Good People, Bizarre Beliefs

If Mr. Romney were not religious, would he need to make a speech to dispel suspicions that anit-religious people would not influence his decision making? Why doesn't Hillary, Obama, or Huckabee need to make this kind of speech? If people are so worried about 'Mormon influence' look at Sen Reid, is he influenced by them? In a country were, by law, you cannot be discriminated against, based on sex, religion, or color, somehow there seems to be quite a bit of that going on.

Yikes!!
Mr Romney did make the speech and it convinced me that he is not the right person to head the so called "free world".

He said he tries to live his life according to the Mormon credo...he said he would not let Mormon Church influence his Presidency. Hmmmm? Which is it? How do you separate the two? Is the LDS Church (and it's leaders) not responsible for the teachings and standards by which the followers live their lives? How are we think Mr Romney can live his creed and not be able to separate it from the actions, decisions, and everyday operation of the White House?

It's two faced and it's the very thing that makes rational people wary of the conservative religious right.

I am LDS and live on the border of Mexico, namely Laredo, TX.

I too am greatly amazed by the amount of hate those of the Evangelical right are thrusting our direction in this and other blogs. I served for 2 years in Chile and knew firsthand the Evangelicals of Chile. But I never saw or felt such hate exhibited.
Evangelicals, if you must, don't call us Christians as you define it; I prefer the label I and we give ourselves of 'Latter-day Saints', with 'Saint' implying that I am a believer and follower of Jesus Christ to the best of my ability. It is really scarry to read the hate written here.
Is it little wonder there is so much trouble today to discuss what is to be done to solve the challenges of our country. I am prone to think how much of this originates from the late 1970's and early 1980's with the advent of the religous right and their self righteous efforts to take back the country from the 'left', led by the likes of Pat Robertson, Jerry Falwell, James Dobson and Ed McAteer. Since their efforts to combine a self-imployed career with moral influence on their ignorant flocks, we have been going down a rapidly declining desencion into self-righteous political conformity. I originally am from Michigan where we once had a tradition of true separation of religion and politics. We voted conservative and Repulican for the most part (except around Detroit) with Gerarld R. Ford being our best example in the House of Representatives.

But look what Mr. Robertson, Mr. Falwell, Mr. Dobson and Mr. McAteer and their like have done? And all for the sake of power and money.
It is so funny to see all of the Anti-Mormon posts here and to think who is pulling your chain? I for one payed my own way on my mission and in my present calling or position in the church (that requires sometimes 20 plus hours a week) I receive no financial reimbursement. I only get to see how much happier those I serve are with my commitment of my precious time. No paycheck here is recieved here.
Good luck to Mr. Romney. I still have not decided who to vote for but I am so glad he is running for office. It sure is opening a lot of opportunites to answer questions about the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.
To all of those Anti-Mormons: keep up all of the great Anti-Church posts....you would not believe how many people came to church this last Sunday to find out for themselves what we believe! I remember on my mission that if we could just start a dialogue with people and they were honestly looking for answers, I felt as a missionary I had done my job. This past Sunday the local missionaries were quite literally overwhelmed. Again, thank-you, all you Anti-Mormon 'Christians'!

Again, as for me I am happy to call myself a Saint, trying to do my best to follow Jesus Christ.

Living in Utah and becoming familiar with LDS church helped me to shake the rest of the catholic brainwash off and became the person who I am now - an atheist, my own person. Stories from Book of Mormon helped me to realize that Bible was created in a very similar way: somebody had visions, heard stories and legends and wrote his own version of "what God wants".
I can not deny though that people here in "Zion", “Deseret State” or just Utah are mostly good and honest, hard working and for the greatest part poor. I pity them for the brainwash they got in their church but partially I understand their love to that organization. LDS church creates for their faithful an impression of safety, coziness and overwhelming family love. Everybody yearns just that. LDS church is giving its members exactly what they want for only 10% of their income and all their leisure time. Fair deal? For God loving, reason hating, delusion seekers who refuse to think independently it seems to be a very good deal. If somebody chooses to sell his own will and mind so cheaply, I say – good for him. This “fair deal” applies in my opinion to every organized and dogmatized religion be it Christianity, Judaism or Islam. Mormons are no better and no worse than the other believers in “what God wants”. And they are told all the “revelations” by the prophets who are just imperfect people often insane.
Thank you LDS church. You have opened my eyes to the truth!

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints "Mormons" are very much a mainstream religion. It is a global religion with approximately 13 million members. We have over 27,000 churches through out the world. We can travel in nearly every country that currently exist and we can find a place to worship.

NEWSROOM: Official resource for news media, opinion leaders and the publicThe Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day SaintsStatistical Information

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Official statistics about The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.

Worldwide Church Statistics
Membership 12,868,606 more
Missions 344 more
Missionaries 53,000 more
Missionary Training Centers 17 more
Temples 124 more
Congregations 27,475 more
Universities & Schools 4 more
Seminary Students Enrollment 362,756 more
Institute Students Enrollment 358,516 more
Family History Centers over 4,500 more
Number of Countries with Family History Centers 70 more
Countries Receiving Humanitarian Aid 163 more
Humanitarian Cash Donations Since 1985 $201 million more
Value of Humanitarian Material Assistance Since 1985 $705 million more
Welfare Service Missionaries
(Including Humanitarian Service Missionaries) 3,552 more
Languages Church Curriculum Available 178 more

Country Profiles and Contacts
North America South America Asia Europe Africa Pacific
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
North America - Countries/States
Antigua and Barbuda
Aruba
Bahamas
Barbados
Belize
Bermuda
British Virgin Islands
Canada-Alberta
Canada-British Columbia
Canada-Manitoba
Canada-New Brunswick
Canada-Newfoundland
Canada-Northwest Territories and Nunavut
Canada-Nova Scotia
Canada-Ontario
Canada-Prince Edward Island
Canada-Quebec
Canada-Saskatchewan
Canada-Yukon Territory
Cayman Islands
Costa Rica
Dominican Republic
El Salvador
Grenada
Guadeloupe
Guatemala
Haiti
Honduras
Jamaica
Martinique
Mexico
Netherlands Antilles
Nicaragua
Panama
Puerto Rico
Saint Lucia
Saint Vincent
St. Kitts and Nevis
Trinidad and Tobago
USA-Alabama
USA-Alaska
USA-Arizona
USA-Arkansas
USA-California
USA-Colorado
USA-Connecticut
USA-Delaware
USA-District of Columbia
USA-Florida
USA-Georgia
USA-Hawaii
USA-Idaho
USA-Illinois
USA-Indiana
USA-Iowa
USA-Kansas
USA-Kentucky
USA-Louisiana
USA-Maine
USA-Maryland
USA-Massachusetts
USA-Michigan
USA-Minnesota
USA-Mississippi
USA-Missouri
USA-Montana
USA-Nebraska
USA-Nevada
USA-New Hampshire
USA-New Jersey
USA-New Mexico
USA-New York
USA-North Carolina
USA-North Dakota
USA-Ohio
USA-Oklahoma
USA-Oregon
USA-Pennsylvania
USA-Rhode Island
USA-South Carolina
USA-South Dakota
USA-Tennessee
USA-Texas
USA-Utah
USA-Vermont
USA-Virginia
USA-Washington
USA-West Virginia
USA-Wisconsin
USA-Wyoming
Virgin Islands
South America - Countries
Argentina
Bolivia
Brazil
Chile
Colombia
Ecuador
Falkland Islands (Malvinas)
French Guiana
Guyana
Paraguay
Peru
Suriname
Uruguay
Venezuela
Asia - Countries
Cambodia
China — Hong Kong
Cyprus
India
Indonesia
Japan
Kazakhstan
Macau
Malaysia
Mongolia
Papua New Guinea
Philippines
Singapore
South Korea
Sri Lanka
Taiwan
Thailand
Turkey
Europe - Countries
Albania
Andorra
Armenia
Austria
Belgium
Bulgaria
Croatia
Czech Republic
Denmark
Estonia
Finland
France
French Polynesia (Tahiti)
Georgia
Germany
Greece
Greenland
Guernsey
Hungary
Iceland
Ireland
Isle of Man
Italy
Jersey
Latvia
Lithuania
Luxembourg
Malta
Moldova
Netherlands
Norway
Poland
Portugal
Romania
Russia
Serbia
Slovakia
Slovenia
Spain
Sweden
Switzerland
Ukraine
United Kingdom (England, Scotland, Northern Ireland, and Wales)
Africa - Countries
Angola
Botswana
Cameroon
Cape Verde
Central Africa Republic
Cote d'Ivoire (Ivory Coast)
Democratic Republic of the Congo
Ethiopia
Ghana
Kenya
Lesotho
Liberia
Madagascar
Malawi
Mauritius
Mozambique
Namibia
Nigeria
Republic of the Congo
Reunion
Sierra Leone
South Africa
Swaziland
Tanzania
Uganda
Zambia
Zimbabwe
Pacific - Countries
American Samoa
Australia
Cook Islands (Rarotonga)
Fiji
Guam
Kiribati
Marshall Islands
Micronesia
Nauru
New Caledonia
New Zealand
Niue
Northern Mariana Islands
Palau
Samoa
Solomon Islands
Tonga
Tuvalu
Vanuatu

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Home News Releases & Stories

ArchivesCommentary
Statistical Information

Worldwide Information
Country/State InformationBackground Information

with Photo, Video & AudioContact Us

Headquarters Information
Country ContactsPublic Issues
The World Report

Semiannual Church
News Program
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Glossary Feedback RSS Rights & Usage Information Privacy Policy Style Guide Newsroom.lds.org Mormon.org Lds.org JosephSmith.net
Official Web site of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints
© 2007 Intellectual Reserve, Inc. All rights reserved.

I am a younger than all of yall and i am a member of this church. I know my church is true, I know Joseph Smith was a prophet. I have felt this in my heart and I am not going to boast about my praying and receiving, but I will say that occasionally I have a really good prayer that fills me with the spirit. We CAN be Gods and Goddesses one day, our own Heavenly Father was once a man, and was so righteous that he became a God. He is wonderful and loves us so much. We are Christian. Jesus Christ lived and was resurrected. He will reign the Earth at the Second Coming and the in the American Continent, a City of Holiness, or Zion, will be established. We will have eternal life, whether we are good or bad, the difference is that the good will be happy and the wicked will be sad. It makes so much sense, and its almost too good too be true. But the best part is that it is true. Its so wonderful. I'm so tired of these silly rumors about my church. We are not like other churches, we may seem strange to some people, but I know that if all of yall came to my church for one Sunday and actually listened to the speakers and heard their words, some would want to come back and listen again and again. Now though I am sick of the rumors, I know that they aren't going to shake my faith, because my church is true, and I know that for a fact. I may be just a teen, but Im also a person, able to become like God someday.

