Forums → WEPR → Mormonism

428	87167

offline

Linktopast30

109 posts

Jester

Posted January 10, '11 9:35pm UTC

I'm starting this topic to "continue" a conversation started in the Christians vs. Catholics thread. I will include some of the details from there, but the rest are up to anyone new to read up on. I will specifically post the contents of one post, more or less.

We did not baptize Adolf Hitler. That is a lie. After people baptized for Obama's mother, an official release was sent out saying that unless you specifically know the person who's name you are bringing in to do temple work for (not the names that they already have) or they are in your family, you cannot do temple work for them.

We are not barred from being around ex Mormons. We do not necessarily believe they are with Satan. We excommunicate people for their good. In our views, it gives them a second chance. They can rejoin the church later, and their sins will be gone, just as they were when they were first baptized. I know many ex Mormons, and I do not get in trouble for being with them.

South Park is in no way an authority on anything. The fact that you're trying to cite that is pathetic.

Yes, there was polygamy. But it was revoked in the 1890's (even if only for legal reasons). Joseph Smith did not try to burn down a newspaper place. He was taken to jail for no real reason. If he shot back, it was only because they were shooting at him.

The reason non members are not allowed in the temple is because of the sacred things that go on in there. If just anyone was allowed in, the spirit would be disrupted. I will expound on this if needs be.

I am personally ashamed of the acts of other Latter-Day Saints who have done temple work for people without permission from relatives of that person. It is wrong, and we know it.

Tithing... It was actually in Christ's day when it started. The only reason it affects our worthiness to enter the temple (not our standing in general). The Lord gave us everything we have, and all he asks is 10% of what we earn. I'd say that's a pretty small price for life, liberty, and happiness.

Also, we believe in Agency and Accountability. You can choose to do what you want, but you will have to accept the consequences.

I have a testimony of Jesus Christ. He is my savior and my redeemer. I believe that Joseph Smith was a prophet of God, and that Thomas S. Monson is the living prophet today. I believe the Bible to be true as far as it is correctly translated. I know that through the Atonement of Jesus Christ, we can be forgiven for our sins and return to live with our Heavenly Father. I have seen the Atonement in action in my life. I know that God listens to all prayers to him. He answers them in his own way. I know that I can make it to the Celestial Kingdom if I but do my best to keep the commandments of God.

I'm starting this topic to "continue" a conversation started in the Christians vs. Catholics thread. I will include some of the details from there, but the rest are up to anyone new to read up on. I will specifically post the contents of one post, more or less.\r\n\r\nWe did not baptize Adolf Hitler. That is a lie. After people baptized for Obama's mother, an official release was sent out saying that unless you specifically know the person who's name you are bringing in to do temple work for (not the names that they already have) or they are in your family, you cannot do temple work for them.\r\n\r\nWe are not barred from being around ex Mormons. We do not necessarily believe they are with Satan. We excommunicate people for their good. In our views, it gives them a second chance. They can rejoin the church later, and their sins will be gone, just as they were when they were first baptized. I know many ex Mormons, and I do not get in trouble for being with them.\r\n\r\nSouth Park is in no way an authority on anything. The fact that you're trying to cite that is pathetic.\r\n\r\nYes, there was polygamy. But it was revoked in the 1890's (even if only for legal reasons). Joseph Smith did not try to burn down a newspaper place. He was taken to jail for no real reason. If he shot back, it was only because they were shooting at him.\r\n\r\nThe reason non members are not allowed in the temple is because of the sacred things that go on in there. If just anyone was allowed in, the spirit would be disrupted. I will expound on this if needs be.\r\n\r\nI am personally ashamed of the acts of other Latter-Day Saints who have done temple work for people without permission from relatives of that person. It is wrong, and we know it.\r\n\r\nTithing... It was actually in Christ's day when it started. The only reason it affects our worthiness to enter the temple (not our standing in general). The Lord gave us everything we have, and all he asks is 10% of what we earn. I'd say that's a pretty small price for life, liberty, and happiness.\r\n\r\nAlso, we believe in Agency and Accountability. You can choose to do what you want, but you will have to accept the consequences.\r\n\r\nI have a testimony of Jesus Christ. He is my savior and my redeemer. I believe that Joseph Smith was a prophet of God, and that Thomas S. Monson is the living prophet today. I believe the Bible to be true as far as it is correctly translated. I know that through the Atonement of Jesus Christ, we can be forgiven for our sins and return to live with our Heavenly Father. I have seen the Atonement in action in my life. I know that God listens to all prayers to him. He answers them in his own way. I know that I can make it to the Celestial Kingdom if I but do my best to keep the commandments of God.

428 Replies

offline

Linktopast30

109 posts

Jester

Posted January 12, '11 5:38am UTC

As for south park, I referenced it for a simple reason, if what they said was untrue, wouldn't the church have sued them?

Three words: First Amendment Rights.

I was trying to keep my cool in this thread, but you have pushed me too far. Either you shape up, or you get out. Your choice.

