I need your views

I think Religion is joke. But I believe in a higher power. Mormonism is total BS.

Gold wrote:I think Religion is joke. But I believe in a higher power. Mormonism is total BS.

Well quite a few people are like that, either there not sure what religion to be or see none as satisfactory. But I see (no matter what I say when i go zealot because im mostly just kidding.) all religions as acceptable to god, as long as the worshiper is good at heart.

Gold is agnostic

Another way to say "I don't know"

Death is a Zealot, zealots should take off their blind folds.

I can see the light!

Gauz wrote:Gold is agnostic

Another way to say "I don't know"

Death is a Zealot, zealots should take off their blind folds.

I see no blindfold, maybe you are the one that needs to see clearer?

You need to see the light!

Death, you can't prove his existence meaning you are seeing NOTHING!

SEE THE LIGHT!

Believe what you want to believe people its whatever helps you sleep at night is what matters.

and besides your all not going anywhere when you die, you sold your soul to LP remember?

Chuckles wrote:What the heck!

No, you can't get excommunicated for swearing or not paying tithing, Rot. Research a little before you type anything, and I want to know where the crap you heard that, Rot, they probably believe we still believe in polygamy...

Where I heard it? That would be my mormon friend. If you don't pay your tithes, you can get kicked out of the Mormon church, and that leads directly to excommunication. The Mormon church keeps a very tight leash on its finances.

Chuckles wrote:Yeah, I'm sure there are some "Jack-mormons" as you call them, and there may be some "Zealot-mormons" as well. But actually most of the Mormons believe that someone isn't worse than them just because they don't believe the same things.

Which I never asserted. Like I said, the trapped and average Mormons are probably some of the nicest people you'll encounter. However, the church leaders do.

Chuckles wrote:And we're about as much of a cult as the Jewish or Catholics...

Ah, so you are a Mormon, then. Well, to be fair, neither the Jews nor the Catholics (anymore) use threat of excommunication to keep people from converting from their religion. That is much more common within the Mormons, Jehova's Witnesses, and Muslims (to some extent).

Chuckles wrote:Actually, we're the religion that says: Our views our different, let's see how and try to find common ground. We believe that everyone can go to heaven, not just mormons. Um...if you don't follow our beliefs then you basically aren't a mormon. And the husbands definitely don't choose whether their wife goes to heaven or not.

I might be a bit sketchy on the details. Mormon doctrine changes rather frequently, but wives receiving a secret name during the temple marriage ceremony, which their husband alone knows and must call get them to Heaven was the standard, albeit seldom mentioned, doctrine about ten years ago.

Chuckles wrote:I also love it how whenever someone brings Mormons up, people start swearing. I'm not unused to it.

It's a bad habit I formed not so long ago. I try to curb it, especially in religious discussions, but it's really grown on me. It's kind of funny to think that not five years ago, you'd be surprised to hear me say "damn."

Chuckles wrote:Yes, I was born into the religion. But I'm the one who choses to go to Church, I'm the one who choses to do service. I'm the one who choses to read the scriptures and pay tithing and to wait to have sex. I'm not forced to do anything.

And none of those are bad qualities. In the category of good works, Mormons oft put other religions to shame. But tell me, what would happen if you chose to convert to another religion? Not just on the down low, but if you announced to your family that you were converting to, say, Catholicism, and that you would no longer be attending a Mormon church or paying tithes? I know for a fact that a Jehova's Witness family would turn you out (as I have a friend who basically did just that), but I'm unclear on how a Mormon family would treat the issue, having never witnessed said event.

Chuckles wrote:It seems everyone thinks the Mormons are the devil without knowing a thing about them...

I grew up Baptist, Chuckles. We spend almost as much time studying other doctrines as we do our own. Also, I notice you skipped over the part where I basically tore a hole in your religion. Oh, and you might find this to be an interesting read. I do apologize though. Had I known you were Mormon, I probably would have observed more tact in my post.

ReconToaster wrote:My views on radical Mormons (which most of them are, according to Rot) are the same as my views on ALL religious radicals. I HATE them.

To be fair, I will again emphasize that most Mormons are not radicals. However, most Mormon religious leaders are.

The town next to me is a point where some Mormon "missionaries" go through now dont get me wrong their nice guys with the best intentions but when you show interest in the religion you cannot get them away from you.

Now I also know some people who are Mormon and they are good people, nice to be around, and will help you out if you have good intentions. I also know a religious figure that is a Mormon and he doesnt try to convert me or anybody for that matter that doesnt say "I would like to know somethings about the Mormon religion" before he asks "do you want to join?" and if the person says no he'll tell them somethings and send them on their way, but if the person is thinking of converting he will indeed tell them as much as it will take before they decide against it or join in.

Now Rot I have seen the radicals that you talk about, and yes im not a fan of them, and I can see that you also didnt mean to offend anyone (which means people who are offended need to lay off) but I dont think you can really genrealize all of them in 4 categories because everyone has their own personality regardless of their religion.

Also people who just despise Mormons because they can and dont know better, look up some stuff on Mormonism instead of blindly following people against it because of what you have watched on South Park or any other of the shows/episodes where they used the stereotypical Mormon.

