The mormon stuff thread

[D-Rat]

I'm as skeptical as anyone on religion in general, not just mormonism, but since my wife is mormon, I've done what I can to learn about it. There's a lot of bullshit and a few good points in this thread.

The one thing I keep coming back to is this though. Joseph Smith was, by all accounts, NOT an educated man. While I'm skeptical of the whole story on how the book of mormon came about, I don't think he could have possibly written that on his own. It's just too elaborate. There's also a lot of parallels between mormonism and judeaism that are often overlooked. Both put more stock in the old testament than most other Christian sects. Mormon scholars are very much biblical scholars, and most of them could run circles around the rest of us with their knowledge and faith in the bible, even if you discount the book of mormon.

 

[Tiha]

cite examples.

See post 235, all linked so you can look it up and read it for yourself.

 

[Tiha]

The one thing I keep coming back to is this though. Joseph Smith was, by all accounts, NOT an educated man. While I'm skeptical of the whole story on how the book of mormon came about, I don't think he could have possibly written that on his own. It's just too elaborate. There's also a lot of parallels between mormonism and judeaism that are often overlooked. Both put more stock in the old testament than most other Christian sects. Mormon scholars are very much biblical scholars, and most of them could run circles around the rest of us with their knowledge and faith in the bible, even if you discount the book of mormon.

You are correct on all accounts there. I have had awesome discussions with Mormons. We agree on so many things, but it is like then they go one step too far and you have to stop and go, wait, that is not what the bible says.

The Mormon God is not the God of Abraham.

 

[TreeClimber]

I'm as skeptical as anyone on religion in general, not just mormonism, but since my wife is mormon, I've done what I can to learn about it. There's a lot of bullshit and a few good points in this thread

Are you a convert, did you participate?

Christ also says there won't be any marriage in heaven... how do Mormons contend with that?

Where does it say this?

 

[D-Rat]

Are you a convert, did you participate?

Where does it say this?

No, not a convert. I just like to absorb knowledge

 

[Deleted Member]

I know the discussions can and do get heated at times, and to clarify I do NOT hate Mormons. I know quite a few, and work with one guy on a daily basis and we are pretty good buds. My issue isn't with people of a professed faith, it's with the book of Mormon, what it was founded on and the issues there in.

Joeseph Smith was a false prophet who fabricated a religion based not on truth but his own personal desires. Everything that followed after that is almost inconsequential.

The word of God as depicted in the bible is not, nor will ever be, related to the book of Mormon. The differences are vast and great... to great to be compared.

"In conclusion", I just disagree with the entirety of it. The people who are deceived and practicing it have my utmost sympathies.

 

[Deleted Member]

Where does it say this?

Matthew 22:30​

For in the resurrection they neither marry nor are given in marriage, but are like angels in heaven.

Luke 20:34-36 ​

And Jesus said to them, “The sons of this age marry and are given in marriage, but those who are considered worthy to attain to that age and to the resurrection from the dead neither marry nor are given in marriage, for they cannot die anymore, because they are equal to angels and are sons of God, being sons of the resurrection.

Mark 12:22-25 ​

And the seven left no offspring. Last of all the woman also died. In the resurrection, when they rise again, whose wife will she be? For the seven had her as wife.” Jesus said to them, “Is this not the reason you are wrong, because you know neither the Scriptures nor the power of God? For when they rise from the dead, they neither marry nor are given in marriage, but are like angels in heaven.

 

[TreeClimber]

No, not a convert. I just like to absorb knowledge

My wife was raised LDS, I was raised Catholic and switched to Lutherin as an adult.

Matthew 22:30​

For in the resurrection they neither marry nor are given in marriage, but are like angels in heaven.

Luke 20:34-36 ​

And Jesus said to them, “The sons of this age marry and are given in marriage, but those who are considered worthy to attain to that age and to the resurrection from the dead neither marry nor are given in marriage, for they cannot die anymore, because they are equal to angels and are sons of God, being sons of the resurrection.