@E1337 I invite you to leave this thread - permanently. You have so far offered nothing to the conversation except flak. Also, youtube is not a viable source of information, and you're basing several claims on that. You have so far made baseless claims (like we worship more than one God) that have turned out to be false.\r\n\r\nUnless you have something REAL to offer the conversation, like a question, don't post on this thread. Ever. And you cannot say that your posts so far have been questions. They have ALL been claims that had no research put into them, especially your first, which was so blasphemous against God that I couldn't even stand to watch the first 60 seconds of it. For the others who do not know what I'm referring to, here's the link to the thread. The argument is on pages 5 and 6.\r\n[url=http://armorgames.com/community/thread/6886446/christians-vs-catholics/page/5]Christians vs. Catholics[/url]\r\n\r\n[quote]As for south park, I referenced it for a simple reason, if what they said was untrue, wouldn't the church have sued them?[/quote]\r\nThree words: First Amendment Rights.\r\n\r\nI was trying to keep my cool in this thread, but you have pushed me too far. Either you shape up, or you get out. Your choice.

offline

MRWalker82

4,005 posts

Shepherd

Posted January 12, '11 5:46am UTC

At least christianity has archeological backing to a degree.
For example, a virgin birth is possible due to the hymen not being hydrophobic but rather, semi-porous.

Eh, actually the only archeological evidence which 'supports' Christianity (rather the Bible) are things which people writing at the time we've dated the books to should have known anyway, so nothing mystical there. Also, the 'virgin birth' was actually a mistranslation from Hebrew into Greek whereby the word for 'young girl' was improperly translated to mean 'virgin'.

@E1337 I invite you to leave this thread - permanently. You have so far offered nothing to the conversation except flak.

While I agree he hasn't exactly being contributory, he has yet to, in my opinion, violate any specific rules (although he's finely walking the line of badgering/trolling) however you cannot open a thread to invite discussion and then tell people they can't post in it. That's the job of mods/admins. I will, however take your wishes into account and observe the behavior in here a bit more closely as I wouldn't put it past myself to have missed something (I'm miserably sick atm and not as on top of things as usual)

[quote]At least christianity has archeological backing to a degree.\r\nFor example, a virgin birth is possible due to the hymen not being hydrophobic but rather, semi-porous.[/quote]\r\n\r\nEh, actually the only archeological evidence which 'supports' Christianity (rather the Bible) are things which people writing at the time we've dated the books to should have known anyway, so nothing mystical there. Also, the 'virgin birth' was actually a mistranslation from Hebrew into Greek whereby the word for 'young girl' was improperly translated to mean 'virgin'. \r\n\r\n[quote]@E1337 I invite you to leave this thread - permanently. You have so far offered nothing to the conversation except flak. [/quote]\r\n\r\nWhile I agree he hasn't exactly being contributory, he has yet to, in my opinion, violate any specific rules (although he's finely walking the line of badgering/trolling) however you cannot open a thread to invite discussion and then tell people they can't post in it. That's the job of mods/admins. I will, however take your wishes into account and observe the behavior in here a bit more closely as I wouldn't put it past myself to have missed something (I'm miserably sick atm and not as on top of things as usual)

offline

Linktopast30

109 posts

Jester

Posted January 12, '11 6:10am UTC

1. How do you justify the claims made in the Book of Mormon that God darkened human skin for original sin, which was earlier used as a justification for slavery among the mormons.

If you're referring to the Lamanites, he did not darken their skin for original sin. He darkened their skins because of their wickedness. If you remember right, it was the Bible that said God darkened the skins of Cain and his descendants, and I could very well say that's where others got their excuse for slavery.

2. How do you reconcile geological facts that there were no Bronze Age civilizations, or horses, in the Americas at the times purported by the Book of Mormon?

It's not that there aren't more than that there aren't known ones. Also, we do have theories of where events occurred throughout the Book of Mormon.

3. How do you reconcile historical differences between the claims of the Book of Mormon and the oral and written traditions of many Native American tribes?

If you read the Book of Mormon, you'd know how. I'll give you the condensed version of the important part here (again). The Nephites and Lamanites both became corrupt and wicked. All Nephites were eliminated, and the Lamanites continued to live in peace for some time. The Native Americans were descendants of the Lamanites (or you could say they were Lamanites). This all started in about A.D. 322 and continued through to about A.D. 421, when Moroni died, thus marking the end of the last Nephite. He hid the records, essentially taking the gospel from that part of the world. The Lamanites went on to have other beliefs.

If you need me to expound more on #3, go ahead and tell me. I just didn't want to go too in-depth if you only wanted a simple answer.

