well, I know this is bringing up a rather long-dead conversation, but I'm relatively new to the sight, was idly flipping through debate forums and found this one.... sorry, but I felt I had to jump in. If you all are still around, hope you see this, 'cuz its important.
One of my best friends is "mormon". Mormon is basically the common name for members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints. They're a Christian denomination, and they aren't polytheistic. They also have no issues "owning up" to it, because there's nothing to "own up" to. Their faith centers around both the Bible and the Book of Mormon; I'm no expert on the subject, but I'll dig out what my friend told me and see if I can explain this well enough.
Basically, the LDS church was founded when Joseph Smith found (or was told of by vision of an angel, or something like that, as the church believes) the golden plates on which was written, essentially, the history of the Americas which later became the Book of Mormon. This history is much like the Bible, in that it tells of the various conflicts amongst the tribes, individual stories of prominent figures, miracles, and the hand of God in it all.
Also, part of their scriptures include the Doctrine and Covenants, which is the book of scripture that contains the revelations from God to Joseph Smith and other latter-day prophets. Their church's president is also believed to be a prophet, and they also have the apostles, one among whom becomes the next president/prophet after the current one dies.
So, even though I know it wasn't on the original topic of this thread, I had to say something, because I literally wanted to bang my head against my desk repeatedly when I read the comment about polytheism... no offense meant.
But, the LDS church is one of the fastest growing and most rapidly expanding church in the world right now... better keep up with current events!
One thing to keep in mind, however, is that the LDS church suffered a lot of undue persecution, and during a trek across the nation to Utah many of them died or were killed. Their first president was murdered, and by those who called themselves good christians. All of it was in the name of God and truth, I'm sure. So if you ever do hear more about the LDS church, and it's either derogatory or it makes them sound like evil atheists or something, don't believe it until you look up the history of the church itself. Also keep in mind that every denomination which has split from the original followers of Christ has suffered persecution of some sort by those they broke from. Technically, so did Jesus himself when he broke from the Jews. Whatever you believe, don't trust what you hear unless you can form your own opinion based on unbiased information... in other words, someone who isn't of the church but will present the beliefs thereof, for the simple reason that like all others, they need to be presented. *cough and I'm not from their church cough*
So.... that was my speech for the day (night? it's like 1 am here) so I'm gonna leave it at that and hope one of you happen to come back to find it, and get some of those questions answered.
Necessity is a more powerful god than truth.
oh geez, while I'm at it, here's a summary of the agnostic view: the existence of God is unknown and unknowable.
It's not exactly a religion, see, more of a philosophical view. There's no agnostic church as far as I know.... that would be rather a paradox, wouldn't it?
And to be honest, I know absolutely nothing about "new age"... never heard the phrase coined in conjunction with religion, though it's ringing some little bell in my mind. ....unfortunately, someone forgot to take the muffler off the clapper of that particular bell, so.... can't help you there! :D
sorry!
Necessity is a more powerful god than truth.
Hey man, I'm still around ;-)
First off, I can't help but note your source when you cite yourself as reliable in the end of your argument--"*cough and I'm not from their church cough*"
But in the beginning you state that your bias is more or less with the LDS church because, "One of my best friends is "mormon"."
Note: We're all biased, I'll let you know right now I'm biased favorably towards Christianity, but I don't think it's correct to cite yourself as an unbiased, 3rd party source due to your ties with one of your best friends.
I am curious as to where you got your history. From the sounds of it, you did your research, but mixed in what your friend told you where you had holes. You see the problem of course--your friend has either not done his/her research and is simply regurgitating what they have been taught, or he/she is ball-faced lying to you because their actual beliefs ARE in fact, tough to own up to.
Inserting my opinion here---
For that reason, The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints, is a cult. Technically speaking, that's all it is. Just another bunch of heresies that have long since been dispelled wadded up into one religion. Don't believe me? Yeah, don't expect to get straight or truthful answers to these questions then, either if you ask your friend.
What happens when we die, according to Mormons? Well, if you were a good little boy (not girl, women are utterly dependent on their husbands to get into heaven), you get to be God, seriously. This is why I say Mormonism is polytheistic, they honestly believe that they will be gods when they die, in charge of their own little universes. (multiverses?) But wait, how do they populate these multiverses? They select their FAVORITE wife, (only recently have Mormons realized that polygamy isn't getting them very good publicity), and that wife gets to be eternally...pregnant.