I am a younger than all of yall and i am a member of this church. I know my church is true, I know Joseph Smith was a prophet. I have felt this in my heart and I am not going to boast about my praying and receiving, but I will say that occasionally I have a really good prayer that fills me with the spirit. We CAN be Gods and Goddesses one day, our own Heavenly Father was once a man, and was so righteous that he became a God. He is wonderful and loves us so much. We are Christian. Jesus Christ lived and was resurrected. He will reign the Earth at the Second Coming and the in the American Continent, a City of Holiness, or Zion, will be established. We will have eternal life, whether we are good or bad, the difference is that the good will be happy and the wicked will be sad. It makes so much sense, and its almost too good too be true. But the best part is that it is true. Its so wonderful. I'm so tired of these silly rumors about my church. We are not like other churches, we may seem strange to some people, but I know that if all of yall came to my church for one Sunday and actually listened to the speakers and heard their words, some would want to come back and listen again and again. Now though I am sick of the rumors, I know that they aren't going to shake my faith, because my church is true, and I know that for a fact. I may be just a teen, but Im also a person, able to become like God someday.

I am a younger than all of yall and i am a member of this church. I know my church is true, I know Joseph Smith was a prophet. I have felt this in my heart and I am not going to boast about my praying and receiving, but I will say that occasionally I have a really good prayer that fills me with the spirit. We CAN be Gods and Goddesses one day, our own Heavenly Father was once a man, and was so righteous that he became a God. He is wonderful and loves us so much. We are Christian. Jesus Christ lived and was resurrected. He will reign the Earth at the Second Coming and the in the American Continent, a City of Holiness, or Zion, will be established. We will have eternal life, whether we are good or bad, the difference is that the good will be happy and the wicked will be sad. It makes so much sense, and its almost too good too be true. But the best part is that it is true. Its so wonderful. I'm so tired of these silly rumors about my church. We are not like other churches, we may seem strange to some people, but I know that if all of yall came to my church for one Sunday and actually listened to the speakers and heard their words, some would want to come back and listen again and again. Now though I am sick of the rumors, I know that they aren't going to shake my faith, because my church is true, and I know that for a fact. I may be just a teen, but Im also a person, able to become like God someday.

My son 3 years old would write a better critic about the Mormons than Mr. Thomas with his background. I couldn't identify any bizarre and non-biblical interpretation in his flashy words.

I always find it fascinating when those not of the LDS faith judge Mormon teachings to be "extra-biblical". Let's take Mr. Thomas' example of the "bizarre" LDS doctrine of the perfectibility of man, ie. the ability of God's children to "grow up" to become like their Father.

Consider, if you will, some evidence that the doctrine that we are literal spirit children of God (and thus have the potential to become as He is) is actually biblical.

When the Christ was accused of blasphemy because he "being a man, makest thyself God" he responded by saying "Is it not written in your law, 'I said, Ye are gods?'". (John 10:33)

Christ also challenged his followers, "Be ye therefore perfect, even as your Father which is in heaven is perfect." Would the sinless Christ give us a commandment that was impossible to keep?!

In addition to the above two examples, the Bible is sprinkled with verses that intimate that we are literal children of God and can, therefore, become as our Father in Heaven. Here are some:

- Genesis 3:22 - "man is become as one of us"
- Leviticus 19:2 - "be holy: for I... am holy"
- Ps. 82:6 - "ye are gods, and all of you are children of the most High"
- Acts 17:29 - "we are the offspring of God"
- Rom. 8:17 - "heirs of God, and joint-heirs with Christ"
- 2 Cor 3:18 - "we all...are changed into the same image from glory to glory."
- Gal. 4:7 - "if a son, then an heir of God through Christ"
- Eph. 4:13 - "until we all come... unto a perfect man"
- Heb. 12:9 - "be in subjection unto the Father of spirits"
- 1 Jn 3:2 - "when he shall appear, we shall be like him"

Christ taught, "Seek and ye shall find". The corollary is also true - "Don't seek, and ye won't find." If you don't ever seek for evidence that the "bizarre" doctrines of the LDS faith are actually biblical, then you never will find that they are. It's a safe bet.

rkojhvza kisloub rpsmwuet arzv cdon ldckg ajnhmzq

rkojhvza kisloub rpsmwuet arzv cdon ldckg ajnhmzq

rkojhvza kisloub rpsmwuet arzv cdon ldckg ajnhmzq

Mr Mark - I saw Hitchens tonight at a book signing - full house. He was quite the articulate, extemporaneous speaker. Very cogent, witty - and kind. He was his usual disheveled self - in blue jeans and wrinkled baggy blue shirt. He handled questions from agitators quite gracefully. The audience was mixed - young and old, atheist and believers - you could tell by the questions and who laughed at his witticisms.

Someone wrote:

"Mr. Mark:

"I didn't say that I wouldn't read Hitchens because he admits he's a drinker; I said "I wouldn't recommend as logical, well-thought-out reading anything by Hitchens." The fact that he's a heavy daily drinker is just one of the reasons that I wouldn't consider his conclusions to be logical or well-thought-out."

You're confirming your silliness.

Different people are...different. I would trust the average adult to be a better driver than a 5-year-old, even if the adult was slightly drunk. Hitchens has long proved himself to be erudite and able to process more than one thought at a time. I doubt very, very much that his drinking - no matter how slight or heavy - has any influence whatsoever on the finished product that is a book. Books take a long time to produce. Writers have editors to keep them on the straight and narrow, and to tell them when their writing is unclear.

As far as Hitchens not being logical and well-thought out: all I can say is that that is a bold statement from a person who hasn't bothered to read his work. Of what are you afraid? You're talking through your hat with ignorance as your mantle.

Sorry, but your responses show quite clearly that your reasons for not reading Hitchens have absolutely nothing to do with his drinking habits or ability to write cogently and everything to do with his atheism.

Again, your loss.

Maurie - Ok, Pal, I'm gonna work on Quinn and Meacham to set up a virtual Pagan altar and Coliseum.

E favorite:

Pssst Maurie --

Waddaya say you and me go off and serve some of them other gods?

As long as it involves fertility rites and lots of sex with tasty babes. Oh yeah, and bringing back the feeding of Christians to the lions would be good too.

"So apparently there is some unwritten rule about what you can and cannot insult someone about?"

No - just that what insults one person might not insult another. Saying "your mother is ugly" is pretty likely an insult and in most cases would be said for that purpose, but some people might not take it seriously. If someone said that to me, I'd figure they were trying to hurt me on a very personal level, and I wouldn't be insulted. I know my mother's not ugly and if she were, no decent person would say that to me. I'd just think the person who said it is a petty low-life.

Someone - tell me this, when you say, "People can try to talk their way around it, but certain harshness will always give away intent" do you mean it as an insult?

Ghostbuster:

You are right, of course. E Favorite and Mr. Mark will turn the argument around every time, and make it into a "freedom to choose what to respect" argument, which was never what was being discussed in the first place. People can try to talk their way around it, but certain harshness will always give away intent.

It's a matter of how we should treat our fellow man. E Favorite says that "insults are relative." So apparently there is some unwritten rule about what you can and cannot insult someone about? What if I tell someone that their mother is ugly? That might really insult someone. But I might be making a statement based on what I believe to be truth that can be proven. It's all relative, right?

Mr. Mark:

I didn't say that I wouldn't read Hitchens because he admits he's a drinker; I said "I wouldn't recommend as logical, well-thought-out reading anything by Hitchens." The fact that he's a heavy daily drinker is just one of the reasons that I wouldn't consider his conclusions to be logical or well-thought-out.

Someone,
I was kind of hoping you would change your name to a mispelled "anoynimis" or something clever. I suppose "someone" will do though.

As for this little "meanness" chat, I think the only real way to judge is by intent. Some comments are total venom and are obviously intended only to inflame. If one doesn't believe that, one is living in a more ridiculous fantasy world than any belief system I've ever seen preached or defended. But, sometimes the poster has another intent in mind despite the lack of "manners". Since this is an anonymous (or anoynimis ;) board one can't always really know intentions.

It's not much fun to point out an obvious offense anyways. Usually the offender will deflect the question and say he/she is misunderstood -or- simply that you are in idiot for challenging him/her. Are they lying? Who knows. Besides, most people who don't have a dog in the fight can easily spot some fighting words.

I've commented on this stuff in other threads and pretty much said the same thing. I think I'll take a break for a few days since I'm repeating myself.

Pssst Maurie --

Waddaya say you and me go off and serve some of them other gods?

Forget Yahweh!

Who needs that old codger?

Hey, Maurie, C'mon. Listen to me. Show me pity. Spare me. Conceal my guilt. We'll have a swell time.

Trust me.

Always yours, E fav

E Favorite - When it comes to religion, the unspoken rules are different and some people get insulted more easily. I agree with the recent thinking among some non-believers, that blanket respect for religious beliefs shouldn't be a social norm. I don't see the value in feigning respect for things that are unbelievable. I can respect your right to practice a religion, without pretending to respect your actual beliefs.

In fact claims based on belief that are abhorrent should refuted at every turn. Many believers say they take the bible literally. In fact they don't. You can just imagine what the our country would be like if they did take passages like Deuteronomy 13:7-11 literally. Of course, in a number of Islamic fundamentalist countries (e.g. Iran, Saudi Arabia, etc.) they do. I would ask biblical literalists if they would want the U.S. to be such a country?

"If your brother, the son of your father or of your mother, or your son or daughter, or the spouse whom you embrace, or your most intimate friend, tries to secretly seduce you, saying, “Let us go and serve other gods,” unknown to you or your ancestors before you, gods of the peoples surrounding you, whether near you or far away, anywhere throughout the world, you must not consent, you must not listen to him; you must show him no pity, you must not spare him or conceal his guilt. No, you must kill him, your hand must strike the first blow in putting him to death and the hands of the rest of the people following. You must stone him to death, since he has tried to divert you from Yahweh your God. . . ." (Deuteronomy 13:7-11)

Dear Someone -

Congrats. You now have a unique screen name at this blog.

Hmm? You won't read Hitchens because he admits he's a drinker? That's rather a stupid position, isn't it? Shall I not listen to Mussorgsky's music because he was also quite the drinker? How about Hemingway and Churchill? Shall we also disregard their writings and speeches? Maybe I should refrain from laughing at Jackie Gleason's skits.

Personally, I'll take the inebriated thoughts of a Hitchens or a Hemingway over the most-lucid thoughts of a James Dobson or a Jerry Falwell any day of the week. Of course, you assume that Hitchens writes only when he's under the influence. Sounds like a leap of bad faith to me.

BTW - don't you think it's possible that Hitchens' writing that, "his daily intake of alcohol was enough "to kill or stun the average mule," was an attempt a humor on his part?

Not reading Hitchens - now, that's your loss. BTW - I'm a lifelong Democrat who loathes Hitchens postion on the Iraq war. But his non-political writings are often quite brilliant. Unlike some people, I don't throw the baby out with the bath water just because I disagree with them on a certain level. You may wish to call that compartmentalizing - so be it.

I am stating it. I didn't comment on meaness. Some of the people might be "mean" depending on the nature of their insult. I don't think it's nice to be purposefully mean, but I think insults are often relative.