[quote]1. How do you justify the claims made in the Book of Mormon that God darkened human skin for original sin, which was earlier used as a justification for slavery among the mormons.[/quote]\r\nIf you're referring to the Lamanites, he did not darken their skin for original sin. He darkened their skins because of their wickedness. If you remember right, it was the Bible that said God darkened the skins of Cain and his descendants, and I could very well say that's where others got their excuse for slavery.\r\n\r\n[quote]2. How do you reconcile geological facts that there were no Bronze Age civilizations, or horses, in the Americas at the times purported by the Book of Mormon?[/quote]\r\nIt's not that there aren't more than that there aren't [i]known[/i] ones. Also, we do have theories of where events occurred throughout the Book of Mormon.\r\n\r\n[quote]3. How do you reconcile historical differences between the claims of the Book of Mormon and the oral and written traditions of many Native American tribes?[/quote]\r\nIf you read the Book of Mormon, you'd know how. I'll give you the condensed version of the important part here (again). The Nephites and Lamanites both became corrupt and wicked. All Nephites were eliminated, and the Lamanites continued to live in peace for some time. The Native Americans were descendants of the Lamanites (or you could say they were Lamanites). This all started in about A.D. 322 and continued through to about A.D. 421, when Moroni died, thus marking the end of the last Nephite. He hid the records, essentially taking the gospel from that part of the world. The Lamanites went on to have other beliefs.\r\n\r\nIf you need me to expound more on #3, go ahead and tell me. I just didn't want to go too in-depth if you only wanted a simple answer.

offline

Linktopast30

109 posts

Jester

Posted January 12, '11 6:13am UTC

@MRWalker82 Thanks for &quotromising" (for lack of a better word) to keep an eye on E1337. I'm sorry to hear you're sick. I hope you get better soon!

offline

MRWalker82

4,005 posts

Shepherd

Posted January 12, '11 6:17am UTC

If you're referring to the Lamanites, he did not darken their skin for original sin. He darkened their skins because of their wickedness. If you remember right, it was the Bible that said God darkened the skins of Cain and his descendants, and I could very well say that's where others got their excuse for slavery.

Partially, and I take issue with the same proponents of the Biblical stories of dark skin being a sign of God's punishment. We already know the cause of dark skin and it has nothing to do with any deity, it's an evolutionary benefit to a species in a high UV exposed area with insufficient hair to protect the skin.

It's not that there aren't more than that there aren't known ones. Also, we do have theories of where events occurred throughout the Book of Mormon.

Would you mind expanding on that a bit? Furthermore this is only one instance of the numerous inconsistencies. DNA evidence has also shown us proof of where the horses originated and the path of their migration and transportation and we know that there were none in the Americas prior to them being brought here, roughly 15th century CE, not 600 BCE or more.

If you read the Book of Mormon, you'd know how. I'll give you the condensed version of the important part here (again). The Nephites and Lamanites both became corrupt and wicked. All Nephites were eliminated, and the Lamanites continued to live in peace for some time. The Native Americans were descendants of the Lamanites (or you could say they were Lamanites). This all started in about A.D. 322 and continued through to about A.D. 421, when Moroni died, thus marking the end of the last Nephite. He hid the records, essentially taking the gospel from that part of the world. The Lamanites went on to have other beliefs.

I've actually read the Book of Mormon several times. Furthermore, the human Genome project has already disproved that the Native Americans were descended from the Lamanites (a people of Jewish decent) as we've already isolated when in human evolution the native Americans split from the general human population and this was prior to the evolution of any Jewish or similar peoples arising.

[quote]If you're referring to the Lamanites, he did not darken their skin for original sin. He darkened their skins because of their wickedness. If you remember right, it was the Bible that said God darkened the skins of Cain and his descendants, and I could very well say that's where others got their excuse for slavery.[/quote]\r\n\r\nPartially, and I take issue with the same proponents of the Biblical stories of dark skin being a sign of God's punishment. We already know the cause of dark skin and it has nothing to do with any deity, it's an evolutionary benefit to a species in a high UV exposed area with insufficient hair to protect the skin. \r\n\r\n[quote]It's not that there aren't more than that there aren't known ones. Also, we do have theories of where events occurred throughout the Book of Mormon.[/quote]\r\n\r\nWould you mind expanding on that a bit? Furthermore this is only one instance of the numerous inconsistencies. DNA evidence has also shown us proof of where the horses originated and the path of their migration and transportation and we know that there were none in the Americas prior to them being brought here, roughly 15th century CE, not 600 BCE or more. \r\n\r\n[quote]If you read the Book of Mormon, you'd know how. I'll give you the condensed version of the important part here (again). The Nephites and Lamanites both became corrupt and wicked. All Nephites were eliminated, and the Lamanites continued to live in peace for some time. The Native Americans were descendants of the Lamanites (or you could say they were Lamanites). This all started in about A.D. 322 and continued through to about A.D. 421, when Moroni died, thus marking the end of the last Nephite. He hid the records, essentially taking the gospel from that part of the world. The Lamanites went on to have other beliefs.[/quote]\r\n\r\nI've actually read the Book of Mormon several times. Furthermore, the human Genome project has already disproved that the Native Americans were descended from the Lamanites (a people of Jewish decent) as we've already isolated when in human evolution the native Americans split from the general human population and this was prior to the evolution of any Jewish or similar peoples arising.

offline

Sonatavarius

1,322 posts

Farmer

Posted January 12, '11 7:23am UTC

Sonatavarius, you sound ignorant and seem to lack basic grammar skills.
The Macuahuitl is a club, the sword references are out of context in your link. Having read some of the books cited as part of my classes, the sword reference was saying they cut/did as much damage as a metal sword.
In addition, the native americans lacked the proper metallurgical knowledge, majority of their metal weapons were cold forged or gotten through trade.

