S/O Mormonism... I just don't get it...

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

that is idiotic. your example is the worst one out of the new testament, because Jesus was nailed to a cross and died a torturous death. that is a historical fact that all historians accept. the Romans would routinely crucify their prisoners when they wanted to make a point. and unlike most other religions, Jesus wasn't in it for the chicks or the money - clearly the motivating factors for Joseph Smith. Yes, all religions have faith based angles that require you to suspend disbelief, but Mormonisn takes it a step too far with assertions in their book that go beyond faith are are completely factually impossible

I have no vested interest in defending Mormonism, but I just can't let hypocrisy like this slide by. What about transubstantiation? Turning water into wine? The resurection, for cryin' out loud? Parting the red sea? Those all seem "completely factually impossible," right? How abot Noah's Ark? Jonah being swallowed by a great fish? How is anything in Mormonism more fantastic than that?

I suppose I understand the insecurity - after all, christianity isn't really a faith in and of itself, but a collection of rituals and practices "borrowed" from pagan religions.

Nah. Dead people coming back to life then being lifted, bodily, into Heaven? That's totally believable. That they might choose to write a message on a golden plate and bury it--that's just loony-talk there, my friend!

[Anonymous]

As a member of the LDS church I have read this thread with interest. I will not go into detail here, because it obviously isn't a very open or welcoming thread for me and my religion, but I want to state that many of the "facts" presented here are either entirely false or very wrongheaded interpretations of our beliefs. If anyone here is interested in what members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints actually believes and practices, I encourage you to ask your LDS friends and neighbors about their religious life, or visit mormon.org for answers to some common questions.

Typical mormon response - no debates with outsiders.

Good dear friends of mine were committed mormons, and were excommunicated because, (gasp) the husband wrote an op-ed piece defending gay rights.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:All religions have bizarre narratives--it's what you are used to.

Judaism: burning bushes, tablets from God, a man who almost sacrifices his own child because God told him to. Don't forget the circumcision business, too. It's weird.

Christianity: Macabre. A father--omnipotent, omniscient-- allows his son to die a torturous death--he's nailed to wood. Uh huh, exactly.

Your point is?

Really? You don't get the point?

My point is that a lot of people--not just Mormons--have "drunk the Kool Aid," as OP worded it. All these religions have bizarre narratives, but we are accustomed primarily to the Jewish and Christian ones to the point where we don't see how strange they are.

All adults should take a college level religion course. It is eye-opening.

that is idiotic. your example is the worst one out of the new testament, because Jesus was nailed to a cross and died a torturous death. that is a historical fact that all historians accept. the Romans would routinely crucify their prisoners when they wanted to make a point. and unlike most other religions, Jesus wasn't in it for the chicks or the money - clearly the motivating factors for Joseph Smith. Yes, all religions have faith based angles that require you to suspend disbelief, but Mormonisn takes it a step too far with assertions in their book that go beyond faith are are completely factually impossible.

Okay, we'll start with the fact that Jesus' mere existence is pretty dubious, certainly not something that "all historians accept". But lets set that aside for a second. Let's assume Jesus was a real person who lived. Let's further assume he was crucified. The fact that he was crucified does in no way shape or form indicate that it was at the instigation of his Sky-God father, that he had a Sky-God father, that there is a Sky-God, or that he was resurrected.

If the Bible claimed that Jesus pooped baklava, your argument is a bit like saying, "We know that human beings poop! There's a lot of historical support for the fact that humans pooped in Roman times! Therefore, Jesus pooped baklava!"

God, the "faith" mindset really is hugely puzzling. It's like folks have decided to turn off all rational thought where any of this stuff is concerned. Do you guys operate in that mode in all areas of your life, or is it just this one blind-spot?

[Anonymous]

Nah. Dead people coming back to life then being lifted, bodily, into Heaven? That's totally believable. That they might choose to write a message on a golden plate and bury it--that's just loony-talk there, my friend!

Are you also known, on another online forum, as a double reed woodwind?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Nah. Dead people coming back to life then being lifted, bodily, into Heaven? That's totally believable. That they might choose to write a message on a golden plate and bury it--that's just loony-talk there, my friend!

