Do mormons really belive in those crazy things?

[gabbeTroop]

Indians = lost tribe of Isreals
Magic underpaints = ....

[Katzpur]

gabbie, if you want to learn more about mormonism, go to lds dot org and also contact your local lds church and invite th e missionaries to come see you.

no obligation, just learning

That would be a good place to start learning about Mormonism, but I suspect that you would get only one side of the picture.

And what would be wrong with that? What makes people think that the side presented by a practicing member of the Church would be less reliable than the side presented by their enemies? As a Mormon, I have absolutely no reason to lie about my beliefs, and I know more about LDS history, doctrines and culture than any non-Mormon you could talk to. If you wanted to learn the truth about what Catholicism teaches, do you think you'd get more accurate information by asking a Baptist? If you wanted to find out about Judaism, would you ask your questions of a Jew or of a Muslim? Why would you want to ask anyone but a Mormon what Mormons believe?

[Katzpur]

All I have heard is "magic bulletproof underpants" is this a definition of it or is it not? relabelling something doesn`t make it more not "magic bulletproof underpants"

Who'd you hear it from?

[Katzpur]

Why shouldn't a person of sound mind "openly state" that someones beliefs are crazy! It's this "protection" that religion has that makes it seem ok for people to spout out nonsense. If someone truly believes something, they shouldn't have a problem with people challenging them!

The problem is that people who are not LDS are the ones "spouting out nonsense." I don't have any problem whatseover with people challenging things I actually believe. What I have a problem with is conversations that run something like this:
Non-Mormon: What's with this belief in magic underwear?
Mormon: We don't believe in magic underwear.
Non-Mormon: Yes you do. I read it on the internet.
Mormon: Well, what you read is inaccurate.
Non-Mormon: No it's not. I read it on three sites.
Mormon: Well then, all three sites are wrong. That's not what we believe.
Non-Mormon: Yes you do. Furthermore, this magic underwear is bullet-proof.
Mormon: We don't believe in magic underwear, bullet-proof or otherwise.
Non-Mormon: Well, I say you do. You obviously are either lying or you don't know your own religion.

[Goat]

I want to learn about mormonism...

Really? I have a hard time believing that.

and I have just started...and all i know is those things, wich seems very...unbeliveable...to me..

And do you get your information on world events from the National Enquirer? Clearly, you did not get your information on Mormonism from a Mormon.

Once a member of the Church has been through the temple to receive his endowment (this involves both instruction and the making of sacred covenants with God), he is to wear special underwear at all times. This underwear is called "the temple garment." Its purpose is to serve as a constant reminder of the covenants we made in the temple. It's almost always white and there are several approved styles, all of which require that they be worn with modest clothing. (I say "almost always white" because there is a khaki version for servicemen.) Garments are worn as a reminder of the covenants made in the temple. If a member of the Church is wearing his or her garments, he is less likely to end up engaging in activities that are not spiritually or morally appropriate to someone who has made sacred covenants with God. This is the only "protection" they offer and it is in no way "magic."

Now as to your statement that we believe "Indians = Lost Tribe of Israels," you are once again wrong. The question to be argued really isn't, "Are today's Native Americans of Middle-eastern ancestry?", but "Is it possible that a small family from the Middle-east could have settled on the already populated American continent 2600 years ago and left no genetic evidence of their existence?" The genetic drift, founder effect, and population bottleneck factors alone would explain how Lehi's haplogroup would almost certainly have disappeared after just a few generations. If Lehi and his family had arrived on an empty continent, it would be a different matter entirely, but we know that wasn't the case.

If you know enough about mtDNA to discuss this in greater depth, please be my guest.

You do know that there are more genetic markers than just Mtdna, don't you? There are quite a few.

The DNA evidence for the claim, above and beyond the lack of Mt-dna.. zero.

[cnorman18]

Why shouldn't a person of sound mind "openly state" that someones beliefs are crazy! It's this "protection" that religion has that makes it seem ok for people to spout out nonsense. If someone truly believes something, they shouldn't have a problem with people challenging them!