I'm sorry friend... you seem to be misinformed yourself. I wouldn't expect someone w/ so few posts to have seen enough to know any better. Your ignorance is forgiven. I'm very busy with my classes. I don't have as much time as I did over the holiday to write uber posts... so I ask simple questions in order to come back and read the answers and the conversations that spurred from those questions.

the key, 3Leet, to having a decent discussion is not to troll the side you don't agree with. trying to disprove what they are saying is one thing... but attacking their personal integrity, especially when you don't back up your opinion with examples like you've attempted to do, is childish

if i misspell something and/or yews improper grammars then it is because I did it intentionally or I am typing so fast that i make a misteak... and just choose to neglect fixing it b/c the intelligent reader I am writing to will be able to easily decipher my message.

i read this somewhere... and i'm paraphrasing it... but i don't remember the particular source... sorries

i think the bible has been found to have noah or someone else describe a bat as a bird as opposed to a mammal. now if God does exist and did in fact give man some explanation of the world... would he have used terms and explanations that were above the comprehension of his followers? ...or would he have explained what little he discusses w/ the people in a way that they would understand? ...and just made it so that humans would have the capacitance to increase their knowledge and fix the errors once they were able to understand them? plus classification based off of dna is a man made concept... or at least i think it is. people back then classified creatures by physical characteristics rather then microscopic DNA. if i lived back then and I was told that a horse shoe crab was an evolved underwater spider as opposed to being a type of crab I would've laughed and said... obviously i'm having delusions and this isn't a god.... obviously its a crab. unless i was possessed and/or forced to believe such things the whole "wouldn't god make you know the right details... just isn't that practical (atleast for everyone)"

....if the mindset of the day was that flying creatures were birds then a bat was a bird

as for cows... were bison around then? i mean i know they were... i've gone on a few trips to the mid west and i think i remember seeing advertisements for bison made products... cheese, milk, meat.. etc

i doubt the indians would've had domesticated any of those... (possible cow reference... i mean based off of looks)

....i've seen claims that had the conquistadors saying the indians wielded swords... based off of the physical appearance of the stick w/ sharp objects in it... i can see how it could be called a sword... b/c clubs just don't have sharp ridges... technically if a club is just wood and not metal then the japanese wooden sword is just a wooden club that also looks like a sword... i mean the aztec swordclub even has a sharper edge >_>

now... i personally can't cut a horse's head off w/ a regular sword... i would imagine that it would get stuck in the spinal cord and i'd end up hacking at it a few times. the spiked sword/club has been shown to be capable of immense damage.... arguably on the same tier as a metal sword

another thing that i'm curious about....

Does the BoM claim that its people were the only people to have ever come over to the americas?...and were therefore the only source of Dna? i've read a few sites by mormons that say... "i don't know where everyone gets that... we never said it wasn't possible that the supposed individuals in the BoM could've made the transit into a territory w/ already existing populations of people"
...they call it a popular misconception

now if these already existing gene pools did in fact kill everyone of these other people and those people never mixed their genes then they would not have left any genetic markers... but that's just my opinion. i don't have any first hand experience in the field... so i don't know what genetic markers are actually present in the female passed down mitochondria and the male passed down Y chromosomes.

