What do Mormons Believe?

[ponderingturtle]

Oh, oh, don't forget Jephthah's daughter. You are just going to love this heart warming tale.

See, Jephthah was fighting for god. Literally fighting for god. So Jephthah make a promise to god that if god will let him win the battle Jephthah will sacrifice the first thing that comes to his door to greet him...

Well, Jephthah won the battle and his daughter was the first to greet him. Yes, you guessed it folks, Jephthah murdered his daughter for god.

Again, god living on a planet called Kolob, bizarre, fathers killing their daughters for god, not bizarre.

Well there is a difference. One is a fundamental theological point, the other is a recounting of an event. For your analogy to be apt it would have to be something more core to christian beliefs.

 

[Cleon]

Quote by DOC
In answer to your last question nowhere in the bible does it say that God lives on another planet in human form, and at one time God was just a regular human like you and me (Mormon theology).

So? The Mormons have an extra holy book, which (supposedly) fills in the blanks left in the Bible.

Thus if you believe in the Bible

Mormons do believe in the Bible--so that shoots your conclusion down.

it is not only less likely

Why is it "less likely?"

but extremely bizarre.

Why? Because it's not in the Bible? Why does that make the belief "bizarre?"

 

[skeptifem]

Transubstantiation is the word. I remember talking with a friend who was once Catholic (now a Discordian who takes it way too seriously) and having to explain to him that not all Christian sects believed in transubstatiation.

well I think the idea of bread literally turning into flesh and then eating it is pretty friggin weird. i was just trying to point out that just because mormon beliefs are considered bizaar isnt really fair considering what weird stuff some of the other more accepted sects believe.

 

[Hokulele]

Such as the whole "Mary was a virgin thing".

 

[baskett_case]

I find the Mormon religion to be fascinating. I had never met a Mormon until I moved to Arizona 10 years ago, and found myself surrounded by them. I love the focus on skin color... Mormon texts have been modified now and the "white and delightsome" bit from the video is gone. People with dark skin can now be in the priesthood, etc. Despite these things, most Mormons I know are really nice (unless your gay or if they're really Pro-Life).

Also, who doesn't love the polygamy thing? I asked a missionary one time why they are so down on polygamy when it is advocated in their scriptures and Joseph Smith was a polygamist? He told me that when government and the church are united in the future (!!!!!!), polygamy may be reinstated, but until then, Mormons are commanded to follow the laws of the countries they live in.

As a side note, whenever the missionaries show up at my door, I answer it. Their little ties and white shirts make me want to chew their clothes off and ravage them. They look so repressed and would probably smell like Ivory soap. ;o)

 

[ponderingturtle]

Such as the whole "Mary was a virgin thing".

Of course. You can't let a penis so close to Our Lord and Savior(tm) people might think he was one of the sodomites.

 

[RandFan]

Well there is a difference. One is a fundamental theological point, the other is a recounting of an event. For your analogy to be apt it would have to be something more core to christian beliefs.

Sorry, it's not going to fly. The bible is most certainly fundamental to Christians. They believe it.

"The Bible says it. I believe it. That settles it!"

Now, you can accuse Christians of ignorance about this event and that's a fair charge. But tell them about Jephthah murdering his daughter for god and see how many disavow the bible.... See how many stop believing that the bible is the literal word of god and everything in it is there because god made certain that it was there...

Now, you can argue that not ever Christian is a bible literalist. Well, that's not the point. Many Christians are bible literalists and many Christians would be willing to believe that this small sacrifice was ordained of god. My only point is that Christians are happy to pounce on Mormons for bizarre beliefs but don't want to take on other Christians for the very same thing.
Of course, even if we ignore Jepthah we still have all of the other Bizarre beliefs.

 

[ponderingturtle]

Sorry, it's not going to fly. The bible is most certainly fundamental to Christians. They believe it.

"The Bible says it. I believe it. That settles it!"

Then you will need to find say Christians who say that about shellfish, or that rabbits chew cud. Sure that is an argument used by some Christians but no one believes everything in the bible.

So your case is a straw-man, you are presenting a belief that is not held(the rightness of his Jephthah actions) and attacking that. Well please demonstrate that there are Christians who would argue that it was a moral action.

Now, you can accuse Christians of ignorance about this event and that's a fair charge. But tell them about Jephthah murdering his daughter for god and see how many disavow the bible.... See how many stop believing that the bible is the literal word of god and everything in it is there because god made certain that it was there...

The problem is that it is not a core part of theology. And as for being counted by evidence, I am not aware of any civilizations claimed in the bible that do not have some archaeological basis, the BoM can not claim that.

