Jason
Pluto
May all your hits be crits
Posts: 5,579
|
Post by Jason on Oct 2, 2006 17:28:43 GMT -4
Correct in the sense that it gives the best overview of the authentic or correct gospel. The quote as given in the introduction to the Book of Mormon is "I told the brethren that the Book of Mormon was the most correct of any book on earth, and the keystone of our religion, and a man would get nearer to God by abiding by its precepts, than by any other book.”
|
|
|
Post by Bill Thompson on Oct 2, 2006 18:20:30 GMT -4
Correct in the sense that it gives the best overview of the authentic or correct gospel. The quote as given in the introduction to the Book of Mormon is "I told the brethren that the Book of Mormon was the most correct of any book on earth, and the keystone of our religion, and a man would get nearer to God by abiding by its precepts, than by any other book.” So it is correct in the sense that it justifies Manifest Destiny. It shows that America is the chosen land, just what early Americans wanted to hear. Maybe this is what we want reaffirmed today. This is not correct at all. This is very incorrect.
|
|
Jason
Pluto
May all your hits be crits
Posts: 5,579
|
Post by Jason on Oct 2, 2006 18:27:12 GMT -4
America is the chosen land in the sense that a righteous people who lives there will prosper. That principle doesn't justify unrighteous actions taken by that people, or say that "America can do no wrong." In fact the Book of Mormon makes it quite clear that an unrighteous people in America will be destroyed, as the civilizations of the Jaredites and Nephites were in the course of the narrative.
|
|
|
Post by Bill Thompson on Oct 2, 2006 18:28:42 GMT -4
Best of all, its prophet was a U.S. citizen, embodying the entrepreneurial spirit that made this country great.
|
|
|
Post by Bill Thompson on Oct 2, 2006 18:29:46 GMT -4
Wait a second. How come you folks use the book of Mormon to justify the book of Mormon. Doesn't that seem just a little bit nutty to you?
|
|
Jason
Pluto
May all your hits be crits
Posts: 5,579
|
Post by Jason on Oct 2, 2006 18:31:40 GMT -4
Wait a second. How come you folks use the book of Mormon to justify the book of Mormon. Doesn't that seem just a little bit nutty to you? How so? I mean, how are we using it to justify itself?
|
|
Jason
Pluto
May all your hits be crits
Posts: 5,579
|
Post by Jason on Oct 2, 2006 18:37:31 GMT -4
Best of all, its prophet was a U.S. citizen, embodying the entrepreneurial spirit that made this country great. The U.S. had the strongest guarantees of freedom of religion at the time, so it was the obvious choice to begin a restoration in the U.S. with a U.S. citizen. Even so the Church only barely survived its early days.
|
|
|
Post by gillianren on Oct 2, 2006 19:55:07 GMT -4
Accepting a baptism performed on your behalf is certainly the individual's choice. The point of performing baptisms for the dead is so the dead have the option of accepting the baptism should they chose. I am not aware of any scritpures that state outright that no one can be baptised for someone else. In fact, all of Christianity is based on the idea that vicarious action can be valid (Christ's atonement on our behalf). But you know, when people died over their faith--i.e., the Holocaust dead the Mormons were baptizing a while back--isn't it kind of tacky to try to change it for them? Besides, I should think that, if you die and reach the afterlife and see that what you believed wasn't true, if you accept the Truth then, that should be enough if baptizing dead people is.
|
|
|
Post by Bill Thompson on Oct 2, 2006 20:25:24 GMT -4
I just thought of another good analogy. This comes from the movie, “What the *@#$& Do We Know”.
It is just a coincidence that this analogy comes from pre-American history in the new world.
When Christopher Columbus’ men traveled to The New World for the first time, the first place they approached were a group of islands which would later be called The Virgin Islands. The Native people living on this island lived a very difficult life where every moment of every day depended on doing a set of rituals in order to ensure their survival the best that they could. That is the first point to consider. These people had never seen nor could they possibly imagine what a European Clipper Ship would look like. This is the second point to consider.
The human mind is a tight little bundle. If something is outside your imagination and your experience, it is impossible to see. This is especially true if you live a very religious or otherwise superstitious life where your whole being is immersed in a retualistic or devoted lifestyle.
This is what was happening as the clipper ships were approaching these islands. The Spaniards on the clipper ships would see the indigenous people walking along the shore line. But the clipper ships were literally invisible to the natives on the island. Literally.