all i got for nao

[quote]Sonatavarius, you sound ignorant and seem to lack basic grammar skills.\r\nThe Macuahuitl is a club, the sword references are out of context in your link. Having read some of the books cited as part of my classes, the sword reference was saying they cut/did as much damage as a metal sword.\r\nIn addition, the native americans lacked the proper metallurgical knowledge, majority of their metal weapons were cold forged or gotten through trade.[/quote]\r\n\r\nI'm sorry friend... you seem to be misinformed yourself.  I wouldn't expect someone w/ so few posts to have seen enough to know any better.  Your ignorance is forgiven.  I'm very busy with my classes.  I don't have as much time as I did over the holiday to write uber posts... so I ask simple questions in order to come back and read the answers and the conversations that spurred from those questions.  \r\n\r\nthe key, 3Leet, to having a decent discussion is not to troll the side you don't agree with. trying to disprove what they are saying is one thing... but attacking their personal integrity, especially when you don't back up your opinion with examples like you've attempted to do, is childish\r\n\r\nif i misspell something and/or yews improper grammars then it is because I did it intentionally or I am typing so fast that i make a misteak... and just choose to neglect fixing it b/c the intelligent reader I am writing to will be able to easily decipher my message.\r\n\r\ni read this somewhere... and i'm paraphrasing it... but i don't remember the particular source... sorries\r\n\r\ni think the bible has been found to have noah or someone else describe a bat as a bird as opposed to a mammal.  now if God does exist and did in fact give man some explanation of the world... would he have used terms and explanations that were above the comprehension of his followers?  ...or would he have explained what little he discusses w/ the people in a way that they would understand?  ...and just made it so that humans would have the capacitance to increase their knowledge and fix the errors once they were able to understand them?  plus classification based off of dna is a man made concept... or at least i think it is.  people back then classified creatures by physical characteristics rather then microscopic DNA.  if i lived back then and I was told that a horse shoe crab was an evolved underwater spider as opposed to being a type of crab I would've laughed and said... obviously i'm having delusions and this isn't a god.... obviously its a crab.  unless i was possessed and/or forced to believe such things the whole "wouldn't god make you know the right details... just isn't that practical (atleast for everyone)"\r\n\r\n....if the mindset of the day was that flying creatures were birds then a bat was a bird\r\n\r\nas for cows... were bison around then?  i mean i know they were... i've gone on a few trips to the mid west and i think i remember seeing advertisements for bison made products... cheese, milk, meat.. etc\r\n\r\ni doubt the indians would've had domesticated any of those... (possible cow reference... i mean based off of looks)\r\n\r\n....i've seen claims that had the conquistadors saying the indians wielded swords... based off of the physical appearance of the stick w/ sharp objects in it... i can see how it could be called a sword... b/c clubs just don't have sharp ridges... technically if a club is just wood and not metal then the japanese wooden sword is just a wooden club that also looks like a sword... i mean the aztec swordclub even has a sharper edge >_> \r\n\r\nnow... i personally can't cut a horse's head off w/ a regular sword... i would imagine that it would get stuck in the spinal cord and i'd end up hacking at it a few times.  the spiked sword/club has been shown to be capable of immense damage.... arguably on the same tier as a metal sword\r\n\r\nanother thing that i'm curious about....\r\n\r\nDoes the BoM claim that its people were the only people to have ever come over to the americas?...and were therefore the only source of Dna?  i've read a few sites by mormons that say... "i don't know where everyone gets that... we never said it wasn't possible that the supposed individuals in the BoM could've made the transit into a territory w/ already existing populations of people"\r\n...they call it a popular misconception \r\n\r\nnow if these already existing gene pools did in fact kill everyone of these other people and those people never mixed their genes then they would not have left any genetic markers... but that's just my opinion.  i don't have any first hand experience in the field... so i don't know what genetic markers are actually present in the female passed down mitochondria and the male passed down Y chromosomes.  \r\n\r\nall i got for nao

offline

MageGrayWolf

9,470 posts

Farmer

Posted January 12, '11 8:25am UTC

At least christianity has archeological backing to a degree.

About as much as Harry Potter.

For example, a virgin birth is possible due to the hymen not being hydrophobic but rather, semi-porous.

This depends on the definition of virgin.

i think the bible has been found to have noah or someone else describe a bat as a bird as opposed to a mammal. now if God does exist and did in fact give man some explanation of the world... would he have used terms and explanations that were above the comprehension of his followers? ...or would he have explained what little he discusses w/ the people in a way that they would understand?

This could have been explained to an ancient people without calling them birds. It could have simply have called them flying beasts not linking them to birds at all.

...and just made it so that humans would have the capacitance to increase their knowledge and fix the errors once they were able to understand them?

Then the Bible is fowled up from the start. Even if your having to dumb things down don't just leave in glaring errors. I would expect a supposed perfect being or at least one capable of what is claimed of God to do a much better job at conveying information to his people that didn't require such erroneous statements.

plus classification based off of dna is a man made concept... or at least i think it is. people back then classified creatures by physical characteristics rather then microscopic DNA.

Basing classification off DNA is basically on the same as characteristics, just in a much more detailed and accurate way. But even so God could have pointed out the fur and the teeth, the lack of feathers and beak.

if i lived back then and I was told that a horse shoe crab was an evolved underwater spider as opposed to being a type of crab I would've laughed and said...

It is like that of a spider but does not live on land but below the sea. Not that hard to explain. Also this information was believed to have come from the dude who made everything, I'm sure that would be take into account.

obviously i'm having delusions and this isn't a god.... obviously its a crab. unless i was possessed and/or forced to believe such things the whole "wouldn't god make you know the right details... just isn't that practical (atleast for everyone)"

God wouldn't have to make you know the right details, he could simply state that the terms that wouldn't make sense at the time were for future generations.

....if the mindset of the day was that flying creatures were birds then a bat was a bird

Yeah and God saying no that's not right wouldn't mean anything.

