LDS

[Mister Earl]

Janadele, atheism is a religion in the same way that NOT collecting stamps is a hobby. Also, as a reminder, could you field the questions I gave you earlier? I appreciate it!

#EDIT: Quote for easy reference.

I have a side question for Janadele. Janadele, one of the important commandments is "Thou shalt not bear false witness against your neighbor." Do you believe this is important? As a followup question, do you believe it is acceptable to bear false witness against your neighbor for the purposes of facilitating proselytization?

 

[Empress]

There are threads about different "religions" here in this very section. Just as atheists are a "religion" of their own so is the anti-Mormon movement, and their literature and propaganda are not appropriate to this thread in the same way as discussing Communism would not be.

We've all heard the "atheism=religion" meme, but "Anti-Mormon movement=religion" is a new one on me.

 

[Craig4]

There are threads about different "religions" here in this very section. Just as atheists are a "religion" of their own so is the anti-Mormon movement, and their literature and propaganda are not appropriate to this thread in the same way as discussing Communism would not be.

If we were going to do as you've asked don't you think we would have by now? Why do you keep bringing this up? We're not going to ignore the dishonesty upon which the LDS is based. It's just not going to happen.

 

[RoboTimbo]

Forums have many threads and a number of sections for good reasons. It is dishonest and disruptive for anti-Mormon posts to encroach on this LDS thread. If such posters had even a shred of ethics, it would not be difficult to start an anti-Mormon thread and post the venom there.

It shouldn't be difficult to report the offending posts and have them removed if this forum works the way you believe it to.

Or that's just another of your irrational and incorrect beliefs based on nothing.

 

[Astreja]

There are threads about different "religions" here in this very section. Just as atheists are a "religion" of their own so is the anti-Mormon movement, and their literature and propaganda are not appropriate to this thread in the same way as discussing Communism would not be.

From the JREF Membership Agreement:

The Forum is a discussion forum and we want it to be a friendly and lively (if challenging) forum for a mature audience and therefore will endeavour to ensure that civility will be the norm, but this does not mean that Members will be insulated from all insults and certainly not from challenges; the nature of the Forum inevitably involves strong emotions and opinions which can result in heated exchanges. Having your views challenged is not considered unfriendly nor uncivil. (emphases Mine)

There are clearly problems with the LDS teachings. We're discussing them, and that's that.

 

[Shalamar]

There are threads about different "religions" here in this very section. Just as atheists are a "religion" of their own so is the anti-Mormon movement, and their literature and propaganda are not appropriate to this thread in the same way as discussing Communism would not be.

Atheists have a religion in the same way that not collecting stamps is a hobby.

Tell you what though, If you don't want 'Anti-Mormon' sites on this thread, you should perhaps be fair, and not post pro-mormon sites.

 

[deaman]

Halley, My comment you refer to was a response post to insults to myself from deaman.

I am sorry Janadele. What were the insults I made, that I may explain my words and make a proper apology, if necessary.

Thank you.

 

[Marcus]

If we were going to do as you've asked don't you think we would have by now? Why do you keep bringing this up? We're not going to ignore the dishonesty upon which the LDS is based. It's just not going to happen.

I think there is even less chance of people posting only to say things Janadele wants to hear than there would be of her actually answering the questions she's asked.

 

[RandFan]

Three of my sons are returned missionaries. None of them were ever given such instructions. Nor were any other returned missionaries of my acquaintance.

I've no idea why they weren't. It's very effective to find people receptive to the message. Much if not most of my success was due to that kind of proselytizing. I can only speak on my behalf.

 

[RandFan]

There are threads about different "religions" here in this very section. Just as atheists are a "religion" of their own so is the anti-Mormon movement, and their literature and propaganda are not appropriate to this thread in the same way as discussing Communism would not be.

Wrong. And your engaging in ad hominem. Dismissing arguments because they are made by "anti-Mormons" is fallacious. If you think something is off topic then report it. Otherwise the facts of Mormonism are fair game.

 

[Slowvehicle]

Forums have many threads and a number of sections for good reasons. It is dishonest and disruptive for anti-Mormon posts to encroach on this LDS thread. If such posters had even a shred of ethics, it would not be difficult to start an anti-Mormon thread and post the venom there.

Please provide the list of seeming anachronisms from the BoM that have been demonstrated, by actual, empirical evidence attested to by actual, neutral-source scientists, to have existed in the pre-Colombian Americas.

Thanks!

Please provide neutral sources that have used J.Smith's dictionary to translate other Egyptian documents, and outline the advances in our understanding of the history of Egypt they have provided.

Thanks!

 

[Slowvehicle]

There are threads about different "religions" here in this very section. Just as atheists are a "religion" of their own so is the anti-Mormon movement, and their literature and propaganda are not appropriate to this thread in the same way as discussing Communism would not be.

I must point out that not believing in a 'god' or any 'gods' is not a religion. You ought not to repeat this error.

 

[bruto]

That you are aware of.

In any case, I think it's clear from the different experiences of RandFan and Empress (vicariously) that sometimes this happens and sometimes it doesn't. Your sons' experience, while no doubt interesting to them and to you, does not add to the discussion.

I respectfully disagree. No friend of Janadele's religion here, but if, in fact, her sons did not receive the same sleazy instructions that Randfan did, it would indicate that they are not an inherent and necessary element in being a Mormon missionary. In a discussion of what is right and wrong with Mormonism, the religion itself and the policy of its leaders, while they overlap, are not always the same. It's a little thing but not nothing.

 

[Jon.]