Gauz wrote:Death, you can't prove his existence meaning you are seeing NOTHING!

You do not see what a true believer sees.

My friend's dad is a mormon, so fuck you all.

Nocbl2 wrote:My friend's dad is a mormon, so fuck you all.

Theyre supposed to know this how?

Nocbl2 wrote:My friend's dad is a mormon, so fuck you all.

How does that change anything?

And so I play your multi-quote with another multi-quote, ooo, it's getting serious now.

Rotaretilbo wrote:

Where I heard it? That would be my mormon friend. If you don't pay your tithes, you can get kicked out of the Mormon church, and that leads directly to excommunication. The Mormon church keeps a very tight leash on its finances.

Where I am, tithing is a fully optional thing, you can't get kicked out of the church by not paying it...

Rotaretilbo wrote:

Which I never asserted. Like I said, the trapped and average Mormons are probably some of the nicest people you'll encounter. However, the church leaders do.

Actually, my bishop is probably one of the most supportive members of the church towards non-members

Rotaretilbo wrote:
Ah, so you are a Mormon, then. Well, to be fair, neither the Jews nor the Catholics (anymore) use threat of excommunication to keep people from converting from their religion. That is much more common within the Mormons, Jehova's Witnesses, and Muslims (to some extent).

The cat's out of the bag!
Haha, in midievil (spelling? I'm out of it tonight) times, the Christian church (at least I'm pretty sure it was them...might've been catholics?) excommunicated people for not paying their taxes, which was controlled by the church at the time, is that not wrong?

But I digress, no, I know several people who have left our church, and another no, they have not been excommunicated. Are you sure your friend is Mormon? Or, he might just be messing with you, I don't know.

Rotaretilbo wrote:

I might be a bit sketchy on the details. Mormon doctrine changes rather frequently, but wives receiving a secret name during the temple marriage ceremony, which their husband alone knows and must call get them to Heaven was the standard, albeit seldom mentioned, doctrine about ten years ago.

Um...no, our doctrine doesn't change frequently? Unless the adults of my religion have this "conspiracy theory" and don't tell anyone under eighteen what you're saying (which I doubt), I am one hundred percent certain that is not true. Perhaps you are thinking of the FLDS followers, which I have no idea of how their doctrine might've changed. Are you sure it's Mormons you're talking about?

Rotaretiblo wrote:

It's a bad habit I formed not so long ago. I try to curb it, especially in religious discussions, but it's really grown on me. It's kind of funny to think that not five years ago, you'd be surprised to hear me say "damn."

Hehe ;) I've just noticed that whenever someone starts discussing mormons, multiple swearwords come up in the first few sentences/replies.

Rotaretilbo wrote:

And none of those are bad qualities. In the category of good works, Mormons oft put other religions to shame. But tell me, what would happen if you chose to convert to another religion? Not just on the down low, but if you announced to your family that you were converting to, say, Catholicism, and that you would no longer be attending a Mormon church or paying tithes? I know for a fact that a Jehova's Witness family would turn you out (as I have a friend who basically did just that), but I'm unclear on how a Mormon family would treat the issue, having never witnessed said event.

Reading those first two sentences surprised me . To tell you the absolute truth, I have no idea what you are talking about "a Jehova's Witness family". Which would be embarassing for me if you knew something I didn't about my own religion . Maybe you are just phrasing something different than I'm used to hearing it, or there is the fact that I've never sat down with a Church leader what would happen if I chose to convert to another religion, as I've never really considered or wanted to do that. Either way, I'm not quite with myself at the moment, and I'm tired.
Now, no, unless your family happened to be the most radicalist/insane Mormons history has ever known, I'm certain you wouldn't get disowned or kicked out of your house. It may cause some tension in the household, and it may take awhile for the family to get back to it's normal level of closeness, if the family is close and was very church-oriented. Most likely, you don't go to Church with your friends and family on sunday, but rather go to the church you joined. It's not like the family turns all pissy and tries to kill you or anything, things just become different.

Rotaretilbo wrote:

I grew up Baptist, Chuckles. We spend almost as much time studying other doctrines as we do our own.

Great. Now we can have the rest of this discussion knowing each others point of views and biases.

Rotaretiblo wrote:
Also, I notice you skipped over the part where I basically tore a hole in your religion.

Haha, I find it funny how nearly the first thing you do on your first reply here is try to prove my religion wrong, with reason and science, which could easily be explained as the opposite of faith and religion. Anyways, don't get out the party hats yet, my response to your "tearing my religion apart" is down lower.

Rotaretilbo wrote:
Had I known you were Mormon, I probably would have observed more tact in my post.

No, you're fine. I'm used to people saying what I believe in is bs. I can deal with it without the needs of a therapist. You have nothing to apologize for.

Rotaretilbo wrote:

ReconToaster wrote:My views on radical Mormons (which most of them are, according to Rot) are the same as my views on ALL religious radicals. I HATE them.

To be fair, I will again emphasize that most Mormons are not radicals. However, most Mormon religious leaders are.

