LDS II: The Mormons

[arthwollipot]

You, yourself, have harshly criticized the Bible, noting that it has gone through many translations and other changes. How, then, do you know that Christ didn't speak of marriage existing after the resurrection, or of people becoming gods, or of homosexuality? The fact is, you don't know that He was silent on those subjects. The LDS Church's eighth Article of Faith states: "We believe the Bible to be the word of God as far as it is translated correctly."

Exactly! Just as you don't know that Jesus said that the meek would inherit the earth, and you don't know that he resurrected Lazarus, and you don't know that he was baptized in the Jordan river, and you don't know that he was crucified and died for the sins of humanity.

 

[Slowvehicle]

You, yourself, have harshly criticized the Bible, noting that it has gone through many translations and other changes. How, then, do you know that Christ didn't speak of marriage existing after the resurrection, or of people becoming gods, or of homosexuality? The fact is, you don't know that He was silent on those subjects. The LDS Church's eighth Article of Faith states: "We believe the Bible to be the word of God as far as it is translated correctly."

Odd that, to you, describing the macculate nature of the surviving texts is "harshly" criticizing them.

And you continue to avoid addressing this:

Be so kind as to provide chapter and verse from the εὐαγγέλιον

(added) ...in its "New Testament Purity"...

...where Ίησοῦς ὁ Χριστός is recorded as having preached against (or even mentioned), say, homosexuality; or is recorded as having taught that, for instance, marriage as an institution would exist after the resurrection; or is recorded as endorsing (arguendo) that humans might become 'gods' of their own planets...

There is also an issue to be raised about not arising "...hundreds of years after Christ..." but that is for another day.

Yet again, I encourage you to cite chapter and verse from "Christ's moral ministry" (in its "New Testament purity") (which would mean, for instance, quoting words and teachings directly attributed to Christ, not someone else who diluted the meaning of "Christian identity" by claiming to speak with Christ's authority, in the process adding to and changing "Christ's moral message") where Christ himself is said to have said anything about homosexuality. Or about marriage existing after the "resurrection". Or about people becoming 'gods'.

The fact that I am aware that the xianist texts are poorly-edited and sectarially-redacted third-hand post-dated accounts should not keep you from providing the "authentic" contemporary (not dating from "hundreds of years after" Jesus, said to be said to be the 'christ') texts that contain the part's of Christ's own "moral ministry" where he preached against homosexuality.

I don't have to invent the fact that no such words attributed to him are recorded in any canonic text. (To say nothing of teaching about marriage existing after the resurrection, or about men "becoming" 'gods'...)

Implying that the "word of 'god' " might contain such messages if it were "translated correctly" is, at best, disingenuous. "Correct translation" cannot insert what is not there.

 

[Craig4]

http://www.pasthorizonspr.com/index...settles-debate-on-indigenous-american-lineage

Found an interesting article while doing some school work. This discusses lineage of the first peoples of the Americas and pretty well puts a nail in the coffin of the BoM myth. Not that there was ever any doubt about the fictitious nature of the BoM story but if you were on the fence this should pretty well disabuse you of any notion of accuracy in the Mormon story.

 

[Craig4]

You, yourself, have harshly criticized the Bible, noting that it has gone through many translations and other changes. How, then, do you know that Christ didn't speak of marriage existing after the resurrection, or of people becoming gods, or of homosexuality? The fact is, you don't know that He was silent on those subjects. The LDS Church's eighth Article of Faith states: "We believe the Bible to be the word of God as far as it is translated correctly."

So the Bible is correct when it says what you want it to say and it's a mistranslation when it says something you don't want it to say or is a silent on a topic and you feel it should not be. Does that pretty well sum it up?

 

[Janadele]

... where Christ himself is said to have said anything about homosexuality... Or about texts that contain the part's of Christ's own "moral ministry" where he preached against homosexuality.

Slowvehicle: Your continual question has already been answered previously. For one instance, see Post 793.

There are countless Christian Scriptural references condemning acts of homosexuality, as serious sin in direct violation of the eternal purposes and commandments of God.

Just some of the defining words of inference include:
without natural affection, sodomy / sodomites, unnatural affection, unholy, impure sexual activity.

