Mormon Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints

sorry to burst any bubbles here, but the bible has little to no historical validation, apart from egypt and jericho and jerusalem being real places. we can't even say for certain the exodus happened, and all of jewish theology hinges on that event. mainstream mormons today do not practice polygamy.also, lots of biblical figures practice polygamy. for instance, jacob (israel) had two wives, and two concubines, and all four played a part in the birth of the twelve tribes. i agree. there's several good reasons i find the bom to a lot less credible than the bible (which i don't find all that credible to begin with).This message has been edited by arachnophilia, 05-27-2005 02:10 AM

---

אָרַח

schraf: does that have to do with letting people into the inner part of the temple?

---

אָרַח

i think you answered your own question. ANY religion can be a cult. a good majority of the biblical texts (in the christian bible) were not written by witnesses, but attributed to people who lived much earlier than the age of the text. i think the difference is the difference in time between the real author and attributed author, and the intentions. i don't think that the biblical authors were TRYING to mislead people originally, and state that certain people wrote certain books. with one notable exception, of course.rather, they collected works. and compiled. and attributed backwards because of tradition.

---

אָרַח

quote:

---

schraf: does that have to do with letting people into the inner part of the temple?

---

I think so.Basically, my friend's family had to stand "otside" the place where the actual ceremony took place, while the groom's family, all Mormons of course, got to be there and witness the whole thing.Talk about exclusion and secrecy.Just what bad thing is going to happen if you let someon'e own non-mormon parents stand up next to their daughter while she getting married, and how does excluding them qualify as a "pro-family" attitude?Just what don't they want outsiders to see or hear?

yeah, not sure how i feel about that. {glad i'm not dating a mormon anymore...}This message has been edited by arachnophilia, 05-27-2005 11:51 AM

---

אָרַח

schraf, it's not about secrecy. It's about sanctity. There is an area of the temple that only specific people can be in. I can't say much about this as:1) It's a sacred subject that isn't discussed outside of the temple2) I haven't been through the entire temple, (just the baptistry) so I can't really say.If it makes you feel better, I've been excluded from weddings too. It's hard to understand, but trust me, we encourage family ties, even out of the Church.

Hi Rosie,A little tip for you. If you look at the message that you are replying to and look at the bottom right hand corner of that message box you will see three 'buttons'. 'Edit' 'Reply' and 'Peek'.If you click the 'reply' button then members will know which message you are referring to in your post. Also, the member who posted the message that you are replying to will probably receive an email informing them that you have replied to one of their messages.It makes life a little easier for all involved.AdminBrian.

Okay thanks. I hadn't used my account for awhile, and I'd forgotten some of the features.

Excluding the non-Mormon parents from witnessing the marriage ceremony of their only daughter is not "pro-family" any way you slice it.At some point not too long ago during the development of the rules of the Mormon religion, someone decided that non-Mormons shouldn't be allowed to witness Mormon wedding ceremonies, even if the non-Mormons were the parents of the bride or groom.It didn't have to be like that. They could have made the rule to include rather than exclude, to be open instead of closed.Of course, they are free to make any kind of exclusionary rule they want to, but to also promote their religion as "pro family" is hypocritical.They are clearly only "pro-family" if all of the family members are Mormon. Non-Mormon family members are treated as less worthy and less important.Think about it. This is a great way to start pulling the Mormon convert away from her non-Mormon parents and family.

Yeah. And you know what? He only beats me because he loves me.Victim logic, never changes...

you know i didn't mean to hurt you, baby.

Dear Arachnophilia; R U nuts? The Bible has plenty of historical backing, while we don't have evidence for all events recorded in the Bible, it is a real history taking place in real places. There is a whole field called Biblical Archaeology, here is a link to a site for Biblical Archaeology Review.
Home - Biblical Archaeology SocietyWhile the situation of the Book of Mormon and archaeology is summed up nicely by the following quote. http://www.utlm.org/...eresources/testingthebookofmormon.htmSo while you may quibble about this or that in the Bible not being found yet in archaeology, nothing in the book of Mormon has been found at all. While the Biblical narrative fits in with the archaeology of the times, proper place names, titles, geographical descriptions etc, the book of Mormon has major conflicts with archaeology on just about everything it states which reveals it to be a book of fiction.For you to equate the archaeological backing of the Bible with the book of Mormon, shows ether very biased judgement or a near total lack of knowledge of the subject.Sincerely Yours; Wm Scott Anderson

like the exodus, for example. uh, i beg to differ. it's not history. very little of the bible is, and the stuff that IS history is recorded with bias and is sometimes innacurate. yes, the places are often real. but the history is interpretitive. and you might be interested to know exactly how little it backs up the bible. look into, i think it's quite interesting. yes, i agree. the utter absence of evidence makes the bible look quite accurate by comparison. i'm quibbling over the manner in which things were recorded, embellished, and maybe occasionally made up in the bible. but the BoM seems to have been made up wholesale.while the bible seems to record a particular group of people's particular views and traditions regarding things that seem to have actually happened (assyrian and babylonian exile for instance), the book of mormon does not seem to be recording any variants of anything that actually happened. i wasn't equating them, really. it's just that when people claim there's a lot of historical evidence for the events in the bible (there's really not) and that we should accept the bible as a true, holy book because of it, but not the book of mormon because it has NO evidence, it sort of annoys me.the only difference is that there is SOME for bible, where there is not for the bom. but there is not a lot for the bible. much of the key elements are totally without evidence. for instance, the exodus and king david. the two biggest things in the religion.

---

אָרַח

One word: Chick-fil-a

---

"Look, the Bible is VERY clear. [...] It warns repeatedly against believing what the 'world' says, what the 'wise' of the world, the philosophers or thinkers of the world say." -- Faith

We didn't make the rule. God did. There are certain things that you must obtain before you may enter the sealing rooms, among these is the endowment, something that only baptised individuals may receive. I'm sure the daughter worked it out with her parents. I know my dad did, as he was a convert and my paternal grandparents did not attend my parents' wedding.