The problem is that people who are not LDS are the ones "spouting out nonsense." I don't have any problem whatseover with people challenging things I actually believe. What I have a problem with is conversations that run something like this:
Non-Mormon: What's with this belief in magic underwear?
Mormon: We don't believe in magic underwear.
Non-Mormon: Yes you do. I read it on the internet.
Mormon: Well, what you read is inaccurate.
Non-Mormon: No it's not. I read it on three sites.
Mormon: Well then, all three sites are wrong. That's not what we believe.
Non-Mormon: Yes you do. Furthermore, this magic underwear is bullet-proof.
Mormon: We don't believe in magic underwear, bullet-proof or otherwise.
Non-Mormon: Well, I say you do. You obviously are either lying or you don't know your own religion.

As a Jew, I can relate.

Pick a conspiracy theory. You'll find some site on the Internet that alleges Jews are at the center of it. We learn very young that yes, it IS possible for one person to be right and everyone else wrong; at one time it was "common knowledge" that Jews ritually murdered Christian children at Passover and drank their blood as a sacred religious rite. "Everybody knew" that; it was an official, formal teaching of the Catholic Church. We've seen a poster on this very forum allege that it's "common knowledge" that Jews "own" the Federal Reserve -- this week.

Whenever someone says "Everybody knows" something, or "I read on the Internet..." -- big red flashing lights appear in my head accompanied by the loud clanging of alarm bells. Here's a big, fat clue; if the website you're looking at is DEDICATED to "The Truth" about whatever subject, be it Mormonism, Islam, the Jews, or the fricken Republican party, take it with a few cups of salt.

[Katzpur]

You do know that there are more genetic markers than just Mtdna, don't you? There are quite a few.

The DNA evidence for the claim, above and beyond the lack of Mt-dna.. zero.

Absolutely. And the fact is, if a small group of people from the Middle-east had settled in an already populated American continent, it is almost inconceivable that any of their genetic markers could be identified by DNA evidence today.

[Katzpur]

As a Jew, I can relate.

Yes, I suspect you can. You have my sympathy.

[Furrowed Brow]

The problem is that people who are not LDS are the ones "spouting out nonsense."

Ok I’ll confess I partly derive my understanding of LDS from SouthPark. This colours my view immensely and may lead me to assume many unfair things regarding the LDS.

Also my best friend was temple worthy and spent 8 years in the Mormon fold. She now rejects the book of Mormon. Her attitude is conflicted. She loves the people in the LDS as individuals but is angry with the LDS theology, church structure, its brain washing, the way it encouraged her not to think critically and to treat LDs critics as enemies. She is angry with herself and now feels foolish. Her central issue is the question of skin colour. Her time in the LDS is now an embarrassment to her yet on another level she still loves many aspects of the LDS community.

So to be true my two main major sources of information regarding the LDS do not set it in a positive light.

What makes people think that the side presented by a practicing member of the Church would be less reliable than the side presented by their enemies?

The way some ideologies create an “other� by turning critics into enemies is a tell that the practitioner that adopts this defensive mechanism are them self no less biased. Also pretty much the same line of reasoning that says a priori a practising member of any church is no more or less reliable than a critic of their church. In any specific case we just get to look at the quality of the criticism and the response. In the example dialogue you supply the critic is a dogmatic moron.

Absolutely. And the fact is, if a small group of people from the Middle-east had settled in an already populated American continent, it is almost inconceivable that any of their genetic markers could be identified by DNA evidence today.

So why believe they did?

[Katzpur]

Ok I’ll confess I partly derive my understanding of LDS from SouthPark. This colours my view immensely and may lead me to assume many unfair things regarding the LDS.

Southpark? I'm not sure I'd even want to admit to that. I don't have a problem with satire, but I certainly wouldn't rely on it to be objective or legitimately educational.

Also my best friend was temple worthy and spent 8 years in the Mormon fold. She now rejects the book of Mormon. Her attitude is conflicted. She loves the people in the LDS as individuals but is angry with the LDS theology, church structure, its brain washing, the way it encouraged her not to think critically and to treat LDs critics as enemies. She is angry with herself and now feels foolish. Her central issue is the question of skin colour. Her time in the LDS is now an embarrassment to her yet on another level she still loves many aspects of the LDS community.

