Why, 42 of course.
This would appear to be a mis-quote of the Rowan Atkinson Devil Sketch
Please carry on with the debate…
Grim
I was all ready to stop arguing with you, but nobody calls me a hit-and-run poster and lives.
Asking questions is not slander–if I were intent on defaming the LDS, there’s plenty of ammo–you’ll note I said nothing about Emma Smith, Danites, Mountain Meadows Massacre, or the convenient timing of President Woodruff’s word about the end of polygamy in 1890 and President Kimball’s pronouncement on black men becoming priests in 1978. However, I don’t think any of that is at all pertinent to this discussion, so I left it out.
Agreed, but that’s not the point. We’re not talking about the history of NT scholarship, but merely contrasting the teachings the various denominations versus those of the LDS. In regard to theology, I’m only discussing what each sect believes, not whether that belief can be backed up by evidence (because none of it can). For example, one can discuss what the LDS teach about Adam and Eve versus the standard Christian line without believing in the Adam and Eve story at all.
That’s begging the question. First, we need to come up with the criteria that define the domain of Christian belief, then see which articles of faith the LDS and other denominations share and which elements are idiosyncratic.
This is what I find really insulting. I’m using the texts of the BoM and the KJV from the Electronic Text Center at the University of Virginia, as well as pages from the skeptic Web sites Infidels.org and the Annotated Book of Mormon, as my sources. I can read for myself, thank you. In addition, you have the habit of calling any source that hews less than 100% to the LDS line “anti-Mormon.” Some, like a first-person confessional I read called Out of Mormonism, are obviously fundie-driven, anti-Mormon screeds, which are obviously biased and deeply subjective. Others, like American Massacre, are more balanced treatments of events that are part of the LDS history, deny it how you will. But to you, any source that questions the veracity of the BoM is just dismissed as anti-Mormon bigotry without any serious discussion of the issues raised.
As I said, I was ready to walk away because ultimately trying to use logic and evidence against faith is like trying to cut a rainbow with a sword, but since you called me a “hit-and-run poster,” emarkp, I’ll be damned if I back down now.
Genie wrote:
That seems to say that there are many children and Jesus is just one of them, not the same thing as “only begotten.”
Godzillatemple wrote:
I think that you are confusing “spirit” with “spiritual.” Yes, Christians believe that the saved become engrafted children of God, but NOT that they are of the same substance or the same kind of being as Jesus.
Cite?
I think gobear is preaching to the choir here.
Besides, no mormon could admit or realize that the inconsistencies and one day we believe this, next day its completely okay are true. it would destory their faith.
They will never admit error. They can’t .
Hey GrimPixie, maybe the South Park guys were playing off that bit. I’ve seen the clip myself, it has a similar feel. “Um, the correct answer was the Mormons. Yes, the Mormons. Sorry, the rest of you were incorrect.” Something like that. But I haven’t the faintest idea where it’s from; it just got passed around online.
Anyway, if gobear is still around, I’ll work up something later today, and I’ve been meaning to find something for KellyM on the extermination order. (Sorry, KellyM. I’m still looking for an online source for you, as opposed to a book.) Anyway, none of that can be unti lthis afternoon.
For what it’s worth, Here’s how Merriam-Webster defines “Christian”:
And here’s what Dictionary.com has to say on the subject:
Again, I have to ask, who appointed gobear, vanilla, et al. as the sole arbiters of what it means to be “Christian”?
Anybody here familiar with the “No True Scotsman” fallacy?
Barry
"
Based on verses like Luke 10:22: "All things are delivered to me of my Father: and no man knoweth who the Son is, but the Father; and who the Father is, but the Son, and he to whom the Son will reveal him. " and John 14:6, ““6”: Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me,” the standard line is that Jesus is the second person of the Trinity in a special relationship to God the Father. Moreover, the Nicene Creed, which is the official stance of most Christian denominations, says quite clearly, "We believe in one Lord, Jesus Christ,
** the only Son of God,**
eternally begotten of the Father,
Regarding the paternity of Jesus, I found this bit at
religioustolerance.org
So I’m not making this up, although I grant the point that it’s not official doctrine.
Sorry, Godzillatemple, the dictionary defintions do not count–only what Christian denominations themselves say. I’m surprised that you present the defintions so uncritically; I’m sure the Jewish and Muslim Dopers must be pleased to note that “5. Showing a loving concern for others; humane” is how one defines a Christian. In addition, the OTS fallacy does not apply here–we are discusssing the definition, not finding exceptions to examples. This is more of a parallel to the “Who is a Jew” discussions, and I doubt you’d use the OTS rule to dismiss Ultra-Orthodox objections to the Reform synagogue.