I respectfully disagree. No friend of Janadele's religion here, but if, in fact, her sons did not receive the same sleazy instructions that Randfan did, it would indicate that they are not an inherent and necessary element in being a Mormon missionary...

... which was already indicated in one of Empress's posts.

 

[TheGoldcountry]

From the JREF Membership Agreement:



There are clearly problems with the LDS teachings. We're discussing them, and that's that.

Thank you.

 

[RandFan]

I respectfully disagree. No friend of Janadele's religion here, but if, in fact, her sons did not receive the same sleazy instructions that Randfan did, it would indicate that they are not an inherent and necessary element in being a Mormon missionary. In a discussion of what is right and wrong with Mormonism, the religion itself and the policy of its leaders, while they overlap, are not always the same. It's a little thing but not nothing.

I'm curious as to why you think it sleazy? I'm not saying that it isn't I just had not expected it. If you are an organization that believes that it comforts people and brings them salvation then whats sleazy about finding people who are more likely receptive to the message?

 

[pakeha]

From your scholarly text:


"
Quote:
Historical Background of the Papyri

In order to understand the BA a brief recitation of its modern extraction may be helpful. In 1835 Michael Chandler brought several mummies to Kirtland that aroused great excitement among the Latter-day Saints. Joseph Smith too took note of these objects from antiquity. Initially attracted by his native curiosity, Smith soon realized the significance of the ancient artifacts. Upon examining some of the writing on the papyri accompanying the mummies, Joseph noticed some resemblance to those characters on the plates from which he translated the Book of Mormon. This was Smith's first indication that there may have been more to the mummies than mere objects of curiosity. Applying his abilities towards an understanding of the characters, Smith soon presented Chandler with a brief translation of some of these characters, with which Chandler was duly impressed. Only after later and more extensive examination of the scrolls did Joseph learn that the scrolls contained writings allegedly originating with the great patriarchal figures of Israel's past. The similarity in writing systems of these two communities is compelling, as not only did it signify to Joseph Smith the great importance of the papyri, but perhaps it also helped him decipher the full meaning of those writings. Perhaps the similarity in writing systems Smith observed led him to tentatively posit larger connections between the respective communities which had produced the Book of Mormon and the papyri accompanying the mummies. Some early witnesses identified Hebrew characters on the papyri in addition to the Egyptian elements. As William I. Appleby said, "The writings are chiefly in the Egyptian language, with the exception of a little Hebrew." Appleby's identification of Hebrew characters meshes well with the BM writing Joseph first noticed on the papyri. This connection of the Book of Abraham with the Book of Mormon could also provide the key to our own understanding of the Book of Abraham and the individual or community that produced it.
"


I don't recommend delving too deeply if you want to maintain a belief in the basic intelligence of the human species.

Interesting.
Earlier we'd had claims Smith only 'translated' the papyri because he'd been asked to.
In any case, it's amazing the followers of the LDS believe there is any merit in believing a lie.

I have no idea why they keep saying that Joseph Smith translated anything, given we have concrete proof that he lied about being able to read heiroglyphs, thanks to the Rosetta Stone.

Precisely so.

Forums have many threads and a number of sections for good reasons. It is dishonest and disruptive for anti-Mormon posts to encroach on this LDS thread. If such posters had even a shred of ethics, it would not be difficult to start an anti-Mormon thread and post the venom there.

Could you explain why pointing out a lie is disruptive, Janadele?

 

[zooterkin]

I'm sure this has been asked, but, in lieu of digging through almost 5,000 posts, I'm hoping someone may have an answer:

When a group takes the Jewish holy book and slaps their own on it, they're a new religion called Christians. Yet when a group takes the Christian holy book and adds their own to it, they're...Christians?

Not, in my experience, according to most other Christians. Then again, for example, Roman Catholics don't really accept any of the other denominations as real Christians.

 

[Empress]

Not, in my experience, according to most other Christians. Then again, for example, Roman Catholics don't really accept any of the other denominations as real Christians.

And many Baptists don't accept Catholics as real Christians, which always struck me as particularly odd, since their origins are a breakaway sect of the Catholics via the CofE.

Personally, my view has always been that a Christian is someone who believes that Jesus was either wholly or partly divine, which would encompass the LDS, and exclude, for example, Muslims, who see Jesus strictly as a prophet. But every Christian seems to have their own definition which includes themselves, and excludes whatever sects they don't like.

 

[RandFan]

I'm sure this has been asked, but, in lieu of digging through almost 5,000 posts, I'm hoping someone may have an answer:

When a group takes the Jewish holy book and slaps their own on it, they're a new religion called Christians. Yet when a group takes the Christian holy book and adds their own to it, they're...Christians?

As well, how do Mormons address the final words of the Bible:

18 I warn everyone who hears the words of the prophecy of this scroll: If anyone adds anything to them, God will add to that person the plagues described in this scroll. 19 And if anyone takes words away from this scroll of prophecy, God will take away from that person any share in the tree of life and in the Holy City, which are described in this scroll.

20 He who testifies to these things says, “Yes, I am coming soon.”

Amen. Come, Lord Jesus.

21 The grace of the Lord Jesus be with God’s people. Amen.

The scroll is referencing the scroll. At the time there was no Bible. Just lots of scrolls. There is a similar quote in the OT but Christians don't care about that one. They think they own the whole book.

There are no rules. It's made up as they go along to fit the needs of whomever is making it up. One argument is that a Christian is someone who follows the tenants of Christ. Another is that a Christian is one who believes that Christ was crucified in the spirit, these are gnostics.

Don't try to make sense of it. People have been killing and dying as to what it all means for thousands of years and there is no consensus. Just schism after schism after schism.