Are you also known, on another online forum, as a double reed woodwind?

No, but my guess is that I'm not saying anything particularly origingal. It's hard to write pointing out the absurdity of things that anyone with half a brain could tell is hokum without sounding like a plagiarist.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:All religions have bizarre narratives--it's what you are used to.

Judaism: burning bushes, tablets from God, a man who almost sacrifices his own child because God told him to. Don't forget the circumcision business, too. It's weird.

Christianity: Macabre. A father--omnipotent, omniscient-- allows his son to die a torturous death--he's nailed to wood. Uh huh, exactly.

Your point is?

Really? You don't get the point?

My point is that a lot of people--not just Mormons--have "drunk the Kool Aid," as OP worded it. All these religions have bizarre narratives, but we are accustomed primarily to the Jewish and Christian ones to the point where we don't see how strange they are.

All adults should take a college level religion course. It is eye-opening.

that is idiotic. your example is the worst one out of the new testament, because Jesus was nailed to a cross and died a torturous death. that is a historical fact that all historians accept. the Romans would routinely crucify their prisoners when they wanted to make a point. and unlike most other religions, Jesus wasn't in it for the chicks or the money - clearly the motivating factors for Joseph Smith. Yes, all religions have faith based angles that require you to suspend disbelief, but Mormonisn takes it a step too far with assertions in their book that go beyond faith are are completely factually impossible.

Okay, we'll start with the fact that Jesus' mere existence is pretty dubious, certainly not something that "all historians accept". But lets set that aside for a second. Let's assume Jesus was a real person who lived. Let's further assume he was crucified. The fact that he was crucified does in no way shape or form indicate that it was at the instigation of his Sky-God father, that he had a Sky-God father, that there is a Sky-God, or that he was resurrected.

If the Bible claimed that Jesus pooped baklava, your argument is a bit like saying, "We know that human beings poop! There's a lot of historical support for the fact that humans pooped in Roman times! Therefore, Jesus pooped baklava!"

God, the "faith" mindset really is hugely puzzling. It's like folks have decided to turn off all rational thought where any of this stuff is concerned. Do you guys operate in that mode in all areas of your life, or is it just this one blind-spot?

no. almost all historians accept that Jesus lived. there are enough independent sources. beyond that, the historical narrative of the new testament is non-fiction. the people described in the gospel existed, the roman governor, the leader of the jews, the various cities and towns visited by Paul in Greece, etc. This isn't exactly controversial or exciting. I am ignoring all of the "miracle" type stories. But to the contrary, the historical narrative in the Book of Mormon is entirely fiction. That the people of Israel moved to North America to become Indians, etc. Not to mention the corruption and the pedophilia of the early leaders.

[Anonymous]

Neither Mormons nor Catholics or other stupid religions should read the Bible or any other written document as fact. The Bible is a book of parables. It's not fact, and the people who treat it as fact are not intelligent. It's a fact it was written. What's written inside are parables, stories to help you live you life, not something to be treated as fact. Same for the Mormons, but in that case it's worse because it was written with the worse of intentions by some con artist who only wanted money and the ability to cheat on his wife. How telling is it that after he was murdered, she left the church because she was never on board with the whole polygamy thing? He was an ass!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:All religions have bizarre narratives--it's what you are used to.

Judaism: burning bushes, tablets from God, a man who almost sacrifices his own child because God told him to. Don't forget the circumcision business, too. It's weird.

Christianity: Macabre. A father--omnipotent, omniscient-- allows his son to die a torturous death--he's nailed to wood. Uh huh, exactly.

Your point is?

Really? You don't get the point?

My point is that a lot of people--not just Mormons--have "drunk the Kool Aid," as OP worded it. All these religions have bizarre narratives, but we are accustomed primarily to the Jewish and Christian ones to the point where we don't see how strange they are.

All adults should take a college level religion course. It is eye-opening.

that is idiotic. your example is the worst one out of the new testament, because Jesus was nailed to a cross and died a torturous death. that is a historical fact that all historians accept. the Romans would routinely crucify their prisoners when they wanted to make a point. and unlike most other religions, Jesus wasn't in it for the chicks or the money - clearly the motivating factors for Joseph Smith. Yes, all religions have faith based angles that require you to suspend disbelief, but Mormonisn takes it a step too far with assertions in their book that go beyond faith are are completely factually impossible.