I really don't see how any woman on the planet could be Mormon, but I have no doubt they are either lied to, or simply not told the truth, or maybe they've never seen a birth :-P
Ludicrous? Well, most religions sound ludicrous to the people that don't take the time to study them, and then some. Christianity sounds pretty nuts if you do a surface study, too.
Note: That's right, LDSers are NOT Christians. They do not believe in one God, they do not believe that Christ is their savior (they believe themselves their saviors, through works), and have you been to Salt Lake City?? (neither have I, but take a look at their temples sometime...)
Wait, what's that on their temples? Pagan gods? Occultic symbols!? What the heck?
Again--don't take my word for it, look it up. Each time I talk to a Mormon I am astounded at their either, complete lack of their own history and doctrine, or their pure, unadulterated lies about what they believe.
Take a look deeper at the story of where Joseph Smith got his "revelations"
Take a look at the kind of person Joseph Smith was. From an unbiased source, or at least one that isn't a Mormon.
Yes, some Religions sound cooky when you hear about them, but Joseph Smith's account of his "revelation" seriously sounds like opium-induced lunacy.
So yes, they have a hard time "owning up" to all of that. Which is why some don't know and aren't taught, and some plainly lie to your face about it.
Saddly for Joseph Smith, his "American History" revelations, are hilariously inaccurate. Check 'em out. Most Mormons get off this hook by saying "It was metaphorical" or some such cop out. Really, that's the best alternative when you read some of it. Also, has anyone heard of the "Magic Glasses" that Jo was given to INTERPRET the golden tablets? Where are they? That would be some good evidence. This divine pair of spectacles is pretty hard evidence.
...
Jo lost them. That's the best explaination you're ever going to get.
Ok, bum deal, better luck next time Jo, but how about those SOLID GOLD tablets that you got, surely you hung on to those.
...
He lost them.
Wait, couldn't you search hard and find them??
Yes, he did. He got them a second time. Oh, and this time he got a COMPLETELY DIFFERENT INTERPRETATION from reading them. So--lucky Mormons, they didn't get the FIRST version first, or they would've been termed crack monkeys. (wait...)
Well, it's a good thing you found them again--where are they?
...
Yes. He lost them. Again. (how much had that opium effected his memory)
Well that's convenient.
What's even more amazing is that people actually FOLLOWED him.
Here's a nice unbiased source:
http://www.carm.org/lds/beginning.htm
Even unbiased doesn't really make Joseph look like a saint, eh. HOW many wives? 27?
Oh, and it specifically states: "Because their religion was so deviant from Christianity, i.e., plurality of gods, polygamy"
Mormons are lying to you when they say "we believe in one God", they are lying to you when they say "We've NEVER believed in polygamy."
I've heard both refutations multiple times.
But let's give them the benefit of the doubt. Maybe a lot of them have just been lied to by higher-ups. Still, it doesn't speak well of them that they've NEVER taken the time to research it for themselves. Maybe it's against their religion :-P
Oh yeah, another fun little tidbit. You know the "angel" that appeared to Jo, to give him these golden tablet? Yeah, guess what Moroni means. Seriously, take a wild stab.
Yes, you're right. Moroni means "moron" when translated (poorly) from Latin to English. So yes, Jo talked to a an angel that was a moron. Bum deal. Take a look at some of the other names in Mormon doctrine, though not during class, because your laughter will not be welcome :-P
Ok, I think I've done enough.
Don't get mad at me. First research everything I've said for yourself. Stop living in the dark and enlighten yourself.
Always,
-Tyler
~Solarflare~
For a Christian perspective of Mormonism:
http://www.biblebelievers.com/jmelton/Mormons.html
From the BBC:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/religion/religions/mormon/
Ex-Mormons
http://www.exmormon.org/mormon/mormon334.htm
Also note: The Mormons do not use the Holy Bible. Joseph Smith took liberties and decided that he could write better than God. His version, and the version that all mormons have, is rewritten. So if you have a Mormon quoting scripture to you, double check what he's saying, because odds are his verses aren't yours.
~Solarflare~
...okay the purpose of my post was to give information to you, which was asked for. So I was under the impression that you knew nothing about it, yet now you have suddenly switched into knowing everything about it.
Hmm.... where to start...