A person can be insulted if someone says something negative about his/her political party, but that kind of frank discussion is pretty acceptable in our society. Another person might not be insulted at all - and like the spirited back-and-forth of a frank exchange of political views.

When it comes to religion, the unspoken rules are different and some people get insulted more easily. I agree with the recent thinking among some non-believers, that blanket respect for religious beliefs shouldn't be a social norm. I don't see the value in feigning respect for things that are unbelievable. I can respect your right to practice a religion, without pretending to respect your actual beliefs. Certainly it's something Mormons are used to and seem to deal with quite well, from what I've seen here.

I don't respect the belief that a human can be born of a virgin, rise from the dead and ascend bodily into heaven.

E Favorite wrote:

"I think anyone who has beliefs that can't be proved and in some cases can be disproved, should be ready for some insults along the way."

Are you justifying this behavior, or simply stating that there are mean people out there who are going to insult others for their beliefs?

Anon – careful, now – first of all “do unto others” is a very old and good idea, which predates Christ by centuries. Buddha said “Consider others as yourselves” in India, 500 years before Jesus. Probably other wise people said it too.

Also, I didn’t say “It's ok to insult people because they don't believe what you believe.” You did. What I said is considerably different. I’d certainly counsel children that if they’re going to insist that they believe in the reality of something no one’s ever seen before that goes against the known laws of nature, other children might make fun of them.

I think there’s something in that old book you believe in about being willing to die for your faith. Maybe you could find the passage and explain if it relates to what we’re talking about.

Mr. Mark wrote:

"From this point forward, I will no longer respond to ANY posts whose author can't be bothered to choose a screen name other than Anonymous. I would like to know who I'm speaking with, and the "Anonymous" moniker is singularly unhelpful in that respect."

Here's my screen name, although I don't see how it will be of much help to you. Unless of course you're just looking for a name to aim your insults at. Go ahead, I am now Someone you can rant at...

And personally, I wouldn't recommend as logical, well-thought-out reading anything by Hitchens, (good friend of Paul Wolfowitz), who by his own account admits to drinking heavily; in 2003 Hitchens wrote that his daily intake of alcohol was enough "to kill or stun the average mule." Not a real bright one there...

Dear Ghostbuster -

Thanks for the comments.

Yes, I would recommend Dawkins latest book. Also, Hithcens latest, "God Is Not Great."

As far as "scaring" people that they were going to hell - at the time, I didn't consider it to be scaring people. My "warnings" were offered as a brick within a silk glove, with all the Xian "love" I could muster. Sound familiar?

Dear various On Faith Anonymous-es -

I'm sorry, but I have decided to draw a line in the sand. From this point forward, I will no longer respond to ANY posts whose author can't be bothered to choose a screen name other than Anonymous. I would like to know who I'm speaking with, and the "Anonymous" moniker is singularly unhelpful in that respect.

Sorry to be this way, but it's hard enough to write cogent reponses to people who have established a personality on this blog. Nothing personal. My loss, I'm sure.

E Favorite:

Well, excuse me for not wanting to jump right onto your unfriendly bandwagon there. Have you never heard "Do unto others..."; oh no, that's right, that's from that story book you don't believe.

You said "I think anyone who has beliefs that can't be proved and in some cases can be disproved, should be ready for some insults along the way." I hope you don't teach your kids that way; they'll end up with plenty of enemies. It's ok to insult people because they don't believe what you believe? Really?

Anon -- Well, it sure got YOU mad.

Just a few minutes ago an (atheist) friend of mine - former Catholic - said it was "insulting" to say that the Pope thinks he turns a cracker into the actual body and blood of a 2000 year old man. Maybe - but it's also true. It's a fact that the church teaches this, and a fact that many catholics believe it and a fact that many do not. It's also a fact that that it's impossible for anyone to turn a cracker (or anything) into human flesh and a fact that we can do DNA testing to refute any such claim.

Fundamentalist Christians think transubstansiation is bunk, but are sure they will be swept up to heaven in the rapture, which many Catholics have never even heard of, and when they do, they think it's bunk.

I think anyone who has beliefs that can't be proved and in some cases can be disproved, should be ready for some insults along the way.

E Favorite wrote:

"Regarding Mr Mark "insulting" Christians -- I can't speak for him, of course, but I assume his purpose is not to insult, but to get people thinking - even if they're insulted along the way. Hearing "Jesus was a family hating, meglomaniacal sociopath" might get people to thinking a little differently about Jesus and wondering why an obviously thoughtful, intelligent person like Mr Mark would make such a statement."

Being rude and obnoxious doesn't get people thinking - it gets people mad. It's confrontational and mean-spirited, and does not have anyone's best interests at heart.

“I'm sure that every believer-turned-atheist goes through periods in their early enlightenment where religion sticks its ugly face of fear back into the equation, and the atheist thinks, "but, what if it's true?”

Don’t be so sure. This is a phase that I was gratefully spared – perhaps because my belief had not been so strong and absolute. My twinge of regret was about losing an afterlife – a vague, but pleasant notion that I’d see my loved ones again and would have some kind of ongoing existence after death. Then I realized I couldn’t lose something I never had. Instead, I’d gained the knowledge that any kind of afterlife is most unlikely and if there is one, it’s not controlled by some invisible guy in an old book who monitors how well I’m worshipping him and counts up my sins. That’s an obviously thoroughly human notion and a primitive one at that.

Anonymous, I didn't say anything about a gift. But implying that the word "gift" means there must be some kind of otherworldly giver is hardly a "gotcha" moment. In terms of who gave you this life, might you start with your parents?

Maurie and Anon -- I know who gave the gift -- Mom and Dad! It was one of those grab bag things.

OK to call anything a gift, I think, that you appreciate - doesn't matter where it came from.

Regarding Mr Mark "insulting" Christians -- I can't speak for him, of course, but I assume his purpose is not to insult, but to get people thinking - even if they're insulted along the way. Hearing "Jesus was a family hating, meglomaniacal sociopath" might get people to thinking a little differently about Jesus and wondering why an obviously thoughtful, intelligent person like Mr Mark would make such a statement. And he did offer an explanation for his conclusion. It sounds insulting because it's so out of the ordinary - but it's certainly not completely unfounded - it's in the Bible!

Speaking for myself, I never evangelized for Christianity and don't think I'm evangelizing for atheism. I am speaking up, though, and think it's important to do so. I think we've been hearing too much about faith and not enough about reason.

The more I talk openly, the more I find I'm not alone - and maybe I'm helping to raise the consciousness of people who were like me not so long ago.

Maurie wrote:

"I haven't a clue, but I suspect no one."

Well in that case, you probably shouldn't refer to it as a gift.

anonymous - My question is, just who has given you guys this gift?

I haven't a clue, but I suspect no one. Until I see otherwise, it is probably random blind luck, but there is no way to prove that, just as there is no way to prove there is a god or a flying spaghetti Monster. Regardless, I'm going to return to this wonderful life.

Mr Mark:
I reckon I'm a lousy evangelist. I don't think I've ever told anyone that they were going to burn in hell in my 20 some years as a Christian I've never found "scaring" or "threatening" people to Jesus too effective I guess. Besides, I don't know what is going on in anyone's heart.

Anyways, I always got the impression you were trying to make up for lost time. Kind of like some of the regulars on here who are now Christians but used to believe something else.

I do like reading your posts because they challenge me. I get bored easily. I read the Harris "Letter to a...", twice actually on your recomendation. Would your recommend the Dawkins book too?

Take it easy.

Oh yea, the anon ghost above has a good point about the proselytizing. Something to maybe think about.

Mr. Mark:

If you see your past proselytizing as so wrong, then why do you insist on being an atheist version of that behavior? If standing on the rooftops and shouting your beliefs and calling names is wrong for one group, isn't it wrong for all?

You say: "railing against Jesus is like railing against the tooth fairy or Santa - they can take the heat because they don't exist either. In short: no foul, no harm." But that's not what you're doing, and you know it. You are insulting the people who believe in Jesus when you say things like, "Jesus was a family hating, meglomaniacal sociopath."

And what purpose does this insulting serve? It just makes you look like a bully, which tends to get you ignored like the rest of the wackos shouting from the rooftops.

Maurie wrote:

"Most non-believers are some of the most tolerant and moral people I know. Non-believing is not nihilism. In fact, it can be an amazingly energizing worldview, since it is not predicated on an afterlife. Such a view demands that you enjoy life to the fullest, that you make every day count."

I don't see anything very energizing about watching a clock tick down the days to my death.

Maurie also wrote: "Take advantage of a gift no one has any right to expect." and Rafael wrote: "Atheism holds plenty of good news for those who are freed to appreciate the one life they've been given."

My question is, just who has given you guys this gift?

Dear Ghostbuster -

Thanks for your kind words about reading my posts. You have more stomach for my rants than have I! ;)

Back in my believer days, I was quite the evangelist. I probably spent the better part of twenty years telling people they were going to hell.

My speaking up as an atheist - and speaking loudly - is a recent phenom. In fact, it's taken me over a decade of solid non-belief to get to the point where I feel comfortable with writing the things I write on this blog. Religion is a powerful thing, and when you've spent your life being indoctrinated with fear and guilt, it's hard to find that new voice, and to express it in a cogent manner.

I'm sure that every believer-turned-atheist goes through periods in their early enlightenment where religion sticks its ugly face of fear back into the equation, and the atheist thinks, "but, what if it's true?" Those doubts lessen as one learns more about the outside world and speaks their mind.

Will I ever tire of railing against Jesus? I dunno. If I want to balance the scales from my believer years, then I've got a helluvalotta Jesus bashing to do to make up for the decades of proselytizing!

From my perspective, railing against Jesus is like railing against the tooth fairy or Santa - they can take the heat because they don't exist either. In short: no foul, no harm.

That said, I believe that there is a calling to rail against religion, because I don't see religion as being helpful, let alone being benign and inconsequential. I see religion and the power it holds over people as an evil and as THE source of enmity in the world. To NOT speak out, IMHO, would be a dereliction of my duty to my fellow man.

I may not speak all that eloquently, and I may be a few cards short of a full deck on all the facts, but I'm here to learn and to find comaraderie when possible. I don't see this blog as a one-way street, though I can see how my posts could give one that impression.

Thanks for the chat.

John M: "Why would you convert someone to atheism? The word "evangelize" comes from two Greek words that mean "good news". What's the 'good news' of atheism? You came from a slime mold, and you're gonna die?"

The truth can be good news, as it frees people from living in a delusion. As with all delusions, so much is waiting to be discovered outside its confines. Taking your example, the story of animal evolution is the most magnificent, illuminating, and awe-inspiring (true) story in the history of this planet--to deny oneself an understanding of it is truly to deny the richness of what our senses have allowed us to understand about the world. Pinning your hopes and directing your efforts toward something later that was promised to you by one guy two thousand years ago is demonstrably a waste of what you could be doing in this life. Atheism holds plenty of good news for those who are freed to appreciate the one life they've been given.

..."It's pretty clear: Jesus was a family hating, meglomaniacal sociopath."