Okay, we'll start with the fact that Jesus' mere existence is pretty dubious, certainly not something that "all historians accept". But lets set that aside for a second. Let's assume Jesus was a real person who lived. Let's further assume he was crucified. The fact that he was crucified does in no way shape or form indicate that it was at the instigation of his Sky-God father, that he had a Sky-God father, that there is a Sky-God, or that he was resurrected.

If the Bible claimed that Jesus pooped baklava, your argument is a bit like saying, "We know that human beings poop! There's a lot of historical support for the fact that humans pooped in Roman times! Therefore, Jesus pooped baklava!"

God, the "faith" mindset really is hugely puzzling. It's like folks have decided to turn off all rational thought where any of this stuff is concerned. Do you guys operate in that mode in all areas of your life, or is it just this one blind-spot?

no. almost all historians accept that Jesus lived. there are enough independent sources. beyond that, the historical narrative of the new testament is non-fiction. the people described in the gospel existed, the roman governor, the leader of the jews, the various cities and towns visited by Paul in Greece, etc. This isn't exactly controversial or exciting. I am ignoring all of the "miracle" type stories. But to the contrary, the historical narrative in the Book of Mormon is entirely fiction. That the people of Israel moved to North America to become Indians, etc. Not to mention the corruption and the pedophilia of the early leaders.

I'm the first PP who brought up the example of a father, who is omnipotent and omniscient allowing his son to die a torturous death. I accept the historical Jesus, what I find outrageous is the utter lack of rational morality here. I come from a Buddhist background and this central narrative of the Christ story is appalling. Where is the compassion? Why the cruelty? And why do Christians find "beauty" in this story? It is a bizarre morality tale at best, and from an outsider's perspective, completely horrifying and twisted.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:All religions have bizarre narratives--it's what you are used to.

Judaism: burning bushes, tablets from God, a man who almost sacrifices his own child because God told him to. Don't forget the circumcision business, too. It's weird.

Christianity: Macabre. A father--omnipotent, omniscient-- allows his son to die a torturous death--he's nailed to wood. Uh huh, exactly.

Your point is?

Really? You don't get the point?

My point is that a lot of people--not just Mormons--have "drunk the Kool Aid," as OP worded it. All these religions have bizarre narratives, but we are accustomed primarily to the Jewish and Christian ones to the point where we don't see how strange they are.

All adults should take a college level religion course. It is eye-opening.

that is idiotic. your example is the worst one out of the new testament, because Jesus was nailed to a cross and died a torturous death. that is a historical fact that all historians accept. the Romans would routinely crucify their prisoners when they wanted to make a point. and unlike most other religions, Jesus wasn't in it for the chicks or the money - clearly the motivating factors for Joseph Smith. Yes, all religions have faith based angles that require you to suspend disbelief, but Mormonisn takes it a step too far with assertions in their book that go beyond faith are are completely factually impossible.

Okay, we'll start with the fact that Jesus' mere existence is pretty dubious, certainly not something that "all historians accept". But lets set that aside for a second. Let's assume Jesus was a real person who lived. Let's further assume he was crucified. The fact that he was crucified does in no way shape or form indicate that it was at the instigation of his Sky-God father, that he had a Sky-God father, that there is a Sky-God, or that he was resurrected.

If the Bible claimed that Jesus pooped baklava, your argument is a bit like saying, "We know that human beings poop! There's a lot of historical support for the fact that humans pooped in Roman times! Therefore, Jesus pooped baklava!"

God, the "faith" mindset really is hugely puzzling. It's like folks have decided to turn off all rational thought where any of this stuff is concerned. Do you guys operate in that mode in all areas of your life, or is it just this one blind-spot?

no. almost all historians accept that Jesus lived. there are enough independent sources. beyond that, the historical narrative of the new testament is non-fiction. the people described in the gospel existed, the roman governor, the leader of the jews, the various cities and towns visited by Paul in Greece, etc. This isn't exactly controversial or exciting. I am ignoring all of the "miracle" type stories. But to the contrary, the historical narrative in the Book of Mormon is entirely fiction. That the people of Israel moved to North America to become Indians, etc. Not to mention the corruption and the pedophilia of the early leaders.

