LDS II: The Mormons

[bruto]

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.

If I read the article right, the Church can deny the tickets, whereupon the women will march to a local park and listen to the broadcast that's going to be made anyway. It all sounds pretty polite, and the Church would appear to be doing the wise thing (not the same as the right thing) by simply not making a scene. It all sounds very polite.

 

[Craig4]

So, what about it? Is being of dark skin a sore cursing? If not, what does that mean for the Book of Mormon?

 

[Janadele]

The following are up to date numbers of full time missionaries officially representing The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints

"• Total number of missionaries serving: 85,039 (as of March 31, 2014)
• Number of those who have received calls: 14,375
(as of March 31, 2014)
• Number of those that are working with their stake president or bishop in the process somewhere in the process: 6,306 (as of March 31, 2014)
• Number (or percentage) of Sisters and Elders: 64% Elders,
28% Sisters, 8% Seniors"
http://www.mormonnewsroom.org/article/church-provides-additional-missionary-statistics

 

[halleyscomet]

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.

As I've pointed out before, I'm not an atheist. I'm a deist. If your going to reference my faith, despite its lack of relevance to this discussion, at least reference the right one.

Getting back on topic, I was discussing the scriptures from the pointing view of a believer. Discussing realistic scriptural analysis complete with a discussion of the origins of the texts, is futile with Mormons largely because they have their own translation of the old and new testaments deemed authoritative as a result of being edited by John Smith. This is not a criticism of Mormons but a simple reality.

From a Mormon perspective my statement stands. <SNIP>

My core point remains. It is futile to argue about what Jesus might have said on a topic.

 

[halleyscomet]

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.

If that's the case then kindly explain how bring dark skinned is related to decisions made in the alleged pre-mortal existence. You've made many references to how this time period influenced this life. Please elaborate.

Keep in mind, we are all aware of your statements asserting that the tower of babel myth justifies racial segregation.

 

[Janadele]

...we are all aware of your statements asserting that the tower of babel ... justifies racial segregation.

So what? Racial segregation does not need justification. It is perfectly normal and common sense. I am happy to proclaim I am of the white race and of Aryan descent, and that I prefer my own race.

I am sure most races prefer their own...and so they should. If not, then that is their problem not mine.

As for yourself Halley, think as you please... it is no concern of mine.

 

[skyrider44]

As I've pointed out before, I'm not an atheist. I'm a deist. If your going to reference my faith, despite its lack of relevance to this discussion, at least reference the right one.

I apologize.

Getting back on topic, I was discussing the scriptures from the pointing view of a believer. Discussing realistic scriptural analysis complete with a discussion of the origins of the texts, is futile with Mormons largely because they have their own translation of the old and new testaments deemed authoritative as a result of being edited by John Smith. This is not a criticism of Mormons but a simple reality.

Joseph Smith was able to correct only a small portion of the Old and New Testaments; hence, it is far from accurate to say that "Mormons. . .have their own translation of the old and new testaments."

From a Mormon perspective my statement stands. <SNIP>

So you believe that Jesus "tailored" his statements based on the notion that Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John would subsequently record them in the New Testament. By extension, you believe that if Jesus had views about certain issues and those views are not in the Bible, He was devoid of those views.

My core point remains. It is futile to argue about what Jesus might have said on a topic.

Your "core point" is premised on the mistaken belief that Joseph Smith "translated" the OT and NT in their entirety. He did not.

 

[halleyscomet]

"• Total number of missionaries serving: 85,039 (as of March 31, 2014)

Any faithful Mormon should find that number depressingly low. It appears that young Mormons on their required missions are considered "full time" while they're going door to door in their white shirts and string ties. Such a low number would indicate their this rite of passage is dying out among the younger generation. Since the main point of this rite of passage is to temper and test the faith of the missionaries while reinforcing a religions "us vs them" mentality, the end result is a "Haldeyburg" Mormon, a feeble one who has never been tested. What's worse, at least from LDS perspective, is these young Mormons will be less likely to reflexively side with Mormon authority, having never been really forced to confront non-Momrons as generally angry and grumpy to see them.

A major indoctrination experience is fading. That sort of thing never bodes well for a religion.

• Number of those who have received calls: 14,375 (as of March 31, 2014)

Numbers like this really bring home just how SMALL the LDS church is compared to Christian denominations. There are Southern Baptists fractions that would need to time share each pastor among five or more churches if their number of people who received a call was that low!

• Number of those that are working with their stake president or bishop in the process somewhere in the process: 6,306 (as of March 31, 2014)

Again, you guys are tiny. Wicca priestesses may outnumber your Bishops in the US alone.

• Number (or percentage) of Sisters and Elders: 64% Elders,
28% Sisters, 8% Seniors"

That too is a very depressing statistic for faithful Mormons. Remember, among Mormons, becoming an "elder" is, like confirmation and tithing, something expected of Mormon men. This means nearly a third of Mormon men are either abandoning the faith, or at least becoming "Easter / Christmas" Mormons, in their early to mid 20's.