Well, if I just read those few verses, that is the also a fair conclusion I would reach.

Dear Mr. Mark,
Do you ever get tired of railing against Jesus? If He exists as defined in the bible, you can't fight Him and win. In fact, your fighting is more likely to bring others to know Him. If he doesn't exist, or did exist as just a man, all Christians are on par with the biggest idiots in the world, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing. But, provoking them with statements such as those or many others you make all the time likely won't open any of their minds. It will just make them for defensive. Well, some of us will get more defensive, not all of us.

Just wondering where you are coming from. I personally like to read your posts. Though I don't agree with much, I've learned more from you than anyone. I'm just trying to figure out your motivation.

Regards

ghostbuster - Come on Maurie, I can site for you thousands of elected politicians who are atheists... well, OK, maybe a hundred... how about ten... er uh... How about a closet atheist serving on a school board in Vermont?

Actually, George Bush is closet atheist under deep cover.

John M. writes:
"Mr Mark:
WOW. You have a twisted perception of Christianity. Unfortunately, you may have gotten that from some Christians. (Oops.) I wish I could help."

My perception of Xianity comes from what Jesus said. I assume you're making your comments based on my last post. I offer these words of the loving Christ to support what I said:

On being at war with your family:

Matt 10:34 Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword.
10:35 For I am come to set a man at variance against his father, and the daughter against her mother, and the daughter in law against her mother in law.
10:36 And a man's foes shall be they of his own household.
10:37 He that loveth father or mother more than me is not worthy of me: and he that loveth son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me.

On casting unbelievers into eternal fire:

Matt 25:41 Then shall he say also unto them on the left hand, Depart from me, ye cursed, into everlasting fire, prepared for the devil and his angels.

Mark 16:16 He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned.

On believers calling upon god to smite their brothers:

Rev 6:10 And they cried with a loud voice, saying, How long, O Lord, holy and true, dost thou not judge and avenge our blood on them that dwell on the earth? 6:11 And white robes were given unto every one of them; and it was said unto them, that they should rest yet for a little season, until their fellowservants also and their brethren, that should be killed as they were, should be fulfilled.

Conclusion: if your family doesn't believe in Christ, they're going to hell where they'll burn for eternity. If you believe in Christ, you call for the destruction of your non-beliving family members...and you then get to go to heaven where you look down on those unbelievers toasting for eternity.

It's pretty clear: Jesus was a family hating, meglomaniacal sociopath.

TP: You said, "Mormons have NEVER had slaves ..."
In fact Mormons and non-Mormons did bring slaves to Utah, where it was legal until 1862. Google "Mormon slaves" for more info.

Rick:
Alas, Mary C. is not exaggerating about her experience in Idaho.

Mormonism will slowly fade from society as will contemporary Christianity, Judaism and Islam because of the obvious problems with the founders of these religions especially their angelic/satanic hallucinations and related prophecies. "Pretty and ugly wingie thingies" simply do/did not exist. Associating the Singularity with these mythical assistants and opponents mocks the concept of God the Almighty.

The Good Word was articulated by the ancients using reasoning and common sense. These Words of Wisdom were simply repeated with each major race and religion. Unfortunately the Words were attibuted to embellished men in most cases as a means of profiteering as noted by the contemporary billions of dollars owned and controlled by the Mormon, Christian, Jewish and Moslem religions. It is time to get our money back!!!!!

"Many Christians are worried that our culture is about to become very, very intolerant of Christians"
-John M

John M, whatever do you mean? People on these boards who aren't christians practically fall all over themselves to say nice, tolerant things about anything remotely related to Christianity.

"In fact, the intolerance in this country is certainly more directed at atheists."
-Maurie Beck

Come on Maurie, I can site for you thousands of elected politicians who are atheists... well, OK, maybe a hundred... how about ten... er uh... How about a closet atheist serving on a school board in Vermont?

But I, I think maybe it's both.
-Forrest Gump

Thought you all could use a laugh. Take it easy :)

Hey John M - I didn't say I made it up, I said it came to mind. I've heard things like that many times, haven't you?

"You only have one life to live."

"When you're dead, you're dead a long, long time."

"You can't take it with you."

"Eat, drink and be merry, for tomorrow you shall die"

And I wouldn't be surprised to find out that a lot of the people who say those things are Christians.

John M., one other thing. I'm glad you found something that fulfills your life and gave it meaning.

John M. - Many Christians are worried that our culture is about to become very, very intolerant of Christians.

This is what I mean about a persecution narrative. It's actually a persecution complex, most likely from early Christians who were persecuted, though it is now completely unfounded because believers are in the majority. Perhaps this perceived intolerance for fundamentalist Christians among some is because the Christian right often seems to reject science and a modern secular world in favor of faith. Personally, I believe this is a false choice; I know too many believers who reject the view that faith and science and reason are mutually exclusive.

I promise you, the last thing anyone wants to do is constrain your right to your beliefs. In fact, the intolerance in this country is certainly more directed at atheists. Do you think an atheist could get elected president? Not a chance.

You wrote, 'Why would you convert someone to atheism? The word "evangelize" comes from two Greek words that mean "good news". What's the 'good news' of atheism? You came from a slime mold, and you're gonna die?'

Your "good news" is not necessarily mine. This is what we mean by tolerance. Most non-believers are some of the most tolerant and moral people I know. Non-believing is not nihilism. In fact, it can be an amazingly energizing worldview, since it is not predicated on an afterlife. Such a view demands that you enjoy life to the fullest, that you make every day count. You do not get a second go-around.

You may raise certain objections, such as the existentialist dilemma of what would you have to live for and why wouldn't you just blow your brains out? My answer is that we will be dead soon enough. Take advantage of a gift no one has any right to expect. You may also object that such a view might encourage very selfish behavior. Perhaps. However, humans are social animals with strong social bonds that encourage very close relationships to those around them. Such relationships argue against completely selfish behavior. By having families and close friends, we are not only enriched, but we enrich them as well. By learning and creating new things, many people also make the world richer still. Finally, many people are also naturally filled with empathy for the less fortunate. Doing things that makes the world a better place for those around us seems to be a part of our genetic makeup and is not based on some final reckoning of accounts. Some of the people who do these things are the faithful and some are not.

Mr Mark:
WOW. You have a twisted perception of Christianity. Unfortunately, you may have gotten that from some Christians. (Oops.) I wish I could help.

E Fav:
Thanks for admitting that you made that up!

John M, you ask, "What's the 'good news' of atheism? You came from a slime mold, and you're gonna die?"

What's the good news of Xianity? Jesus says you're going to be at war with most of your immediate family for your entire life, and in the end, most of your friends and family members are going to burn in hell for eternity, while you look on in smug satisfaction that Jesus picked you to enjoy the eternal party over your children.

Geez.

Taken in context, benign slime to undisturbed dust sounds like a better option.

John M, you ask, "What's the 'good news' of atheism? You came from a slime mold, and you're gonna die?"

How about: "Rejoice - you're incredibly lucky to have been born. Enjoy life to the fullest -- it's the only one you'll have."

That just came to mind. As far as I know, atheists don't have any official "good news."

Maurie:
You and others missed my point completely. Many Christians are worried that our culture is about to become very, very intolerant of Christians. By contrast, I was saying that I do not worry about that. I don't want to suffer. But, if faced with a choice between fighting you over who should run the government and suffering, I would choose suffering. I just don't think Christians should be fighting people.

You wrote: "You also mentioned sharing your faith in the public square. I never try to convert someone to atheism."

Why would you convert someone to atheism? The word "evangelize" comes from two Greek words that mean "good news". What's the 'good news' of atheism? You came from a slime mold, and you're gonna die?

You also wrote: "Why do you need to share your religious views? Is it to convert people? If someone asks you about your faith, obviously you should answer them. However, to run around proclaiming your love of Jesus seems off the mark."

To the contrary, a Christian who shares their faith is right on target. Jesus told us to do it. It is called 'The Great Commission" in Christian circles.

For 38 years, I did not believe anything. When Christians tried to talk to me about God, I thought they were silly, but I was not offended by them. Now, I'm kinda happy they did it.

John M, Don't worry, the only way you'll have to go to jail and die for your faith is if the US becomes a theocracy and your faith is not the one running the government. In our current secular democracy, you would never be jailed because of your beliefs or your lack of beliefs.

Maurie Beck: Some people want to force their views on others because they are jerks, but most of these people, they mean well. I see Jehovah's Witnesses near where I live almost every day, and I'm alright with that. I am touched that they are trying to help me. Really, it doesn't put me out to say, "Sorry, I'm not interested, but thanks anyway," and keep walking or close the door.

John M. - Like Daniel & his friends, John & Peter, Paul, and scores and scores of martyrs over the years, I’ll go to jail and die for my faith if things really get bad here.

Martyrdom and dying for one's faith are some of the things that makes me and many other secularists and tolerant believers very very nervous. I realize no Christians have flown planes into buildings, but when you use the same sorts of code words as Islamic extremists and other religious fundamentalists, you give us all the willies. These are not the words from a culture of life, but of someone suffering alleged grievances from a persecution narrative, real or not. I don't want you to die and become a martyr. I want all of us to live together in this great country.

You also mentioned sharing your faith in the public square. I never try to convert someone to atheism. It would be insulting to them. Secondly, I think what people believe should be more of a private matter. Why do you need to share your religious views? Is it to convert people? If someone asks you about your faith, obviously you should answer them. However, to run around proclaiming your love of Jesus seems off the mark.

what is that ECLATi crap?? I can't even understand that guy...all I wanted to say was really folks?? Really?? We are going to keep going around in circles on a subject that will not see any definant(sp) answers? The reason all of ya'll will keep shouting at eachother is because your minds are made up...scream all you want I hear only blahblah blahblah...If we as Christians spent more time following Christ the Messiah instead of screaming my God is better than your god....ya know i'll stop because it's not even going to help...

I do however want to ask Mr. Jacob Whatever what is all the nonesense about ECLATi really about how old are you..??

PS I am posting this on several places, I have enjoyed some of the comments, all ya'll are very good entertainment...I would like to know where I could get some info on the Truth...I mean real Truth involving Our God??

lepidopteryx

Thanks for making such an articulate response on both our behalves.

Response to John M was me.

Anonymous:
You have some good points. Let me clarify a few things.

When I said you do not have freedom FROM religion, I meant that no atheist has the right to have no one speaking about their religion in the public square. We have to allow people of faith to practice and share their faith. (I do not condone shoving anything down anyone's throats.)

Christmas trees and Easter bunnies are pagan practices. Christmas and Easter themselves are not even biblically-recognized holidays. I agree with you there, but my point is that some Christians are upset about this.

I admitted that Christians should not try to take over the government. Having a secular government does not prevent me from being a Christian.

My big point is that tolerance is not one-sided.

John M: "There are two sides of the story, of course, and here is the other side: Atheists should keep in mind that Americans have freedom OF religion, not freedom FROM religion."
So the first amendment does not guarantee the right to refuse to practice a religion? It only applies to those who believe in some form of deity?