Right, I understand you believe that "all historians accept that Jesus lived". What you believe is incorrect. Just repeating it doesn't strengthen your argument. If you define "Jesus" as "one or more arbitrary charismatic rabbis any of whom may or may not have been named 'Jesus'", then, yes, "Jesus lived". There were countless hundreds of such characters during (and long predating) the time in question.

So "Jesus" is every bit as much an historical fact as, say, "The Ancient Mariner" or "Bluebeard". There's ironclad historical evidence that "mariners" existed, and that "pirates" existed. Meanwhile, all evidence for the literal existence of "Jesus" comes from the gospels which obviously are not particularly compelling to legitimate historians given that they were all written much later than "Jesus" was supposed to have lived, and with an obvious agenda.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Neither Mormons nor Catholics or other stupid religions should read the Bible or any other written document as fact. The Bible is a book of parables. It's not fact, and the people who treat it as fact are not intelligent. It's a fact it was written. What's written inside are parables, stories to help you live you life, not something to be treated as fact. Same for the Mormons, but in that case it's worse because it was written with the worse of intentions by some con artist who only wanted money and the ability to cheat on his wife. How telling is it that after he was murdered, she left the church because she was never on board with the whole polygamy thing? He was an ass!

Like Moses and Jesus and that other one...

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:All religions have bizarre narratives--it's what you are used to.

Judaism: burning bushes, tablets from God, a man who almost sacrifices his own child because God told him to. Don't forget the circumcision business, too. It's weird.

Christianity: Macabre. A father--omnipotent, omniscient-- allows his son to die a torturous death--he's nailed to wood. Uh huh, exactly.

Your point is?

Really? You don't get the point?

My point is that a lot of people--not just Mormons--have "drunk the Kool Aid," as OP worded it. All these religions have bizarre narratives, but we are accustomed primarily to the Jewish and Christian ones to the point where we don't see how strange they are.

All adults should take a college level religion course. It is eye-opening.

that is idiotic. your example is the worst one out of the new testament, because Jesus was nailed to a cross and died a torturous death. that is a historical fact that all historians accept. the Romans would routinely crucify their prisoners when they wanted to make a point. and unlike most other religions, Jesus wasn't in it for the chicks or the money - clearly the motivating factors for Joseph Smith. Yes, all religions have faith based angles that require you to suspend disbelief, but Mormonisn takes it a step too far with assertions in their book that go beyond faith are are completely factually impossible.

Okay, we'll start with the fact that Jesus' mere existence is pretty dubious, certainly not something that "all historians accept". But lets set that aside for a second. Let's assume Jesus was a real person who lived. Let's further assume he was crucified. The fact that he was crucified does in no way shape or form indicate that it was at the instigation of his Sky-God father, that he had a Sky-God father, that there is a Sky-God, or that he was resurrected.

If the Bible claimed that Jesus pooped baklava, your argument is a bit like saying, "We know that human beings poop! There's a lot of historical support for the fact that humans pooped in Roman times! Therefore, Jesus pooped baklava!"

God, the "faith" mindset really is hugely puzzling. It's like folks have decided to turn off all rational thought where any of this stuff is concerned. Do you guys operate in that mode in all areas of your life, or is it just this one blind-spot?

no. almost all historians accept that Jesus lived. there are enough independent sources. beyond that, the historical narrative of the new testament is non-fiction. the people described in the gospel existed, the roman governor, the leader of the jews, the various cities and towns visited by Paul in Greece, etc. This isn't exactly controversial or exciting. I am ignoring all of the "miracle" type stories. But to the contrary, the historical narrative in the Book of Mormon is entirely fiction. That the people of Israel moved to North America to become Indians, etc. Not to mention the corruption and the pedophilia of the early leaders.

Right, I understand you believe that "all historians accept that Jesus lived". What you believe is incorrect. Just repeating it doesn't strengthen your argument. If you define "Jesus" as "one or more arbitrary charismatic rabbis any of whom may or may not have been named 'Jesus'", then, yes, "Jesus lived". There were countless hundreds of such characters during (and long predating) the time in question.