Forcing the redefining of wholesome meanings to evil, trying to make right wrong and wrong right will be but a temporary Satanic triumph prior to ultimate destruction.

See also The Third Book of Moses, Leviticus
Chapters 18 and 20: https://www.lds.org/scriptures/ot/lev/18.22-23?lang=eng#21

 

[abaddon]

Slowvehicle: Your continual question has already been answered previously. For one instance, see Post 793.

Does it? Let's see. Post#793 starts with:

Slowvehicle: There are countless Christian Scriptural references condemning acts of homosexuality as serious sin in direct violation of the eternal purposes and commandments of God. Defining words of inference include: without natural affection, sodomy / sodomites, unnatural affection, unholy, impure sexual activity. Forcing the redefining of wholesome meanings to evil, trying to make right wrong and wrong right will be but a temporary Satanic triumph prior to ultimate destruction. These chains of Satan can be broken through genuine repentance and abandonment of this destructive soul destroying degrading lifestyle.
Moses warned homosexual relations were against God’s law.

And proceeds to quote Leviticus at length. So that is untrue. Leviticus is not jebus, nor a quote of jebus, nor anything you remotely claim.

There are countless Christian Scriptural references condemning acts of homosexuality, as serious sin in direct violation of the eternal purposes and commandments of God.

Yet the best you can come up with is Leviticus. Where are the jebus quotes?

Just some of the defining words of inference include:
without natural affection, sodomy / sodomites, unnatural affection, unholy, impure sexual activity.

Leviticus again, with some added mormon baloney.

Forcing the redefining of wholesome meanings to evil, trying to make right wrong and wrong right will be but a temporary Satanic triumph prior to ultimate destruction.

Please stop doing it then.

See also The Third Book of Moses, Leviticus
Chapters 18 and 20: https://www.lds.org/scriptures/ot/lev/18.22-23?lang=eng#21

Leviticus again. Do you observe all of the rules in Leviticus again, or do you simply cherry pick to suit your belief du jour?

 

[Slowvehicle]

Slowvehicle: Your continual question has already been answered previously. For one instance, see Post 793.

...which does not contain a single referrence to anything that could be considered by any rational person to be words attributed to Jesus, said to be said to be the christ.

Repeating a false claim does not make it become true.

There are countless Christian Scriptural references condemning acts of homosexuality, as serious sin in direct violation of the eternal purposes and commandments of God.

Chapter and verse, please, where words attributed to Jesus, said to be said to be the christ, address homosexuality.

Not words added to the words attributed to "the christ", to broaden the phylacteries and make long the tassels. Words and teaching directly attributed to Ίησοῦς ὁ Χριστός, recorded in canonical scripture, addressing homosexuality.

Just some of the defining words of inference include:
without natural affection, sodomy / sodomites, unnatural affection, unholy, impure sexual activity.

What is missing from your false witness is citations to where Ίησοῦς ὁ Χριστός is recorded in canonic scripture as having used those terms.

Forcing the redefining of wholesome meanings to evil, trying to make right wrong and wrong right will be but a temporary Satanic triumph prior to ultimate destruction.

...not like adding teachings literally pulled out of a hat and then pretending that the added teachings and doctrines represent the "authentic message" of what Jesus "really meant to say" in the "New Testament purity" of his message...

See also The Third Book of Moses, Leviticus
Chapters 18 and 20: https://www.lds.org/scriptures/ot/lev/18.22-23?lang=eng#21

In other words, canonic scripture contains not a single instance of words attributed to Ίησοῦς ὁ Χριστός which address homosexuality. Or teach that marriage will exist "after the resurrection". Or that men can "become" 'gods'. Or that marriage is the special relationship between one man and one woman, and that same man and another woman, and that same man and yet another woman, and that same man and her sister...

 

[halleyscomet]

 

[Craig4]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r5_L1coztJ4

Here's a really interesting a engaging video on this very topic from our friend Mr. Deity on this exact topic. Funny and chilling at the same time.

 

[pakeha]

Thanks for the link, Craig4.
May I ask our Mormon forum members if they believe a dark skin is caused by God's curse?