Emarkp said, “Long story short: Martin Harris borrowed 116 pages of the translation to prove the work to his wife (Harris mortgaged his farm to pay for the initial publication of the Book of Mormon). While it was in his possession, Joseph Smith’s wife Emma gave birth to a stillborn child–he was a bit distracted for a week or two. When he checked up on Harris, the pages had been lost, and when he inquired of God as to whether to retranslate, he was told not to.”
How conveeeeeeeeenient!
Hmmm…I wouldn’t object if women walked around with no pants on.
you sir, are a pervert!
besides, if they are temple worthy, they wear churchly underwear.
so go look up somebodys elses skirt!
Gee I have been looking for “fact-based” information about many religions for years, and have yet to find it. To me, a fact is something that can be independently verified, so please, if you can point me to anything that can do this for Mormonism, much less Christianity, I would be grateful.
OK, why did the angel take the plates away, how did these people know how to translate this Egyptian language, if god or whoever wanted to communicate some message to this dude, why didn’t he do it in English–surely god knows how to speak english, now doesn’t he?
So, when you’re listening for these answers, in what form do they come? Do you actually hear god speaking in your head? I always thought that hearing voices in your head was called schizophrenia, I don’t know. But regardless, you say that every Mormon is taught from a young age to pray and ask for these answers…so these people are already Mormon, so they already believe in all this stuff, so how can we trust in the answers they are hearing when they aren’t even asking them until after they have become indoctrinated in the religion?
Well I personally find that easier to believe than the story that an angel appreared and gave him these tablets and then took them away again. Why would it be so hard to believe someone could undertake this hoax? How do we know for sure it was real gold? Was it tested? How do we know what the language was, what if it were just made-up gibberish? Were these 11 witnesses experts in ancient languages? And if the language was “untranslateable,” then how did he translate it?
Misinformation abounds because of this air of secrecy surrounding church “rituals.” So can I ask you, as a person in the know, about some of the secret rituals that take place behind closed doors of the temple and secret symbols and such? It’s stuff like that that strengthens my skepticism. I have gone out of my way to try to find out more information about this religion, and hit walls due to the secrecy.
WTF?
Is there any truth in this?
So an unmarried person cannot achieve the highest level of salvation?
I believe the South Park “thing” about Mormons comes from Trey Parker (the blond one). His fiance when he was about 20 or so was a Mormon. He apparently caught her in bed with someone else about two weeks before the wedding. He was pretty bitter about it-- the unfaithful horse in “Cannibal” is named Liane, after her, and Cartman’s slutty mother is also named Liane.
Now WHY I know this, I have no idea.
sigh
I have no idea why you have such a bug up your butt about “proving” that Mormons (a.k.a. members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints) aren’t “really” Christians, in spite of the fact that they named their church after Christ, they believe Christ was the literal begotten son of God, that he died for our sins, that rememption can only be had through Christ, etc.
I’m tempted to just let it go with a great big “whatever,” but for the sake of accuracy let me just respond to your latest spouting as follows:
If “only what Christian denominations themselves say” counts when it comes to determining what is or is not a christian, you’ve got two problems. First, your argument is entirely circular. How does one know if a Christian denomination is really Christian? Well, if other Christian denomination say that denomination is Christian. And how does one know if those denomination are actually Christian? Well, because (presumably) they – or some other “Christian” denominations – say they are Christian. So are Mormons Christians because they say they are Christians? No, because other Christian denominations (who are known to be Christian solely because other “Christian” denominations say they are), say they aren’t.
Eventually, you have to get away from defining the term “Christian” solely by looking at what other Christian faiths say is a Christian. It can’t simply be “a Christian is defined as somebody that other Christians say is a Christian.” That’s where dictionary definition come in handy (or at least sets of requirements such as the ones mentioned earlier – a belief that Jesus is the only begotten son of God, that he died for our sins, etc.)
Second, there are plenty of Christian denominations that are perfectly comfortable with considering Mormons to also be Christians. In fact, I would go so far as to say that it is really only a small, rabid minority who feel the need to villify Mormons with the label “non-Christian.” I’d say you wre in good company, but that would be a lie.
Barry
No, there isn’t. Which is why I pointed that out on the same page the claim appeared–maybe you missed it?
That’s correct. I even provided a link to the relevant LDS scriptures on page 3. Here is a link to that post.
Yes, just enough to twist in such a way as to get the response they were looking for. Their ploy sure seems to have gotten the desired response from you, didn’t it?
The truth of the matter is that the husband needs his wife just as much as she needs him. They need each other. Neither one of them can do it alone. It’s a marriage.
My apologies. When I started reading the thread there were no posts between the quoted post and my reply. I didn’t realize it had been answered already.