The ships approached closer and closer but it was exactly as if the ships were invisible.
Then one of the tribe’s medicine men was walking along the shoreline and he noticed that the waves were lapping higher and higher against the sand as if something invisible was out in the waters. Something was for sure. But he could not see it. It was not until he forced his mind to examine closely where these waves were coming from. Later it was recanted that it seemed as if the clipper ships magically appeared.
The rest of the tribe could not seem them until the medicine man carefully drew in the sand the shape of the clipper ships to his people.
I think many of us are not much different than these people. The Mormons discussing their Devine book in this forum seem completely unaware of the logical points made against them. It has been as if the words are literally invisible to their eyes. Literally. They are physically unable to see them. Physically.
You have to be able to consider the ideas outside the book of Mormon to possibly be an accurate critisism. You have to be able to imagine that the book is wrong. Otherwise you will never see that it is.
|
|
|
Post by Bill Thompson on Oct 2, 2006 20:37:30 GMT -4
Best of all, its prophet was a U.S. citizen, embodying the entrepreneurial spirit that made this country great. The U.S. had the strongest guarantees of freedom of religion at the time, so it was the obvious choice to begin a restoration in the U.S. with a U.S. citizen. Even so the Church only barely survived its early days. You can just as easily think of it as an obvious choice for a con.
|
|
|
Post by gillianren on Oct 2, 2006 23:03:04 GMT -4
You know, I've never believed that claim from What the Bleep Do We Know? Leaving out the fact that the people who produced that are loons (local to me loons, at that!), what evidence do they have?
|
|
|
Post by captain swoop on Oct 3, 2006 9:48:48 GMT -4
What is the point of babtising a dead person? How can it be moral to retrospectively force a dead person into your church? Do they think thats what Jesus would have wanted?
there was a fuss in the UK in the 80s as Mormons were going round churches and babtising everyone in the Parish registers, some of them going back 500 years or more. relatives of people recently deceased were getting quite upset about it. Absolute stupidity and madness
|
|
Jason
Pluto
May all your hits be crits
Posts: 5,579
|
Post by Jason on Oct 3, 2006 10:55:13 GMT -4
But you know, when people died over their faith--i.e., the Holocaust dead the Mormons were baptizing a while back--isn't it kind of tacky to try to change it for them? Many of the people who died in the Holocaust weren't practicing jews - they were killed simply because they had jewish names or were of jewish descent. But beside that point, we're not changing their religion for them - we're giving them the chance to change if they want to. If they didn't have a baptism performed for them then they would have no choice. John 3:5 "...except a man be born of water and of the spirit he cannot enter into the kingdom of God." It's a requirement for everyone. On the plus side, God will ensure that everyone who wants to be baptized will have the chance, either in this life or through a vicarious baptism.
|
|
Jason
Pluto
May all your hits be crits
Posts: 5,579
|
Post by Jason on Oct 3, 2006 11:02:26 GMT -4
The human mind is a tight little bundle. If something is outside your imagination and your experience, it is impossible to see. This is especially true if you live a very religious or otherwise superstitious life where your whole being is immersed in a retualistic or devoted lifestyle. I wouldn't consider myself "immersed". To me, "immersed" would be a nun, or monk, or the Ahmish - someone who's religion completely dominates all aspects of their life. Sounds like utter bull. I can buy the islanders not realizing that they were ships with people on them, but not being able to see them at all? Hogwash. Well, at the moment it's just me - I don't think any other Mormons have joined the discussion. And I'm fairly certain I have seen and understood your points - it's just that I don't find them convincing. And frankly I find it a bit condescending on your part to believe that because I don't accept your arguments I must somehow be incapable of understanding them.
|
|
Jason
Pluto
May all your hits be crits
Posts: 5,579
|
Post by Jason on Oct 3, 2006 11:05:45 GMT -4
What is the point of babtising a dead person? How can it be moral to retrospectively force a dead person into your church? Do they think thats what Jesus would have wanted? It gives the person the option to join the church - an option they would not otherwise have. And it's most definitely what Jesus wants. Church guidelines are that we do not baptize for the recently deceased unless they are relatives. But why should you be upset about it? If you think the Mormons are a bunch of freaks then the baptism doesn't mean anything to anyone except them.
|
|