Do mormons really belive in those crazy things?

gabbeTroop · Post by **gabbeTroop** » Sat Jul 31, 2010 5:52 pm

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

Everso · Post by **Everso** » Thu Oct 21, 2010 5:02 am

sleepyhead wrote: Since I left the church so long ago anything I say may be outdated.

Now this always confuses me. If the bible has not changed for centuries how can a view be "outdated"? It seems an admission that previous interpretations were wrong. If this is the case how do we know the current interpretation is right? With this confusion is seems that evangelicalism should be put on hold until a religion has sat down - worked out an unchanging view and stuck to it. I realize that the mormon religion is a lot younger than many but their views still seem to shift.

Everso

Kuan · Post by **Kuan** » Thu Oct 21, 2010 12:07 pm

Everso wrote:
sleepyhead wrote: Since I left the church so long ago anything I say may be outdated.
Now this always confuses me. If the bible has not changed for centuries how can a view be "outdated"?

He is not referring to the bible, but to the LDS church.

It seems an admission that previous interpretations were wrong. If this is the case how do we know the current interpretation is right?

Well, i am assuming that your referring to the interpretation of the bible. We don't the bible has been mistranslated many times.

With this confusion is seems that evangelicalism should be put on hold until a religion has sat down - worked out an unchanging view and stuck to it. I realize that the mormon religion is a lot younger than many but their views still seem to shift.

Everso

What views are you referring to that have shifted?

Everso · Post by **Everso** » Fri Oct 22, 2010 3:43 pm

mormon boy51 wrote: What views are you referring to that have shifted?

Well here for a start

http://www.challengemin.org/8400.html

Though I will admit the mormon faith just conveniently re-writes the book.

But JWs constantly change their position - first transplants were cannibalism - then they are allowed - then not - then allowed again (these are the most objectionable I feel as the JW council kill people).

Catholic religion said hell if you eat meat on a Friday now it is allowed. They also now regard as an "old fashioned view" that an unbaptized child will go to hell and now longer believe that.

Just a few I can recall but there are many many more over the years.

Everso

Katzpur · Post by **Katzpur** » Fri Oct 22, 2010 7:37 pm

Everso wrote:Well here for a start

http://www.challengemin.org/8400.html

Though I will admit the mormon faith just conveniently re-writes the book.

Actually, the 1830 edition is remarkably close to the 1981 edition, and both editions (plus all those in between) are available for comparison. The essential message between editions is virtually identical. I don't have time for a lengthy rebuttal right now, but I'll just mention this one sentence which I pulled from the link you posted:

"Because of limited space only a brief examination of some of the more serious changes will be given."

I think a better excuse for the "brief examination" as opposed to an in-depth one would be the fact that 99.99% of the changes are so insignificant that to post them would prove that this is simply another anti-Mormon website making a mountain out of a molehill.

By the way, since when does an atheist need to resort to using a Christian website as evidence to support his claims? Surely you can do better than that?

Everso · Post by **Everso** » Fri Oct 22, 2010 8:04 pm

Katzpur wrote: By the way, since when does an atheist need to resort to using a Christian website as evidence to support his claims? Surely you can do better than that?

My intent was to question how a book can stay the same yet the rules derived from it constantly change. The implication being religion is based on mans interpretation of a book and not the infallible word of god as is often claimed.

I picked that site because it seemed to nicely sum things up. I can go find an atheist web site that makes the same claims if you would regard that as more valid. I really do not see you disputing the evidence - just attempting to deflect by saying I used a christian web site. One of the joys of being an atheist is I am happy to accept information from all sources. I am not bound by dogma to accept somethings as truth and others as false based on the source of that information.

Now - are you saying that the information listed there is false because it came from a christian web site or do you accept that the information is correct?

Everso

Katzpur · Post by **Katzpur** » Fri Oct 22, 2010 9:57 pm

Everso wrote:One of the joys of being an atheist is I am happy to accept information from all sources.

