Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 64 (9071 total)
575 online now:
Aussie, AZPaul3, dwise1, PaulK, Tanypteryx (5 members, 570 visitors)
Newest Member: FossilDiscovery
Upcoming Birthdays: Percy
Post Volume: Total: 893,056 Year: 4,168/6,534 Month: 382/900 Week: 88/150 Day: 19/42 Hour: 0/2


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Mormon Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints
tsig
Member (Idle past 2137 days)
Posts: 738
From: USA
Joined: 04-09-2004


Message 226 of 264 (171747)
12-27-2004 2:06 PM
Reply to: Message 222 by jar
12-23-2004 9:33 AM


Re: Oh, jealous
Hi Jar
I had no idea about the Clavinisms.

I studied the Mormon religion for many years. I’ve read the BoM cover to cover, the Pearl of Great Price and D&C. Never felt a burning sensation in my bosom.

I concluded that Joesph Smith made it all up. Joe’s mother tells in her autobiography a story of Young Joe sitting at the kitchen table entertaining the rest of the family with tales of ancient kingdoms, complete with characters and detailed descriptions of their customs and weapons. Sound familiar?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 222 by jar, posted 12-23-2004 9:33 AM jar has taken no action

  
tsig
Member (Idle past 2137 days)
Posts: 738
From: USA
Joined: 04-09-2004


Message 227 of 264 (172049)
12-29-2004 4:54 AM
Reply to: Message 224 by arachnophilia
12-25-2004 7:17 AM


Re: Oh, jealous
You are right, when I started a union later i got $10.00 from each charter member. The union worked.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 224 by arachnophilia, posted 12-25-2004 7:17 AM arachnophilia has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 229 by arachnophilia, posted 12-31-2004 4:33 AM tsig has taken no action

  
Zachariah
Inactive Member


Message 228 of 264 (172215)
12-30-2004 2:46 AM
Reply to: Message 4 by Agent Uranium [GPC]
08-08-2003 1:47 PM


Accuracy??????
8 witnesses testify to it's accuracy

If it is as accurate as you say why has it been revised multiple times? I know the Holy Bible is written in "easy to read" form but at least the message is the same in each Bible. The Mormans have gone through and changed what they wrote. That doesn't sound prophetic or accurate. It sounds like a cult.........oh my bad, it is a cult. -Z


This message is a reply to:
 Message 4 by Agent Uranium [GPC], posted 08-08-2003 1:47 PM Agent Uranium [GPC] has taken no action

Replies to this message:
 Message 230 by arachnophilia, posted 12-31-2004 4:36 AM Zachariah has replied

  
arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 572 days)
Posts: 9069
From: god's waiting room
Joined: 05-21-2004


Message 229 of 264 (172468)
12-31-2004 4:33 AM
Reply to: Message 227 by tsig
12-29-2004 4:54 AM


Re: Oh, jealous
You are right, when I started a union later i got $10.00 from each charter member. The union worked.

no no no you're doing it all wrong. you have to categorize it as a religion, organize, with some form of service. then it's tax-free.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 227 by tsig, posted 12-29-2004 4:54 AM tsig has taken no action

  
arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 572 days)
Posts: 9069
From: god's waiting room
Joined: 05-21-2004


Message 230 of 264 (172469)
12-31-2004 4:36 AM
Reply to: Message 228 by Zachariah
12-30-2004 2:46 AM


Re: Accuracy??????
I know the Holy Bible is written in "easy to read" form but at least the message is the same in each Bible. The Mormans have gone through and changed what they wrote.

pssst. different bibles say different things.

really. not only is there revision between books of the bible (see 1Ch 21:1 and 2Sa 24:1, and psalms 14 adn 53), but different translations, editions, and even manuscripts of the bible say different things. the catholic and kjv editions don't even have the same number of books, and there's two entirely different versions of jeremiah.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 228 by Zachariah, posted 12-30-2004 2:46 AM Zachariah has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 231 by Zachariah, posted 12-31-2004 3:16 PM arachnophilia has replied

  
Zachariah
Inactive Member


Message 231 of 264 (172551)
12-31-2004 3:16 PM
Reply to: Message 230 by arachnophilia
12-31-2004 4:36 AM


Re: Accuracy??????
Stinkin Catholics.......... My point is the Book of Mormon is a crock. It is made up and when there is an item that doesn't mesh they make a change. What I say is that the Bible (as a whole) is the same message from one to the other. There may be some small variations but they basically say the same thing. The BOM has made complete changes over the years, which leads me to believe that the book has no value. -Z

This message is a reply to:
 Message 230 by arachnophilia, posted 12-31-2004 4:36 AM arachnophilia has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 232 by arachnophilia, posted 01-02-2005 2:13 AM Zachariah has replied
 Message 237 by Rosie Cotton, posted 04-25-2005 8:01 PM Zachariah has taken no action

  
arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 572 days)
Posts: 9069
From: god's waiting room
Joined: 05-21-2004


Message 232 of 264 (172941)
01-02-2005 2:13 AM
Reply to: Message 231 by Zachariah
12-31-2004 3:16 PM


Re: Accuracy??????
My point is the Book of Mormon is a crock.

ok, sure.