"I really hope you admit, Maurie, that there are many atheists who are trying to remove the rights of American Christians to share their faith in public. Trying to removing the cross from the Mt. Soledad war memorial in San Diego, trying to remove God from the pledge of allegiance, removing any mention of God in any classroom, taking Christmas trees out of malls, renaming the Easter Bunny the “Spring Bunny”, and other recent actions get most Christians worked up over their right to openly practice their faith."
No one is trying to stop you from sharing your faith, only from shoving down the throats of those who are not interested. The Mt. Soledad cross was on public land, and not every veteran represented by that memorial was a Christian. God was only added to the pledge of allegiance as a response to the beginning of the Cold War. And there are many loyal Americans who do not believe that this is a nation under God - some believe that it is a nation under gods, some that it is a nation under a goddess, some that it is a nation under human governance. For me to pledge loyalty to "one nation under God" would be a lie. Public school classrooms are not an appropriate place for religious instruction, especially since there are children who follow many different spiritual paths in the school system. Religious instruction shold take place at home and at one's church/temple/synagogue/dojo. As for Christmas trees in malls, what exactly does shopping or evergreen trees have to do with the birth of Ieshua? The "Christmas" tradition of decorated evergreens is actually a pagan tradition for celebrating the winter solstice. And what exactly do bunnies and colored eggs have to do with the resurrection? These are pagan fertility symbols associated with the vernal equinox.

"So, I hope you see that while Atheists are concerned that they make wake up one day in a Theocratic nation (not likely), many Christians are concerned they may wake up one day in a country where it is suddenly illegal to practice their faith (more likely)."
I have yet to se a Christain arrested trying to go into a church. I have, however, seen the police called on a coven celebrating a Sabat in a member's back yard, not because they were violating any local ordinaces, but simply because the busybody neighbors looking over the privacy fence thought people holding candles and chanting was just too wierd.

Maurie Beck:
You said atheists are “are very afraid of a Christian Theocracy being established in this country. Perhaps we are paranoid. If so, please put our fears to rest.”

Unfortunately, Maurie, I can’t speak for all Christians. But, I can tell you that there is a movement under way among Evangelicals to minimize the recent political insurgence by Christians. I can also tell you that the Bible does not call for Christians to take over world governments.

On the one hand, I strongly disagree with what some people who call themselves Christians are doing. They are off target. If we believe Christ will return to set up His kingdom, what are we doing trying to run the government now, without Him? This, I believe, is the crux of every problem throughout history involving the “church”. The Holy Roman Empire forcing its citizens to be Christians, Crusaders killing non-Christians, Catholics persecuting Protestants, Inquisitors murdering non-believers, Catholic Ireland at war with Protestant Northern Ireland, Imperialists and Colonists owning and trading and abusing slaves, are all examples of Christians exerting power over governments and their people. This is not biblical. We are to live such good lives that those around us see our faith at work. Christians are called to be good, obedient citizens, obeying the authorities, respecting our leaders and paying our taxes.

On the other hand, Christians are called to witness, regardless of the consequences. The only time when I see the Bible endorsing the act of defying the government occurs when a believer is asked to stop worshipping God, when asked to worship other gods, or when asked to stop sharing their faith. Daniel refused to stop praying to His God, and he was thrown to the lions, willingly. Daniel’s three friends refused to bow down to a statue of Nebuchadnezzar, and they were thrown into a fiery furnace, willingly. Peter and John refused to stop preaching Christ, and were thrown into prison and beaten. They thanked God for being considered worthy of suffering for Jesus. Paul spent time in prison for spreading Christianity throughout the Roman Empire. He considered himself blessed for it.

There are two sides of the story, of course, and here is the other side: Atheists should keep in mind that Americans have freedom OF religion, not freedom FROM religion. I really hope you admit, Maurie, that there are many atheists who are trying to remove the rights of American Christians to share their faith in public. Trying to removing the cross from the Mt. Soledad war memorial in San Diego, trying to remove God from the pledge of allegiance, removing any mention of God in any classroom, taking Christmas trees out of malls, renaming the Easter Bunny the “Spring Bunny”, and other recent actions get most Christians worked up over their right to openly practice their faith. I, myself, look at it differently. I am not worried. Like Daniel & his friends, John & Peter, Paul, and scores and scores of martyrs over the years, I’ll go to jail and die for my faith if things really get bad here. I won’t whine about my rights being violated by atheists. Jesus never did.

So, I hope you see that while Atheists are concerned that they make wake up one day in a Theocratic nation (not likely), many Christians are concerned they may wake up one day in a country where it is suddenly illegal to practice their faith (more likely).

fred - Isn't it amazing that this "On Faith" series seems to have attracted a huge number of vicious atheists? Isn't it amazing that they all say the same unsubstantiated and silly things? Modern atheism seems to have gone off its rocker. It's a hate cult now.

believer - Amen, Fred. Mr. Mark and Christian Liberated are angry because they stand in the light of day and are unable to see.

Dear Fred and Believer,

I think you misunderstand our concern. Obviously we don't worry about End Times and the return of Christ. What we do worry about is that our country that respects everyone's beliefs is under attack from Christian Orthodoxy (in its general form, whether it is Bill Donohue's style of Catholicism or the type of Evangelicalism preached Mohler, Fallwell, Robertson, Dobson, etc.), with its very narrow view of the one true religion. Most of all, we are very afraid of a Christian Theocracy being established in this country. Perhaps we are paranoid. If so, please put our fears to rest.

Dear Humanity: First to you people out there that consider yourselves Christians. Do You have a clue what that even means? Actually it suppose to mean that you are to be Christ to the world. Christ was not Jesus's last name it is a title. Being a Christian is to carry on the work that Jesus started, God's plan of salvation is for all of His children and all of humanity are His children. Remember page one, "Let Us make man in Our Image". Us and Our refer to God and aludes to the Trinity and man means mankind. God's plan is for all of His children, and He has had this plan before He created anything on either the spiritual or material plane. Some people seem to think that Jesus is the Word of God well actually Jesus is His earthly name, the Word of God is Love. Other people seem to think that the Bible is the Word of God actually the Bible should lead you to the Word of God. God's name is "I AM WHO AM", God is a Trinity of One, some people call this a mystery I just call it a fact because I've met God. I have also met satan and he is not nice at all even though in his lying, deceiving way he can try to come across as mister nice guy and he has deceived many throughout the ages including our first parents. I've done wrong, I call it sin you can call it whatever you want to call it, and if people are honest with themselves they should be able to see that they have done wrong too. I'm a mess and I admit that I'm a mess maybe that is why God has called me to be a messenger. I am a Catholic and I cherish my Catholic Faith, which is a gift from God that no man may boast, and some times I think that it is rather amazing that the Catholic Faith can survive within the Catholic religion with all it's rules and regulations. Jesus of Nazareth, King of the Jews became the Son of God and the Son of man when Mary said Yes before that He was the Second Person of the Holy Trinity and He still is and always will be. Jesus was a Jew if you remember and He took all the rules and regulations and the Ten Commandments and condensed them into one word which is Love or God whichever you prefer because they both mean the same thing. God is a Being of Pure Love, He is not a loving God, He Is Love. God so loved us that He became one of us. If you remember we treated Him rather shabbily to say the least. Also if you call yourself a Christian then that means that you helped to kill Him since He died for the sin and the sins of the world, original sin is the sin and our own sin or wrongdoing is the sins. Jesus also said that He would send the Holy Spirit to guide us into all Truth He did not say He would send His Spirit. The Holy Spirit happens to be the Third Person of the Trinity. Do you remember when Jesus said to be childlike not childish, think about it, there is a big difference between the two. Second to the Jewish People of the world if you are wondering why the world hates you remember that God said to satan I will put emnity between you and The Woman, The Woman is Mary and she said Yes and Mary was also a Jew. Thank You Mary for your Yes and I would be appreciative if you help me with my Yes, by the way I haven't met Mary yet. Third to the rest of the world, God is not a searcher of religious affiliations or lack thereof but a searcher of hearts and minds, yes it is important what you do and it is also important why you do what you do. True religion is taking care of widows and orphans which basically is looking after everyone not trying to run their lives. The whole Bible is true and the six days of creation are quite literal of course they are God days not 24 hour days and how long each one lasted I don't know and how much longer the sixth day is going to last I don't know either but as Jesus said "Be Ready". "Night is coming when no man can work" but the seventh day is also on its way and it will get here. Like it says on the seventh day God Blest, Rested and made Holy. Whatever you do for Love you do for God. God wins Total Victory, a tie is unacceptable, the captives shall be released and the dead shall rise. Sincerely, Thomas Paul Moses Baum

Ghostbuster,

I wanted to answer some things in your post really quick before I go.

First, there is more nuance in Mormon history with regards to race than is often apparent in individual quotes. Our founder Joseph Smith actually was quite Liberal for his time with regards to race. He ordained a Black person to the priesthood, sent him on missions to represent the church. He also emphatically stated that the only reason Black people seem inferior to whites is because of their social circumstances. For his presidential platform he proposed that the federal government buy all the slaves from southerners in order to free them.

I am sad that the type of attitude he exemplified was not held a crossed the board throughout our history.

I think early Mormons were afraid of being seen as radical abolitionists; their image as abolitionist was a motivation for their persecution and expulsion from Missouri.

Second,

You ask:

"Does that inner knowledge or faith trump all including any doctrines, rituals, or religious texts?"

The principle is every individual has the right to revelation over their own "stewardship."

That is, I can receive revelation for my own life and family. The Prophet has the "keys" to receive revelation for the whole church, which encompasses rites, texts and so on. Each individual has the right to go God and receive confirmation that what comes from the Prophet is really God's will.

God can provide a perspective on His doctrine tailored just for me, but it is not the doctrine of the church and I don't have the right to teach it as such.

That is how a kind of democratic view of revelation can exist within a highly structured and unified organization and community.

All the best my friend!

JD1

Deb - thanks for the Jewish prayer info -- I didn't see it before I re-asked JD1 (sometimes things seem to post oddly, time-wise.)

JD1 thanks for the answer about evolution - that's sort of what I figured - don't know why, except that biblical inerrancy doesn't seem to be a big thing with Mormons (as far as I know)

John M.,

There are great answers to all of your objections. I don't really have time down to address them. I've been spending too much time on this Blog as it is. Maybe another Mormon can jump in here? If you want to share what you believe is "the truth" with Mormons you can try what used to be the Fair message boards found here:

http://www.mormonapologetics.org/

They discuss this stuff with Evangelicals all the time.

E. Favorite:

Mormons can go either way on the age of the earth. I tend to go the more sciency direction.

All the best!

JD1

The first part of my post is intended for John D.

Thanks for your answer. I have noticed similar responses pertaining to the importance of a close subjective experience in many other threads. It seems to be very important. Does that inner knowledge or faith trump all including any doctrines, rituals, or religious texts?

Lincoln,
Those verses along with several others stuck out at me when I read the Book of Mormon. In all honesty, I could hardly believe what I was reading.

