|
Post by Ginnie on Dec 30, 2009 19:37:25 GMT -4
Like Jason said, you could apply this to almost any religion.
But if you raise your kids to be Catholic they might hate you for doing so when they grow up. You are conditioned to see the world through a mind that has been built around believing only one thing to be true and anything that distracts you from it is bad or wrong. But fresh eyes and fresh minds will not see things this way
Any religious belief requires faith - there can be no proof of any one, in my opinion. People interpret their experiences and "revelations" in many ways, which is why we have many religions.
|
|
|
Post by gillianren on Dec 30, 2009 20:34:04 GMT -4
Can I suggest that, since we are now on page 33, we take the ironic route and lock it?
|
|
|
Post by rick on Dec 30, 2009 20:47:20 GMT -4
Like Jason said, you could apply this to almost any religion. But if you raise your kids to be Catholic they might hate you for doing so when they grow up. You are conditioned to see the world through a mind that has been built around believing only one thing to be true and anything that distracts you from it is bad or wrong. But fresh eyes and fresh minds will not see things this wayAny religious belief requires faith - there can be no proof of any one, in my opinion. People interpret their experiences and "revelations" in many ways, which is why we have many religions. Mormons claim that their folk magic of using seerstones and dividing rods has biblical simularities. Something about dowsing is like the rods in the bible. But no main stream Christian sect claim that these things are literally true anymore. So saying that "you can say this about many other religions" is not a viable defense. There is a difference between, let's say, Methodists and the Branch Dividians. When a group say that things like the tower of babble or the great flood are litteral historical occurances and that their leader has physical contact with angels or space aliens, watch out. First comes the snake oil and then comes the koolaide. Can I suggest that, since we are now on page 33, we take the ironic route and lock it? Not yet. Jason, I take Michael Rhodes as the official word of the LDS church since FARMS and BYU offer him up and stand behind him. He claims that we are looking at the translation all wrong if we take a modern, technical definition of the word "translation" and that the papri is only a guide that Smith used to provide a spiritual text. Tea leaves, in other words.
If you disagagree then it is you, Jason, who is Anti-Morom and I suggest you either write a book presenting your case or you start your own off-shoot sect.
|
|
|
Post by gillianren on Dec 30, 2009 21:08:20 GMT -4
Number one, Rick, I wasn't asking you. Number two, I agree that what you're saying is not relevant to the thread topic.
|
|
|
Post by Ginnie on Dec 30, 2009 21:33:48 GMT -4
Can I suggest that, since we are now on page 33, we take the ironic route and lock it? ...or start a new thread regarding the topic at hand... which seems to be mocking Mormonism. Rick said: Really? I think most of them still do. Why is it so outlandish to believe those things but believing in the Trinity, Resurrection, Saints and Angels, Heaven and Hell, the Devil, the Virgin Birth, Sin and Baptism is not? Catholics believe in angels, and didn't Jesus come in contact with them? Although I agree with your statement to "watch out". But my point is that Mormonism isn't the only faith with these types of beliefs. Do you think this applies to Mormonism today?
|
|
Jason
Pluto
May all your hits be crits
Posts: 5,579
|
Post by Jason on Dec 30, 2009 22:12:43 GMT -4
Mormons claim that their folk magic of using seerstones and dividing rods has biblical simularities. Something about dowsing is like the rods in the bible. Try looking up "urim and thumim" regarding seer stones, also Revelations 2:17. Dowsing rods (which I assume is what you mean by "dividing rods") are not particularly relevent to LDS theology. That obviously depends on how you define "main stream". Jesus claimed to be God. I suppose that means all of Christianity is kinda out there. The truth is, all religions have aspects that look strange to an outsider. They're all wierd on one level or another. Just saying "these guys believe wierd things, so they must be dangerous" isn't enough to build a solid case against a religion, IMO. Saying something like "these guys gassed a subway in Japan" or "these guys all committed suicide so they could beam up to the mothership behind Haley's Comet" - now you have some actions to criticize. I don't. The official word of the Church comes from Church leaders, not apologists. Even if they are BYU scholars. I already made my opinion clear on Michael Rhodes' theories.
|
|
|
Post by Ginnie on Dec 30, 2009 23:02:08 GMT -4
|
|
|
Post by rick on Dec 30, 2009 23:03:16 GMT -4
Mormons claim that their folk magic of using seerstones and dividing rods has biblical simularities. Something about dowsing is like the rods in the bible. Try looking up "urim and thumim" regarding seer stones, also Revelations 2:17. Dowsing rods (which I assume is what you mean by "dividing rods") are not particularly relevent to LDS theology. Exactly. Show me some reference outside of BYU or FARMS where the four sons of horus are the Earth in its four seasons like Smith claims. The four sons of Horus, I thought, were the four jars that body internals are kept during the mumification process.