I don't pretend I'm an entirely unbiased source, as she is my friend, and near and dear to my heart. And I do not appreciate your allegation that she might lie to me. But I'll let it slide. I did not intend to say that I'm unbiased, but I tend to give equal credence to any view or religion, and I make no judgment unless I've heard both sides of the story.
As to your comment that "they might not be my scriptures," there's just one problem- I have no affiliated religion. I am not christian, and I have no view of God or any other deity to speak up. Therefore, I consider myself more than others to be able to make an unbiased choice.
And if their religion, which is a recognized church, is a cult, then so is yours. Jesus broke from the Jews, remember? Quite a few of my other friends are Jewish, and I'm sure they feel the same about your religion. I'm sorry you didn't reognize that point when I made it before... I was hoping you wouldn't bring that up, because it shoots the foot out of your argument.
So, going through your argument piece by piece, let's see... my friend is not regurgitating, and she has devotedly gone to seminary class and church every day and every Sunday. Besides that, the other two football managers tell me the exact same thing. Kinda hard to do if none of them did their research, hmm? Especially since for them it isn't research, but church doctrine.
And when we die, according to the LDS church, we are separated into three kingdoms of heaven- Celestial, Telestial, and Terrestrial, according to our merits. That's better, I think, 'cuz according to most, I'm going to Hell because I don't spend my life devoted to God, whereas according to them, I'd be going to Heaven, because God doesn't punish people for not being utterly devoted.
Girls are not dependant upon men to get to heaven. Don't know where you got that, it's wrong.
Oh, and polygamy is not endorsed by the church anymore, except by the fundamentalists, who my friend calls "scary." They didn't follow the church leaders when they were told it was no longer allowed. Note: it was allowed because of the hardships and deaths which were suffered during the previously mentioned trek. The church believes God told them to do this in order to survive as a church, and as the enlightened children of God He would want them to do so. When they arrived in Utah and no longer had to take such measures, they ceased it. I did question my friend about it, and she told me all of this with a calm, straight face, not embarrassment, not a lie, and not a cover-up.
And Jesus Christ is their savior, period, end of story. Unless you truly they are all so clever as to carefully set up their words and exact voice inflection, every one of them whom I have ever spoken to about it, young to old, as to sound even to my critical ear as devoted as you say they can't be.
That's hard to do.
And their temples are quite beautiful, but there're no more pagan symbols on them than there are in other christian churches and cathedrals.
By the way, by saying things like "opium induced lunacy" and "crack monkeys" you just shot out the other foot and leg of your argument.
And your source? Take a look at it. there's another leg shot out. Specifically, take a look at the upper-left of your screen. "Cristian APOLOGETICS and Research Ministry." That's hardly unbiased. That, in fact, is way worse than, say, a history text book, which is where I get the sheer facts of the argument. Don't believe me? Take a look at the word choice. How many times does your article say the word "alledgedly" when talking about the views of the LDS church?
The sheer existence of such a word in an article connotates disbelief and often cynicism and/or contempt.
And actually, something tells me your source on the site names is b-sing you. Also, you can't say first that there was no angel in the vision, then say his name meant moron so the angel that came is a moron. That's saying it came, and you contradict yourself. Did or didn't, the name is irrelevant.
/sigh....
Alright, that was harsher than I intended, but I'm sorry, you can't tell me my friend is "lying" to me. She tells me what she believes- no, she doesn't shove it down my throat, she only tells me if I ask or if its relevant to the discussion we were having at the time, and she apologizes repeatedly for it... which is kind of funny, really, because I don't mind hearing about other people's beliefs, even if it sounds preachy.
Oh yeah, and God didn't write the Bible, so none of this "decided he could write better than God" nonesense. Translations are exactly that- translations, the same as the King James version is another translation.
And I'm not "living in the dark." I'm living with an unbiased opinion on religions as individual pieces, just as I do on every denomination of christianity. My catholic, christian, and mormon friends I give equal hearing to. Personally, I don't believe an angel came to Joseph, but I find the concept of immaculate conception equally as unbelievable.
For crying out loud, I gave you a history of a church and a brief run-through of beliefs, and you took some unreasonable offense to that. Why? I don't know. I find it a little... ironic, shall we say, that Christians so easily condemn and persecute what others believe is a revelation. Sound familiar? Jews hated Christians and Christ too, you know. And it was christians who murdered in the name of religion, and who held countless religious crusades, and in recent history murdered such people as Joseph Smith -and calling him Jo is a fault in argument as well- not to mention thousands of others. The LDS church has no such history. Mind who you call evil if you don't want history pushed back in your face. I don't mind shooting down or defending any belief, if I feel it needs to be done.
