LDS

[Empress]

I don't see where Janadele is answering anything we are asking about the contradictions between Smith's story and the evidence. It leaves me asking, what is the point of her thread?

Actually, many posters who are Mormons or have ties to Mormons did answer quite a few questions in the thread, and I think some people really did learn a lot about the religion. IMO Janadele and skyrider44 have been abject failures as missionaries of their faith since neither of the them like answering questions, but there are enough of us around to step in that I think at least some of the discussion was fruitful.

 

[Cleon]

Point being, are you a member of a club if the other members deny that you are?

Well, no. If the Catholic Church says you're not a Catholic, you're not a Catholic.

But "Christianity" is not a club. There's no organization, there's no rules, there's no votes up or down as to who gets in or out.

The fact remains, many xianists do not accept the LDS as xianist. Of course, many xianists do not accept catholics as xianists, either, or JW, or other flavours, so you are, at least, in good company.

Many Christian sects don't recognize any other Christian sect as "Christian." So when they whine that Mormons aren't Christians, it sounds a little hollow.

 

[abaddon]

Whether he "made it all up" or not, LDS are practicing Christians.

You missed my point. Whether J.S. "made it all up" or not, LDS are practicing Christians.

OK, do you think they will ever get it right?

If Christ never existed, why does it matter to you that LDS call themselves Christians? Our exchange is about whether or not LDS are justified in calling themselves Christians; it isn't about whether or not Jesus became Christ.

Mormons are plain flat out bonkers as far as I can see. The whole thing is based on the ravings of a scammer. Nothing good can come of a religion based on lies. Or isn't that all of them? Every single religion?

 

[skyrider44]

Just where did I do that?

In Post 6394 you endorse the implication and implied conclusion of the answer to the question.

My answer would be very unflattering to the LDS Church.

I would expect no less. Somehow, though, the Church would survive.

 

[skyrider44]

OK, do you think they will ever get it right?

Your response doesn't address the issue at hand.

 

[Craig4]

OK, do you think they will ever get it right?



Mormons are plain flat out bonkers as far as I can see. The whole thing is based on the ravings of a scammer. Nothing good can come of a religion based on lies. Or isn't that all of them? Every single religion?

Bonkers might be a little strong but it is odd they stick with their religion. The Mormon history and even one of its autograph texts are very accessible. Why then would someone believe that which is definitively proven to be fraudulent? Bit of a puzzler really.

 

[jsfisher]

In Post 6394 you endorse the implication and implied conclusion of the answer to the question.

I see your talent for imagining things that are not there continues unabated.

 

[jsfisher]

Bonkers might be a little strong but it is odd they stick with their religion. The Mormon history and even one of its autograph texts are very accessible. Why then would someone believe that which is definitively proven to be fraudulent? Bit of a puzzler really.

Don't most religions, maybe all religions, entail some measure of contradiction? From what I've learned from this thread, the Mormons appear to have a solid infrastructure necessary to sustain the cognitive dissonance.

 

[RandFan]

Bonkers might be a little strong but it is odd they stick with their religion. The Mormon history and even one of its autograph texts are very accessible. Why then would someone believe that which is definitively proven to be fraudulent? Bit of a puzzler really.

So much to gain by believing. So much to lose by not believing. Also, empirical science has demonstrated to us that the human mind isn't simply a logic machine. Not close. The purpose of the mind (brain) is to make sense of the world. It is a rationalizing machine first and foremost. It creates a narrative and we are the protagonists in our life's story. Magicians like James Randi understand this quirk of our thinking and utilize it to create illusions.

See:

1. A Brief Tour of Human Consciousness: From Impostor Poodles to Purple Number (pay close attention to the split brain studies and aphasia patients). Video of the author explaining the phenomenon can be found here.
2. The Righteous Mind: Why Good People Are Divided by Politics and Religion. Video of Haidt discussing the righteous mind can be found here.
3. The GOD Delusion also has an excellent explanation for why such delusions are impervious to logic and reason.
4. I could list dozens but Shermer's Why People Believe Weird Things is also pretty good. Video's are available on both Dawkin's God Delusion and Shermers Why People Believe Weird Things.