Then we have something in common. Brigham Young, second President of the Church once said, "'Mormonism' embraces all the truth that there is in heaven and on the earth; and if there is any in hell it belongs to us. Every truth in the sciences and in the arts, and all the knowledge that God has given to man in mechanism, and in fact on the earth...all is incorporated in and constitutes what the world call 'Mormonism'."

Now - are you saying that the information listed there is false because it came from a christian web site or do you accept that the information is correct?

Actually, you will find very little about Mormonism on an Evangelical website that is accurate. The information on this particular website is grossly exaggerated and thus, misleading.

I hope you'll excuse me for not posting more right now. I will try to give you a more in-depth answer tomorrow. My husband has been waiting for the computer for quite awhile and has some business issues to take care of.

Katzpur · Post by **Katzpur** » Fri Oct 22, 2010 10:19 pm

Everso wrote:My intent was to question how a book can stay the same yet the rules derived from it constantly change.

One quick question... Could you relate this statement to The Book of Mormon specifically?

fewwillfindit · Post by **fewwillfindit** » Sat Oct 23, 2010 2:32 am

Everso wrote: With this confusion is seems that evangelicalism should be put on hold until a religion has sat down - worked out an unchanging view and stuck to it. I realize that the mormon religion is a lot younger than many but their views still seem to shift.

Everso wrote: Though I will admit the mormon faith just conveniently re-writes the book.

But JWs constantly change their position - first transplants were cannibalism - then they are allowed - then not - then allowed again (these are the most objectionable I feel as the JW council kill people).

Catholic religion said hell if you eat meat on a Friday now it is allowed. They also now regard as an "old fashioned view" that an unbaptized child will go to hell and now longer believe that.

Just a few I can recall but there are many many more over the years.

Everso

Just to clear things up a bit. LDS, JW's and Catholics do not fall within the pale of Evangelicalism. Their actions do not define, affect or reflect upon Evangelicals.

Kuan · Post by **Kuan** » Sat Oct 23, 2010 2:45 am

fewwillfindit wrote:
Everso wrote: With this confusion is seems that evangelicalism should be put on hold until a religion has sat down - worked out an unchanging view and stuck to it. I realize that the mormon religion is a lot younger than many but their views still seem to shift.

Everso wrote: Though I will admit the mormon faith just conveniently re-writes the book.

But JWs constantly change their position - first transplants were cannibalism - then they are allowed - then not - then allowed again (these are the most objectionable I feel as the JW council kill people).

Catholic religion said hell if you eat meat on a Friday now it is allowed. They also now regard as an "old fashioned view" that an unbaptized child will go to hell and now longer believe that.

Just a few I can recall but there are many many more over the years.

Everso
Just to clear things up a bit. LDS, JW's and Catholics do not fall within the pale of Evangelicalism. Their actions do not define, affect or reflect upon Evangelicals.

Well, of course! You cannot judge one sect to another. Its kinda like how we have a bad habit of assuming all muslims are terrorists, while muslims have a habit of seeing us in the same view.

fewwillfindit · Post by **fewwillfindit** » Sat Oct 23, 2010 2:48 am

mormon boy51 wrote:
fewwillfindit wrote:
Everso wrote: With this confusion is seems that evangelicalism should be put on hold until a religion has sat down - worked out an unchanging view and stuck to it. I realize that the mormon religion is a lot younger than many but their views still seem to shift.

Everso wrote: Though I will admit the mormon faith just conveniently re-writes the book.

But JWs constantly change their position - first transplants were cannibalism - then they are allowed - then not - then allowed again (these are the most objectionable I feel as the JW council kill people).

Catholic religion said hell if you eat meat on a Friday now it is allowed. They also now regard as an "old fashioned view" that an unbaptized child will go to hell and now longer believe that.

Just a few I can recall but there are many many more over the years.

Everso
Just to clear things up a bit. LDS, JW's and Catholics do not fall within the pale of Evangelicalism. Their actions do not define, affect or reflect upon Evangelicals.
Well, of course! You cannot judge one sect to another. Its kinda like how we have a bad habit of assuming all muslims are terrorists, while muslims have a habit of seeing us in the same view.

I am aware that you know this to be true, but it is clear that Everso has been misinformed, hence my reply to Everso.