 

[catsmate]

The Mormon 'War on Masturbation'

Apparently it's wrong. BYU has released a video (available here) emphasising this and encouraging students to inform authorities if their friends masturbate.
Creepy is a good description.

 

[AdMan]

Apparently it's wrong. BYU has released a video (available here) emphasising this and encouraging students to inform authorities if their friends masturbate.
Creepy is a good description.

Yet another example of many religions' obsession with sex.

It's as if they're feeling guilty, or something.

Happily, most of the world pays no attention and keeps masturbating and having sex for pleasure.

 

[halleyscomet]

Thanks for the link, Craig4.

May I ask our Mormon forum members if they believe a dark skin is caused by God's curse?

I'm sure many do, and see no conflict between that and a forgiving God. Remember, in their cosmology, dark skinned people were in open rebellion against God, going to war as Satan's minions. In Mormon theology these people were demons whom god has allowed to endure human trials to get back into his good graces.

 

[Christian Klippel]

This is how it all began:





Greetings,

Chris

 

[pakeha]

I'm sure many do, and see no conflict between that and a forgiving God. Remember, in their cosmology, dark skinned people were in open rebellion against God, going to war as Satan's minions. In Mormon theology these people were demons whom god has allowed to endure human trials to get back into his good graces.

 

[halleyscomet]

Well, THIS promises to be interesting:

500 Mormon women to enter Temple Square to seek priesthood tickets
Women’s group says the church has no plans to stop them.

 

[Janadele]

Remember, in their cosmology, dark skinned people were in open rebellion against God, going to war as Satan's minions. In Mormon theology these people were demons whom god has allowed to endure human trials to get back into his good graces.

Wrong again Halley. <snip>

All humanity followed Jesus Christ and Heavenly Father in our premortal existence, though naturally in various degrees of progression and valiance.

Those who followed Lucifer were cast down to this earth without the privilege of a mortal body, with no chance to progress.

Edited by Loss Leader: 

Edited. Moderated thread.

 

[Craig4]

You go girls! Women have just as much right to spread irrational beliefs as men.

 

[Pup]

Well, THIS promises to be interesting:

500 Mormon women to enter Temple Square to seek priesthood tickets
Women’s group says the church has no plans to stop them.

I agree with some of the comments, especially the one by someone signed hendrfc:

I very rarely defend the Mormons, but the bottom line here is the LDS church is a private organization, and as such, they have every right to set their own rules and expectations for membership. Religion is a lifestyle choice. It is not something you were born with, such as race, gender, sex, or sexual orientation... I do sympathize with you in that you've been brainwashed since birth that the Mormon church is the only "true" church, but we all know that defies logic. Get out there and research other faiths. Find that happiness and acceptance you all are obviously craving

Unless the LDS church sets up a two-tiered system where holding the priesthood is mandatory for males but optional for females, giving the priesthood to females would be a significant change in requirements for all female church members, which is the primary reason my wife is against it.

Unlike other churches where becoming a priest is just one of many career choices, every (male) member is expected to hold the priesthood and fulfill certain duties.

Opening up the priesthood to women wouldn't be just adding a new option for females to choose, like the days when women wanted the opportunity for different careers beyond nurse, secretary, etc. In this case, it would be taking away options for other women, the equivalent of forcing every nurse to become a doctor and every secretary to become a boss.

I think hendrfc, whoever he/she is, nailed it. Rather than thinking: "If God doesn't give us the priesthood, he's not the god we want to believe in," they use the logic: "We don't dare disbelieve in this god, but we want to hold the priesthood, so we need to get an authority to claim this god wants us to have the priesthood." The impact on the beliefs and roles of other female LDS is irrelevant to them.

 

[skyrider44]

. . . True, but because he was silent we also cannot know what he thought about them, just that whatever he thought he didn't deem important enough to ensure the Gospel writers recorded it.

You don't believe that Jesus was divine, yet you assume that he fashioned his statements for inclusion in the accounts of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John. How do you know--as an atheist--that Jesus knew that such accounts would even be written?

Here, you unwittingly assign the abilities of a deity to a man you dismiss as a run-of-the-mill preacher.