NationStates Jolt Archive

What are the fundamental differences that separate these two religions? Why is that so? :?

Well...um...mormons prosyletize...wait...so do christians...but not as aggressively...damn...

Ok, start again. Mormons made up most of what they believe in...wait...shyte.

Ok, I think I've got it. Mormons borrowed a lot of their ritual from the freemasons, they wear ritual underwear when they're inducted, they support polygamy, and their leader got his instructions from Gabriel on gold tablets, but he lost them, to my recollection. Basically, 14 year old Joseph Smith declared himself a prophet. Then he began revision after revision of what happened.

Personally, I can't really see much difference between the two, except for the ritual underwear, the freemasonry and the polygamy, but then again, I'm more of a purist in what I believe.

Hmm, well Mormons are Christians.

However, they follow the words of a 'prophet; from like the 19th century or something instead of the Bible.

Well for one, the Mormon religion was created by a con artist.

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints (Mormons) views itself as a Christian denomination, and sees Jesus as the Son of God, and a resurrected being, and the redeemer of humankind; and Mormons are baptized in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost; and they administer various sacraments to their members. I know there are probably distinctions that cause other Christian denominations to see them as a bunch of heretics. But I'm not a Christian, so I don't care very much about those distinctions. I see them as excuses for groups of people slaughtering each other, mostly.

I know a few Mormons, and they consider themselves Christian. I just wanted to correct the polygamy statement, however. The church does not endorse it (they may have at the beginning). The ones you hear about are small sects that are doing things their own way.

I know a few Mormons, and they consider themselves Christian. I just wanted to correct the polygamy statement, however. The church does not endorse it (they may have at the beginning). The ones you hear about are small sects that are doing things their own way.The Church doesn't endorse child molestors, but when a few Preists go out and do it we all get the flack.

Mormonism is not Christian. Anything in the Bible that contradicts the book of Mormon is said to be wrong. Most of this book is apparently forged from various pieces of literature like Shakespeare for example.

http://www.rapidnet.com/~jbeard/bdm/Cults/mormon.htm

Technically Mormons are a Christian sect, like Baptists, Anglicans, Episcopalians, Catholics and a host of others. There are references on line. Look it up. Who cares though? It's all BS to one extent or the other.

Technically Mormons are a Christian sect, like Baptists, Anglicans, Episcopalians, Catholics and a host of others. There are references on line. Look it up. Who cares though? It's all BS to one extent or the other.Catholics aren't a sect, we are the founding Church the heritics, sinners and lost branched off from.

Fundemental difference:

Mainstream Christians believe that the scriptures were "sealed" after the writing of the Revelation of St. John, taking a closing passage from that, the last book of the Christian Bible, not to add anything to this book, to refer to the whole of the Bible and not just to the Revelation.

Mormons OTOH believe in continuing revelations, some of which are to them as sacred as the Bible itself. In essence this is the root of the difference.

BTW Mormons do consider themselves Christians, while many other Christian sects do not, but then many do not consider Catholics to be Christians either. Even more interesting is that those Protestant sects who disclaim the christianity of Catholicism also take the Bible, which was compiled by Jerome under the authority of the Nicean Council and the Vatican See, as being the inspired Word of God. They do reject the Apocrypha and they have reclaimed certain heavily bastardized passages from the Vulgate (check out a Catholic version of the Ten Commandments alongside a Protestant one like the KJV... but then, check that one against an actual Torah). Apparently even those who believe that Catholics are the church of Antichrist (count up the numerology of "Vicarius Filii Dei" in latin, you who have wisdom) somehow believe that of all the books written about Y'shua (Jesus), those chosen by the Mother Church that they revile as apostate were also soley and completely those written by the guidence of the Holy Spirit.

Another major difference is that, like other "fringe" Christian sects such as the Seventh Day Adventists and the Jehovah's Witnesses, Mormons do not believe in eternal damnation as anything more than a metaphor. They believe that souls are tested for immortality and that those who fail will be destroyed, but "destroyed eternally" means never to exist again, rather than what most Christian sects take it to mean, which is to BE dying forever, but always unable to pass from existance.

However, where these "fringe" sects fall short, also being believers in the Devine inspiration of the Christian Bible, is in St. John's description of the fate of those who worship the Beast and his image and take his mark. To me there is no room for that description being taken as metaphor.