Awesome. To tell you the truth, I hate radicals almost as much as you. Most of them are annoying, I-am-a-better-person-than-you-because-I-spend-more-time-reading-my-scriptures people. The difference is humility.

Now, here's the part you've been waiting for Rot. ;)

Rotaretilbo wrote:
The Mormons profess that, before the Europeans came to North America, the natives here (who are descendants of Jews) had steel weapons, horses, chariots, and a coin system. They say that there were battles fought on the hill Cumorah where millions died.

However, archeologists have found no traces of steel weapons, coins, horses, or any of the battles depicted in the Book of Mormon (to be fair, this is partially because the Mormon Church bought Cumorah and won't let archeologists near it). Further, recorded history states that there were no horses, steel weapons, or coins here prior to European settlers.

Further, science has proven in an observable way via experimentation that Native Americans have no relation whatsoever to Jews, other than being human.

Here, I'm going to talk mostly about the battles you were talking about. According to the book of Mormon, these battles took places approximately AD 400-421 (I'm guessing as to this, whereas in the certain chapter (Ether 15) where it talks about millions slain, there isn't a time marked in the footnotes, but in the next page in the first chapter of Moroni, it has the date above. I'm assuming what Moroni is writing about and what is in the last chapter of Ether are at least acutely near each other, if anything. These battles took place earlier than I stated). So that gives up approximately 1600 years before architects begin looking for this stuff.
The wikipedia page for decompisition is at this url: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Decomposition#Human_decomposition
^ if you wish to read the whole article, it can be found there.

Anyway...

Wikipedia Article wrote: Once death occurs, human decomposition takes place in stages. The process of tissue breakdown may take from several days up to years. At all stages of decomposition, insect activity occurs on the body as detailed below.

And...Wikipedia isn't any less reliable than googling the question in and listening to any random person's website. [/quote]
During these approximate 1600 years, I'm sure it would be possible for enough decompisition to occur so completely no to very little evidence of any bodies could be found there. And there is the fact you stated, that the Church I belong to bought Cumorah.
To tell you the truth, I'm really not enough of a history wiz to keep on providing counter-arguments to horses, steel weapons, or coins appearing in the Book of Mormon. If I wanted to put it in a religious way, I definitely could. But then it would just be what I believed against what you believed, and those are just pointless arguments.
As far as I know with my limited history knowledge. Both the Native Americans and the South Americans the conquistadors conquered had horses, perhaps only the Native Americans did...or perhaps I'm just out of my mind.
As for coin, the Native Americans had to have some way to barter, coins are as good a way as any...but I've said earlier whatever I say concerning this history may be void...as I pay more attention to my writing and other subjects than history.

Rotaretilbo wrote:
Old Joe Smith didn't know jack shit about history, it would seem.

Necessary? No. Helpful. No. Please leave things like this out in future posts, as I'm not criticizing the leaders you believe/I don't.

Rotaretiblo wrote: Not to mention the ever changing and contradictory nature of the Book of Mormon. They say they believe in the Bible, right? They even call the Book of Mormon a "sequel" to the Bible. Yet the Book of Mormon contradicts the Bible left and right. It suggests and Satan and Christ were brothers, that Christ is not God but a god, and thus a separate being from God, that men can become gods, that God was once a man, that God is perfect right now but that as time progresses he becomes "more perfect," that a husband may choose whether or not his wife comes to Heaven, regardless of whether or not she was saved, etc.

To quote many Church members around the world, including myself: "We believe in the Book of Mormon. We also believe in the Bible, as long as it is translated correctly."
True, in our religion, we believe that we are all children of God, which would make Satan and Christ both brothers, just as my friend and I are considered brothers. That is why, at church, we call everybody Brother or Sister before their name, unless they are a Bishop or another religious leaders, then we would say Bishop ... or President ...
No, I believe that both Christ and God are perfect, and that there is no way they could improve themselves, I don't know where you are getting the "more perfect". And you know where I stand on the husband choosing whether his wife goes to heaven or not from the above part of my post. (I'm assuming you will have read it).

As I said before, we believe different things. What the other believes will always seem crazy in our minds. I think some of the things Baptists think and practice are crazy too, and I'm not intending to offend.


I think that's all I have in me for tonight. And I'm not trying to convert anyone here, I'm not saying I'm right/your wrong. I'm saying that what I believe and what you believe are different. I began this thread to see if I could find common ground with those who hate the religion.

Okay...now I'm very tired and pretty out of it. Thanks for reading. I'll respond to anything you want me to.

Please keep it civil.

Chuckles wrote:And so I play your multi-quote with another multi-quote, ooo, it's getting serious now.

Oh snap!

Chuckles wrote:Where I am, tithing is a fully optional thing, you can't get kicked out of the church by not paying it...

Well, that's nifty. I don't know the policy around here, but I know that we've discussed it with several Mormons about how forceful the Mormon church was about tithing.

Chuckles wrote:Actually, my bishop is probably one of the most supportive members of the church towards non-members

Well, not all of the religious leaders are, but many. A majority, even. For example, there's a family that goes to my church after having left the Mormon church. Excommunication by all of the Mormons they knew aside, they've caught their former pastor going through their garbage on a few occasions.