Are "Sisters" the female equivalent of an Elder? If so, that means 2/3rds of Mormon women just aren't that invested in their faith.

http://www.mormonnewsroom.org/article/church-provides-additional-missionary-statistics

As much as I've had fun ragging on Mormon beliefs and the raw, unadulterated absurdity of the historical claims in the Book of Mormon, I can't help but feel a little sorry for the older Mormons, looking at these statistics indicative a dying faith. It must be how the Zoroastrians felt as their numbers dwindled while Islam took over in what is now Iran and Iraq.

 

[Craig4]

The following are up to date numbers of full time missionaries officially representing The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints

"• Total number of missionaries serving: 85,039 (as of March 31, 2014)
• Number of those who have received calls: 14,375
(as of March 31, 2014)
• Number of those that are working with their stake president or bishop in the process somewhere in the process: 6,306 (as of March 31, 2014)
• Number (or percentage) of Sisters and Elders: 64% Elders,
28% Sisters, 8% Seniors"
http://www.mormonnewsroom.org/article/church-provides-additional-missionary-statistics

I just found out that I'm moving back to Virginia at the end of the summer. I know that you can almost always find Mormon Missionaries at the Metro stops between Fairfax and Roselyn. I'll see what I can do about reducing those numbers by engaging the lads in the some Socratic questioning. I'll be nice while I'm attempting to save them.

 

[skyrider44]

. . . Discussing realistic scriptural analysis complete with a discussion of the origins of the texts, is futile with Mormons largely because they have their own translation of the old and new testaments deemed authoritative as a result of being edited by John Smith.

Your statement leads one to believe that Joseph Smith completely rewrote the OT and NT. Such is not the case, to wit:

The manuscript shows that Smith went all the way through the Bible from Genesis to Revelation. But it also shows that he did not make all the necessary corrections in one effort. This situation makes it impossible to give a statistical answer to questions about how much of the Translation was completed or how much was not completed" [emphasis added].
What is evident, however, is that any part of the Translation might have been further touched upon and improved by additional revelation and emendation by Smith." (Robert J. Matthews, Wikipedia, "Joseph Smith Translation of the Bible."








From a Mormon perspective my statement stands. <SNIP>

My core point remains. It is futile to argue about what Jesus might have said on a topic.[/QUOTE]

 

[Pup]

Number (or percentage) of Sisters and Elders: 64% Elders,
28% Sisters, 8% Seniors"

That too is a very depressing statistic for faithful Mormons. Remember, among Mormons, becoming an "elder" is, like confirmation and tithing, something expected of Mormon men. This means nearly a third of Mormon men are either abandoning the faith, or at least becoming "Easter / Christmas" Mormons, in their early to mid 20's.

Are "Sisters" the female equivalent of an Elder? If so, that means 2/3rds of Mormon women just aren't that invested in their faith.

[pedant]The fact that the percentages add up to 100 makes me suspect they're showing the proportion of missionaries in those categories, not the percentage of all members in those categories or the percentage in those categories who have served missions.

In other words, if one meets a random missionary, there's a 64% chance he'll be a young male (an elder).[/pedant]

 

[bruto]

So what? Racial segregation does not need justification. It is perfectly normal and common sense. I am happy to proclaim I am of the white race and of Aryan descent, and that I prefer my own race.

I am sure most races prefer their own...and so they should. If not, then that is their problem not mine.

As for yourself Halley, think as you please... it is no concern of mine.

I disagree entirely and though I despair of seeing clear thought and expression here, I reiterate my disagreement. Perhaps you do not understand what "racial segregation" even means. If you have even a slight conception of it, then you will realize that if you support racial segregation you simply cannot, ever, in any way - NEVER EVER EVER can you say, that the choice of others not to be segregated is "their problem not mine." It is, absolutely, and completely, your problem, because you are the author of an ugly and unbecoming injustice, breeding hatred, inequality, oppression and death.

Perhaps you are misusing the term. If so, you should make sure you do not accidentally mischaracterize yourself. Racial segregation is an abomination of which any modern human being should be ashamed. Of course, since its basis is the forcing of an idea on those who do not share it, it is not entirely alien to the way powerful religious coalitions continue to operate, but none, including your own, continue to endorse this shameful idea, whatever they might have done in the past.

Of course if you prefer the company of people like you, and avoid the company of those who are not like you, then that is, indeed, entirely your affair and your problem. Even if your conception of race is a limitation and a foolish fiction, it is your affair and your loss. That, however, is not racial segregation.

If what you mean to say is that you prefer racial separation, rather than endorsing segregation, you should make sure that you clarify this point, because it would certainly be unfortunate if readers here were led to believe that you are despicable scum when you are not.

 

[Slowvehicle]

So what? Racial segregation does not need justification. It is perfectly normal and common sense. I am happy to proclaim I am of the white race and of Aryan descent, and that I prefer my own race.

I am sure most races prefer their own...and so they should. If not, then that is their problem not mine.

As for yourself Halley, think as you please... it is no concern of mine.

"Jesus loves the little children,
All the little children of the world--
White, and white, and white, and white'
We are precious in his sight,
Jesus loves the mormon children of the world!"