Another thing that these sects have in common, along with Christian Science and probably some other, is in having a strong following in the teachings of their "latter day" founders, such as Mr. Smith and also Ellen G. White of the SDA, etc., sometimes to the point of putting their sect founders on the level of the biblical prophets. This combined with their reverence with their founder's writings, in the case of the Book of Mormon putting it on par with the Bible, tends to make those who hold to the finality of the Christian Bible regard them as apostates.

There are certainly many other differences, but these are at the core.



Rev. A.J. Harris

Well damn... so much for NS's cookie handling :tantrum:

- Druthulhu

So what does the word 'mormon' mean? Just curious

I'm surprised, or maybe not, to see that of those speaking in defense of Mormonism, nobody has seen fit to address the matters of the special longjohns or the amalgam of rituals which bear a spooky resemblance to those of the freemasons, or the "shaking hands through a hole in a sheet" thing. I'm sorry, but while I can respect the beliefs of individual mormons who live a good life and try to be good people, I find the general tenets of the faith, let alone the specific ones, ludicrous.

Of course, I find a lot of things to be hogwash, and tend to think to myself that the person telling me must be making it up on the spot...

I'm surprised, or maybe not, to see that of those speaking in defense of Mormonism, nobody has seen fit to address the matters of the special longjohns or the amalgam of rituals which bear a spooky resemblance to those of the freemasons, or the "shaking hands through a hole in a sheet" thing. I'm sorry, but while I can respect the beliefs of individual mormons who live a good life and try to be good people, I find the general tenets of the faith, let alone the specific ones, ludicrous.

Of course, I find a lot of things to be hogwash, and tend to think to myself that the person telling me must be making it up on the spot...
I don't know who's "speaking in defense of Mormonism," as opposed to saying we don't really care about the squabbles between the various Christian sects...? If someone proved to me that Mormonism wasn't Christian, I wouldn't see it as an attack on Mormonism, because I don't view Christianity (Eastern? Western? Catholic? Protestant?) as some kind of standard by which everything's to be judged.

Catholics aren't a sect, we are the founding Church the heritics, sinners and lost branched off from.

The founding "church" consisted of 13 members and followed the Jewish scriptures. Not only are the Catholics one of many sects which desended from this original "church," but Christianity in general is really a sect/branch of Judaism, considering the fact that Christ himself was an observant Jew, and the fact that the first half of the Christian bible is in fact the Tanakh, the Hebrew bible. So in reality the founding "church" is probably more accurately refered to as a synagogue. :wink:

BTW, my Bibles says:

"for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God"
- Romans 3:23, The Teen Study Bible, NIV, Zondervan

According to that scripture, all people are sinners. If the sinners have branched off of the Catholic church, how are their any Catholics left? If all the sinners left, we should all be Protestants. :D

Beleive what you want, as long as you have faith in God, everything works out, according to most sects :P

Of course, the REALLY wierd ones (Sorry, if there are any of you out there) like Jehovas Witness', Seventh Day, and the rest of the extremists...well, they scare me slightly. A religion that advertises door to door just isnt right.

SomethingAwful's take on Mormonism (http://www.somethingawful.com/articles.php?a=1106). :)
Dontgonearthere: Christians who use deceit to gather followers don't appeal to me much, either.


Cheers

This is an extremely pointless debate as neither of this religions have a decent backround or foundation. For a start Mormans speak of jesus moving to america (the worst foundation to a religon ever) which quite honestly is more than impossible.
Also christianity is made up aswell, this is much more difficult to explain and there are many good arguments against christianity, if any body wishes to defend their false religion, telegram the Peoples Republic of Kazackistan. :D

Bascially they're some other bunch of heretics.

I still want to know what's up with the longjohns. :twisted:

So what does the word 'mormon' mean? Just curious

It's based on some guy named Mormon who was contacted by the Angel Moranicai (didn't spell that right) and given their bible. Besides that, if they based it on the angel that gave them the book, they would be called the Morons :lol: .

They also have beliefs about Jewish Indians in South America called the Nephitians, which the Smithsonian themselves have said is pretty much crap.