Now, you can argue that not ever Christian is a bible literalist. Well, that's not the point. Many Christians are bible literalists and many Christians would be willing to believe that this small sacrifice was ordained of god. My only point is that Christians are happy to pounce on Mormons for bizarre beliefs but don't want to take on other Christians for the very same thing.
Of course, even if we ignore Jepthah we still have all of the other Bizarre beliefs.

No I am saying that even literalists do not argue that it is moraly right, even literalists think that the bible is a mix of history and law.

 

[Ossai]

ponderingturtle

Then you will need to find say Christians who say that about shellfish, or that rabbits chew cud.

Seventh Day Adventest

So your case is a straw-man, you are presenting a belief that is not held(the rightness of his Jephthah actions) and attacking that. Well please demonstrate that there are Christians who would argue that it was a moral action.

No, RandFan is correct. Look into the beliefs of the Southern Baptist Foundation.

The problem is that it is not a core part of theology. And as for being counted by evidence, I am not aware of any civilizations claimed in the bible that do not have some archaeological basis, the BoM can not claim that.

The entirety of Exodus has no, as far as I’m aware, supporting evidence. That includes the Israelites as slaves, the death of the first born, the various plagues all the way to the death of a Pharaoh – no evidence.

No I am saying that even literalists do not argue that it is moraly right, even literalists think that the bible is a mix of history and law.

Define morally. According to Judges, Jephthah made a vow to god and kept it.

Ossai

 

[ponderingturtle]

ponderingturtle
Seventh Day Adventest

Good to see there are loonies. The point still stands in general though.

No, RandFan is correct. Look into the beliefs of the Southern Baptist Foundation.

That link seems to be almost entirely about fund raising and not about beliefs

The entirety of Exodus has no, as far as I’m aware, supporting evidence. That includes the Israelites as slaves, the death of the first born, the various plagues all the way to the death of a Pharaoh – no evidence.

But weirdly there is an Egypt and details about life in Egypt are accurate with the archaeological record. Just like the BoM. Oh yea, no archaeological evidence.

Also there is Egyptian records of the Israelites being wanderers, as the first Egyptian record of them is that they fought a war with them, and they where shown to be nomads.

Now the number of 800,000 men is entirely wrong as this would result in a total population that would be larger than Egyptian society, but it is easy to argue mistranslation of the word that was taken to be thousand as other things.

As for the plagues, we know that the Egyptians did not record bad news. When they where losing a war it was recorded as battles being won, just closer and closer to home.

There is also evidence of semitic people in Egypt.

So saying there is no evidence is not exactly true at least not on the same order of the lack of evidence in the BoM.

Define morally. According to Judges, Jephthah made a vow to god and kept it.

Ossai

But to use it to show Christan's support such an act, well it is rather like saying all Christians are massive polygamists and support that and using David and Solomon as examples. You are setting up straw belief systems that almost no Christian actually supports.

 

[Ossai]

ponderingturtle

Then you will need to find say Christians who say that about shellfish, or that rabbits chew cud.

Seventh Day Adventist

Good to see there are loonies. The point still stands in general though.

Sorry but no. You ask to find some Christians that profess that belief and I did. It matters not that they are not currently the majority.

No, RandFan is correct. Look into the beliefs of the Southern Baptist Foundation.

That link seems to be almost entirely about fund raising and not about beliefs

Sorry grabbed the wrong link. I meant to link to the Southern Baptist Convention page. Before you bring it up, yes they are inconsistent.

But weirdly there is an Egypt and details about life in Egypt are accurate with the archaeological record. Just like the BoM. Oh yea, no archaeological evidence.

Expand on what you’ve stated. Are you saying that there is archaeological evidence of the BoM just like there is an Egypt?

But to use it to show Christan's support such an act, well it is rather like saying all Christians are massive polygamists and support that and using David and Solomon as examples. You are setting up straw belief systems that almost no Christian actually supports.

I never said Christians support such an act now. However, claiming that Christians don’t support that specific act is even more incorrect. According to Judges, Jephthah made a vow to god and kept it. The sacrifice was the moral thing to do at the time.

If Christians don’t support it then they should be speaking out against it. As it is, a large number of Christians profess an ”It is in the bible, therefore it must be true.” attitude. The sacrifice is in the bible and it was the correct moral action for Jephthah.
From my perspective, it merely points out another Christian hypocrisy.

Ossai

 

[RandFan]

Then you will need to find say Christians who say that about shellfish, or that rabbits chew cud. Sure that is an argument used by some Christians but no one believes everything in the bible.