 

[Craig4]

Don't most religions, maybe all religions, entail some measure of contradiction? From what I've learned from this thread, the Mormons appear to have a solid infrastructure necessary to sustain the cognitive dissonance.

True but Mormonism is different in that you don't need to put a lot of effort into figuring out that it's a fraud. Christianity's past is much more remote and the study of it requires more effort. It's takes part of an afternoon to find the frauds in Mormonism.

 

[Myriad]

Actually, there is a Christian ritual practice (not mere "belief") that is so general and so fundamental among Christians of all types that it's arguably sufficient to objectively distinguish Christians from non-Christians. That's the ritual generally called the (Holy) Eucharist or Holy Communion.

The Mormons practice it (apparently calling it the Holy Sacrament of the Lord's Supper, or simply the Sacrament). Ergo they are Christians.

(Somewhere, I imagine, there's a group who say and do everything from getting married to blowing their noses "in the name of Christ" and yet do not practice a communion sacrament. That would be a tougher call, but I'd hesitate to call them Christians.)

Respectfully,
Myriad

 

[RandFan]

I didn't say they did. And you admit (above) that "few Christian churches come close." So what is your point?

I'm not contradicting anything you've said. I'm simply making a point. Modern Christianity has very little to do with the teachings of Christ.

You don't know if he drinks Coke or not. Much of what you write is speculative.

Romney was simply an example. The Mormon Church has been obsessed with Coke for decades. It is simply absurd.

". . .most wealthy Mormons": Source? You don't have one; thus your statement is simply more speculation.

You cannot be wealthy if you don't have a store of treasure. By definition. No speculation necessary.

". . .Joseph never designated the KJV as the 'official' LDS Bible. Indeed, recognition of its flaws led him to study the ancient languages, work on the Inspired Version, and seek out alternative translations such as the Luther Bible. Indeed, early Mormons often cited different translations of biblical texts. . . ." Head concludes, however, that the KJV, problems notwithstanding, represents an "enlightening token" of LDS "beliefs and practices." He adds that there is no indication the Church will move away from the KJV, the findings of contemporary researchers notwithstanding.

I suggest you read Misquoting Jesus by Bart Ehrman. Every extant biblical text is the result of many, many re-writes and edits of oral traditions. As a historical text it is mostly useless. I stand by my statement. There are loopholes large enough to make the Bible, regardless of version, mean whatever people want it to mean.

 

[Slowvehicle]

Actually, there is a Christian ritual practice (not mere "belief") that is so general and so fundamental among Christians of all types that it's arguably sufficient to objectively distinguish Christians from non-Christians. That's the ritual generally called the (Holy) Eucharist or Holy Communion.

The Mormons practice it (apparently calling it the Holy Sacrament of the Lord's Supper, or simply the Sacrament). Ergo they are Christians.

(Somewhere, I imagine, there's a group who say and do everything from getting married to blowing their noses "in the name of Christ" and yet do not practice a communion sacrament. That would be a tougher call, but I'd hesitate to call them Christians.)

Respectfully,
Myriad

Many, if not most, Protestants would disagree with you...(this is the issue that got me thrown out of a Baptist Seminary).

 

[bruto]

Actually, there is a Christian ritual practice (not mere "belief") that is so general and so fundamental among Christians of all types that it's arguably sufficient to objectively distinguish Christians from non-Christians. That's the ritual generally called the (Holy) Eucharist or Holy Communion.

The Mormons practice it (apparently calling it the Holy Sacrament of the Lord's Supper, or simply the Sacrament). Ergo they are Christians.

(Somewhere, I imagine, there's a group who say and do everything from getting married to blowing their noses "in the name of Christ" and yet do not practice a communion sacrament. That would be a tougher call, but I'd hesitate to call them Christians.)