In fairness here is a statement of Gordon B. Hinckley concerning racism: "I remind you that no man who makes disparaging remarks concerning those of another race can consider himself a true disciple of Christ. Nor can he consider himself to be in harmony with the teachings of the Church of Christ. Let us all recognize that each of us is a son or daughter of our Father in Heaven, who loves all of His children."

Of course, the comments of Mr. Hinckley stand in stark contrast to several verses in the Book of Mormon, the quotes listed by B&W, the well-know regulations against black people entering the priesthood throughout the church history, and many other racist quotes I have read from church leaders including Brigham Young, J.F. Smith and the prophet J. Smith.

Lincon,

I guess people can continue to think Mormons are distinctly racist if they want. They would be believing something that wasn't true, but if they want think something that is verifiably untrue, more power to them! Unfounded prejudice is your right, I suppose.

See "All of the Children of Abraham", By Sociologist Armaund Mauss for a full length study of history of Mormon race relations and a full review of research demonstrating Mormons are less racist than the general population.

As for the scriptures, every faith has to deal with aspects of their scriptures that reflect past prejudices. Every generation finds new ways to interpret them. Here is a modern exegetical analysis of the concept of race in the Book of Mormon:
http://www.fairlds.org/FAIR_Conferences/2003_Charge_of_Racism_in_the_Book_of_Mormon.html

Hi, John D the First - perhaps in all the conversation, you missed my question about whether Jews still wear phylacteries.

I have another question (obviously any Mormon could answer" Do mormons accept evolution or do they (as a group) think the earth was made by God 6,000 years ago?

Thanks

E Favorite:

To answer your question regarding phylacteries in Judaism:

The phylacteries, or tefillin, are worn by Orthodox and Conservative Jews during morning prayers, although they used to be worn all day. The few passages written inside speak of belief in God and His special connection with the Jewish people, and the wearing of tefillin is a reminder of this, as well as a commandment in the Torah in numerous places for showing reverance and devotion to God.

I was brought up Jewish, so I know this stuff. :)

On the issue of progression to godhood, KURT quoted Isaiah to indicate that God is the only God: “before me there was no God formed, neither shall there be after me”. (Isa 43:10)

The book of Isaiah is full of declarations like that. God says: “Is there any God besides me? No, there is no other Rock; I know not one.” (Isa 44:8) He also says: “so that from the rising of the sun to the place of its setting men may know there is none besides me. I am the LORD, and there is no other.” (Isa 45:6) He says: “I am the first and I am the last; apart from me there is no God.” (Isa 44:6) He says: “I am the LORD, and there is no other; apart from me there is no God.” (Isa 45:5) He says: “Surely God is with you, and there is no other; there is no other god.” (Isa 45:14)

This is not just and Isaiah thing. Moses wrote: “You were shown these things so that you might know that the LORD is God; besides him there is no other.” (Deut 4:35) In the same book, God says: “See now that I myself am He! There is no god besides me.” (Deut 4:35)

David said: “There is no one like you, O LORD, and there is no God but you, as we have heard with our own ears.” (1 Chron 17:20) He wrote: “For who is God besides the LORD?” (Psalm 18:31) And, He wrote: “you alone are God.” (Psalm 86:10)

You have to deliberately ignore a lot of verses, and the tenor of the whole of Scripture, to force yourself to the conclusion that we can become gods. This LDS doctrine buys the oldest lie in the Book: “you will be like God” (Gen 3:5). This original lie is the source of all sin. And, it was the cause of Satan’s fall: “You said in your heart, ‘I will ascend to heaven; I will raise my throne above the stars of God; I will sit enthroned on the mount of assembly, on the utmost heights of the sacred mountain. I will ascend above the tops of the clouds; I will make myself like the Most High.’ ” (Isa 14:13-14)

JOHN D THE FIRST had an interesting point regarding LDS undergarments: “The garments symbolize the coats of skins given to Adam and Eve in the Garden of Eden. ...I have also heard it interpreted as symbolic of being covered by Atonement of Christ, since he is considered the Lamb of God slain for the sins of the world (hence coats of skin).”

It is true that God made the first sacrifice for sin, and provided skins to Adam and Eve. But, before that, Adam and Eve had made outfits from fig leaves. They were attempting to cover their sins with the work of their own hands. God says, No, that’s not how it works. In the next chapter, He rejects Cain’s basket of produce, the works of his hands, and He accepts Abel’s blood sacrifice.

So, if the LDS undergarments signify God’s provision of atonement through the skins, why do LDS members also wear fig leaf ‘aprons’ in some ceremonies? If God rejected the work of man as a substitute for sin, why the aprons? And, why is working your way to godhood such a big part of LDS theology?

I see this kind of doubletalk throughout the LDS religion. They talk about Christ’s atonement for sin, but then they assert that we have to work our way to godhood. They use Christian terms, but they don’t employ them the way the Bible does. They take some Bible verses and spin large doctrines out of them, while ignoring the bulk of what Scripture says.

In attempting to work their way to godhood, to be like the Most High, LDS members are not following Christ; they are following Adam & Eve, Cain and Satan himself.

I am not trying to offend anyone. I am simply showing what the Bible teaches. If you want to make up your own religion, go head. But, please don’t say it comes from the Bible.

I know a lot of Mormons. The ones I know are good people. I wish I could share the truth with all LDS members. That is what I am trying to do here.

Lincoln:
The Mormons are hardly the only Christian denomination to employ the use of civil disobedience.
And a president who actively exhorted people to disobey federal law (or who did so him/herself) would be subject to prosecution and impeachment.

John D the first-

All of the quotes provided by the poster "Black or White" refer to the current racism in the LDS church that has been taught since its inception.

Your statement that the quotes represent old ideas and old interpretations is inaccurate. In fact, his quotes dated from 1951-1979, which isn't so very old at all.

Current Mormon scriptures provide teachings on racism based on skin color in the Mormon church. Racism is alive and well today in Mormon scripture. Here are a few examples from the Book of Mormon:

2 Nephi 5: 21 says "that they might not be enticing unto my people the Lord God did cause a skin of blackness to come upon them.. he had caused the cursing to come upon them, yea, even a sore cursing.."

Mormon 5:15 says "for this people shall be scattered, and shall become a dark, a filthy, and a loathsome people..."

Alma 3:6 says "And the skins of the Lamanites were dark, according to the mark which was set upon their fathers, which was a curse upon them..."

And in the Pearl of Great Price, Moses 7:8 says "and there was a blackness came upon all the children of Canaan, that they were despised among all people.."

Therefore, here are four references straight from the Book of Mormon and Pearl of Great Price which state that God curses people with a dark skin for their wickedness, according to Mormon beliefs. Mormons believe that God would curse people with a dark skin. That sounds like racism to me. These are not verses taken from the Bible, but verses taken from Mormon holy scriptures.

These scriptures are in full force today, unless Mormons have stopped believing in the Book of Mormon. If Mormons still believe in the Book of Mormon, then Mormon doctrine teaches that God curses people with black skin. That certainly sounds like racism to me.

Black or White,

Notice the dates on all of those quotes. Old interpretations, Old ideas. We do not teach or believe those things.

Ghostbuster:

I wanted to say something a bit more about how the Book of Mormon can bring one closer to God than any other book. In one post you mentioned that every religion makes this subjective assesment of their holy books.That is a fair observation.

The essence of Mormon Spiritual epistemology is for each individual to have for themselves a close subjective experience with the Divine that is communicative.

My favorite writer on Mormonism said, “one finds in the Book of Mormon that prayer frequently and dramatically evokes an answer that is impossible to mistake as anything other than an individualized, dialogic response to a highly particularized question.”

(Terryl Givens “By the Hand of Mormon: the American Scripture that Launched a New World Religion” Oxford University Press.)

A give and take kind of relationship with God (almost mirroring human relationships) is constantly modeled in the book. That is at least part of its “perfect” precept.

The Mormon church should be regarded with as much respect as any other church in the United States. In theory this is a true statement, yet on occasion, Mormon church leaders have encouraged the membership to disobey federal laws, such as the Supreme Court decision in Reynolds and the Edmunds/Tucker Act. Other religious leaders have not instructed their membership to directly disobey federal statutes and Supreme Court decisions. That is why many U.S. citizens would be concerned that Mormon Church President Hinckley could instruct the church membership to disobey federal laws again. Brigham Young and John Taylor were notorious for advocating disobedience to the "laws of men." This historic friction between the United States and a Mormon hierarchy with theocratic tendencies, has been an issue from the beginnings of Mormonism. I do not have any evidence that other religions have waged war against the United States in word and in deed, as the Mormon church has done in the past. Theoretically, President Hinckley could receive a new revelation to disobey the rule of law, and encourage the practice of polygamy again. This is a possibility under the current theological beliefs in Mormonism, especially with Doctrine and Covenants Section 132 remaining in full force. The Doctrine and Covenants are binding scripture in Mormonism, and Section 132 authorizes the practice of plural marriage, promising 10 virgins to righteous Mormon men. Given the doctrine of modern revelation, a distinct possibility exists that Mormon directives could take precedent over Federal law, as occurred in the past. What assurance does the U.S. public have that the Mormon church will not disobey laws in the future? A primary concern regarding Mormonism, is whether Mormons will choose to obey the Prophet or the laws of the United States should a conflict occur. This is a troubling issue, which has not been fully resolved.

Are Mormons afforded the same rights and privileges under the Constitution as other religions? Legally, of course they are. But on an individual basis, it is unclear whether Mormons respect other people‘s right of religious freedom. This is an interpersonal issue that is influenced by the institutional directives of the Mormon church. It rests on the ability of the church membership to make genuine friendships with people of other faiths, without the ulterior motive of converting them to Mormonism. Is it possible for a Mormon to make friends with a member of another religion, without the ulterior motive of someday converting that person to Mormonism? Yes, of course. But after watching the antics of Mormon missionaries on the PBS special, it is logical to conclude that many Mormons feel it is their duty to convert everyone to Mormonism. This concept is inherently offensive to many people who simply want to be considered genuine friends, without being viewed as a potential "convert baptism" in the future. Many creeds believe that they have the exclusive truth, not just Mormons. Many others are atheist or agnostic. Many other religions have developed a true tolerance for all humanity and do not feel the overbearing necessity of converting them to their own faith. Will Mormons ever be able to be genuine friends with non-Mormons without having the ulterior motive of conversion? This is a fair question, given the obvious harrassment of average citizens that was demonstrated by Mormon missionaries during the missionary segment of the PBS Frontline documentary. Maybe the reason Mormonism has not truly entered the mainstream yet, is that many people conclude, fairly or unfairly, that mormons are only interested in outside contact to the extent that they are fulfilling their duty as missionaries. This would be extremely shallow, superficial, and limiting, and would define Mormons as nothing more than scripted automatons. Mormons need to learn to have genuine friendships with people from outside their religion, on a wider scale. It is insulting to members of other faiths and non-believers, that Mormons believe they possess the exclusive truths of nature, when there is ample evidence in the history of the Mormon church, that it has just as many flaws (if not more) as any of the other faiths. Will the leadership ever encourage teaching true Mormon church history instead of a whitewashed version through its correlated lesson materials? Many Mormon's missionary zeal would diminish to proper levels if they fully understood the truly tenuous nature of Mormonism’s truth claims, from a historic perspective.