It can be stated definitely that there is no connection between the archeology of the New World and the subject matter of the Book of Mormon. There is no correspondence whatever between archeological sites and cultures as revealed by scientific investigations and as recorded in the Book of Mormon, hence the book cannot be regarded as having any historical value from the standpoint of the aboriginal peoples of the New World." F.H.H. Roberts, Jr, Smithsonian Instituion, 1951

However, they seem to think differently (the Mormons, that is, not the Smithsonian, they're generally on the ball :lol:)

From One Minute Answers with Stephen R. Gibson (http://www.lightplanet.com/response/answers/refute.htm)

Did the Sniithsonian Refute The Book of Mormon?
Question: If the Book of Mormon is true, why does the Smithsonian Institute put out letters stating that there is no connection between the Book of Mormon and Central and South American archaeology?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Archaeological evidence or the lack thereof in no way affects the truthfulness of the Book of Mormon. If someone's testimony of the Book of Mormon is dependent on archaeological digs, that person had better get a more profound spiritual confirmation.

Actually, the Smithsonian Institute is not giving support to anti-Mormons. The intent of their letter obviously is to back out of the debate, not to support one side's position. Their standard letter simply states that the Smithsonian staff knows of no supporting archaeological evidence for the truthfulness of the book. While the standard letter has varied over the years, John L. Sorenson has evaluated the 1979 version of the letter from the Institute. He has made the following points:

The Smithsonian institute claims to have no staff memhers that are qualified to speak about the Book of Mormon.
While the Smithsonian scientists are qualified to discuss archaeology, they do not claim to know everything there is to know about New World archaeology.
Equally well-qualified, non-Smithsonian (and also non-Mormon) scientists have sharply disagreed with the Smithsonian scientists on questions which are pertinent to Book of Mormon archaeology and anthropology.
At least one of the form-letter's statements about New World archaeology, one which detractors use against the Book of Mormon, has been contradicted by one of the Smithsonian's own scientists
Several of the materials that the Smithsonian letter says were not used in pre-Columbian America were, in fact, in use by the Indians of Mexico, according to reports by the first Spaniards to come to the American continent.
In Joseph Smith's day there was no archaeological evidence for many culture items mentioned in the Book of Mormon, but in the last 30 to 50 years evidence has been found for those items. At the time the Book of Mormon was published and for up to 100 years afterwards, scholars scoffed at the mention of glass, iron, and steel dating back two thousand years before Christ. However, archaeologists, anthropologists, and other scientists no longer argue the credibility of such claims in the Book of Mormon as more and more significant evidence comes to light.
For example, the December, 1983 issue of Science 83 magazine announced the discovery of pre-Columbian barley in the New World. This is one more example of items mentioned in the Book of Mormon, the pre-Columbian use of which was unknown in Joseph Smith's day.

While archaeology can establish the existence of a civilization, the lack of archaeological evidence doesn't prove a civilization didn't exist. In 1975 the civilization of Ebla was discovered, though prior to this time no one could produce an artifact associated with the Ebla people. It is examples like these which demonstrate the utter nonsense of statements such as, "Archaeology has proved the existence of all great civilizations" (The Godmakers film).

Archaeologists in the Americas and around the world continually find evidence that they cannot piece together into a conclusive picture. Evidence collected in the Americas is likewise too scattered to either prove or disprove that Nephites once lived on this continent or that the American Indians were once called Lamanites.

It would be interesting if the Smithsonian wrote a letter regarding archaeological proof of the Bible.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
For additional information see:
Nibley, Since Cumorah. 1967).
Nibley, Lehi in the Desert and the World of the Jaredites.
Sorenson, "An Evaluation of the Smithsonian Institutions." "Statement Regarding the Book of Mormon," Preliminary Report, Foundation for Ancient Research & Mormon Studies.

[][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][]

Yes, they really did mispell Smithsonian :? .

If you want to know more, visit exmormon.org (www.exmormon.org). They're very informational about some of the fallacies of mormonism, have good message boards, and have real stories of LDS members recovering from their old faith.

/Long winded post

Catholics aren't a sect, we are the founding Church the heritics, sinners and lost branched off from.

wasn't the eastern orthodox branch formed first?

Catholics aren't a sect, we are the founding Church the heritics, sinners and lost branched off from.

wasn't the eastern orthodox branch formed first?

Catholics aren't a sect, we are the founding Church the heritics, sinners and lost branched off from.

wasn't the eastern orthodox branch formed first?

There was the "Early Church" which broke into the Roman Catholic Church and eastern orthodox Church (or Greek Orthodox) when the West (Rome) and East (Byzantium) did not get along.

Catholics aren't a sect, we are the founding Church the heritics, sinners and lost branched off from.

wasn't the eastern orthodox branch formed first?