Chuckles wrote: The cat's out of the bag!

*grabs cat and stuffs it in bag*

Chuckles wrote:Haha, in midievil (spelling? I'm out of it tonight) times, the Christian church (at least I'm pretty sure it was them...might've been catholics?) excommunicated people for not paying their taxes, which was controlled by the church at the time, is that not wrong?

That'd definitely be the Catholics. But then, back then, they excommunicated you for practically anything. On the other hand, the burned us Protestants at the stake for heresy.

Chuckles wrote:But I digress, no, I know several people who have left our church, and another no, they have not been excommunicated. Are you sure your friend is Mormon? Or, he might just be messing with you, I don't know.

Oh, Brando is definitely Mormon, but I'm more referring to the ex-Mormons I know.

Chuckles wrote:Um...no, our doctrine doesn't change frequently? Unless the adults of my religion have this "conspiracy theory" and don't tell anyone under eighteen what you're saying (which I doubt), I am one hundred percent certain that is not true. Perhaps you are thinking of the FLDS followers, which I have no idea of how their doctrine might've changed. Are you sure it's Mormons you're talking about?

Let me give an example then. According to original Mormon doctrine, those who did not participate in the war between Satan and Jesus were punished by receiving black skin. Thus, the Mormon church did not allow African Americans to join their church. This was changed when the US government said that BYU couldn't prohibit African Americans from playing on their basketball team. How about another example. According to original Mormon doctrine, Joseph Smith translated the golden tables with a set of magical glasses. This was changed, just recently, I believe, so that now he translated it with a magical bag of rocks or something like that, primarily because no magical glasses were ever recovered.

Chuckles wrote:Hehe ;) I've just noticed that whenever someone starts discussing mormons, multiple swearwords come up in the first few sentences/replies.

Oh, I swear all the time, but not necessarily at particular people. I swear mostly when I'm frustrated.

Chuckles wrote:Reading those first two sentences surprised me . To tell you the absolute truth, I have no idea what you are talking about "a Jehova's Witness family". Which would be embarassing for me if you knew something I didn't about my own religion . Maybe you are just phrasing something different than I'm used to hearing it, or there is the fact that I've never sat down with a Church leader what would happen if I chose to convert to another religion, as I've never really considered or wanted to do that. Either way, I'm not quite with myself at the moment, and I'm tired.

The Jehova's Witnesses are a branch of Christianity somewhat similar to the Mormons in nature, except rather than adding their own book, they just heavily edited the original Bible to say what they wanted, and they also believe that part of getting to Heaven is good works, and as such are about as active as Mormons as far as door to door evangelism.

Chuckles wrote:Now, no, unless your family happened to be the most radicalist/insane Mormons history has ever known, I'm certain you wouldn't get disowned or kicked out of your house. It may cause some tension in the household, and it may take awhile for the family to get back to it's normal level of closeness, if the family is close and was very church-oriented. Most likely, you don't go to Church with your friends and family on sunday, but rather go to the church you joined. It's not like the family turns all pissy and tries to kill you or anything, things just become different.

Well, that's nice to hear. Even if this isn't necessarily true, I'm glad to hear that the threat of excommunication isn't used as heavy handed as I had suspected.

Chuckles wrote:Great. Now we can have the rest of this discussion knowing each others point of views and biases.

Teehee. To be fair, I don't really consider myself a Baptist. While I attend a Baptist church, I find some of their beliefs, especially towards other religions, to be a bit extreme. And I'm on the west coast. On the east coast, Baptists are like really extreme.

Chuckles wrote:Haha, I find it funny how nearly the first thing you do on your first reply here is try to prove my religion wrong, with reason and science, which could easily be explained as the opposite of faith and religion. Anyways, don't get out the party hats yet, my response to your "tearing my religion apart" is down lower.

Well, actually, it was observed history, which is actually rather similar to religion. You'll notice, for example, that if you ignore the super natural, you can use the Bible quite accurately to see how history unfolded. If the Bible says "and people x lived in place y and used tool z" and you went to place y, you would find evidence of people x and tool z. If the Bible says "and there was a great war fought at place x between people y and people z" and you go to place x, you will find evidence of a battle between people y and people z. The science of DNA was just the frosting on the cake.

Chuckles wrote:No, you're fine. I'm used to people saying what I believe in is bs. I can deal with it without the needs of a therapist. You have nothing to apologize for.

Even if you can take it, it was impolite of me to assume that you were simply curious and had no personal investment in the topic.

Chuckles wrote:Awesome. To tell you the truth, I hate radicals almost as much as you. Most of them are annoying, I-am-a-better-person-than-you-because-I-spend-more-time-reading-my-scriptures people. The difference is humility.

Fair enough.

Chuckles wrote:Now, here's the part you've been waiting for Rot. ;)

Yay.

Chuckles wrote:Here, I'm going to talk mostly about the battles you were talking about. According to the book of Mormon, these battles took places approximately AD 400-421 (I'm guessing as to this, whereas in the certain chapter (Ether 15) where it talks about millions slain, there isn't a time marked in the footnotes, but in the next page in the first chapter of Moroni, it has the date above. I'm assuming what Moroni is writing about and what is in the last chapter of Ether are at least acutely near each other, if anything. These battles took place earlier than I stated). So that gives up approximately 1600 years before architects begin looking for this stuff.