So, again, I apologize for the harshness of voice, but I tend to get... mildly irritated, reasonably so, when people accuse complete strangers of lying on the simple basis that they disagree with their views.
So, shall we turn this into a religious debate? Or shall we take a gentleman's (/woman's, since I'm female lol) agreement to disagree?
Necessity is a more powerful god than truth.
Apologies, I didn't mean to piss you off.
1. I didn't mean to imply that your friend was lying to you, I simply assumed that since she wasn't being consistent with Mormon doctrine she needed to do her research. That's not meant to be derrogatory, just a statement. How else can I phrase what I'm saying? "She's right and you should believe her"? That's not my opinion.
2. My side note was not intended to be directed to you, but the general public that might be reading this thread, some of whom may be Christian. I was not assuming you to be Christian, sorry if that was offensive.
3. Dictionary.com for "cult": 6. a religion or sect considered to be false, unorthodox, or extremist, with members often living outside of conventional society under the direction of a charismatic leader.
This was the definition of cult I was using. They are not orthodox Christians, their religion is based on several old heresies. That's all a cult means, that's all a cult is. Nothing more, nothing less. And you're absolutely right. The Jews thought Jesus was a heretic and/or lunatic.
4. My implication that your friend was regurgitating things was another way of saying she's explaining her indoctrination, not her religion. Make no mistake you and I and everyone else are as heavily indoctrinated as the next person, though we are able to research, study, and discover for ourselves whether or not our indoctrination is accurate and consistent with reality. I'm simply stating that from what I know, she is not talking Mormonism at all. Though, perhaps Mormonism and the LDS church is revising it's doctrines so fast that she could very well be speaking the truth about what they teach and I could not know it. There may be some research on my part needing doing.
5. Understandably, terrestrial heaven is more favorable to hell. And yes, this is exactly what they believe, I'm sorry I mispoke earlier. Women do get to go to heaven, just not "celestial heaven", heaven level three, heaven for the REALLY good people, no matter how much "better" they were than other men. Point being, from my point of view, it sucks to be a woman and a mormon. I could be misinterpreting it, but it sounds like you want to be offended and are all-too-ready to point the "bigot" finger, simply because you yourself are untainted by this "God" notion. That's just how I felt after reading your reply. A kind of paradoxical "holier-than-thou"
6. Where did you get your information for the explanation of the polygamy in Mormon history?
7. Saying Christ is your savior sounds nice. You could SAY the same thing while laughing about the very idea. Would that make it so? What do they do? How do they act? What does their doctrine say? "Be good, do good things, and based upon that, you will go to 1 of 3 levels of heaven. Based on YOU and YOUR works, you will go to heaven. That is self-saving, not saved by Christ. This is simply another of the old heresies that they insist upon. Make no mistake, they're dang good at it. A lot better than almost any group in the world, certainly better than most Christians. They're healtheir, happier, more successful, nicer, prettier, etc. etc. than most people. And if they're right, they've got it made. If this life is all there is, they've got it made. If outward appearance is what really counts, they've got it (apparently) made. Just for curiousity's sake though, take a look at some insider commentaries on Mormon life.
8. Their temples are very beautiful. Salt Lake City is breath-taking from what I hear. Shiningly white, clean, great architecture. Which pagan symbols were you thinking of that were in Christian churches, and have you researched which ones are present in Mormon churches?
9. Granted, opium-induced, and crack-monkey aren't very effective argumentative terms, though I make no claims at being an expert in logic. Just my opinion, I thought that would be apparent by use of the slang terms.
10. You are absolutely right. my source was not unbiased. I simply read over it and it was a lot less cutting and snide than some things I've read so I thought it presented it fairly. My fault. I figured it might even be a Mormon account because they, after all, consider themselves "Christians".
11. The moron thing was a jump, I just find it so amazingly hilarious that Joseph decided to name his leading angel "Moron". I was poking fun and my argument was not at all sound.
12. Again I am sorry it sounded as if I was accusing your friend of being a liar. I intended no such malice, I was merely speaking from my personal experience that all the Mormons I have talked to tell me things blatantly in opposition to what their doctrine says.