[quote]At least christianity has archeological backing to a degree.[/quote]\r\n\r\nAbout as much as Harry Potter.\r\n\r\n[quote]For example, a virgin birth is possible due to the hymen not being hydrophobic but rather, semi-porous.[/quote]\r\n\r\nThis depends on the definition of virgin.\r\n\r\n[quote]i think the bible has been found to have noah or someone else describe a bat as a bird as opposed to a mammal.  now if God does exist and did in fact give man some explanation of the world... would he have used terms and explanations that were above the comprehension of his followers? ...or would he have explained what little he discusses w/ the people in a way that they would understand?[/quote]\r\n\r\nThis could have been explained to an ancient people without calling them birds. It could have simply have called them flying beasts not linking them to birds at all.\r\n\r\n[quote]...and just made it so that humans would have the capacitance to increase their knowledge and fix the errors once they were able to understand them?[/quote]\r\n\r\nThen the Bible is fowled up from the start. Even if your having to dumb things down don't just leave in glaring errors. I would expect a supposed perfect being or at least one capable of what is claimed of God to do a much better job at conveying information to his people that didn't require such erroneous statements. \r\n\r\n[quote]plus classification based off of dna is a man made concept... or at least i think it is. people back then classified creatures by physical characteristics rather then microscopic DNA.[/quote]\r\n\r\nBasing classification off DNA is basically on the same as characteristics, just in a much more detailed and accurate way. But even so God could have pointed out the fur and the teeth, the lack of feathers and beak.\r\n\r\n[quote]if i lived back then and I was told that a horse shoe crab was an evolved underwater spider as opposed to being a type of crab I would've laughed and said...[/quote]\r\n\r\nIt is like that of a spider but does not live on land but below the sea. Not that hard to explain. Also this information was believed to have come from the dude who made everything, I'm sure that would be take into account. \r\n\r\n[quote]obviously i'm having delusions and this isn't a god.... obviously its a crab.  unless i was possessed and/or forced to believe such things the whole "wouldn't god make you know the right details... just isn't that practical (atleast for everyone)"[/quote]\r\n\r\nGod wouldn't have to make you know the right details, he could simply state that the terms that wouldn't make sense at the time were for future generations.\r\n\r\n[quote]....if the mindset of the day was that flying creatures were birds then a bat was a bird[/quote]\r\n\r\nYeah and God saying no that's not right wouldn't mean anything.

offline

Sonatavarius

1,322 posts

Farmer

Posted January 12, '11 11:49pm UTC

was the "other" Gods issue ever finished? i may have over looked the response

offline

MageGrayWolf

9,470 posts

Farmer

Posted January 13, '11 4:24am UTC

Here's what wiki has on the Heavenly Mother.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heavenly_Mother_%28Mormonism%29

offline

Sonatavarius

1,322 posts

Farmer

Posted January 13, '11 6:01am UTC

as I've grown up into the former Reorganized Church of Jesus Christ of the Latter Day Saints... RLDS... now Community of Christ... this is my first time even seeing this.

i'm curious tho... if this is just another being that the mormons pray to... how does this make them any less christian? i would think its similar to the Catholic faith who prays to Mary... if being "Christian" means only praying to the trinity then the supposed first self proclaimed "Christian" faith is itself heathen... whether or not they actually think she is of "God" status or not is irrelevant... they still pray to her and there would be no reason to pray for her if they didn't think that she had some amount of power.

I think "Christian" literally defined is
----of Christ
----Christ like
----follower of Christ
----one who adheres to the teachings of Christ

anything after that is just characteristic of the particular faith... there are tenets of different "Christian" faiths that one person or another (separate of Jesus's words) came up w/ on their own w/ their own interpretations or what they thought right..... some sprinkle water and some immerse... if one wasn't practiced by Jesus then its not "Christian" right?

immersion

by that rationale sprinkler's are also "heathens"

i personally believe that if their core beliefs stem from the above definitions of what it is to be "Christian" then that person is Christian... everything else is just a characteristic of their branch of Christianity.

being "Christian" can be viewed as two different ways if you want to get technical.... either it is a lax term that allows for deviations as long as Christ is the core... or there can only be one true Christian faith... and it would follow everything that Christ did and taught w/o deviation which would mean that if any belief held by a church deviated or was interpreted differently from what Jesus supposedly did... or even if it just left out one concept taught out (maybe tongues?) then it wouldn't truly be Christian.... it would just be a fake by that rationale.

as for why God "got things wrong"....

>_>... ur really making me grasp at air here... but i've managed to scrape together something... albeit a sad argument.... but the best I can do w/ what I have.

If God exists then I'll represent him as a teacher. and we are his students.... something I've noticed in my years of being a college student. you can have a teacher tell you everything there is to know about a subject, but if you don't do your own homework/research/work then it doesn't matter what the teacher does... ur still going to be unmotivated and ignorant of the concepts. If you do your own work and research, and you have learned the concepts through those actions then you don't need reference material. the information is almost a part of you. unless you question something or seek to find the truth about the desired knowledge, you'll never actually learn anything. by adding things that make you go "HUH???... wth?" it makes those that are willing seek the truth and to form their own theories.

its kind of like a super saturated solution... (a volume of liquid that has more dissolved particles in it then should be possible under normal circumstances)... if you add anything to the system... be it a rock... crystal... or sometimes just energy... you start a reaction that leads to crystals forming out of the extra dissolved particles that shouldn't have been able to have been dissolved in the first place. This initial added fragment (or push) that's added is called a "seed".... the crystals that form b/c of that seed would be the knowledge that that the seed pushed the people to seek. whether in proving it right (historical locations maybe?...) or in proving it wrong just to prove it wrong...(nomenclature of animals)... i mean some people are "hell" bent on doing so... (fun pun XD) a seed in the form of a rock or crystal can (w/ effort) be removed from the final product and the formed crystals can stand alone and exist w/o it.