There was the "Early Church" which broke into the Roman Catholic Church and eastern orthodox Church (or Greek Orthodox) when the West (Rome) and East (Byzantium) did not get along.

so basically neither is the original.

though the catholics did keep all the traditions associated with mithras... so much for being better than the heathens, huh.

mormanism is a cult...I read something from an ex-morman about how hugely subversive the entire culture is, the morman church breaks laws reutenely in donating to political campaigns...only illegal because it hten remains exempt from taxation. I read a story about the BYU administration hunting down gay students and expelling them. if they didn't go quietly, only one in this story didn't, they held their transcript. the man apperently couldn't get a college education for like 30 years and still hasn't, because the petty self-righteous administration refused to ever release his transcript to anyone. There's also alot of complete historical lunacy about a christian civilization in per-columbian america...it's quite pathetic. I need to get one of those free books of morman to read what it says.

So what does the word 'mormon' mean? Just curious

The word Mormon comes from the belief that Smith was visited by the angel Moronia (sp?). So, funny thing is, they should actually call themselves Morons, I don't know where they got the other M from.

So what does the word 'mormon' mean? Just curious

The word Mormon comes from the belief that Smith was visited by the angel Moronia (sp?). So, funny thing is, they should actually call themselves Morons, I don't know where they got the other M from.

Don't get the free book of mormon. They'll never leave you alone, from what I hear. Borrow one from the library instead. As for the moron/mormon thing, I'd say it's a PR tactic. ;)

So what does the word 'mormon' mean? Just curious

The word Mormon comes from the belief that Smith was visited by the angel Moronia (sp?). So, funny thing is, they should actually call themselves Morons, I don't know where they got the other M from. And I am a redundant joke stealing person...

:roll:

Ummmm... I think I answered that, and made the same joke...

Also, DON'T GET THAT FREE BOOK, ANTICARNIVORA! If you do, in about a week, they'll call you about what you learned from it. If you do decide to get it, tell them CLEARLY that you are not interested. If you say "Now is not a good time," or, "We're not interested RIGHT NOW," they take it as an excuse to call back later.

Now, here's the full Smithsonian letter, and an article about how the church of LDS twists it around...
[][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][]
I found something which was refreshing to read from an LDS member, Dr. Stephen E. Thompson Ph.D. an Egyptologist from Brown University. He talks about LDS apologetics - how LDS members defend the Book of Abraham. This is from a 1993 Sunstone Symposium. In the second quote, he is referring to the book "By His Own Hand Upon Papyrus" by Charles Larson, which most Mormons would consider an 'anti-Mormon' book. The book "By His.." is excellent and shows how Joseph Smith made the whole thing up and it shoots down every defense LDS apologists have been able to create out of desperation to save the Book of Abraham.

This first quote is on how the LDS book "Encyclopedia of Mormonism" has outright deception about the Book of Abraham. "In the entry on the facsimiles from the Book of Abraham in the Encyclopedia of Mormonism, we are told that the prophet's explanations of each of the facsimiles accord with present understanding of Egyptian religious practice. This is truly remarkable statement in view of the fact that those Egyptologists who have commented on Joseph's interpretations of the facsimiles have stated emphatically that his interpretations are not correct from the perspective of the Egyptologist who attempts to interpret Egyptian religious literature and iconography as he or she believes the ancient Egyptians themselves would have.... In my opinion, none of these figures can be made to fit what Smith believed them to be... their interpretation is limited to funerary purposes." Summary: They, the papyri, have nothing to do with Abraham and were written 1500 years after Abraham.

This second quote is on the book "By His Own Hand Upon Papyrus". "In my opinion, it's the best source to go to if you want to know what's been going on with the Book of Abraham in the church. I mean, he (Larson) has a pretty good summary of all the types of approaches that have been made. He does a pretty good job of explaining what they are, what the papyri are... And people worry about the accuracy, is this book accurate or not. Well I'll tell you, he's far more accurate than anything Hugh Nibley ever wrote on the subject, okay... Nothing that's been written from an apologetic (LDS) point of view comes close to it in accuracy. Because frankly, in my opinion, when you start doing apologetics you've got to twist the evidence. That what we (LDS) have just doesn't support us. You've got to do something to it. You've got to manipulate it, you've got to move it...and stuff like that. So, that's my feeling on the book"

The deception in the Encyclopedia is exactly like the stuff I have been reading on the Watchtower history, which came out a short time ago. It too is full of inaccuracies and rewritten history. It is amazing how these groups work and are not shy about deceiving their members or prospective members.