That shouldn't make too much of a difference. 1600 years is hardly a large amount of time for archeologists, who dig stuff up from the BC period all the time.

Chuckles wrote:During these approximate 1600 years, I'm sure it would be possible for enough decompisition to occur so completely no to very little evidence of any bodies could be found there. And there is the fact you stated, that the Church I belong to bought Cumorah.

It takes about a year for flesh and tissue to fully decompose. It takes decades for bones to fully decompose. It takes centuries for swords and armor to decompose. Coins often do not decompose. And this is just addressing the archeological evidence, not the recorded history.

Chuckles wrote:To tell you the truth, I'm really not enough of a history wiz to keep on providing counter-arguments to horses, steel weapons, or coins appearing in the Book of Mormon. If I wanted to put it in a religious way, I definitely could. But then it would just be what I believed against what you believed, and those are just pointless arguments.

No worries.

Chuckles wrote:As far as I know with my limited history knowledge. Both the Native Americans and the South Americans the conquistadors conquered had horses, perhaps only the Native Americans did...or perhaps I'm just out of my mind.

Horses were introduced by the conquistadors, actually. It was one of the things that made them seem so amazing to the locals, astride these giant monster-like things.

Chuckles wrote:As for coin, the Native Americans had to have some way to barter, coins are as good a way as any...but I've said earlier whatever I say concerning this history may be void...as I pay more attention to my writing and other subjects than history.

As far as I know, Native Americans used a simple bartering system, goods for goods, goods for services, services for goods, services for services. Further, I believe that many tribes had a more socialist system, where survival was reliant on everyone sharing.

Rotaretilbo wrote:Necessary? No. Helpful. No. Please leave things like this out in future posts, as I'm not criticizing the leaders you believe/I don't.

Fair enough. This is among the things that would not have been included had I known you were Mormon.

Chuckles wrote:

To quote many Church members around the world, including myself: "We believe in the Book of Mormon. We also believe in the Bible, as long as it is translated correctly."[/quote]

The Bible is one of the best documented books in history. We have more evidence to suggest that it has remained unchanged than we do for Homer's epics or, well, any other historical document.

Chuckles wrote:True, in our religion, we believe that we are all children of God, which would make Satan and Christ both brothers, just as my friend and I are considered brothers. That is why, at church, we call everybody Brother or Sister before their name, unless they are a Bishop or another religious leaders, then we would say Bishop ... or President ...

So then what exactly are angels, in Mormonism?

Chuckles wrote:No, I believe that both Christ and God are perfect, and that there is no way they could improve themselves, I don't know where you are getting the "more perfect".

Yes, but the concept is that man can become god, and that he is thus always becoming more like god. Since God is not the first god, he is then not the equal to gods older than himself, meaning he still has a ways to go before he achieves their current level of perfection. But he is simultaneously perfect.

Chuckles wrote:And you know where I stand on the husband choosing whether his wife goes to heaven or not from the above part of my post. (I'm assuming you will have read it).

Well, it appears to be Mormon doctrine. During marriage, the wife receives a new secret name, which is only revealed to her husband. This is so that, when resurrection occurs, her husband can call out her name that she might go to Heaven. However, while it is the husband's responsibility, it is thus also the husband's choice.[/quote]

Chuckles wrote:As I said before, we believe different things. What the other believes will always seem crazy in our minds. I think some of the things Baptists think and practice are crazy too, and I'm not intending to offend.

We don't have many practices outside of other denominations. I believe it is mostly semantics. Also, I think we have some different views on baptism...but I can't be sure.

Chuckles wrote:I think that's all I have in me for tonight. And I'm not trying to convert anyone here, I'm not saying I'm right/your wrong. I'm saying that what I believe and what you believe are different. I began this thread to see if I could find common ground with those who hate the religion.

Okay...now I'm very tired and pretty out of it. Thanks for reading. I'll respond to anything you want me to.

Please keep it civil.

No worries.

This is what happens when an unstopable force meets an immovable object.

dragoon9105 wrote:
and besides your all not going anywhere when you die, you sold your soul to LP remember?

how bad would it suck if there was an afterlife and that was a binding contract....

Rotaretilbo wrote:

Chuckles wrote:And so I play your multi-quote with another multi-quote, ooo, it's getting serious now.

Oh snap!

Chuckles wrote:Where I am, tithing is a fully optional thing, you can't get kicked out of the church by not paying it...

Well, that's nifty. I don't know the policy around here, but I know that we've discussed it with several Mormons about how forceful the Mormon church was about tithing.

Chuckles wrote:Actually, my bishop is probably one of the most supportive members of the church towards non-members

Well, not all of the religious leaders are, but many. A majority, even. For example, there's a family that goes to my church after having left the Mormon church. Excommunication by all of the Mormons they knew aside, they've caught their former pastor going through their garbage on a few occasions.

Chuckles wrote: The cat's out of the bag!