Here's a different, slightly less touchy, but definitely parallel idea. Muslims telling you that "Islam" means peace. I'm sure you've heard that with all this stuff on TV. It sounds great, it's acceptable, it's P.C. There's just one problem. Islam doesn't mean peace. Islam means submission. Are they lying or just misinformed? Let's give them the benefit of the doubt.
13. I applaud your openness to your friends' religion. I try to remain open as well, but do not deny that my mind is sealed shut on some things. Whether or not this is a good or bad thing, or even abnormal, I have not yet passed judgement.
14. I will not bother to defend the Bible's divine inspiration. That's a topic I've beat to death somewhere else on this forum, and I don't care to waste my breath (finger muscles?). On this I will simply agree to disagree.
15. I think it good that you give your friends all equal credence. I find it even better that you are unbiased and critically thinking with an open mind. As long as you continue to search for the truth with that mentality I have no objections.
16. What was the church history lesson and how did I take offense? It seems that you readily condemn me, paradoxically. And yes, you are right, we are just as intolerant of false doctrines than the Jews were, except we're not nailing people to crosses. (Why is calling him Jo wrong? Should it be Joe, or Joey? What's the deal?)
17. I'm calling them how I see them. You are doing the same. There's no need for offense or even irritation. So what if I call people liars? Who am I? Does that make it so? You know your friend. I wasn't even calling your friend a liar.
It seems you condemn me for taking so much "offense" while you yourself are "mildly irritated, reasonably so, when people accuse complete strangers of lying on the simple basis that they disagree with their views. "
Yes, I disagree. Yes, I'm stating my opinion. Yes, I do so unblushingly. So do you. Are we wrong? Shall we spit on eachother because we disagree? I know that you already agree with me: Let's not.
Perhaps my arrogance is a little insufferable. I'll work on that. I don't know everything, I know very little. I do know it doesn't produce anything worthwhile to quip over words and semantics. Let's say what we mean and not get caught up on words. I find definitions to be essential for this type of effective communication.
Thanks for providing the opposition, =)
-Tyler
~Solarflare~
Based on your speech, or all of your speeches so far, I can easily see that this is one subject that we cannot agree on. I am glad to see, however, that you are willing to admit places where your argument was flawed. In which case, I shall do the same.
You are certainly correct about the paradox about taking offense and getting irritated. I actually laughed when I read that, because it's all too true. Touche, but I feel I can justify getting irritated on behalf of a best friend and several team members.
I did not intend to give off the impression that I'm writting you off as bigotted. Nowhere in that post, nor in any, did the word "bigot" come up.
I also did not intend to say that the Bible was not divinely inspired, but I did say it was not divinely "written."
The problem with your definition of "cult" is the part that says "outside of conventional society". I'm pretty sure all the mormons I know live in, interact with, and are a large part of conventional society. The rest of the definition, again, may be applied to Christianity as it stood in the early stages of its history.
Also, another problem is that you continue to insist that every true believer of the LDS doctrine does not know what they are talking about, but somehow you do. In other words, you are telling me that you know more about their religion than they do. If you look back on your own words, you will find that I am correct. Since we have... established, I hope, that they are not lying to me, your other option was that they are incorrect, mistaught about their religion. That is to say, you believe that (according to statistics taken in 2002) over 11, 721, 548 people are completely confused about the history of their own beliefs, and that 11, 721, 548 people do not believe what they say they believe. By the same point, you are saying that when those mormons who I know and speak to are saying that they believe that Jesus Christ is their savior, they are either lying (and I suggest you drop that line of thought) or they are incorrect. What? They don't know what they believe?
And yet you know so very well what they believe.
And again to the subject of death- you misunderstand what I say. I said "according to our merits" but I did not mean they believe it is based on your own works. To clarify, the extent of "works" that applies to allow admission into the Celestial kingdom is the good works done in the name of God, following the doctrine of the church, and doing work for the church, which includes, in the case of an adult mormon I have spoken to, assisting in the saving of those who have already passed, for example a member of the church who never was baptised but expressed a wish to be so.
Also, I don't know where you get that impression that women can't get to the highest kingdom, because it is incorrect. They can. Many of the mormons I have spoken to are women, and they have told me this is what they believe. You see, to take myself for example, I lead a good life, I don't harm others around me and I don't harm myself with stupid choices. Therefore, I would go to either the Terrestial or the Telestial Kingdom. Whereas someone who led their life with acceptance of Christ as their savior and doing works for God and following Church doctrine and truly believing it with all their heart as well as the good, would end up in the Celestial Kingdom. And that's as near as a direct quote as I can give you, because that's almost the exact words I have been given.