|
|
|
Post by rick on Dec 30, 2009 23:17:56 GMT -4
I don't. The official word of the Church comes from Church leaders, not apologists. Even if they are BYU scholars. I already made my opinion clear on Michael Rhodes' theories. That is a opinion that is not an informed one. Rhodes goes through extreme lengths to defend Mormonism. In the manuscripts I have read he stretches the truth and just might lie a little in some of is defense of the church. So are you now saying, Jason, that you choose to ignore any information that is contrary to what you want to believe? "Stretching the truth" seems to be a Mormon thing according to what they have told me since I was first introduced to the church. The illustrations of Smith sitting down with pen in hand going over the golden plates, I have only recently learned from eye witness accounts, did not really happen. What other things are exaggerations and emblishments? What if missionaries told about the stones and hat trick from the beginning? What if missionaries told people that the golden book was seen in visions and dreams? What if missionaries told people that the golden book was not in the room when scribes jotted down Smith's stories?
|
|
|
Post by rick on Dec 30, 2009 23:35:17 GMT -4
I don't. The official word of the Church comes from Church leaders, not apologists. Even if they are BYU scholars. "It is error only, and not truth, that shrinks from inquiry." (Thomas Paine)
|
|
|
Post by Apollo Gnomon on Dec 31, 2009 3:07:56 GMT -4
Uh oh. I agree with Jason - in THIS thread! {quickly looks up, checking for falling anvils...}
|
|
|
Post by gwiz on Dec 31, 2009 7:53:10 GMT -4
I believe because not because I heard plausible theories, but in the simplest terms because God told me He exists and that this is His Church. Not in a voice or by an angel, but by direct, personal communication without words - a very spiritual and sacred experience. And that is the whole problem with religion - people interpret something happening inside their heads as having an outside cause. Ginnie nailed it: Any religious belief requires faith - there can be no proof of any one, in my opinion. People interpret their experiences and "revelations" in many ways, which is why we have many religions.
|
|
Jason
Pluto
May all your hits be crits
Posts: 5,579
|
Post by Jason on Dec 31, 2009 12:03:40 GMT -4
I don't. The official word of the Church comes from Church leaders, not apologists. Even if they are BYU scholars. I already made my opinion clear on Michael Rhodes' theories. That is a opinion that is not an informed one. Rhodes goes through extreme lengths to defend Mormonism. In the manuscripts I have read he stretches the truth and just might lie a little in some of is defense of the church. What is that to me? I am not Michael Rhodes, Michael Rhodes is neither a leader nor official represenatitve of the Church, and I don't agree with his basic theory from the outset. Egyptology is not a hard science. Doesn't everyone? I certainly haven't seen you explain how Joseph, an uneducated man, produced a religious text in approximately two months of work that has been the foundation of a world wide religion. Oh, so we're all liars now? Perhaps you had best review the forum rules, starting with #1. The eyewitness accounts you refer to might well be the exaggerations and embelishments. Look, the Church's mission is not to teach history. It is to bring people to Christ. The Church does not hide its history in any way (indeed, the Church has printed articles on the recovered fragments of the Joseph Smith papyrii and Joseph's use of seer stones in its publications) but the missionaries don't go out to give history lessons. They go out to present doctrine and find the people who will benefit from it.
|
|
Jason
Pluto
May all your hits be crits
Posts: 5,579
|
Post by Jason on Dec 31, 2009 12:06:56 GMT -4
And that is the whole problem with religion - people interpret something happening inside their heads as having an outside cause. Ginnie nailed it: All of our experience is at some level just happening in our heads. We can't possibly prove that some of our sensory input really is coming from some outside cause and not just our imagination, but we choose to believe that it is.
|
|
|
Post by Ginnie on Dec 31, 2009 14:24:26 GMT -4
And that is the whole problem with religion - people interpret something happening inside their heads as having an outside cause. Ginnie nailed it: All of our experience is at some level just happening in our heads. We can't possibly prove that some of our sensory input really is coming from some outside cause and not just our imagination, but we choose to believe that it is. Exactly. But what really bugs me about religion is when people try to persuade me that what's inside their head is the "truth" for me too. I mean this respectfully, Jason, I think they should keep it to themselves! I've had various people come to my door or stop me on the street (usually Mormons or Jehovah's Witness). How do I politely say to them to please respect what I may or not believe in and leave me alone?
|
|