*grabs cat and stuffs it in bag*

Chuckles wrote:Haha, in midievil (spelling? I'm out of it tonight) times, the Christian church (at least I'm pretty sure it was them...might've been catholics?) excommunicated people for not paying their taxes, which was controlled by the church at the time, is that not wrong?

That'd definitely be the Catholics. But then, back then, they excommunicated you for practically anything. On the other hand, the burned us Protestants at the stake for heresy.

Chuckles wrote:But I digress, no, I know several people who have left our church, and another no, they have not been excommunicated. Are you sure your friend is Mormon? Or, he might just be messing with you, I don't know.

Oh, Brando is definitely Mormon, but I'm more referring to the ex-Mormons I know.

Chuckles wrote:Um...no, our doctrine doesn't change frequently? Unless the adults of my religion have this "conspiracy theory" and don't tell anyone under eighteen what you're saying (which I doubt), I am one hundred percent certain that is not true. Perhaps you are thinking of the FLDS followers, which I have no idea of how their doctrine might've changed. Are you sure it's Mormons you're talking about?

Let me give an example then. According to original Mormon doctrine, those who did not participate in the war between Satan and Jesus were punished by receiving black skin. Thus, the Mormon church did not allow African Americans to join their church. This was changed when the US government said that BYU couldn't prohibit African Americans from playing on their basketball team. How about another example. According to original Mormon doctrine, Joseph Smith translated the golden tables with a set of magical glasses. This was changed, just recently, I believe, so that now he translated it with a magical bag of rocks or something like that, primarily because no magical glasses were ever recovered.

Chuckles wrote:Hehe ;) I've just noticed that whenever someone starts discussing mormons, multiple swearwords come up in the first few sentences/replies.

Oh, I swear all the time, but not necessarily at particular people. I swear mostly when I'm frustrated.

Chuckles wrote:Reading those first two sentences surprised me . To tell you the absolute truth, I have no idea what you are talking about "a Jehova's Witness family". Which would be embarassing for me if you knew something I didn't about my own religion . Maybe you are just phrasing something different than I'm used to hearing it, or there is the fact that I've never sat down with a Church leader what would happen if I chose to convert to another religion, as I've never really considered or wanted to do that. Either way, I'm not quite with myself at the moment, and I'm tired.

The Jehova's Witnesses are a branch of Christianity somewhat similar to the Mormons in nature, except rather than adding their own book, they just heavily edited the original Bible to say what they wanted, and they also believe that part of getting to Heaven is good works, and as such are about as active as Mormons as far as door to door evangelism.

Chuckles wrote:Now, no, unless your family happened to be the most radicalist/insane Mormons history has ever known, I'm certain you wouldn't get disowned or kicked out of your house. It may cause some tension in the household, and it may take awhile for the family to get back to it's normal level of closeness, if the family is close and was very church-oriented. Most likely, you don't go to Church with your friends and family on sunday, but rather go to the church you joined. It's not like the family turns all pissy and tries to kill you or anything, things just become different.

Well, that's nice to hear. Even if this isn't necessarily true, I'm glad to hear that the threat of excommunication isn't used as heavy handed as I had suspected.

Chuckles wrote:Great. Now we can have the rest of this discussion knowing each others point of views and biases.

Teehee. To be fair, I don't really consider myself a Baptist. While I attend a Baptist church, I find some of their beliefs, especially towards other religions, to be a bit extreme. And I'm on the west coast. On the east coast, Baptists are like really extreme.

Chuckles wrote:Haha, I find it funny how nearly the first thing you do on your first reply here is try to prove my religion wrong, with reason and science, which could easily be explained as the opposite of faith and religion. Anyways, don't get out the party hats yet, my response to your "tearing my religion apart" is down lower.

Well, actually, it was observed history, which is actually rather similar to religion. You'll notice, for example, that if you ignore the super natural, you can use the Bible quite accurately to see how history unfolded. If the Bible says "and people x lived in place y and used tool z" and you went to place y, you would find evidence of people x and tool z. If the Bible says "and there was a great war fought at place x between people y and people z" and you go to place x, you will find evidence of a battle between people y and people z. The science of DNA was just the frosting on the cake.

Chuckles wrote:No, you're fine. I'm used to people saying what I believe in is bs. I can deal with it without the needs of a therapist. You have nothing to apologize for.

Even if you can take it, it was impolite of me to assume that you were simply curious and had no personal investment in the topic.

Chuckles wrote:Awesome. To tell you the truth, I hate radicals almost as much as you. Most of them are annoying, I-am-a-better-person-than-you-because-I-spend-more-time-reading-my-scriptures people. The difference is humility.

Fair enough.

Chuckles wrote:Now, here's the part you've been waiting for Rot. ;)

Yay.

Chuckles wrote:Here, I'm going to talk mostly about the battles you were talking about. According to the book of Mormon, these battles took places approximately AD 400-421 (I'm guessing as to this, whereas in the certain chapter (Ether 15) where it talks about millions slain, there isn't a time marked in the footnotes, but in the next page in the first chapter of Moroni, it has the date above. I'm assuming what Moroni is writing about and what is in the last chapter of Ether are at least acutely near each other, if anything. These battles took place earlier than I stated). So that gives up approximately 1600 years before architects begin looking for this stuff.