Respectfully,
Myriad

That seems like a nice sort of "field guide" characteristic for non-Christians to indentify Christians, but not, it seems, for Christians of one sort or another to identify each other.

If you're not a Christian yourself, the category is easily and handily populated with Mormons, Rastafarians, Anthroposophists and Manicheans, along with Baptists and Holy Rollers and Catholics and Quakers and on and on. But to some Christians, followers of some of those sects are not just bad Christians, but imposters to use the name.

The eucharist is a useful criterion for knowing which pot to throw them in, but shut the lid fast.

 

[Pixel42]

The Christians I've seen express a problem with accepting the LDS as a Christian church usually seem to find the polytheism the biggest issue. The belief that human beings can become gods is anathema to them.

 

[tsig]

The Christians I've seen express a problem with accepting the LDS as a Christian church usually seem to find the polytheism the biggest issue. The belief that human beings can become gods is anathema to them.

Yet god becoming human is the core of their belief.

 

[Myriad]

Many, if not most, Protestants would disagree with you...(this is the issue that got me thrown out of a Baptist Seminary).

Since most if not all Protestant denominations practice some form of Eucharist/Communion (I've taken Communion in Baptist, Presbyterian, Lutheran, and Methodist services), I assume that the point about which they'd disagree is it's sufficient to establish the practitioner as Christian, particularly in regard to Mormons.

It's not surprising that many Christians regard other varieties of Christian practice as illegitimate. Starting with the RCC, which still regards the priest's role in the Communion ritual as an act of divine magic that only a properly consecrated (and penis-equipped) person can really perform (and that excommunication literally strips that power away). But unless we want to agree with doctrinaires that e.g. Catholics or Protestants aren't really Christians, we need a useful standpoint outside those internecine disputes.

The distinction I make examines to what extent a religion's practices are informed by the life and teachings of Jesus as accounted in the New Testament -- as opposed to anything anyone feels like attaching the name Jesus or Christ to. It's not a test of doctrinal correctness, but a test of source tradition. So, for instance, Christian Science doesn't pass as "Christian," Rastafarianism does (perhaps with an asterisk), and Jehovah's Witnesses are on the fence (because they restrict the practice to certain members who profess to a certain kind of calling -- two asterisks, maybe?)

It's not perfect. What bruto said -- "shut the lid fast." Well put.

Respectfully,
Myriad

 

[RandFan]

Many, if not most, Protestants would disagree with you...(this is the issue that got me thrown out of a Baptist Seminary).

Real Christians put milk on their porridge.

Kidding aside, IMO, telling someone else that they are not Christian is about the most arrogant and unchristian thing anyone could do. I know of nothing in Christ's words that spelled out what his followers must do beyond visiting people in prison, feeding the hungry, housing the homeless and loving your neighbor and god. Other than that he simply asked "come follow me". All the other nonsense is dogma intended to manipulate followers so as to get the biggest slice of tithing.

If you believe Christ was the savior and that salvation comes through him and if you follow his teachings then you are a de facto Christian. If you think it is your job to judge who is and who isn't a Christian then you are doing it about as wrong as you can. You can still be a Christian of course but not a very good one.

 

[Foster Zygote]

The Christians I've seen express a problem with accepting the LDS as a Christian church usually seem to find the polytheism the biggest issue. The belief that human beings can become gods is anathema to them.

Ironically, the idea of Jesus as God would almost certainly have made the apocalyptic rabbi Jeshua ben Joseph positively apoplectic.

 

[Alderbank]

I know of nothing in Christ's words that spelled out what his followers must do beyond visiting people in prison, feeding the hungry, housing the homeless and loving your neighbor and god. Other than that he simply asked "come follow me".

What about Luke 14 'If anyone comes to me and does not hate his own father and mother and wife and children and brothers and sisters, yes, and even his own life, he cannot be my disciple...any one of you who does not renounce all that he has cannot be my disciple.'

Isn't that asking a bit more than just 'come follow me'?