Information from the
National Museum of Natural History
Smithsonian Institution Washington, D.C. 20560

Your recent inquiry concerning the Smithsonian Institution's alleged use of the Book of Mormon as a scientific guide has been received in the Smithsonians Department of Anthropology.

The Book of Mormon is a religious document and not a scientific guide. The Smithsonian Institution has never used it in archaeological research and any information that you have received to the contrary is incorrect. Accurate information about the Smithsonians position is contained in the enclosed Statement Regarding the Book of Mormon, which was prepared to respond to the numerous inquiries that the Smithsonian receives on this topic.

Because the Smithsonian regards the unauthorized use of its name to disseminate inaccurate information as unlawful, we would appreciate your assistance in providing us with the names of any individuals who are misusing the Smithsonians name. Please address any correspondence to:

Public Information Officer
Department of Anthropology
National Museum of Natural History
Smithsonian Institution, MRC 112
Washington, DC 20560


Prepared by
THE DEPARTMENT OF ANTHROPOLOGY
SMITHSONIAN INSTITUTION
STATEMENT REGARDING THE BOOK OF MORMON

1. The Smithsonian Institution has never used the Book of Mormon in any way as a scientific guide. Smithsonian archaeologists see no direct connection between the archaeology of the New World and the subject matter of the book.

2. The physical type of the American Indian is basically Mongoloid, being most closely related to that of the peoples of eastern, central, and northeastern Asia. Archaeological evidence indicates that the ancestors of the present Indians came into the New World--probably over a land bridge known to have existed in the Bering Strait region during the last Ice Age--in a continuing series of small migrations beginning from about 25,000 to 30,000 years ago.

3. Present evidence indicates that the first people to reach this continent from the East were the Norsemen, who briefly visited the northeastern part of North America around 1000 A.D. and then settled in Greenland. There is no evidence to show that they reached Mexico or Central America.

4. None of the principal Old World domesticated food plants or animals (except the dog) occurred in the New World in pre- Columbian times. This is one of the main lines of evidence supporting the scientific premise that contacts with Old World civilizations, if they occurred, were of very little significance for the development of American Indian civilizations. American Indians had no wheat, barley, oats, millet, rice, cattle, pigs, chickens, horses, donkeys, or camels before 1492. (Camels and horses were in the Americas, along with the bison, mammoth, and mastodon, bat all these animals became extinct around 10,000 B.C. at the time the early big game hunters traveled across the Americas.)

5. Iron, steel, glass, and silk were not used in the New World before 1492 (except for occasional use of unsmelted meteroic iron). Native copper was worked in various locations in pre- Columbian times, but true metallurgy was limited to southern Mexico and the Andean region, where its occurrence in late prehistoric times involved gold, silver, copper, and their alloys, but not iron.

6. There is a possibility that the spread of cultural traits across the Pacific to Mesoamerica and the northwestern coast of South America began several hundred years before the Christian era. However, any such inter-hemispheric contacts appear to have been the results of accidental voyages originating in eastern and southern Asia. It is by no means certain that even such contacts occurred with the ancient Egyptians, Hebrews, or other peoples of Western Asia and the Near East.

7. No reputable Egyptologist or other specialist on Old World archeology, and no expert on New World prehistory, has discovered or confirmed any relationship between archeological remains in Mexico and archeological remains in Egypt.

8. Reports of findings of ancient Egyptian, Hebrew, and other Old World writings in the New World in pre-Columbian contexts have frequently appeared in newspapers, magazines and sensational books. None of these claims has stood up to examination by reputable scholars. No inscriptions using Old World forms of writing have been shown to have occurred in any part of the Americas before 1492 except for a few Norse rune stones which have been found in Greenland.

9. There are copies of the Book of Mormon in the library of the National Museum of Natural History, Smithsonian Institution

Christianity vs. Mormonism...
Like saying Teletubbies versus Sesame Street :roll:

So I can call Mormon = Moron, cool! :)

Interesting video
http://www.mormonchallenge.com/newmc/dnafront.html

So I can call Mormon = Moron, cool! :)

Interesting video
http://www.mormonchallenge.com/newmc/dnafront.html

DNA vs. The Book of Mormon?