That shouldn't make too much of a difference. 1600 years is hardly a large amount of time for archeologists, who dig stuff up from the BC period all the time.

Chuckles wrote:During these approximate 1600 years, I'm sure it would be possible for enough decompisition to occur so completely no to very little evidence of any bodies could be found there. And there is the fact you stated, that the Church I belong to bought Cumorah.

It takes about a year for flesh and tissue to fully decompose. It takes decades for bones to fully decompose. It takes centuries for swords and armor to decompose. Coins often do not decompose. And this is just addressing the archeological evidence, not the recorded history.

Chuckles wrote:To tell you the truth, I'm really not enough of a history wiz to keep on providing counter-arguments to horses, steel weapons, or coins appearing in the Book of Mormon. If I wanted to put it in a religious way, I definitely could. But then it would just be what I believed against what you believed, and those are just pointless arguments.

No worries.

Chuckles wrote:As far as I know with my limited history knowledge. Both the Native Americans and the South Americans the conquistadors conquered had horses, perhaps only the Native Americans did...or perhaps I'm just out of my mind.

Horses were introduced by the conquistadors, actually. It was one of the things that made them seem so amazing to the locals, astride these giant monster-like things.

Chuckles wrote:As for coin, the Native Americans had to have some way to barter, coins are as good a way as any...but I've said earlier whatever I say concerning this history may be void...as I pay more attention to my writing and other subjects than history.

As far as I know, Native Americans used a simple bartering system, goods for goods, goods for services, services for goods, services for services. Further, I believe that many tribes had a more socialist system, where survival was reliant on everyone sharing.

Rotaretilbo wrote:Necessary? No. Helpful. No. Please leave things like this out in future posts, as I'm not criticizing the leaders you believe/I don't.

Fair enough. This is among the things that would not have been included had I known you were Mormon.

Chuckles wrote:

To quote many Church members around the world, including myself: "We believe in the Book of Mormon. We also believe in the Bible, as long as it is translated correctly."

The Bible is one of the best documented books in history. We have more evidence to suggest that it has remained unchanged than we do for Homer's epics or, well, any other historical document.

Chuckles wrote:True, in our religion, we believe that we are all children of God, which would make Satan and Christ both brothers, just as my friend and I are considered brothers. That is why, at church, we call everybody Brother or Sister before their name, unless they are a Bishop or another religious leaders, then we would say Bishop ... or President ...

So then what exactly are angels, in Mormonism?

Chuckles wrote:No, I believe that both Christ and God are perfect, and that there is no way they could improve themselves, I don't know where you are getting the "more perfect".

Yes, but the concept is that man can become god, and that he is thus always becoming more like god. Since God is not the first god, he is then not the equal to gods older than himself, meaning he still has a ways to go before he achieves their current level of perfection. But he is simultaneously perfect.

Chuckles wrote:And you know where I stand on the husband choosing whether his wife goes to heaven or not from the above part of my post. (I'm assuming you will have read it).

Well, it appears to be Mormon doctrine. During marriage, the wife receives a new secret name, which is only revealed to her husband. This is so that, when resurrection occurs, her husband can call out her name that she might go to Heaven. However, while it is the husband's responsibility, it is thus also the husband's choice.[/quote]

Chuckles wrote:As I said before, we believe different things. What the other believes will always seem crazy in our minds. I think some of the things Baptists think and practice are crazy too, and I'm not intending to offend.

We don't have many practices outside of other denominations. I believe it is mostly semantics. Also, I think we have some different views on baptism...but I can't be sure.

Chuckles wrote:I think that's all I have in me for tonight. And I'm not trying to convert anyone here, I'm not saying I'm right/your wrong. I'm saying that what I believe and what you believe are different. I began this thread to see if I could find common ground with those who hate the religion.

Okay...now I'm very tired and pretty out of it. Thanks for reading. I'll respond to anything you want me to.

Please keep it civil.

No worries.[/quote]

you just gained a tldr +1 point XD

Can you guess it?

TL;DR

bilco, don't fucking have a huge ass quote and add 1 sentence.

Bilco just gained a BBcode +1 point. :p

KristallNacht wrote:

dragoon9105 wrote:
and besides your all not going anywhere when you die, you sold your soul to LP remember?

how bad would it suck if there was an afterlife and that was a binding contract....

True but I dont think all to many people would care either way on this site seeing as how almost everyone here is an atheist or along those lines. Its kinda disheartening really. Oh well (NOT trying to spark a religous debate)

Rotaretilbo wrote: Excommunication by all of the Mormons they knew aside, they've caught their former pastor going through their garbage on a few occasions.

:Blink: That's messed up!

Rotaretilbo wrote:
That'd definitely be the Catholics. But then, back then, they excommunicated you for practically anything. On the other hand, the burned us Protestants at the stake for heresy.