I apologize if I give off the impression that I'm trying to tell you that they are correct and you should convert, because there would be a distinct irony in that, and I don't believe it anyway. I am not saying that their beliefs are correct, nor would I say that the general christian belies are correct. My problem here is that you insist upon telling me that they do not know wat they believe.
You say that from what you know, she is not talking mormonism at all. But there's the problem: she isn't lying, she believes what she says, and she is Mormon. So, if every mormon (and every one of them has given me the same explanation) belives what is taught to them, except perhaps a small percent of these conspiratorial church leaders who are hiding the truth from them, then how is that truly what the LDS church believes?
I'm fairly certain that if 99% of mormons believe what they believe, that would be.... well, what they believe, isn't it?
Remember that churches evolve. Even if you are correct about their views as they were when they were first founded, then, well, that's fine, but it isn't what they believe now, is it? Therefore, you can say it [I]is[I] what they believe, only what you think they [I]did[I] believe.
And my source about the polygamy.... I'm not entirely certain, but I believe I first heard about that during my APUSH class. Don't shoot me if you can't find it in the American Pageant, because I'm not sure if it was talked about or not. As I recall, I read about it then, and later asked my friend about it because it sounded fishy, and she explained about the command from God part of it. I accept her explanation not as justification for something I too see as wrong, but as an explanation of why. To them, it was a divine command, and to them, it could not be ignored. Not saying I believe it, I'm just telling you what they believe as I get it from them.
About the name Jo- it's a nickname, and it is generally disrespectful to refer to a complete stranger by a nickname unless it is widely known that they wish to be referred to in that manner. It would be a lapse, in this context, of academic respect, insofar as to refer to, say, Jesus Christ as the Big G. It is a commonly used derogatory measure, to turn the object of derision into an offhand label such as Jo which can be used instead of a full name. It makes it easier to talk about said object as though he or she is faceless or nameless.
Again, I think the biggest problem I have with this whole thing is this "They don't believe what they believe" paradox.
Amusingly, I can link this back to the book "1984". Don't know if you've read it or not, but if you have you'll understand the reference. In any case, if everyone believes a thing is true, then it's true for them, isn't it? In that way, truth can be considered a relative concept. There may be four lights but I believe there are five, then at least to me there are five, right?
Wrong or right, if they think that they believe what they believe, then they believe it, and not what you say they believe.
Hmmm... if you can sort out what the heck that means, I hope it helps you understand why I dislike to hear any one person trying to explain what another person believes. It would be as ridiculous as me trying to tell you that no, you're a bigot, you're lying to me, your faith is wrong, and the Bible has nothing to do with God.
Would you believe it? Hardly.
On a random note, because school just class just ended and I've got to take off, if this forum's off topic I don't mind moving it if you wish to continue the debate. Personally, I would rather just end it with a mutual agree to disagree, but if you wish I'm up for it :P
shout out where it is if you choose to do so :D
Necessity is a more powerful god than truth.
...Because a new thread needed to be started. I don't feel like copying and pasting, so if you want the history to this argument, visit the Topic poorly titled (by myself) "Suicide - Right to Life, Implied Right to Death?"
It didn't go exactly where I planned :-P
~Solarflare~
Haha, I can copy any posts you want to this thread ya know- just ask.
[=RoyalBlue][=Comic Sans MS]
"I refuse to prove that I exist," says God, "for proof denies faith, and without faith I am nothing."
"But," say Man, "the Babel fish is a dead giveaway, isn't it? It could not have evolved by chance. It
Really? That would be excellent! Could you take the "Me and SwordDance" Series over here?
That'd be cool, thanks! =)
~Solarflare~
sworddance wrote:Based on your speech, or all of your speeches so far, I can easily see that this is one subject that we cannot agree on.
Most likely, though my point isn't to get you to agree with me. I am very doubtful that most people change their worldviews because of debate forums. This is more for the neutral readers in the near future to take in both sides of an argument, and then weigh for themselves what seems right. For this reason, I assumed that personal attacks would naturally be disregarded and not even taken into consideration.
sworddance wrote:You are certainly correct about the paradox about taking offense and getting irritated. I actually laughed when I read that, because it's all too true. Touche, but I feel I can justify getting irritated on behalf of a best friend and several team members.