Before Mormonism is treated with the full faith and respect that other religions receive, it must demonstrate that it is deserving of such respect. The first step toward that respect would be a shift in emphasis away from converting every human being on the planet to Mormonism, toward loving every human being on the planet with the true Christian love, the love that Mormonism already professes to have. This shift will need to be generated from the upper levels of the Mormon church leadership structure. Until that happens on a broad scale, many will continue to view Mormonism collectively as a second-class religion.

"Since the Lord appeared unto Cain and conversed with him many times before Cain killed Abel, Cain must have held the Priesthood.9 God said unto Cain, "For from this time forth thou shalt be the father of his [Satan's] lies; thou shalt be called Perdition;"10 and the Lord cursed Cain with severe cursings. One of these cursings was a mark placed upon Cain, which mark would be carried by his posterity throughout all generations. According to the teachings of the Pearl of Great Price, this mark was a black skin." (Pearl of Great Price Commentary, Book of Abraham Chapter 1 page 140, Milton R. Hunter of the First Council of the Seventy. 1951)

"Those who were less valiant in pre-existence and who thereby had certain spiritual restrictions imposed upon them during mortality are known to us as the negroes. Such spirits are sent to earth through the lineage of Cain, the mark put upon him for his rebellion against God and his murder of Abel being a black skin. (Moses 5:16-41; 7:8,12,22.) Noah's son Ham married Egyptus, a descendant of Cain, thus preserving the negro lineage through the flood. (Abra. 1:20-27.) Negroes in this life are denied the priesthood; under no circumstances can they hold this delegation of authority from the Almighty." (Mormon Doctrine, page 527, 1966 Edition)

"In all past ages and until recent times in this dispensation, the Lord did not offer the priesthood to the Negroes. However, on June 1, 1978, in the Salt Lake Temple, in the presence of the First Presidency and the Council of the Twelve, President Spencer W. Kimball received a revelation from the Lord directing that the gospel and the priesthood should now go to all men without reference to race or color." (Mormon Doctrine, page 527, 1979 Revised Edition)

Concerned:

So a religious organization is not valid if it has money and real estate?

The Southern Baptist Conference owns property.
The Unitarian Universalist Association owns property and collects membership fees from member churches.
Every diocese in the Catholic Church has financial holdings, as does the Vatican. Correct me if I am wrong, but it is my understanding that the Vatican is a self-governing city.

Every church I have ever belonged to has had members who made regular, and often generous contributions, but rarely, sometimes never, attended services. So what? A person can believe in the tenets of a faith, and financially support a particular church, but have no desire to sit through sermons and hymns.

Mormon Economics 101: Test- True or False

"The Mormon Church collects at least $6 billion a year from its members, and generates at least another $5 billion in sales from its various business enterprises; total church assets exceed $30 billion. (At least 100 companies are controlled by the Mormon Church, and some estimate its total annual revenues in excess of $20 billion!

The church also owns 18 radio stations in the U.S.) Part of the Church's income goes to operate an elaborate internal welfare system so its members avoid any governmental assistance.

The Mormon Church also has a 58,000-plus missionary force working in more than 160 nations in 102 languages. The Church's Provo, Utah, 26-acre Missionary Training Center receives 500 new missionaries a week into its 3-9 week intensive missionary training program. (All boys, once they turn 19, are expected to dedicate two years of their lives to missionary service.) Fielding missionaries is a $500 million per year effort and currently reaps more than 300,000 new converts each year. (Bulking and maturing BYU football players also is important mission work).

Nevertheless, only about 46% of Mormons attend a church meeting at least once a month. (The clean-cut image that Mormons have attained has been a major factor in the attractiveness of the Mormon Church to outsiders. They are forbidden to drink coffee, tea, and alcoholic beverages, and use tobacco products.) "

If the Book of Mormon wernt true it would be tough to get a very interesting sunday school curriculum from it. You can check out the sunday school teachers manual at the LDS.org web site and see it for yourself. People that rail and fight againts the LDS church will one day see their folly. When the day comes that they do become aware of their mistake, I for one, will harbour no ill feelings towards them but I will forgive them and rejoice with them as my new brothers as sisters. Peace to all of you.

John D the First -- Thanks for the explanation about the underwear. A wedding ring seems a little different to me - because it's a small piece of jewelry, I guess.

I had never seen or heard of the phylacteries that you mentioned - do you know if Jews still do this?

Believer: "I don't think it's any accident that countries with active Christian majorities produce societies that are more vibrant, tolerant and respectful of individual liberties. ie: USA, Canada, Austalia,England and South Korea."

You are confusing correlation with cause and effect. It's a common logical and statistical error.

And South Korea is majority Christian now?

lepidopteryx:

I don't just assume that a lack of religion is the primary cause of suicides in a certain region, but I was using that measure as a means of explaining the vapid nature and loss of vitality of growing parts of the modern world where secularism and aetheism form the dominant culture.

I don't think it's any accident that countries with active Christian majorities produce societies that are more vibrant, tolerant and respectful of individual liberties. ie: USA, Canada, Austalia,England and South Korea.

Can anyone possibly look at a globe and think differently?

"Jesus, knowing that the Father had given all things into His hands, and that He had come forth from God and was going back to God, got up from supper, and laid aside His garments; and taking a towel, He girded Himself. Then He poured water into the basin, and began to wash the disciples' feet and to wipe them with the towel with which He was girded."

John 13:3-5

Believer writes:

"Being astute and aware as you are, I'm sure you have heard of the listlessness that seems to be engulfing much of Europe as it drifts further and further away from it's spiritual morings. Europe is no longer the vibrant station that once fostered and generated the great art, music, education and science that drove Western Civilation to great heights. Of course, most of those movements were compelled forward by religious folk."

Oh, I couldn't disagree more.

Having been to Europe a number of times, I find the European lifestyle exhiliarating, especially on the intellectual level. When it comes to great art and music, Europe continues to make Americans look like poor cousins. I will take European culture over what passes for culture in America any day of the week. Scandinavia, in particular, is the current hot bed of activity for classical music and composers. And while the world does, indeed, follow the American lead in the popular arts, those arts don't rise often enough to what I would consider "greatness."

Now, I will admit that I haven't lived in Europe for any extended period of time, but I can say that based on my experience, were I offered employment in France or Italy, I'd be there in a heartbeat. But that's just me: I'm an American who doesn't follow football or NASCAR, who has never watched American Idol and who is an atheist. I feel very comfortable and stimulated when in Europe, for no other reason than the fact that dinner conversations tend towards discussions on how to change the world, rather than worrying about Brittney's bad hair day.

"If you want a roadmap to the secular future, study the lands of the former Soviet empire which outlawed religion for three-quarters of the 20th Century."

A false analogy if there ever was one.

A better roadmap would be to look to the more-progressive nations in Europe where non-belief runs high, economic disparities are minimized and the general standard of living is high.

One of the major techniques of critics of the LDS notion of restoring ancient Christian practice, or ancient text is to find something in Joseph Smith’s environment that could account for his ideas. In another forum I pointed out why I think this approach is inadequate. I thought posting it here would be helpful:

1) An early revelation to Joseph Smith outlines a process of revelation quite different than that assumed in a more Calvinist paradigm (which most of the western world inherited). In this case, a process of revelation where the divine overpowers the Prophet and essentially downloads pure, unfettered intelligence (Calvinist), is exchanged for a process of revelation where the volition and intellect of the Prophet is an active participant in the revelatory process (implied by “study it out in your mind”) (D&C 9:8). The prior I’ll call monolithic revelation, the latter dialectic or analytic revelation.

2) I believe analytic revelation implies that God must work through already existing conceptual frameworks in order to reveal things to His children. So Joseph depended as much on concepts in his social environment for revelation as he did on confirmation from God.

3) If God had to work through culturally inherited conceptual frameworks, one can assume the scope of divine intervention in order to “Restore all things” was not limited to the individual (Prophet), but encompassed the entire society of which Joseph was a part. We can then think of God working in gardener fashion (as many scriptural allegories illustrate) to prepare the soil of Joseph’s cultural milieu to enable the Prophet to “restore all things” and “he might gather together in one all things in Christ, both which are in heaven, and which are on earth; even in him” (Eph 1:10).

4) Therefore, if we believe what the Lord says about revelation in the D&C, we should expect LDS revelations to mirror concepts in Joseph’s social environment. This is an expectation we can share with skeptics.

5) We differ with skeptics in having a twin expectation that we will see parallels to Joseph’s revelations in 19th century America and in the ancient world.

The problem for critics is to explain how Joseph was able to incorporate into his religion many concepts from his environment that also fit well in ancient Semitic and Christian cultures.

Do other 19th century heretical sects such as the Shakers and Oneidas provide us with equally compelling parallels to the ancient world?

How about other restoration movements of the 19th century?

If twin parallels (ancient and modern) in Mormon scriptures are just a probable outcome then we should expect the same phenomena among Joseph’s contemporaries. I don’t think you find the same kinds of parallels.

Ghostbuster,

Sorry I took a while to respond. I think were asking whether the translation is perfect and if the Book is perfect in its secular content.

I think when Joseph Smith made the remark about the Most perfect book he was refering to perfect principles, not a perfect translation. It was directly related to the following comment about it getting people closer to God.

That it was not a perfect word for word translation is evident in the fact that Joseph made various changes in syntax and grammer following the original composition.

A revelation to Joseph Smith describes the translation process in a way that seems to me, less of a dictation, but rather God working through an imperfect instrument to bring about a work capable of bringing people closer to Him.

The Book in the end is remarkable: an incredibly complex, multi-narrative, geographically rich epic. There are no major contradictions in the text in chronology or geography (i.e. X location is alway north of Y location, and west of Z location etc). Even Tolken did not do this; he was correcting plot and geographic contradictions in his works his entire life.

This become more remarkable when one realizes that this work was dictaded to scribes within a two month period by a New York farm boy of no more than a third grade education.

Alex,

I was ready to throw in the towel. That answer took guts. Props to you!

I personally find "gotcha setups" conterproductive to dialogue in most cases. Of course, that doesn't mean I won't pepper you, and probably only you, with a few questions now if you are game.

"I would say, yes. It is more than a translation though, it is a correct transmission. It is also my conviction from God that it is true."

Please elaborate a little on your conviction from God. How do you know that the transmission is correct and true?

Regards

E Favorite:

Thanks for the question.

I guess the best comparision is a wedding ring as a reminder and symbol of marital fidelity, or phylacteries as reminders for Jews of the commandments found in the Torah.

The garmets symbolize the coats of skins given to Adam and Eve in the Garden of Eden. In some ancient Jewish literature these were called coats of light. I have also heard it interpreted as symbolic of being covered by Atonement of Christ, since he is considered the Lamb of God slain for the sins of the world (hence coats of skin).