if this God is real then i don't know the true intentions of such documents... or why it was limited to a single people for a long time (Jews...). and why it wasn't distributed amongst everyone on the earth from the very beginning... i could try and bring up divine cause/plan but that's heavily detested/protested here.

the only other thing I would think such a "seed" would do would be to attempt the preservation of the basic gist of what is good and what is bad... what is moral and what is immoral... right from wrong...

or it could've just been a catalyst as opposed to a seed that sped up the processes involved instead of starting them... in this way we may or may not have come up w/ the same concepts in time...this only sped it up

such (a) seed(s) wouldn't require itself/themselves to be historically accurate tho. made up stories can get an idea across just as well as a historical accurate account can.... at least sometimes.

...and yes there are claims they're accurate

i know it was lame... but they're the only counter thoughts that were within my grasp

as I've grown up into the former Reorganized Church of Jesus Christ of the Latter Day Saints... RLDS... now Community of Christ... this is my first time even seeing this.  \r\n\r\ni'm curious tho... if this is just another being that the mormons pray to... how does this make them any less christian?  i would think its similar to the Catholic faith who prays to Mary... if being "Christian" means only praying to the trinity then the supposed first self proclaimed "Christian" faith is itself heathen...  whether or not they actually think she is of "God" status or not is irrelevant... they still pray to her and there would be no reason to pray for her if they didn't think that she had some amount of power.\r\n\r\nI think "Christian" literally defined is\r\n----of Christ\r\n----Christ like\r\n----follower of Christ\r\n----one who adheres to the teachings of Christ\r\n\r\nanything after that is just characteristic of the particular faith... there are tenets of different "Christian" faiths that one person or another (separate of Jesus's words) came up w/ on their own w/ their own interpretations or what they thought right..... some sprinkle water and some immerse... if one wasn't practiced by Jesus then its not "Christian" right?  \r\n\r\n[url=http://www.christiancourier.com/articles/1036-was-jesus-immersed-in-the-jordan-river]immersion  [/url]\r\n\r\nby that rationale sprinkler's are also "heathens"\r\n\r\ni personally believe that if their core beliefs stem from the above definitions of what it is to be "Christian" then that person is Christian... everything else is just a characteristic of their branch of Christianity.  \r\n\r\nbeing "Christian" can be viewed as two different ways if you want to get technical.... either it is a lax term that allows for deviations as long as Christ is the core... or there can only be one true Christian faith... and it would follow everything that Christ did and taught w/o deviation which would mean that if any belief held by a church deviated or was interpreted differently from what Jesus supposedly did... or even if it just left out one concept taught out (maybe tongues?) then it wouldn't truly be Christian.... it would just be a fake by that rationale.  \r\n\r\n\r\nas for why God "got things wrong".... \r\n\r\n>_>... ur really making me grasp at air here... but i've managed to scrape together something... albeit a sad argument.... but the best I can do w/ what I have.\r\n\r\nIf God exists then I'll represent him as a teacher.  and we are his students.... something I've noticed in my years of being a college student.  you can have a teacher tell you everything there is to know about a subject, but if you don't do your own homework/research/work then it doesn't matter what the teacher does... ur still going to be unmotivated and ignorant of the concepts.  If you do your own work and research, and you have learned the concepts through those actions then you don't need reference material.  the information is almost a part of you.  unless you question something or seek to find the truth about the  desired knowledge, you'll never actually learn anything.  by adding things that make you go "HUH???... wth?"  it makes those that are willing seek the truth and to form their own theories.  \r\n\r\nits kind of like a super saturated solution... (a volume of liquid that has more dissolved particles in it then should be possible under normal circumstances)... if you add anything to the system... be it a rock... crystal... or sometimes just energy... you start a reaction that leads to crystals forming out of the extra dissolved particles that shouldn't have been able to have been dissolved in the first place.  This initial added fragment (or push) that's added is called a "seed".... the crystals that form b/c of that seed would be the knowledge that that the seed pushed the people to seek.  whether in proving it right (historical locations maybe?...) or in proving it wrong just to prove it wrong...(nomenclature of animals)... i mean some people are "hell" bent on doing so... (fun pun XD)  a seed in the form of a rock or crystal can (w/ effort) be removed from the final product and the formed crystals can stand alone and exist w/o it.  \r\n\r\nif this God is real then i don't know the true intentions of such documents... or why it was limited to a single people for a long time (Jews...).  and why it wasn't distributed amongst everyone on the earth from the very beginning... i could try and bring up divine cause/plan but that's heavily detested/protested here.  \r\n\r\nthe only other thing I would think such a "seed" would do would be to attempt the preservation of the basic gist of what is good and what is bad... what is moral and what is immoral... right from wrong... \r\n\r\nor it could've just been a catalyst as opposed to a seed that sped up the processes involved instead of starting them... in this way we may or may not have come up w/ the same concepts in time...this only sped it up\r\n\r\nsuch (a) seed(s) wouldn't require itself/themselves to be historically accurate tho.  made up stories can get an idea across just as well as a historical accurate account can.... at least sometimes.  \r\n\r\n...and yes there are claims they're accurate\r\n\r\ni know it was lame... but they're the only counter thoughts that were within my grasp