It is made up and when there is an item that doesn't mesh they make a change

whereas the inconsistencies are left in the bible?

What I say is that the Bible (as a whole) is the same message from one to the other. There may be some small variations but they basically say the same thing.

absolutely not! lamentations and numbers and matthew are three VERY different kinds of books. the messages aren't even consistent.

The BOM has made complete changes over the years, which leads me to believe that the book has no value.

same deal with the bible.

there are three essential differences between the bible and the book of mormon:

1. the bible is older
2. more people wrote/contributed to/editted the bible.
3. the bible has to be translated.

these don't make it any more holy, really.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 231 by Zachariah, posted 12-31-2004 3:16 PM Zachariah has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 233 by Zachariah, posted 01-04-2005 12:53 AM arachnophilia has replied

  
Zachariah
Inactive Member


Message 233 of 264 (173640)
01-04-2005 12:53 AM
Reply to: Message 232 by arachnophilia
01-02-2005 2:13 AM


Re: Accuracy??????
When I said "the Bible (as a whole)is the same message from one to another, I wasn't refering to the books that make up the bible i.e. lamentations,numbers, and mathew. I was saying an NIV and KJV and so on may be differing on a few items in how they are translated but the give the same message or story. The Mormans doesn't. If you picked up the first BOM and another 30 years later and another 50 years later they would have alot of completely different ideas and beliefs. Understand what I'm saying? -Z

This message is a reply to:
 Message 232 by arachnophilia, posted 01-02-2005 2:13 AM arachnophilia has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 234 by arachnophilia, posted 01-04-2005 2:39 AM Zachariah has replied

  
arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 572 days)
Posts: 9069
From: god's waiting room
Joined: 05-21-2004


Message 234 of 264 (173655)
01-04-2005 2:39 AM
Reply to: Message 233 by Zachariah
01-04-2005 12:53 AM


Re: Accuracy??????
When I said "the Bible (as a whole)is the same message from one to another, I wasn't refering to the books that make up the bible i.e. lamentations,numbers, and mathew. I was saying an NIV and KJV and so on may be differing on a few items in how they are translated but the give the same message or story. The Mormans doesn't. If you picked up the first BOM and another 30 years later and another 50 years later they would have alot of completely different ideas and beliefs. Understand what I'm saying?

yes, but it's still wrong. not because the bom doesn't change -- i don't know the answer to that. but because the bible DOES. the internal inconsistencies are evidence of this, and the fact that original messages are probably preserved, even if modified.

and SOMETIMES we catch modifications between existing manuscripts. here's on example:

quote:
Deuteronomy 32:8,9 (JPS - Masoretic)

When the Most High gave nations their homes
   And set the divisions of man,
He fixed the boundaries of peoples
   In relation Israel's numbers.
For the LORD'S portion is His people,
   Jacob his own allotment.


unexciting verse, i know. but let's read what it's saying. when god divided the nations (at babel, in genesis 11), he made the same number of countries as the number of israelites. one israelite, one country. except israel, israel belongs to god. straightforward, right?

so how many countries were there? --- the same number as the number of israelites: ZERO. jacob hadn't been born yet, let alone fathered a nation. and it can't be refering to literal sons of jacob either, a figurative way of saying "twelve" in effect, because i'm sure the torah itself names a lot more than 12 other nations.

here's the solution to our problem with this verse. the dead sea scrolls and the septuagint (which are older than the masoretic text) say something to the effect of:

quote:
He fixed the boundaries of peoples
according to the number of the Sons of God.

subtitle change, BIG difference in meaning. what is the verse saying now? the nations are divided up according to divine beings, one for each son of god, and one for yhwh. let's a go a few steps further. this verse seems to indicate that author was fine with something called henotheism: the idea that we have one god, but other having their's is acceptable. sons, in hebrew, often means members of a group. "man" in the verse above is literally "sons of adam (man)" and israelites is "sons of israel." so "sons of god" could mean members of the group gods -- a hebrew pantheon of sorts, each nation with a patron god to watch over it. the difference with israel is that their god is the strongest, and his name is yhwh.

now, at some point this made some rabbis itch. and some overtly polytheistic verses such as this were modified. even today, my jps bible refuses to correctly translate the sons of god, because it's too polytheistic for them.

so yes, sometimes the message DOES change, and the proof is in the manuscripts.