I'd watch it on pay per view.

anyone who claims mormons are christians hasn't read the book of mormon or the bible. the two books directly contradict each other on some very major points. um, i also wanted to mention that if you've ever actually read the book of mormon it really does sound like someone tried to rip off shakespeare and biblical king james english and failed miserably. both catholics and protestants are christian, but the catholic church teaches some non-biblical doctrines, as do some protestant denominations. jehovah's witness and the church of christian science, along with humanists and a couple of others are all cults. they are not christian becuase they do not hold the bible to be the word of god or believe that christ (the only actual historical religious leader) to be the one and only son of God.

So what does the word 'mormon' mean? Just curious

The word Mormon comes from the belief that Smith was visited by the angel Moronia (sp?). So, funny thing is, they should actually call themselves Morons, I don't know where they got the other M from.

Even though this thread has just become a breeding pit for anti-mormon propaganda, I figure I'll throw in a little sense and truth for you poor people who are honestly wanting to know things (ie you don't think you don't already know everything).

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints gets the nickname of the "Mormons" from the "Book of Mormon" so called due to its compiler (gasp) Mormon. The angel which visited Joseph Smith is called Moroni, and even though there are some illiterates on here who want to translate that into "moron" it's actually pronounced MORE-OWN-I.

Anyway, I think the best way to learn about the LDS Church (The mormons) is not to visit antimormon websites or read anitmormon books. What do you think their going to say? "Oh the LDS church is so true, etc." No it's predetermined that antimormon literature is (beyond being mostly malicious lies and largely contrived) going to be (another gasp) ANTI-mormon. If I were a person looking into the church trying to understand what it was about, I would look at their websites, talk to some of their members, talk to the missionaries, etc. And If I did receive information from anybody anti, I'd only take it with a grain of salt. Actually, in this case, I wouldn't consider it at all.

Oh and as clearly established before Mormons do believe in Christ and are, by all sensible and logical definitions, Christian. I don't understand really why some people feel it necessary to attack other people’s beliefs. Most of it probably comes from personal insecurities and personality disorders (ie their unhappy therefore they hate to see others trying to be happy) and having been beat up one too many times or stuffed in a locker that was one size too small.

Thanks for reading.

So what does the word 'mormon' mean? Just curious

The word Mormon comes from the belief that Smith was visited by the angel Moronia (sp?). So, funny thing is, they should actually call themselves Morons, I don't know where they got the other M from.

Even though this thread has just become a breeding pit for anti-mormon propaganda, I figure I'll throw in a little sense and truth for you poor people who are honestly wanting to know things (ie you don't think you don't already know everything).

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints gets the nickname of the "Mormons" from the "Book of Mormon" so called due to its compiler (gasp) Mormon. The angel which visited Joseph Smith is called Moroni, and even though there are some illiterates on here who want to translate that into "moron" it's actually pronounced MORE-OWN-I.

Anyway, I think the best way to learn about the LDS Church (The mormons) is not to visit antimormon websites or read anitmormon books. What do you think their going to say? "Oh the LDS church is so true, etc." No it's predetermined that antimormon literature is (beyond being mostly malicious lies and largely contrived) going to be (another gasp) ANTI-mormon. If I were a person looking into the church trying to understand what it was about, I would look at their websites, talk to some of their members, talk to the missionaries, etc. And If I did receive information from anybody anti, I'd only take it with a grain of salt. Actually, in this case, I wouldn't consider it at all.

Oh and as clearly established before Mormons do believe in Christ and are, by all sensible and logical definitions, Christian. I don't understand really why some people feel it necessary to attack other people’s beliefs. Most of it probably comes from personal insecurities and personality disorders (ie their unhappy therefore they hate to see others trying to be happy) and having been beat up one too many times or stuffed in a locker that was one size too small.

Thanks for reading.

Talking to their leaders would be as badly propaganda as talking to the anti mormon stuff. And those malicious lies are pretty much true.

they are not christian becuase they do not hold the bible to be the word of god or believe that christ (the only actual historical religious leader) to be the one and only son of God.

On the contrary, Mormons do believe the bible to be the word of God and they do believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Messiah, Emmanual, etc. etc.

If you ask anyone who knows about the teachings of the church (I mean the real teachings) they'll tell you exactly that. The Book of Mormon is even subtitled "Another Testament of Jesus Christ". Hm, for not believing in Christ they certainly do believe in Christ.

I still want to know what's up with the longjohns. :twisted:

It's weird, but it's no crazier than eating the body and drinking the blood of Christ.