Mark 12:22-25 ​

And the seven left no offspring. Last of all the woman also died. In the resurrection, when they rise again, whose wife will she be? For the seven had her as wife.” Jesus said to them, “Is this not the reason you are wrong, because you know neither the Scriptures nor the power of God? For when they rise from the dead, they neither marry nor are given in marriage, but are like angels in heaven.

Thank you

 

[User Deleted]

"in conclusion" there are a bunch of snippy bitches in this thread. God forbid if anyone utilizes any form of education or the Kings English to communicate with some of you simple turds.

I agree with your premise on the founding of Mormonism, pretty sketchy and you have to put A LOT of faith in Joseph Smith but going around telling people their religion is stupid or sketchy is not going to convert them. They know their deal and founder and they are happy with it, they don't really bother anybody. Any religion or organization that encourages people to be good responsible citizens is ok with me. I don't care if they worship Marvin the Martian...wait a minute, he was always trying blow up earth so, poor example, but you are smart, you get the point.

 

[Squamch]

I know the discussions can and do get heated at times, and to clarify I do NOT hate Mormons. I know quite a few, and work with one guy on a daily basis and we are pretty good buds. My issue isn't with people of a professed faith, it's with the book of Mormon, what it was founded on and the issues there in.

Joeseph Smith was a false prophet who fabricated a religion based not on truth but his own personal desires. Everything that followed after that is almost inconsequential.

The word of God as depicted in the bible is not, nor will ever be, related to the book of Mormon. The differences are vast and great... to great to be compared.

"In conclusion", I just disagree with the entirety of it. The people who are deceived and practicing it have my utmost sympathies.

The differences in words are vast and great, the differences in purpose are not. To guide people in being good people, and to control them. Different books, same purpose.

Although I agree with you as far as disagreeing with the entirety of it. Religion as a whole has been corrupted by the human influence, and people need to travel their own roads to find their spiritual peace. If a church of some flavour is what you need to feel like you're being a good person, well, that's for you, but keep your hands off the kids, and don't come preaching to someone that they're believing in God "wrong".

 

[Deleted Member]

The differences in words are vast and great, the differences in purpose are not. To guide people in being good people, and to control them. Different books, same purpose.

Hardly...

 

[Squamch]

Hardly...

The purpose of organized religion is to control people.

The purpose of religion is to guide people to be good people.

Feel free to show me a religion that doesn't do those things.

 

[Cir20]

Serious question, have you read The Book of Mormon? Or only critiques of it?

 

[gladman]

I like fab rats and matt's off road recoveries... they seem like nice enough people. I dunno, I think ANYONE who still needs to believe in a god is just behind and will catch up eventually. But even saying that makes them all mad. like all religions, they have done some epically evil and awful shit. But, lots of nice people among them.

 

[Chevy_man]

The purpose of organized religion is to control people.

The purpose of religion is to guide people to be good people.

Feel free to show me a religion that doesn't do those things.

Pretty much.

I'm not big on most religions but have grown up around it. I think the Catholics are silly with all their saints, and I've heard plenty of convincing arguments that they are essentially worshipping false prophets. All the rest of the splinters from them have dropped that. Mormons have their book about the plates, which is just odd but it's whatever. They seem to be extra controlling.


At the end of the day, all I take away from the religions is to be a decent person. If you're not perfect it's ok, but don't actively try to be a piece of shit and you're going to be ok.


I like the agnostic view myself. Hope that the omnipotent being is cool and has activities to keep me busy. Or I'll just end and I'll never know better.

 

[Az Scooter]

1-The Book of Mormon teaches that the fall of man was a necessary step of God’s plan (2 Nephi 2:23-25). But the Bible teaches that Adam’s transgression was a violation of God’s plan (Genesis 3:16-19; Romans 5:12-14; 8:20-21).

I do not see this as mutually exclusive. In fact, I looked at your citations, and see no mention of a plan. I see explanations of punishments, I see protections offered to Adam and Eve, but no mention of a plan. In 2 Nephi, it mentions on why the fall was necessary. I have my own theories on things, but prefer to stick to official doctrine. In the end, it was necessary

2-The Book of Mormon teaches that children are born without any sin (Moroni 8:8). But the Bible teaches that children are born with original sin (Psalm 51:5).