So your case is a straw-man, you are presenting a belief that is not held(the rightness of his Jephthah actions) and attacking that. Well please demonstrate that there are Christians who would argue that it was a moral action.

?

We will have to disagree. There are an awful lot of bible literalist who demand that everything in the bible is there because god wanted it to be there. So no, no strawman. But I do love your pointing out the hypocricy of making the bible a menu to pick and chose what is true and what isn't all the while being a moral guide.

The problem is that it is not a core part of theology. And as for being counted by evidence, I am not aware of any civilizations claimed in the bible that do not have some archaeological basis, the BoM can not claim that.

Entirely beside the point. The bizarre beliefs of Christans don't change because there is some archaeological basis for it.

No I am saying that even literalists do not argue that it is moraly right, even literalists think that the bible is a mix of history and law.

?

No. Not at all. That is not the argument many if not most literalist would make as that is antithetical to bible literalism. The argument is that there was a time when god did want people to stone their children to death. That god did want people to kill those who worked on the sabbath. Your claim does not at all ring true.

A bible literalist believs that everything in the bible is there for a purpose. What purpose does this teach? Does the bible condemn Jepehthah?

 

[RandFan]

Also there is Egyptian records of the Israelites being wanderers, as the first Egyptian record of them is that they fought a war with them, and they where shown to be nomads.

Again, completely beside the point.

Humans don't walk on water.
You can't turn water into wine.
There is no scientific basis to believe that the entire earth was covered by water. That is a silly and bizarre belief for modern humans.
Virgins don't give birth. That is a stupid and bizarre belief for modern humans.

The list goes on. Christianity is silly and trite. It is bizarre. It's not seen as bizarre because folks have been indoctrinated into accepting it. That the book has SOME archaeological basis is irrelevant. If you are going to argue that all of the silly beliefs are true because of this evidence then you are engaging in fallacy.

 

[slingblade]

Heh. Since those are the kind of Christians I grew up with, the literalists, I find objections that "surely there aren't really people like that" to be pretty amusing.

I once had to instruct my (late) mother-in-law that a passage in the Old Testament had nothing to do with puppies:

"You shall not bring the cost of a prostitute or the price of a dog (into) the house of YHWH your god, for any vow, for surely both of them are an abomination to YHWH your god." (Deut. 23:19)

She thought this meant that selling puppies for profit was a sin, and was quite prepared to inform her dog-breeding neighbor of same. It really worried her that folks could be sinning and not know it.

On the other hand, one day she was making a pan of cornbread dressing for Sunday dinner, and she mixed chicken meat and hard-boiled eggs in together. I must have had an odd expression, as she asked me what was wrong. I mentioned the prohibition about seething a kid in its mother's milk, and said I thought mixing chicken eggs and chicken meat in the same dish must surely violate that.

"Oh, that's just for the Jews. Jesus took all that away."

I see. So when she misunderstood a scripture that seemed to be saying her neighbor was committing a sin, the OT was pertinent. But when it came to her own behavior, "we don't have to do that stuff--that's for the Jews."

And this is typical of literalists, from my experience. "Everything in the Bible is the Literal Word of God, and you ought to be doing all of it, you horrible heathen, you...but I only have to obey the parts that suit me." You don't have to believe me, but it's how I grew up, and how much of my family lives to this day.

 

[ponderingturtle]

Again, completely beside the point.

Humans don't walk on water.
You can't turn water into wine.
There is no scientific basis to believe that the entire earth was covered by water. That is a silly and bizarre belief for modern humans.
Virgins don't give birth. That is a stupid and bizarre belief for modern humans.

The list goes on. Christianity is silly and trite. It is bizarre. It's not seen as bizarre because folks have been indoctrinated into accepting it. That the book has SOME archaeological basis is irrelevant. If you are going to argue that all of the silly beliefs are true because of this evidence then you are engaging in fallacy.

The point is about evidence, there is not the mass of things that should leave evidence and does not in most of the bible(the flood is the one that seems to spring to mind as the most lacking in physical evidence) but there are many cases where there is real history in the bible.

As for the claims of miracles, how many of them would leave evidence in that would be testable now?

There is a more profound lack of evidence for the BoM than the Bible, as in the bible you can at least be sure that in general if a city is cited to exist that there is archaeological evidence for the city.

Not all religions are equally loony.

 

[c4ts]

It's 88.7221787%

Christian Theology:
Wine turns to blood. Bread turns to human flesh.
A guy lives in the belly of a fish for days (yes I know of the story of the sailor trapped in a whales stomach for a short time).
Zombies rise from the dead after Christ dies.
Parents throw stones at their children until they die.
A man takes his most loved and cherished son into the mountains to kill him.
The great emancipator, Moses, orders his soldiers to murder infants.

