same type of source to reject your religion too.

[Praxius]

South Park explination? "Dumb Dumb Dumb du Dumb...."

South Park did bring up both good points about the religion.... The concept and how the religion came to be has to be one of the stupidest explinations with so many holes.... but... it seems to work and everybody is happy, so who are we to argue?

[Foxfyre]

Quote by: phoenix_fire Is it a double standard to say that one person has correctly cited the number of protons in a hydrogen atom to be one and another has incorrectly cited it as three? Believing one faith does not mean you have to accept them all. I know what you're going to say: proving something like that is easy. But that's beside the point. The point is that, like the hydrogen atom, God is real and sentient and has things that He is and is not. Therefore, I can cite one explanation as incorrect. Or, you know what? If you're right, then I'm still right in saying they're wrong. The real double standard here is that in mundane circumstances, you accept that some people say things that are true and others say things that aren't (either through deception, ignorance, or insanity) but when it comes to religion, you think that the faithful should have to believe every single thing they hear. What I'm saying is that the Mormon story, especially the bit about the lost tribe, is entirely self-contained. Nowhere in the non-Mormon Bible does it say anything that would hint at this lost tribe business.

It is true that two people can agree emphatically on any thing and both be wrong. And it is true that two people can disagree emphatically on any thing and both be right. And it is true that there are broad differences among the world's most noticable religions--we don't even have to go into the more obscure ones--and it is probable that all get at least some things right and all get at least some things wrong.

The truly nonreligious don't care and watch it all with or without curiosity and with or without bemusement, but with a sense that none of it affects them. They can produce some of the most astute and thoughtful observations.

The anti-religionists, often unkindly, even hatefully, critiicize condemn it all as foolishness and/or evil or subversive.

Some religious/spiritual will support some concepts while rejecting others based on their personal convictions, religious doctrine, and/or logic/reason. Some can be quite liberal in their point of view and others quite dogmatic, even fanatical.

Some religious/spiritual do not attempt to limit the supernatural to a prescribed set of rules or principles and allow for different truths to exist for different people. That does not mean a person would accept or believe what say a Mormon believes, but would be slow to dismiss Mormon beliefs just because they seemed impossible or implausible or even wacky. Who says that God (or whomever is deemed God's representative) must present/reveal himself/herself to everybody in the same way?

I agree that most Mormons make great neighbors and colleagues.

[J. Askiloupos]

One of my training partners in the early stages of my martial arts journey came from a family of Mormons. They were extremely pleasant people, but very wary of my apparent godlessness. Surface courtesy with a good deal of underlying distaste for those not of their faith was what I found.

[Jack]

What I'm saying is that the Mormon story, especially the bit about the lost tribe, is entirely self-contained. Nowhere in the non-Mormon Bible does it say anything that would hint at this lost tribe business.

It does by omission. It has to do with those "lost years" of Jesus' life I've mentioned before. Mormons believe Jesus traveled to America during that period. The failure of the Bible to account for that time period precludes them from denying outright that this occurred. When you leave loopholes in a philosophy expect someone to use them to their advantage.

[Foxfyre]

Plus the Book of Mormon does not claim to be the Bible but does claim to be a more recent revelation given to God's chosen prophet of the day, Joseph Smith. Therefore the Book of Mormon is considered an addendum to the Bible and clarifies much that others have misinterpreted or mistranslated from the Bible.

[Kakumei]

No, its not an addition to the Bible. Let me as you this, does the Bible ever claim that there can be no other scripture from anywhere else? Does it ever state that the Bible itself is complete and finished? If it says any of this anywhere, I would really like to know know were. Cause I really dont see how the Bible has ever really defended itself in these claims.

[Foxfyre]

Quote by: Kakumei No, its not an addition to the Bible. Let me as you this, does the Bible ever claim that there can be no other scripture from anywhere else? Does it ever state that the Bible itself is complete and finished? If it says any of this anywhere, I would really like to know know were. Cause I really dont see how the Bible has ever really defended itself in these claims.

I did not say it was an 'addition to the Bible'. I said, for the Mormons, it was a 'new revelation'. The Mormons also use the Bible, but in cases where the Book of Mormon might contradict the Bible, the 'new revelation' is considered the authoritative doctrine just as 'new revelations' revealed through the progression of the stories of the Bible became the accepted tradition rather than the old.

Revelations, in the closing verses, sternly admonishes that nothing be added or deleted from that document, but such words certainly referred only to Revelation as there was no "New Testament" at the time Revelation was written. But otherwise, no, there are no known rules for what manuscripts were to be included in the Bible. The Jews themselves met and agreed to canonize the authorized books of the Old Testament to avoid syncrenization of the faith via new and nonauthoritative writings. Nothing further would be added to the selected manuscripts.

The New Testament has never been formally canonized but has become what it is through tradition and common usage. It includes manuscripts the councils of Bishops through prayer, serious scholarship, and vigorous debate could mostly agree were authentic. Almost certainly some great stuff that could have been included was lost and some was rejected during the debates that at another time would probably have been included. None of the writers of the New Testament thought they were writing 'scripture'. The manuscripts, some almost certainly edited together from various sources, became 'scripture' via the fact they were selected for inclusion.

Has 'scripture' been written since the New Testament was unofficially closed? I personally think much has been written that could have easily been included in the New Testament, but I do not foresee that ever happening as there are too many who would have long ago and would now strenuously object.

When Mormons are working with people they hope to convert to Mormonism, however, I've never seen one use the Book of Mormon in that process. They always use the Bible.

[Kakumei]

Quote by: Foxfyre I did not say it was an 'addition to the Bible'. I said, for the Mormons, it was a 'new revelation'. The Mormons also use the Bible, but in cases where the Book of Mormon might contradict the Bible, the 'new revelation' is considered the authoritative doctrine just as 'new revelations' revealed through the progression of the stories of the Bible became the accepted tradition rather than the old. Revelations, in the closing verses, sternly admonishes that nothing be added or deleted from that document, but such words certainly referred only to Revelation as there was no "New Testament" at the time Revelation was written. But otherwise, no, there are no known rules for what manuscripts were to be included in the Bible. The Jews themselves met and agreed to canonize the authorized books of the Old Testament to avoid syncrenization of the faith via new and nonauthoritative writings. Nothing further would be added to the selected manuscripts. The New Testament has never been formally canonized but has become what it is through tradition and common usage. It includes manuscripts the councils of Bishops through prayer, serious scholarship, and vigorous debate could mostly agree were authentic. Almost certainly some great stuff that could have been included was lost and some was rejected during the debates that at another time would probably have been included. None of the writers of the New Testament thought they were writing 'scripture'. The manuscripts, some almost certainly edited together from various sources, became 'scripture' via the fact they were selected for inclusion. Has 'scripture' been written since the New Testament was unofficially closed? I personally think much has been written that could have easily been included in the New Testament, but I do not foresee that ever happening as there are too many who would have long ago and would now strenuously object. When Mormons are working with people they hope to convert to Mormonism, however, I've never seen one use the Book of Mormon in that process. They always use the Bible.

They probably use only the Bible to try and build Faith. How can you use a document that one does not know or understand yet if they dont believe in its truth. Am I right on that one? I think that is was the foolishness of man that marked the Bible as closed scriptural cannon and not God or any of his Prophets or Apostles.