David said he was born in sin. We don’t know if Jesse had a wife, or a concubine, or an affair. We just know that David was his son. The only thing I see in the Bible about children suffering for the sins of their fathers is that the will have it to the third or fourth generation. Exodus 34:7, Numbers 14:18, Deuteronomy 5:9

3-The Book of Mormon teaches that salvation is by both grace and works (1 Nephi 25:23). But the Bible teaches that salvation is by grace alone (Ephesians 2:8,9).

Yet, Psalms 33:15 says he considereth all their works. Psalms 62:12 that he renderest to every man according to his work. There are multiple other verses, but you get the idea. 2 Timothy 4:14 , and the Lord was aksed to reward him according to his works. Albeit he had done much evil, but rewards go both ways. James 2:14-24 has multiple bible verses that talk about the necessity of faith and works. Revelations 2:23 talks about rewarding every one of you according to your works.

4-The Book of Mormon teaches that black skin is a sign of God’s curse (2 Nephi 5:21). In contrast, the Bible teaches that God “made of one blood all nations of men” (Acts 17:26), there is no distinction between people (Galatians 3:28), and that God condemns favoritism (James 2:1).
And yet, God put a mark on Cain. Genesis 4:15

5-The Book of Mormon says that at the tower of Babel the language of Jared, the brother of the first jaredite prophet and family members “were not confounded” (Ether 1:33-37). But the Bible says that God confused “the language of all the earth” (Genesis 11:9).

Interesting, I could not come up with a biblical reference, however, keep in mind that people tend to think of things that happened in their own frame of reference. If Moses didn’t know about he Jaredites whose language was not confused, he would not likely talk about them. Additionally, we do not know how intense was the language confounded, because the bible doesn’t tell us. Was every person speaking a different language, or was it broken down into couples, or families? I don’t have an answer. It would seem logical to me that it would be on a familial level, but it might have been worse. I do know that Moses did not know about the Jaredites talked of in Ether, and that they were sent away from the old world

6-The book of Mormon says that the priesthood did not need to be Levites (2 Nephi 5:26). But the Bible says the priesthood could only be carried through the lineage of Aaron, a Levite (Numbers 3:9,10).

The seed of Aaron has the Priesthood by right. In 1st Peter 2 it talks about new members having a Priesthood because they desired the sincere milk of the word vs.2 and that they built up a spiritual house, an holy priesthood, to offer up spiritual sacrifices acceptable to God by Jesus Christ. Vs.5

 

[Az Scooter]

7-The Book of Mormon teaches that about 600 years before Christ, a Nephite prophet predicted that “many plain and precious parts” (1 Nephi 13:26-28) would be removed from the Bible. In contrast, Jesus exhibited full confidence in the scripture’s completeness and preservation down to His time (Mark 13:31; Matthew 5:18).

That is an interesting interpretation of those scriptures. Neither verse says a thing about the Bible being perfect and unchanged. They do say we are accountable to Gods law, because Christ has spoken it, and not one jot or tittle shall pass away. For those that don’t know, a jot is the crossbar on a T. And a tittle is a dot on an i.

8-The biblical terms used to describe the Old Testament priesthood, temple, and appointed feasts are entirely missing in the Book of Mormon. These are crucial to understanding the plan of salvation as it was illustrated by the temple services.

There are different kinds of temples. Some are places of gathering, and for meetings, others are places for learning and making covenants with God. In the book of Mormon, there are 21 references to building Temples, or going to the Temple to learn. Many of the references to the Temple were from the Abrahamic law, or the Mosaic law. Both of them passed away when Christ came, because he fulfilled those laws.

9-The Book of Mormon teaches that there were many high priests serving at the same time (Mosiah 11:11; Alma 13:9-10; 46:6,38; Helaman 3:25). But the Bible teaches that only one individual at a time occupied the office of high priest which represented Christ (Leviticus 21:10; Matthew 26:3; Hebrews 8:6-7).