What is bizarre that anyone should not take this horse***t as bizarre but think that Mormon theology is bizarre by comparison.

Mormon theology IS bizarre. Christians, look in the mirror. The bible is a collection of stone age to bronze age myths.

Oh, it gets even more fun once you get into their theology. Take the hapax, for example, where Christians say that if something is repeated in the Bible it's true, or if they just happen to like it, but if they don't like it or don't understand it then it must be wrong! Bronze age myths are the tip of the weirdness iceberg.

 

[ponderingturtle]

ponderingturtle

Sorry but no. You ask to find some Christians that profess that belief and I did. It matters not that they are not currently the majority.

So it is acurate saying that medical doctors believe in homeopathy then. Because there are medical doctors who do believe in homeopathy, it is a valid way to show the problems in modern medicine by attacking homeopathy?

Sorry grabbed the wrong link. I meant to link to the Southern Baptist Convention page. Before you bring it up, yes they are inconsistent.

Expand on what you’ve stated. Are you saying that there is archaeological evidence of the BoM just like there is an Egypt?

My point is that the BoM is less credible than the bible because there is supporting evidence in at least broad terms for many events in the bible. Is there any archaeological support of the BoM? I am not aware of any.

So there is a distinct difference in the quality of the archaeological support for the two books

I never said Christians support such an act now. However, claiming that Christians don’t support that specific act is even more incorrect. According to Judges, Jephthah made a vow to god and kept it. The sacrifice was the moral thing to do at the time.

If Christians don’t support it then they should be speaking out against it. As it is, a large number of Christians profess an ”It is in the bible, therefore it must be true.” attitude. The sacrifice is in the bible and it was the correct moral action for Jephthah.
From my perspective, it merely points out another Christian hypocrisy.

Ossai

As far as horrible acts in the bible go, why limit yourself to one murder, why not go the root of showing its support for what would generally be considered crimes against humanity?

 

[RandFan]

Not all religions are equally loony.

As in not all deadly poisons are equaly painful in their administration.

Sorry, this is hogwash and I will say it again, it makes not one lick of difference that there is some evidence for the Bible anymore than that there is some evidence for Gone With the Wind. If people one day base a religion on the book then they are deluded. End of story.

I have only endeavored to make one point. Christians attacking Mormons for bizarre belief is silly, stupid and hypocritical for all of the reasons I've listed. Virgins don't give birth. Humans don't walk on water the way Jesus allegedly did. Filicide is bizarre. Infanticide is bizarre. Yet these are ostensibly god given commandments. If you want to look at the bible as historical that is fine. (It's not really. Much if not most of the BS in there never happened) Don't make a religion out of it and then accuse others of being bizarre. That is just dumb.

 

[ponderingturtle]

?

We will have to disagree. There are an awful lot of bible literalist who demand that everything in the bible is there because god wanted it to be there. So no, no strawman. But I do love your pointing out the hypocricy of making the bible a menu to pick and chose what is true and what isn't all the while being a moral guide.

Entirely beside the point. The bizarre beliefs of Christans don't change because there is some archaeological basis for it.

?

No. Not at all. That is not the argument many if not most literalist would make as that is antithetical to bible literalism. The argument is that there was a time when god did want people to stone their children to death. That god did want people to kill those who worked on the sabbath. Your claim does not at all ring true.

A bible literalist believs that everything in the bible is there for a purpose. What purpose does this teach? Does the bible condemn Jepehthah?

Some of this feels like you are choosing the extreem to refute the majority, so it would be sort of like useing the FLDS church to refute the LDS church.

The main disagreement we seem to have is that you concider all religions to be equaly full of strange beliefs, that is not true because for example not all christians would take the opinion that god wanted him to kill his daughter. There are also ones who would take the opinion that it was just a historic record of him killing his daughter. This is dirrect evidence that not all religions are equaly full of strange beliefs

 

[RandFan]

My point is that the BoM is less credible than the bible because there is supporting evidence in at least broad terms for many events in the bible. Is there any archaeological support of the BoM? I am not aware of any.

Both are works of fiction. If you think Rhett Butler and Scarlett O'Hara are real people because the book Gone With The Wind has some historical truth then you are deluded. That there is some historical fact to GWTW doesn't make it true. You are engaging in fallacy. Christian beliefs are bizarre. Murdering one's children which is an OT commandment is bizarre. God's emissary ordering the mass murdering children is bizarre. Sacrificing one's child because of a promise to god is bizarre. There's just no getting around that. A small bit of historical basis doesn't wash away the silliness.