They were some hardcore punks back then, ;)

Rotaretilbo wrote: Let me give an example then. According to original Mormon doctrine, those who did not participate in the war between Satan and Jesus were punished by receiving black skin. Thus, the Mormon church did not allow African Americans to join their church. This was changed when the US government said that BYU couldn't prohibit African Americans from playing on their basketball team. How about another example. According to original Mormon doctrine, Joseph Smith translated the golden tables with a set of magical glasses. This was changed, just recently, I believe, so that now he translated it with a magical bag of rocks or something like that, primarily because no magical glasses were ever recovered.

No, I think we allowed them to, but the men couldn't receive the priesthood until the seventies, which I still have no idea why, I'm one of the biggest "everyone's equal" guys you'll find.
I've always been taught he used the "magical glasses", and, we didn't change our doctrine because these were never recovered. The Brass Plates on which were the writings Joseph Smith translated were never recovered either, even though they were seen by more than a few people. To put this in a religious way: the brass plates were never meant to be a museum item, Joseph Smith didn't keep them. If I remember right, he gave them to Angel Moroni, and they were taken to heaven. I'm 100% sure we didn't change to a bag of magical rocks.

Rotaretilbo wrote:

The Jehova's Witnesses are a branch of Christianity somewhat similar to the Mormons in nature, except rather than adding their own book, they just heavily edited the original Bible to say what they wanted, and they also believe that part of getting to Heaven is good works, and as such are about as active as Mormons as far as door to door evangelism.

Ah...okay, I get it now.

Rotaretilbo wrote:

Well, that's nice to hear. Even if this isn't necessarily true, I'm glad to hear that the threat of excommunication isn't used as heavy handed as I had suspected.

Haha, I know I wouldn't get put up for adoption if I chose to leave the church.

Rotaretilbo wrote:

Well, actually, it was observed history, which is actually rather similar to religion. You'll notice, for example, that if you ignore the super natural, you can use the Bible quite accurately to see how history unfolded. If the Bible says "and people x lived in place y and used tool z" and you went to place y, you would find evidence of people x and tool z. If the Bible says "and there was a great war fought at place x between people y and people z" and you go to place x, you will find evidence of a battle between people y and people z. The science of DNA was just the frosting on the cake.

But yet, trying to prove religion with science, shows that your faith is false or is dwindling. No everything can be proved by science, especially if there is a god. I'm not forgetting the facts and that it is improbable that these battles ever happened unless some divine person help with the clean up job, if you will.

Rotaretilbo wrote:

Even if you can take it, it was impolite of me to assume that you were simply curious and had no personal investment in the topic.

Even so, it wasn't right for me to not include I was a Mormon myself in my first post. You had no way to know otherwise.

Rotaretilbo wrote:

That shouldn't make too much of a difference. 1600 years is hardly a large amount of time for archeologists, who dig stuff up from the BC period all the time.

But yet, when did Archaeologists wake up and say "I'm going to disprove Mormonism today". Was it before the Church bought Cumorah?

Rotaretilbo wrote:

It takes about a year for flesh and tissue to fully decompose. It takes decades for bones to fully decompose. It takes centuries for swords and armor to decompose. Coins often do not decompose. And this is just addressing the archeological evidence, not the recorded history.

So that takes care of the bodies. Many times in history, swords and armor from dead comrades/foes have been taken for future use, free supplies, I guess. I'm guessing if anyone ever finds evidence of these weapons, it'll be a big stockpile of them. But, in my religious views, I guess the simplest answer is divine intervention. Though I know you'll tire and void my arguments where I simply say: "divine intervention". So, don't take that for my answer here.

Rotaretilbo wrote:

Horses were introduced by the conquistadors, actually. It was one of the things that made them seem so amazing to the locals, astride these giant monster-like things.

Ah yes, I remember now. The conquistadors also brought deadly diseases that the Southern Americans didn't have immunities to, if I remember anything from history.

Rotaretilbo wrote:

As far as I know, Native Americans used a simple bartering system, goods for goods, goods for services, services for goods, services for services. Further, I believe that many tribes had a more socialist system, where survival was reliant on everyone sharing.

Which makes sense, as they didn't waste a single thing when killing buffalo, etc...

Rotaretilbo wrote:
Fair enough. This is among the things that would not have been included had I known you were Mormon.

Again, I guess it's my fault essentially, sorry.

Rotaretilbo wrote:

So then what exactly are angels, in Mormonism?

Hm, it's funny. I've never asked that question, specifically in church. So I don't have a from-the-teacher answer. But, I guess those who have gone to heaven. To put it simply. But I also believe there are three kingdoms of glory (or heavens), so I don't know if you can only be considered an angel if you go to the highest (the Celestial Kingdom). To tell you the truth, I don't know exactly how to say.

Rotaretilbo wrote:

Yes, but the concept is that man can become god, and that he is thus always becoming more like god. Since God is not the first god, he is then not the equal to gods older than himself, meaning he still has a ways to go before he achieves their current level of perfection. But he is simultaneously perfect.

And we know he is not the first god how? Only those who have died know these simple truths we crave to know. I don't know if he was human once just like us, or he is the one and only. I simply don't know.



I should have also explained that we only call each other brother and sister during church, or at a church activity. And those under 18 usually only call those over 18 brother or sister. While those over 18 call both those under and over brother or sister. It's kind of complicated, really. ;)