Talking to their leaders would be as badly propaganda as talking to the anti mormon stuff. And those malicious lies are pretty much true.

Really? That doesn't make any sense. Take, for example, the American and anti-american viewpoints. If you listen to Al-qaeda and other anti-american sources you are certain to hear nothing but lies and twisted truth, because their only directive in propoganda is to be anti-US and they have no one to answer to. Propoganda from the US goverment, however, at least has some hope of having a shread of truth in it. Sure, they use spin, but they have to stick to some facts because of the consequeances of if they were found out to be lying--they have to answer to the American people.

These malicious lies (which are "pretty much true") are impossible to verify and have only twists on real basese of truth, because the anti-mormon sources have no other objective but to defame the Mormon Church, by any means necessary. The Mormon Church on the other hand is more likely to have information based of fact because it doesn't look good to be a liar and thus it's unlikely that any church would lie en masse like the anti-church organizations

You clearly have already decided whether the Mormon Church is true or not. Why aren't you satisfied with that? Why are you bent on making assertions aout the Church? And why, in the first place, are you interested in destroying other people's faith? Has their faith harmed you? Has the fact that they believe a certain thing in some way limited your rights or priveledges?

I thought not.

Talking to their leaders would be as badly propaganda as talking to the anti mormon stuff. And those malicious lies are pretty much true.

Really? That doesn't make any sense. Take, for example, the American and anti-american viewpoints. If you listen to Al-qaeda and other anti-american sources you are certain to hear nothing but lies and twisted truth, because their only directive in propoganda is to be anti-US and they have no one to answer to. Propoganda from the US goverment, however, at least has some hope of having a shread of truth in it. Sure, they use spin, but they have to stick to some facts because of the consequeances of if they were found out to be lying--they have to answer to the American people.

These malicious lies (which are "pretty much true") are impossible to verify and have only twists on real basese of truth, because the anti-mormon sources have no other objective but to defame the Mormon Church, by any means necessary. The Mormon Church on the other hand is more likely to have information based of fact because it doesn't look good to be a liar and thus it's unlikely that any church would lie en masse like the anti-church organizations

You clearly have already decided whether the Mormon Church is true or not. Why aren't you satisfied with that? Why are you bent on making assertions aout the Church? And why, in the first place, are you interested in destroying other people's faith? Has their faith harmed you? Has the fact that they believe a certain thing in some way limited your rights or priveledges?

I thought not.

First off, the church has harmed me. The "Man of god" priest made my mother cheat on my father, or otherwise be damned. He embezled money from the church, manipulated the congregation, and was rascist to a fault.

Personal viewpoints aside, Do you call the Smithsonian a source filled with propaganda? They don't really put a spin on things.

Get off your high horse, man. Jesus.

First off, the church has harmed me. The "Man of god" priest made my mother cheat on my father, or otherwise be damned. He embezled money from the church, manipulated the congregation, and was rascist to a fault.

Personal viewpoints aside, Do you call the Smithsonian a source filled with propaganda? They don't really put a spin on things.

Get off your high horse, man. Jesus.

Hey, wait a minute! The church didn't tell him to do that stuff. Like you said this person embezzled money FROM the church and MANIPULATED the congregation. He was the person who hurt you, not the church. Sure I bet there was a large misjudgement of character when he was appointed to a leadership position, but you can't blame the whole of a church which has over 10- million members on the evil doings of one man.

And I never said anything about the Smithsonian. Did it sound like I said anything about it? I said things about antimormon organizations. Is the Smithsonian an antimormon organization? As far as it's obectivity is concerned I have no knowledge. I would hope that it is not taking one side or the other, but, once again, it is run by people, and people can make mistakes.

I'm not riding my high horse. He has the munchies

Lol... Sorry if I sounded angry. It's just stuff like that seems to stick with ya. You did makes some good points...