I can't speak for your friend, but my experience in the Church (62 years) has been completely different. To begin with, even though I was raised in an LDS family, I was always encouraged and even expected to question things I was taught that didn't quite sit right with me. I can remember long conversations with my dad about something a Sunday School teacher, for instance, had taught the class. My dad would look at me, roll his eyes and remind me that "Just because Brother Johnson said it, doesn't make it so."

It's hard for me to imagine how anyone can seriously use the word "brainwashed" to describe what happens in the LDS Church. We have no list of "banned books." We have access to every single bit of information about the Church that anyone else has. The Church places a high value on education. Many of our leaders have masters and doctorates from Harvard, Yale, Duke, Berkley, etc. We are never told to associate only with fellow Church members. We are never told we should not visit other churches. We participate in interfaith councils (when we're allowed). I just cannot fathom how a practicing Latter-day Saint can claim to have been brainwashed.

The only thing I can imagine is that your friend joined the Church knowing just the basic doctrines and was, at some point during her eight years of membership, confronted by someone who presented her with anti-Mormon material and she learned, probably for the first time, things that were upsetting to her. If she was unable to find answers to questions or explanations for claims that were a source of concern, I can understand why she might have felt as if she'd been mislead. Since you said her "central issue" of disagreement was over issues surrounding skin color. I am aware that some of the early leaders of the Church made some comments which I, as a practicing member of the Church, can only describe as "racist," it might be that these remarks could have had something to do with her negative feelings. Obviously, I couldn't even possibly begin to try to guess, so I won't even try.

So to be true my two main major sources of information regarding the LDS do not set it in a positive light.

Well, I'd dismiss Southpark as a reliable source of information. I won't tell you to dismiss what your friend has told you (not that it would do any good if I did), but I would suggest that you consider the fact that hers is but one person's experience.

The way some ideologies create an “other� by turning critics into enemies is a tell that the practitioner that adopts this defensive mechanism are them self no less biased. Also pretty much the same line of reasoning that says a priori a practising member of any church is no more or less reliable than a critic of their church. In any specific case we just get to look at the quality of the criticism and the response. In the example dialogue you supply the critic is a dogmatic moron.

All I can say is that I have had more conversations like that than I can even begin to count. Obviously, there's more to it than the brief one-liner sentences I posted, but what it gets down to is that I am frequently told that I don't know "the truth" about what my Church teaches or that I am intentionally withholding information. I realize that not every critic is an enemy, but from my experience, well over 90% of them will exaggerate, resort to half-truths, or intentionally try to misrepresent our beliefs to make them look ludicrous and/or heretical.

Absolutely. And the fact is, if a small group of people from the Middle-east had settled in an already populated American continent, it is almost inconceivable that any of their genetic markers could be identified by DNA evidence today.

So why believe they did?

I'm not sure I understand what you're saying. Our critics premise is that we believe "the American Indians are the descendants of the Israelites." That is really not what we're saying. We're saying that some American Indians are the descendants of the Israelites, but that due to a number of factors (which I have explained on other threads), they no longer carry the mtDNA of sole middle-eastern female ancestor of 2600 years ago. If the perhaps 30-50 people we believe settled on the American continent in roughly 600 B.C. had come to an empty continent, DNA evidence would be able to identify them as descendants of the Israelites. We know, however, that this is not what happened. They came to an already populated continent and intermarried with the people who were here before them. Suppose a group of 30 Native Americans were to migrate today to Sweden, to settle there and marry the people already living in Sweden. How can anybody think that 2600 years from now, DNA taken from a few thousand Swedes would prove that the Swedes are descendants of American Indians?

[sleepyhead]

Hello,

>>>Our critics premise is that we believe "the American Indians are the descendants of the Israelites." That is really not what we're saying. We're saying that some American Indians are the descendants of the Israelites,<<<

This perhaps is what the chruch says now, but the belief that the american indians are descendants of Israelites was a belief held by the rank and file Mormons prior to DNA ividence. The B of M tells of this one family becoming several kingdoms.