So "Jesus" is every bit as much an historical fact as, say, "The Ancient Mariner" or "Bluebeard". There's ironclad historical evidence that "mariners" existed, and that "pirates" existed. Meanwhile, all evidence for the literal existence of "Jesus" comes from the gospels which obviously are not particularly compelling to legitimate historians given that they were all written much later than "Jesus" was supposed to have lived, and with an obvious agenda.

you repeating your falsehood doesn't make it true. I am a biblical historian, and I am not Christian, and we accept that the story of Jesus is historically true. The written accounts of Jesus’ life, including the four gospels, were written decades after his death by people living far from where the events of his life took place. So we use certain criteria — three criteria in particular. One is multiple independent attestation. Sources include many different written accounts without collusion. The story of Jesus’ crucifixion shows up in all four gospels and many other written accounts—and we accept that it passes the “attestation” test. The second is historical context. It is very likely that a radical preacher in Jerusalem in 30 AD would have been tried before a Roman governor, found guilty of a high crime and crucified. Rome’s provincial governors, including Pontius Pilate, had the power to crucify troublemakers; Jesus’ preaching definitely would have been considered troublemaking, especially during Passover, and crucifixion was the preferred punishment when Romans wanted to send a “law and order” message. Third and most important is dissimilarity. And Jesus’ crucifixion certainly passes that test because the highest priority of early Christians was converting others. But in the Old Testament the Messiah is portrayed as a mighty leader, a fearsome warrior destined to defeat all of Israel’s enemies and establish a kingdom of God in Israel. Because Jesus was killed by his enemies, Jesus’ crucifixion was a huge impediment to attracting converts, meaning no early Christian writer would have included that story unless it happened. So it probably did per most historians.

This has nothing to do with faith or miracles, or proving that Jesus then rose from the dead.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Neither Mormons nor Catholics or other stupid religions should read the Bible or any other written document as fact. The Bible is a book of parables. It's not fact, and the people who treat it as fact are not intelligent. It's a fact it was written. What's written inside are parables, stories to help you live you life, not something to be treated as fact. Same for the Mormons, but in that case it's worse because it was written with the worse of intentions by some con artist who only wanted money and the ability to cheat on his wife. How telling is it that after he was murdered, she left the church because she was never on board with the whole polygamy thing? He was an ass!

Like Moses and Jesus and that other one...

Not sure I've heard Jesus referred to as an ass before.... Hmmm. Probably not. I'm no Bible thumper by any means, but the historical Jesus (the one people believed actually lived) seemed OK. Like I said, no Bible thumper so I have no opinion on Moses. Joseph Smith was a documented con artist as reported in modern day newspapers and other sources. There's no "wondering." It's all right there for you to check out. And yet people "follow him." Jokes on them I guess, but it's really joke on us as the Mormon church is really just a lobbying organization, and quite an effective one, much to my dismay. The fact that the other OP is seriously considering whether to save for retirement or send her children to preschool or give money to this church who will spend it on political advancement is really nothing short of mind boggling.

[Anonymous]

Crap, I have a lot to do at work today, but this is way too good.

[Anonymous]

This thread is so disturbing on many levels. Whatever happened to religious tolerance? Can't imagine a thread like this bashing the Muslim religion -- so, why, then, is ok to bash Mormans. I don't agree with many of their teachings (or the teachings of many religions) but I respect their right to their beliefs (just as I do for Muslims, Jews and Christians). Thought that most educated, DCUMers would too. Very disappointed to be so wrong.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:This thread is so disturbing on many levels. Whatever happened to religious tolerance? Can't imagine a thread like this bashing the Muslim religion -- so, why, then, is ok to bash Mormans. I don't agree with many of their teachings (or the teachings of many religions) but I respect their right to their beliefs (just as I do for Muslims, Jews and Christians). Thought that most educated, DCUMers would too. Very disappointed to be so wrong.

ok. but where do you draw the line? what about sceintology? what about branch davidians? is there ANY religion that doesn't deserve your tolerance? that is the question.