*Feeds horse*

and as for the book of mormon being "another testament" the bible cleraly says in several places not to add anything to it or to listen to any teachings from anybody other than the things held within. even if it comes from an angel or someone who says they are a prophet. and if you want to get to the real teachings of the mormons, the average mormon knows roughly half of the teachings that the mormon church holds to be true. but by the time you get that high in th hierarchy you've been so brainwashed by their bs that you can't get back out or see that what they teach contradicts the bible.

and as for the book of mormon being "another testament" the bible cleraly says in several places not to add anything to it or to listen to any teachings from anybody other than the things held within. even if it comes from an angel or someone who says they are a prophet. and if you want to get to the real teachings of the mormons, the average mormon knows roughly half of the teachings that the mormon church holds to be true. but by the time you get that high in th hierarchy you've been so brainwashed by their bs that you can't get back out or see that what they teach contradicts the bible.

and as for the book of mormon being "another testament" the bible cleraly says in several places not to add anything to it or to listen to any teachings from anybody other than the things held within. even if it comes from an angel or someone who says they are a prophet. and if you want to get to the real teachings of the mormons, the average mormon knows roughly half of the teachings that the mormon church holds to be true. but by the time you get that high in th hierarchy you've been so brainwashed by their bs that you can't get back out or see that what they teach contradicts the bible.

and as for the book of mormon being "another testament" the bible cleraly says in several places not to add anything to it or to listen to any teachings from anybody other than the things held within. even if it comes from an angel or someone who says they are a prophet. and if you want to get to the real teachings of the mormons, the average mormon knows roughly half of the teachings that the mormon church holds to be true. but by the time you get that high in th hierarchy you've been so brainwashed by their bs that you can't get back out or see that what they teach contradicts the bible.

and as for the book of mormon being "another testament" the bible cleraly says in several places not to add anything to it or to listen to any teachings from anybody other than the things held within. even if it comes from an angel or someone who says they are a prophet. and if you want to get to the real teachings of the mormons, the average mormon knows roughly half of the teachings that the mormon church holds to be true. but by the time you get that high in th hierarchy you've been so brainwashed by their bs that you can't get back out or see that what they teach contradicts the bible.

and as for the book of mormon being "another testament" the bible cleraly says in several places not to add anything to it or to listen to any teachings from anybody other than the things held within. even if it comes from an angel or someone who says they are a prophet. and if you want to get to the real teachings of the mormons, the average mormon knows roughly half of the teachings that the mormon church holds to be true. but by the time you get that high in th hierarchy you've been so brainwashed by their bs that you can't get back out or see that what they teach contradicts the bible.

and as for the book of mormon being "another testament" the bible cleraly says in several places not to add anything to it or to listen to any teachings from anybody other than the things held within. even if it comes from an angel or someone who says they are a prophet. and if you want to get to the real teachings of the mormons, the average mormon knows roughly half of the teachings that the mormon church holds to be true. but by the time you get that high in th hierarchy you've been so brainwashed by their bs that you can't get back out or see that what they teach contradicts the bible.

Lol... Sorry if I sounded angry. It's just stuff like that seems to stick with ya. You did makes some good points...

*Feeds horse*
I understand why you might have been angry, too. My round of "Why do you..." questions was pretty antagonistic. Sorry about that.

*horse does what it does best: make a big mess*

and as for the book of mormon being "another testament" the bible cleraly says in several places not to add anything to it or to listen to any teachings from anybody other than the things held within. even if it comes from an angel or someone who says they are a prophet. and if you want to get to the real teachings of the mormons, the average mormon knows roughly half of the teachings that the mormon church holds to be true. but by the time you get that high in th hierarchy you've been so brainwashed by their bs that you can't get back out or see that what they teach contradicts the bible.

Holy crap (no pun intended) is that a heptuple post?!? Wow, it's atrificial insemeniation gone wrong.

Woh, DLC, Double... Triple... SEXTUPLET +1 post!

I'm not going to post anymore here, time to ride off into the sunset...

Mormons SUCK!

and as for the book of mormon being "another testament" the bible cleraly says in several places not to add anything to it or to listen to any teachings from anybody other than the things held within. even if it comes from an angel or someone who says they are a prophet. and if you want to get to the real teachings of the mormons, the average mormon knows roughly half of the teachings that the mormon church holds to be true. but by the time you get that high in th hierarchy you've been so brainwashed by their bs that you can't get back out or see that what they teach contradicts the bible.

The Bible says in one place not to "add to this book". This is near the end opf the Book of Revelations, so does it refer to that book itself or to the Bible as a whole, but the latter did not exist as such until ~390 AD.

Y'shua (Jesus to the goyim) said that if someone tells us that he has returned, not to believe them, as when he does return every eye shall see him. If he had said never to add to his words then the Christian Bible would have ended with the Gospels.

I used to be a mormon, they told us that since the "do not add to this book" appears in more than one place, it's referring to that specific part of the book.