Understandable. Glad we understand eachother.
sworddance wrote:I did not intend to give off the impression that I'm writting you off as bigotted. Nowhere in that post, nor in any, did the word "bigot" come up.
You are right, I read into this as derrogatory because you prided yourself on not being religious.
sworddance wrote:I also did not intend to say that the Bible was not divinely inspired, but I did say it was not divinely "written."
Physically, yes, human hands wrote the Bible, so I suppose you are right. I meant that the Bible is God's spoken, dictated as it were, words to mankind, inerrant, infallible, and eternal. I hardly believe you would agree with that ;-)
sworddance wrote:The problem with your definition of "cult" is the part that says "outside of conventional society". I'm pretty sure all the mormons I know live in, interact with, and are a large part of conventional society. The rest of the definition, again, may be applied to Christianity as it stood in the early stages of its history.
It wasn't my definition, it was Websters'. I call it a cult because as far as religious doctrines go, they do not believe what the Orthodox church does. I think this is actually one point upon which I can convince you. (Not that Mormons are a cult, but that there are certain orthodoxies) This in turn will help to explain my position and problem with your whole "They believe what they believe and who can tell them differently" argument, but more on that later. Suffice it to say for now, there are reasons religions write down their doctrines.
sworddance wrote:Also, another problem is that you continue to insist that every true believer of the LDS doctrine does not know what they are talking about, but somehow you do. In other words, you are telling me that you know more about their religion than they do. If you look back on your own words, you will find that I am correct. Since we have... established, I hope, that they are not lying to me, your other option was that they are incorrect, mistaught about their religion. That is to say, you believe that (according to statistics taken in 2002) over 11, 721, 548 people are completely confused about the history of their own beliefs, and that 11, 721, 548 people do not believe what they say they believe. By the same point, you are saying that when those mormons who I know and speak to are saying that they believe that Jesus Christ is their savior, they are either lying (and I suggest you drop that line of thought) or they are incorrect. What? They don't know what they believe?
You are absolutely correct. I was saying that I knew more about their religion than they did, provided they weren't bold-faced lying to you (no offense intended). How can I possibly make such an assertion? Because--religions write down their doctrines. This makes it quite easy for me to compare a Buddhist to a Muslim, a Taoist to a Hindu, a Christian from a Mormon. In order to identify yourself with a certain religion you necessarily have to follow that religions doctrines, teachings, etc. My problem with the "allegedly lying Mormons" (from my perspective) is that they are not being consistent with their own worldviews. I can hardly call myself a satanist and believe that I should serve and worship the one true God, can I? Someone can claim to be Hindu all they want, but if they subsist on nothing but hamburgers...what's the point?
Words are cheap, you can SAY anything you want. Further than that, you honestly CAN believe anything you want. I cannot fault you there, and I'm sure some of our miscommunication lies in that prospect, however, you canNOT identify yourself with an established religious group if your beliefs do not coincide with theirs.
E.G.
-"I'm a Christian! I'm a Christian!"
>"Do you believe that believing in Christ's righteousness and sacrifice on your behalf is the only way to be saved?"
-"Well no, but I do a lot of other things like Christians, so I'm a Christian."
...
Surely, you can see how this can be applied to other situations, and the outcome is inconsistent with reality.
sworddance wrote:And yet you know so very well what they believe.
Yep, or at least I know what the Church says they believe. It's really easy. All you have to do is research like I've been begging people to do in the beginning. You can ask all the people you want, but unless you go to the source, you're not going to get an accurate idea of what "Mormonism" is.
This is old heresy, especially in the Christian church. Take the parts you like, leave the parts you don't like. Do you see how nothing can ever be consistent with this type of "religion". Everyone believes different things but go by the same name. Eventually they're going to have major clashes.
sworddance wrote:And again to the subject of death- you misunderstand what I say. I said "according to our merits" but I did not mean they believe it is based on your own works. To clarify, the extent of "works" that applies to allow admission into the Celestial kingdom is the good works done in the name of God, following the doctrine of the church, and doing work for the church, which includes, in the case of an adult mormon I have spoken to, assisting in the saving of those who have already passed, for example a member of the church who never was baptised but expressed a wish to be so.
That totally went over my head. Can you re-explain?
Cont'd in part 2
~Solarflare~
Pages