I am beginning to think you copy and pasted an anti mormon website. Some of the verses you have cited make absolutely no sense. However, you are citing verses of a leader that was working directly to kill Christ, which incidentally, your argument makes as less than Caiaphas, the high priest.

10-The Book of Mormon teaches that there were multiple temples (Alma 16:13; 23:2; 26:29). In contrast, the Old Testament teaches that God commanded Israel to build only one temple (Deuteronomy 12:5,13-14; 16:5-6) in Jerusalem (1 Kings 11:13,32,36; 14:21; 2 Kings 21:7; 23:27).

Interesting idea. I would think that since that is where the church was centered, and there was not a broad church membership at that time. In fact, it was basically Jerusalem. There is no need to build a temple somewhere if there is no one there to enjoy the Temple blessings,

11-The Book of Mormon states that Jesus was born in “Jerusalem” (Alma 7:10). But the Bible prophecy concerning the Lord’s birth predicted that the Messiah would be born in “Bethlehem” (Micah 5:2) and the fulfillment of that prophecy is found in Matthew 2:1.

Do you know how far Jerusalem is from Bethlehem? Less than 5 miles. Have you ever lived outside a major city and described where you lived, because there was no frame of reference? I live in Mesa, but people do not tend to know Mesa, even though it is bigger than Atlanta in population and size. So, unless someone knows the area, I say I am from Phoenix. It is 18 miles away, but gives a frame if reference, when they said Jesus would be born in Jerusalem, (that was written before Christs birth) it was because the people knew their ancestors had come from Jerusalem 350 years before. They did not exactly have an atlas to tell them the various cities in the area.

12-The Book of Mormon (Helaman 14:27) says that at the time of Christ’s crucifixion “darkness should cover the face of the whole earth for the space of three days.” In contrast, the New Testament teaches that there was darkness for only three hours while Jesus was on the cross (Matthew 27:45; Mark 15:33; Luke 23:44).

Hmm, eastern hemisphere and western hemisphere. Things can be different between different areas.

13-The Book of Mormon says that the church began in 147 BC (Mosiah 18:17). But the Bible says that the church began in 33 AD (Matthew 16:18; Acts 2).

Again, the Book of Mormon references the people in America or the new world, The Bible references the people in Jerusalem or the old world.

14-The Book of Mormon, supposedly written in 73 BC refers, to Nephites as Christians. The Bible says that the disciples were first called Christians in Antioch in 40 AD (Acts 11:26).

Yeah, I don’t think i need to go over it again.

 

[Deleted Member]

Serious question, have you read The Book of Mormon? Or only critiques of it?

I have a copy of the Book of Mormon, and a Koran. I've read both at times.

 

[Tiha]

Yeah, I don’t think i need to go over it again.

Yep, I rolled through that stuff pretty fast.
You are willing accept discrepancies and I don't.
You see things the way you want as do I.

 

[Paragon]

I have a copy of the Book of Mormon, and a Koran. I've read both at times.

superfluous information is a common indicator of something

 

[Chkn]

Yep, I rolled through that stuff pretty fast.
You are willing accept discrepancies and I don't.
You see things the way you want as do I.

Not trying to come off as argumentative, as I am genuinely curious, but how do you reconcile discrepancies in the bible?

Two examples below:
Exodus 33:11 says that Moses spoke to God face to face but John 1:18 says no man hath seen God at any time.
Matthew 8:28 two men possessed of devils but Mark 5:2 only says there was one.

 

[Deleted Member]

superfluous information is a common indicator of something

Your idiocy? Maybe don't opine on things you have no clue about.

 

[Paragon]

Your idiocy? Maybe don't opine on things you have no clue about.

I had 2 clues at the same time

 

[Filthy McChevy]

For awhile I thought all Fleckers posts in this thread should be deleted, now they should be left just so everyone can see how wonderful they are.

 

[Tiha]

Not trying to come off as argumentative, as I am genuinely curious, but how do you reconcile discrepancies in the bible?

Two examples below:
Exodus 33:11 says that Moses spoke to God face to face but John 1:18 says no man hath seen God at any time.

