What Mormonism really teaches... (brainwashing, Lutherans, excommunication, angel)
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
While I was not trying to be insulting and can see why you would get offended, when the Mormon story starts with Smith receiving some golden plates and magic spectacles to interpret them , the story is not sensible from the very beginning. And there is no point in pretending it is to prevent hurt feelings .
Of course you intended to be insulting. Own it.
Quote:
I actually admire Mormons . Their religion is largely a kind one, and they live their faith far more than most Christians.
Tell me about it.
Quote:
That does not make the origin of their religion any the less silly though.
The origins of virtually every religion in the world are "silly" to non-believers. I get it.
While I was not trying to be insulting and can see why you would get offended, when the Mormon story starts with Smith receiving some golden plates and magic spectacles to interpret them , the story is not sensible from the very beginning. And there is no point in pretending it is to prevent hurt feelings . My point was that normstads view is based on rational thinking, while your point of view is based on desiring to find a way to believe what your religion teaches you, no matter how weird, wild, or silly.
I actually admire Mormons . Their religion is largely a kind one, and they live their faith far more than most Christians. They are, as a whole, largely admirable people. That does not make the origin of their religion any the less silly though.
It doesn't help that he was a con man before he found the plates.
Of course it was intended to be insulting. Own it.
The origins of virtually every religion in the world are "silly" to non-believers. I get it.
If you wish to believe so. My point was a comparison of two views of the same evidence . One is by its very nature not a sensible view . It is possible to point that out without intending to deliberately insult , even if that be the end result . Your ways of looking at the evidence are not comparable . You wish to believe , no matter how far fetched the evidence seems . Normstads view looks at the likelihood the far fetched evidence is valid .
Last edited by wallflash; 09-16-2018 at 11:25 AM..
As to why I just do not believe LDS sources, the LDS church has lied.
Quote:
After Smith’s death, it makes clear, church leaders came up with a new policy in which they effectively lied to the world – stating publicly that monogamy was the only legal marriage under Mormonism while openly tolerating plural marriage within their ranks.
Some people today still don't believe polygamy is treated seriously by the church. I would have no way of knowing. It might depend on the locale. My Mormon friend says HIS church IS serious, as in ex-communication serious, and I believe him, I just have no way of knowing if that is universal. I would guess NOT.
I've lived in places where there were both LDS and FLDS. If they are so opposed to one another, IDK how they can be side by side like that.
I know of no LDS church that supports polygamy. The LDS is pretty monolithic and it is doubtful there are churches that buck the leadership. The FLDS is completely separate and has been for over a century , if I remember right . There is no connection between the two.
I know of no LDS church that supports polygamy. The LDS is pretty monolithic and it is doubtful there are churches that buck the leadership. The FLDS is completely separate and has been for over a century , if I remember right . There is no connection between the two.
Would you mind quoting from "the policy" you are referring to?
Quote:
Some people today still don't believe polygamy is treated seriously by the church. I would have no way of knowing. It might depend on the locale. My Mormon friend says HIS church IS serious, as in ex-communication serious, and I believe him, I just have no way of knowing if that is universal. I would guess NOT.
Your guesses are almost never right. Polygamy is punishable today by excommunication. There are no ifs, ands, or buts. No exceptions made and no time wasted.
Quote:
I've lived in places where there were both LDS and FLDS. If they are so opposed to one another, IDK how they can be side by side like that.
Where did you live where there were both LDS and FLDS? How did you know who the FLDS people were? I ask this because the vast majority of FLDS people live in conclaves owned and run by their church, in such places as Hildale, Utah and Colorado City, Arizona, and try to avoid calling attention to themselves. They'd be very unlikely to ever admit that they were FLDS. Outside of those two small towns, they can also be found in the following places:
Bountiful, British Columbia
Pringle, South Dakota
Ozumba, State of Mexico (not known for sure)
Centennial Park, Arizona
Bonners Ferry, Idaho
Lovell, Wyoming (not known for sure)
Pinesdale, Montana
Mancos, Colorado
Davis County, Utah
Salt Lake County, Utah
Tooele County, Utah
Utah County, Utah
Motaqua, Utah
Cedar City, Utah
Hanna, Utah
Hildale, Utah
Manti, Utah
Rocky Ridge, Utah
Sanpete Valley, Utah
Modena, Utah
Eldorado, Texas
Preston, Nevada (not known for sure)
Lund, Nevada (not known for sure)
In each of these places there are no more than one to two dozen FLDS at most. Which one did you live in?
And what you do mean by the question, "If they are so opposed to one another, how can they be side by side?"
The break over polygamy took place in 1896. Those that disagreed with the teaching of monogamy left the LDS around that time and kept up the practice of polygamy . When one specific group might have formally organized doesn't alter that they split over a century ago.Fundamentalist and polygamous Mormonism has been around since the turn of the 20th century, and had been separate from the main LDS all that time period .
I know of no LDS church that supports polygamy. The LDS is pretty monolithic and it is doubtful there are churches that buck the leadership. The FLDS is completely separate and has been for over a century , if I remember right . There is no connection between the two.
How can they live side by side in so many places? Where the FLDS is concentrated, they are surrounded by LDS. Seems like they'd not surround themselves with people who are utterly opposed to them.
Anyway, though I don't like anything about the FLDS, I do think they are truer to their religion in a sense. They didn't allow the USG to change God's mind on plural marriage. An Angel came to Smith and commanded it, after all.
Quote:
During the years that plural marriage was publicly taught, not all Latter-day Saints were expected to live the principle, though all were expected to accept it as a revelation from God.
While I was not trying to be insulting and can see why you would get offended, when the Mormon story starts with Smith receiving some golden plates and magic spectacles to interpret them , the story is not sensible from the very beginning. And there is no point in pretending it is to prevent hurt feelings . My point was that normstads view is based on rational thinking, while your point of view is based on desiring to find a way to believe what your religion teaches you, no matter how weird, wild, or silly.
I actually admire Mormons . Their religion is largely a kind one, and they live their faith far more than most Christians. They are, as a whole, largely admirable people. That does not make the origin of their religion any the less silly though.
I think this thread is a very good example of the inappropriate way that people on both sides of the aisle respond when the talk is about religion...and I am guilty of it myself.
Katzpur began this thread to tell what Mormonism really teaches. He or she seems like a pretty good person. And I knew he or she was going to be thoroughly attacked. And I think that's a shame.
But on the other hand, while I have been interested in his/her responses, and as a person who had been on top of Hill Cumorah dozens of times since my family's home was located near by, I don't believe most of the story either. One part that sticks in my craw is the belief that there was a sort of treasure cave in Hill Cumorah that contained the Nephite records. Well, as a trained geologist, I not only know the geology of the Palmyra area, but I know that there is no possibility of a stable cave in a drumlin...a drumlin is a glacial hill of loose sand and gravel...never solid rock. But then again, more mainstream christians can't produce the tablets with ten commandments or the Ark Of The Covenant (well, except for Indiana Jones!), or virtually any other historical christian artifact mentioned in the either the old or new testaments.
I wish we (and I) could learn to debate but not attack. But, this is an intense part of the forum and it is the distrust on both sides that leads to the animosity.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