 

[Slowvehicle]

<snip for space>
My core point remains. It is futile to argue about what Jesus might have said on a topic.

Unsurprisingly, you seem to be saying that the fact that an idea is not recorded (or attributed in any way to Jesus), in any canonic xian material, is license to pretend that the idea is, in fact, the "authentic" εὐαγγέλιον of Ίησοῦς ὁ Χριστός "in its new testament purity".

What an odd, and convenient, abdication of scholarship (not to mention a complete reversal of the burden of proof).

 

[skyrider44]

Your statement leads one to believe that Joseph Smith completely rewrote the OT and NT.

My core point remains. It is futile to argue about what Jesus might have said on a topic.

But, in effect, that is what you have done. You have posited that because Jesus' words on post-mortal marriage, homosexuality, etc., were not recorded by the gospel writers, He didn't address those issues. Hence, you have argued for the position that Jesus never spoke to those topics.

 

[Slowvehicle]

But, in effect, that is what you have done. You have posited that because Jesus' words on post-mortal marriage, homosexuality, etc., were not recorded by the gospel writers, He didn't address those issues. Hence, you have argued for the position that Jesus never spoke to those topics.

OTH, you continue to pretend that since (for instance), no incidence of words attiributed to Jesus addressing homosexuality has ever been preserved in any canonic xian material, it is still reasonable to claim that the "authentic" εὐαγγέλιον of Ίησοῦς ὁ Χριστός "in its new testament purity" includes condemnation of homesuality.

You continue to pretend that since (as a further example) no incidence of words attributed to Jesus stating that men could, in fact, "become 'gods' " has ever been preserved in any canonic xian material, it is still reasonable to claim that the "authentic" εὐαγγέλιον of Ίησοῦς ὁ Χριστός "in its new testament purity" includes the heterodox idea that men can and will "become 'gods' ".

You continue to pretend that, although Jesus is recorded, in canoninc xian texts, as teaching, clearly and in so many words, that those participating in "the resurrection" would "neither marry, nor be given in marriage", eternal marriage is still part of the "authentic" εὐαγγέλιον of Ίησοῦς ὁ Χριστός "in its new testament purity".

Given that degree of doctrinal temerity and scholastic flaccidity, what is there that could not be considered part of the "authentic" εὐαγγέλιον of Ίησοῦς ὁ Χριστός "in its new testament purity"?

 

[Craig4]

So what? Racial segregation does not need justification. It is perfectly normal and common sense. I am happy to proclaim I am of the white race and of Aryan descent, and that I prefer my own race.

I am sure most races prefer their own...and so they should. If not, then that is their problem not mine.

As for yourself Halley, think as you please... it is no concern of mine.

Thanks for the quote. I'll work this concept into the Elenchus when I'm engaging Mormon missionaries in the future.

 

[halleyscomet]

But, in effect, that is what you have done. You have posited that because Jesus' words on post-mortal marriage, homosexuality, etc., were not recorded by the gospel writers, He didn't address those issues. Hence, you have argued for the position that Jesus never spoke to those topics.

If you assume a divine origin of the Gospels then God did not have strong enough feelings about homosexuals to comment upon them in the Gospels. You keep trying to invalidate this point by arguing about that fact that I do not assume a divine origin for the gospels. Your arguments only work, and even then only poorly, if you too reject a divine origin of the gospels.

Do you believe the Gospels had a divine origin or inspiration?

If not, why call yourself Christian?

 

[skyrider44]

Unsurprisingly, you seem to be saying that the fact that an idea is not recorded (or attributed in any way to Jesus), in any canonic xian material, is license to pretend that the idea is, in fact, the "authentic" εὐαγγέλιον of Ίησοῦς ὁ Χριστός "in its new testament purity".

What an odd, and convenient, abdication of scholarship (not to mention a complete reversal of the burden of proof).

You justifiably point out that if Jesus was opposed to homosexuality, there is no record of that opposition in the OT and NT. Are we to assume, then--by the same measure--that Jesus wasn't opposed to pornography or abortion or drug abuse or alcoholism because there is no record in the OT and NT of His having addressed those subjects? Your answer to those inconvenient questions is to dismiss the Bible as irrelevant.

 

[skyrider44]

. . . Correct. There's no record of Jesus having spoken about homosexuality.

Nor is there any record of Jesus having spoken about pornography, or serial killers, or alcoholism, or prostitution, or capital punishment, etc. By your reasoning, then, He held no views on those issues. It's fascinating that SV, among others, utterly rejects the Bible. Suddenly though, he imbues it with credibility by 1) proclaiming it contains no record of Jesus having uttered a word about homosexuality; and 2) ignoring the fact that Jesus didn't utter any words about the other issues I list above.

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.

Is it your position that Jesus controlled what the gospel writers were to put into their accounts? Isn't one of the arguments naysayers use to challenge the veracity of the Bible is that the gospels were written years after the death of Jesus on the cross?



Thank you for conceding the point, even if you are laughably wrong about marriage after death and resurrection.[/QUOTE]