offline

MRWalker82

4,005 posts

Shepherd

Posted January 13, '11 6:14am UTC

The interesting thing about that Sona is that the overwhelming majority who do seek answers and do the research and come to their own conclusions find the same thing. Absolutely no empirical evidence for deities. None. Zip. Nada. So, if said deity wants us to gain knowledge then wouldn't it leave something for us to find outside of outdated texts which are full of contradictions and which are consistently incompatible with the evidence? I know if I was a deity that wanted to be worshiped I sure as heck would...

offline

MageGrayWolf

9,470 posts

Farmer

Posted January 13, '11 6:53am UTC

If God exists then I'll represent him as a teacher. and we are his students....

Last I checked a teacher is suppose to point you in the right direction, not give you blatantly false information.

or it could've just been a catalyst as opposed to a seed that sped up the processes involved instead of starting them... in this way we may or may not have come up w/ the same concepts in time...this only sped it up

The whole thing actually slowed us down in progress.

such (a) seed(s) wouldn't require itself/themselves to be historically accurate tho. made up stories can get an idea across just as well as a historical accurate account can.... at least sometimes.

But a clear distinction needs to be made as to which is which. Otherwise we can easily just say the whole thing is a work of fiction that just utilizes real places and people here and there.

offline

Manxboz

11 posts

Nomad

Posted January 13, '11 7:25pm UTC

I was a member of the LDS church once, I found them (or they found me) when I was going through a dark chapter in my life.

They were friendly, welcoming etc I told all my friends, who then started posting anti-Mormon literature, this confirmed to me that the 'Church was true' as I had been warned this would happen.

So I got baptised after 4 months,I went to the Temple in Preston, attended every meeting, went to conferences, went out with the missionaries. Then after 12 months I started to notice things, I was being told off by the Bishopric for asking to many questions in my 'classes' and not just accepting what was being told to me. I was banned from going out with the missionaries on the grounds they thought my faith was not sufficient. Many other things happened and finally about 3 years I handed over my resignation letter.

I still attend the ward, every so often, and keep in contact with many of the friends I made there. I even have the missionaries over every time the do a transfer. However I will never become a member of the faith again. Some of the people are nice, some of the things they believe in are good, but they are also hypercritical, ignorant and 'rideful'.

I was a member of the LDS church once, I found them (or they found me) when I was going through a dark chapter in my life. \r\n\r\nThey were friendly, welcoming etc I told all my friends, who then started posting anti-Mormon literature, this confirmed to me that the 'Church was true' as I had been warned this would happen.\r\n\r\nSo I got baptised after 4 months,I went to the Temple in Preston, attended every meeting, went to conferences, went out with the missionaries. Then after 12 months I started to notice things, I was being told off by the Bishopric for asking to many questions in my 'classes' and not just accepting what was being told to me. I was banned from going out with the missionaries on the grounds they thought my faith was not sufficient. Many other things happened and finally about 3 years I handed over my resignation letter.\r\n\r\nI still attend the ward, every so often, and keep in contact with many of the friends I made there. I even have the missionaries over every time the do a transfer. However I will never become a member of the faith again. Some of the people are nice, some of the things they believe in are good, but they are also hypercritical, ignorant and 'prideful'.

offline

Linktopast30

109 posts

Jester

Posted January 14, '11 1:20am UTC

Sorry for not responding for so long. I was sick. I'm going to answer a bunch of questions as soon as I finish reading them, but tonight's my steam night (I play L4D and L4D2), and I haven't been able to do that for a while. I'll probably answer in a few hours.

Here is the one question I'll answer right now just to make this post count:
@Sonatavarius yes, the "other Gods" issue was finished. Two or three times in fact. The most recent one is my post including the Articles of Faith (Page 3). We believe in God, the Eternal Father, and in His son, Jesus Christ, and in the Holy Ghost.

@E1337 we do believe there is a heavenly mother, but we do not worship her. So we're technically still monotheistic in that we worship one God.

Anyways, everyone please be patient. I have something funny to say. The day after I wished MRWalker82 to get well, I got sick. Mostly a severe sore throat with drainage and mucus to boot, but still sick.

Until next post!

offline

MRWalker82

4,005 posts

Shepherd

Posted January 14, '11 1:29am UTC

Anyways, everyone please be patient. I have something funny to say. The day after I wished MRWalker82 to get well, I got sick. Mostly a severe sore throat with drainage and mucus to boot, but still sick.

HA! I must have given it to you then because I'm feeling much better xD

First
1
2
3
4
5
Last

Showing 31-45 of 428

Categories

Quests

Community

Forums → WEPR → Mormonism