This message has been edited by Arachnophilia, 01-04-2005 02:41 AM


This message is a reply to:
 Message 233 by Zachariah, posted 01-04-2005 12:53 AM Zachariah has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 235 by Zachariah, posted 01-04-2005 8:12 AM arachnophilia has taken no action

  
Zachariah
Inactive Member


Message 235 of 264 (173688)
01-04-2005 8:12 AM
Reply to: Message 234 by arachnophilia
01-04-2005 2:39 AM


Re: Accuracy??????
Very interesting. -Z

This message is a reply to:
 Message 234 by arachnophilia, posted 01-04-2005 2:39 AM arachnophilia has taken no action

  
Rosie Cotton
Inactive Member


Message 236 of 264 (202390)
04-25-2005 8:00 PM


Kay. Umm, I'm a Mormon. Skimming this thread, I don't think there has been any Mormons visit yet, so I'd like to pop in. :)

  
Rosie Cotton
Inactive Member


Message 237 of 264 (202391)
04-25-2005 8:01 PM
Reply to: Message 231 by Zachariah
12-31-2004 3:16 PM


Re: Accuracy??????
Actually, the Book of Mormon has not changed one bit. :)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 231 by Zachariah, posted 12-31-2004 3:16 PM Zachariah has taken no action

  
randman 
Suspended Member (Idle past 4128 days)
Posts: 6367
Joined: 05-26-2005


Message 238 of 264 (211604)
05-26-2005 8:38 PM


Here's the thing. The whole Book of Mormon thing has no real historical evidence for it, as the Bible does (at least much of it), and the story of Joseph Smith and the belief in polygamy, etc,...just seem false.

But is there a presence with it?

Yes, and there is spirituality and many real Christians, I suspect.

But the best thing the Mormons have going for them is that for the most part, they live very godly, family oriented, dedicated lives, or it sure seems that way looking at the ones I have known, and for that fact alone, I give them the benefit of the doubt as to being real Christians.

I think the Book of Mormon, though, is probably a fantasy created by Joseph Smith, and there are some skeletons in the Mormon history closet.


Replies to this message:
 Message 239 by nator, posted 05-26-2005 10:15 PM randman has taken no action
 Message 241 by arachnophilia, posted 05-27-2005 2:10 AM randman has taken no action

  
nator
Member (Idle past 1398 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 239 of 264 (211631)
05-26-2005 10:15 PM
Reply to: Message 238 by randman
05-26-2005 8:38 PM


quote:
But the best thing the Mormons have going for them is that for the most part, they live very godly, family oriented, dedicated lives,

The only members of a mormon's family that matters to the mormon church are the mormons in that family.

Any non-mormon family members are excluded from important events like wedding ceremonies.

This happened to my friend's parents, brother, aunts, uncles, grandparents, etc when she converted to mormonism and then married into a mormon family.

Not a single one of her relations were allowed to attend the wedding ceremony. That is terribly cruel to the family, if you ask me, and smacks a little of the chrurch trying to become more important to the convert than her own flesh and blood family.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 238 by randman, posted 05-26-2005 8:38 PM randman has taken no action

Replies to this message:
 Message 242 by arachnophilia, posted 05-27-2005 2:11 AM nator has replied

  
randman 
Suspended Member (Idle past 4128 days)
Posts: 6367
Joined: 05-26-2005


Message 240 of 264 (211635)
05-26-2005 10:20 PM


Well, I never said there wasn't some cultish aspects to Mormonism. But they appear to live very dedicated and seeming Christian lives overall.

My daughter is friends with a Mormon girl, and she (my 15 year old) claims they sound a lot like me! Don't know if that's good or bad, but that one family and some others I have met over the years seem very committed, prayerful, etc,...

But anytime you have to create a new Bible to support the movement, well, that's suspicious, especially if the new Bible is suppossed to be about events no one living ever saw.

New books were added to the Bible as God moved in history. I would not necessarily a priori discount the concept of new scriptures, but the Book of Mormon??? I don't see it.

But give credit where credit is due.

This message has been edited by randman, 05-26-2005 10:20 PM


Replies to this message:
 Message 243 by arachnophilia, posted 05-27-2005 2:17 AM randman has taken no action

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.1
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2022