You have to read the chapter to put it into context.
In Exodus 33:18, Moses asks God, “Please show me your glory.” God responds, I will cause all my goodness to pass in front of you
If they were actually physically speaking face to face already why would Moses ask that? We as sinful creatures cannot look upon a Holy God and live.
In Exodus 33:20, God tells Moses, “You cannot see my face, for no one can see me and live.” So nobody has seen gods face.

The face to face reference is the best translation to try and describe the close relationship Moses had with God not an actual facetime phone call.
The bible says clearly that. It also says moses was hidden in the cleft of the rock as he passed.
When you talk to your friends do you always stare them directly in the face or are you often sitting side by side like in a car? yet in our society that is considered a face to face conversation.

Same is true for John 1:18. You have to look at the context. John was speaking to a crowd of people about the coming Jesus. Take into account the exodus teachings, "for no one can see me and live" John is saying, Jesus is that special because he has seen God and lives.

Matthew 8:28 two men possessed of devils but Mark 5:2 only says there was one.

I'll even add Luke 8:26-27 also only mentions one man.

But in any account it doesn't say there was ONLY one man, it only give the account of one man in two of the gospels. In all 3 gospels it tells that the devils were cast out and they were cast into pigs.

When Jesus traveled. It wasn't just him and a couple disciples galivanting around the countryside all alone. There was crowds and hoards of people. One possible explanation of the difference in accounts is that Mark and Luke only saw one man. Didn't see any others because of the crowd of people. Or maybe the second man Mathew mentioned didn't speak so Mark and Luke thought it wasn't important to mention him.
Why didn't Mathew mention that the man had asked to come on the ship with them when mark and Luke did?
I don't know why there is a difference in accounts of the event.

Any time you have more than one account of an event there will be differences in the recollection of that event. If 3 separate descriptions of an event were exactly the same then the event would most likely be considered false or at least harder to believe.
If you read about historians today searching for the truth in historic events they actually require small differences in the descriptions of events in order to prove the event was true.

But the big picture is that the event did happen and you have 3 witnesses here telling of it.

To me a contradiction would be, 2 saying the event happened and one saying it did not.

 

[Deleted Member]

For awhile I thought all Fleckers posts in this thread should be deleted, now they should be left just so everyone can see how wonderful they are.

I guess the freedom of speech I hear so much on really got lucky this time around, huh?

That was close.

 

[Filthy McChevy]

I guess the freedom of speech I hear so much on really got lucky this time around, huh?

That was close.

Whatever dude.

 

[Truckedup]

I know the discussions can and do get heated at times, and to clarify I do NOT hate Mormons. I know quite a few, and work with one guy on a daily basis and we are pretty good buds. My issue isn't with people of a professed faith, it's with the book of Mormon, what it was founded on and the issues there in.

Joeseph Smith was a false prophet who fabricated a religion based not on truth but his own personal desires. Everything that followed after that is almost inconsequential.

The word of God as depicted in the bible is not, nor will ever be, related to the book of Mormon. The differences are vast and great... to great to be compared.

"In conclusion", I just disagree with the entirety of it. The people who are deceived and practicing it have my utmost sympathies.

Why do you care what Mormons believe?

 

[Deleted Member]

Why do you care what Mormons believe?

I live in Mormon country, and see the first hand experiences of what it looks like. I'm also wondering where at the "Y" is now...

Am I not supposed to examine Mormonism? Don't question it? I hear this often in Mormon faith, "put those questions on the shelf, brother".

 

[Cir20]

I have a copy of the Book of Mormon, and a Koran. I've read both at times.

I respect that. I find it really hard to believe that God set up a pass fail system. You either make it to heaven or it's hell for eternity. Some people (probably most) deserve neither. How do you subject a guy who lived an honest and good life but didn't believe in God to the same fate as a pedophile? They both go to hell, endless torment for eternity? On the flip side, how is it the same guy could go to heaven and get the same reward as someone who diligently dedicated their life to God's work. Doesn't sound like the system of a just God to me. One thing I think the Mormons have right is the varying degrees of glory. The kingdoms of heaven.