We believe the covanents in the Temple provide us with all the blessings of the Atonement of Christ, through binding us in a covanent relationship with Yaweh, thus enabling an eventual oneness with Him.

Why do you assume that religion (or lack thereof) is the reason for the differences in suicide rates? It's hardly the only variable among the different populations.

Mr. Mark,

I too enjoy our conversation.

Thanks for the article, I did read it but it was a lot to digest in a short time. I would agree with you and the article that atheism and secularism are on the rise, but that wouldn't really surprise anyone steeped in the knowledge of the Bible and of the teachings of Jesus. Revelations (which literally means the "unveiling" of Jesus Christ), does not paint a rosy picture of the world.

Being astute and aware as you are, I'm sure you have heard of the listlessness that seems to be engulfing much of Europe as it drifts further and further away from it's spiritual morings. Europe is no longer the vibrant station that once fostered and generated the great art, music, education and science that drove Western Civilation to great heights. Of course, most of those movements were compelled forward by religious folk.

You may be thinking about the two great wars spawned in Europe in the last century, but I'd remind you that those were not of the religious yolk.

If you want a roadmap to the secular future, study the lands of the former Soviet empire which outlawed religion for three-quarters of the 20th Century. According to the World Health Organization, the suicide rate for males (per 100,00) in Belarus is 63.6; Latvia 56.6; Russian Federation 70.6.

By comparison, comparable suicide rates for males in the U.S. are 17.6; France 26.1; Japan 36.5; and Finland 34.6.

Perhaps faith gives us something to live for.

"And Jesus said to him, "Go; your faith has made you well." Immediately he regained his sight and began following Him on the road."

Jesus
Mark 10:52

Ghostbuster,

I will say yes, and let me explain why some may measure their words. Part of the reticence to comment on translation may have to do with a common misconception in translation that is out there. Often people will think of translating from one language to another as looking up one word, making the translation, then moving on to the next word. However, in reality, language is loaded with meaning, culture, and context for which the words used may not have an analog in another language. It is not just grammar. That is one of the classic problems in translation of ancient texts. When we speak of the Book of Mormon being correct, we mean that the record written has been correctly transmitted and communicated and we also mean that what has been communicated is true.

I wanted to explain, because I have seen this question used as a setup. After asking you a question about the translation, occasionally people will complain and jump all over you about some occasional old or new testament phraseology in the Book of Mormon in order to show "for once and for all" that Joseph Smith is a fraud. In doing this they lack understanding of the nature of translation.

The translation was made to convey the meaning of the original text, not just words. If I am translating meaning and I know of a scripture passage in the Bible that clearly presents the meaning of a particular passage in the record, I may use a more modern phrase because it correctly communicates the original meaning. So to your question, I would say, yes. It is more than a translation though, it is a correct transmission. It is also my conviction from God that it is true.

John D the first,

How do your underpants remind you of the Covenants you have made to God?

Wayne,

Great point -- Mormons will always seem loco if thier epistomologies for arriving at a believers conclusion are not given equal time.

In the first half of the documentary -- we never get to hear why the people joined the Church and followed Joseph from thier perspective.

In the second half -- we never get to hear from faithful Mormon intellectuals who have compelling arguments as well.

Both of the experiential and intellectual epistomologies used by Mormons are ignored -- oh, except for when you want to perpetuate some other "damning" stereotypes like Mormons are brainwashed on thier missions, Mormon converts are poor and uneducated, Mormons all have umpteen kids and Mormons are anti-intellectual.

Look at that happy lemming in the temple -- could be the next potential terrorist!

Ouch! that really does hurt!

I did appreciate overall the treatment of MMM, of Joseph towards the begining and the respect for temple and family beleifs.

Still waiting for a more balanced view on "The Mormons" though

Arrrrrrrrrrgggggggggghhhhhhhhhhh

Mary:
I posted the Anonymous reply to which you refer, and I also immediately posted my name after realizing that I had forgotten to do so. The anonymity was accidental, not intentional.

You, dear lady, are twisting my words, and I will thank you to stop doing so.

What I said was that ALL religions, INCLUDING MY OWN, are equally ridiculous IF VIEWED FROM A STRICTLY OBJECTIVE STANCE, because ALL religions contain unprovables. Mormoms can't prove the existence of the golden plates, Christians can't prove that Ieshua rose from the dead, or that Miriam was a virgin, pagans can't prove the existence of multiple deities, etc. All religions require that participants accept certain statements as true in the absence of objective proof.

As for your comment, "Atheists continuously make these errors; even *worse* afterwards they pat themselves on the back for being "rational"--but how is making basic logical errors rational?"
For the record,I am not atheist, I am pagan. But there is no fallacy in my statement - you had to change my words to find/create one.

"Do they believe that wearing such garments protects them from injury, evil etc?"

There is folklore surrounding garments. Some have said it protects them from injury. In reality their protection is largely considered to be spiritual. They offer spiritual protection by reminding us of the Covenants we have made to God.

There is nothing strange about them. They are cotton breifs.

I am still trying to figure this out. Several people have chimed in on following the precepts of the book, which is fine and understandable, but I seem to be the only one who thinks JS meant what he said about the book being 100% correct.

"By the power of God I translated the Book of Mormon from hieroglyphics, the knowledge of which was lost to the world, in which wonderful event I stood alone, an unlearned youth, to combat the worldly wisdom and multiplied ignorance of eighteen centuries, with a new revelation."

Does God make ANY translation mistakes? Put yourself in JS's shoes. The plates, the miraculous encounter, translating the book... If I wrote the Book of Mormon, I would stand behind my claims, which in fact Joseph Smith did do. I'm a little suprised no one has just said "yes".

I have just read all the previous posts. They began being well thought out and somewhat considerate of previous posts. Then near the end, they have degenerated into name calling and very intolerant bashing. I am a convert Mormon, I joined the church at the age of 18. I gained a spiritual witness that the Book of Mormon is the word of God. I am now 62 and that witness has only grown stronger with time. I am now retired and am serving a fulltime mission for Jesus Christ. One learns that the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints is in actuality the Church of Christ by the Lord telling him in his soul via the Holy Ghost that it is. This knowledge, once received, is powerful and makes all arguements that one needs logic to convince one of the truthfullness of the belief totally silly. It would be like someone asking you, "Do you love your wife? Do you love your children? Prove it to me logically." No, we don't have to prove anything. The world will be judged on how they receive the Book of Mormon. The purpose of the Book of Mormon is stated by Jesus in the title page.
Oh, and we do not seek to be in the mainstream of American religion. Joseph was told by Jesus to join non of the religions of the day. These are the same "mainstream" religions which attack the Mormon church today. Oh, and many of the mobs which burned mormon homes, killed mormon children and raped mormon women were led by ministers of those same "mainstream" religions. Why should be seek to be joined to them now? There is a reason why the Gospel of Jesus Christ is the fastest growing religion in the world today. It is because people are receiving that same witness from the Holy Ghost. It is true. I am a Christian and I love Jesus Christ who lives still and who stands at the head of His Church, The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints.

Fools mock, but they shall mourn.

After reading the Novak article, it looks like I was wrong and that in addition to Salt Lake City and large polygamous families, Mormonism also produced violence against outsiders, in this case non-Mormon settlers.

Well, the violent bear it away.

To Anon (and could you please link some name or other distinquishing mark to your writing):

Disputed my assertion that not all religious claims are of equal value. Cited that they are all ridiculous ( cf virgin birth and the resurrection of Jesus Christ after his crucifixion). Hence Catholicism/Christianity is as ridiculous as Mormonism. Committed two logical errors..

Can you see them?

First error:Just because I accept Proposition A (that Mormonism is strange Christian cult) doesn't mean that I should accept Proposition B (that all Christian religions are equally foolish). That is such a weak argument: A does not equal B; really you should know better. (Is that why you're posting anonymously?)

Second error: Fallacy of Composition:Just because something is true of a *part* (the Mormon religion is strange) doesn't mean it is true of the *whole* (ALL Christianity is strange).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fallacy_of_composition

Atheists continuously make these errors; even *worse* afterwards they pat themselves on the back for being "rational"--but how is making basic logical errors rational?

Why does it matter to anyone else what a person believes or does not believe about his undergarments (or anything else s/he wears)?
I know many people who wear various items of jewelry that they believe to offer protective powers, including Christians who believe that the crucifixes and saint medallions they wear on a chain around their necks protect them.
People attribute protective powers to other objects as well - note all the plastic Jesuses and Madonnas stuck to the dashboards of cars. I wear hematite and have a citrine pendant suspended from the rear view mirror in my car. My husband has a small Japanese shrine on the dash of his car. What's the harm?

Kris writes:
"Your comments regarding magic underwear are staggering. No member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints would ever call it such even in the casualist forum."

Does it matter what a Mormon would call these undergarments? Here's the question:

1. Do some Mormons wear undergarments that they wear specifically as a part of their faith (as opposed to the undergarments the rest of us wear, ie: for no reason except that we wear underwear)?

2. Do they wear these garments as undergarments or as overgarments?

3. Do they believe that wearing such garments protects them from injury, evil etc?

If the answers are: #1 - yes; #2 - as undergarments; 3# - yes; then they believe they are wearing magic underwear.

Can Kris give us an honest answer to the above questions?

It all comes down to one thing. Is Jesus Christ the head of our church, or isn't He? That is a truth that can only be proven by the witness of the Holy Ghost; I KNOW that our faith is true, but I cannot convince anyone else if they don't want to know for themselves. If you are interested, read the Book of Mormon and pray about it, ask your Father in Heaven if this book is really a book of scripture. If you are not interested, then don't destroy the hope of those who are!

Believer -

I thank you for your apology, and I appreciate the fact that we can converse in a civil manner on this blog.

As far as the word of god standing forever: sorry to tell you, but religion is finally losing its grip on the world. Fully 16% of the world's population self-identifies as being non-believers, with the highest concentration living in the most-advanced countries like Sweden, where non-believers account for anywhere from 60- 85% of the population.

Xians make up 31% of the world's population, but that includes Xians whose faith is a mile wide and an inch deep. When you think about it, of the 6-billion people alive right now, fully 4-billion of them don't believe Jesus is any kind of savior.

If one limits their view to the USA and the Middle East, one might think that religion was making a big comeback in the world. In fact, the opposite is true, especially among the young who are abandoning religion at an alarming rate.

Here's an article on the subject that's well worth reading:

"WHY THE GODS ARE NOT WINNING"
http://www.edge.org/3rd_culture/paul07/paul07_index.html

Saying a book is the "most correct" does not mean it is 100% perfect. It simply means most correct in comparison to others that are less correct (which means many books have correct teachings, some a fewer number than others). The Book of Mormon is about Jesus Christ, talks about His teachings, and mentions His name twice as often as the New Testament. Living by its precepts and teachings of Jesus Christ can bring a person closer to God than any other book. Do not read into the quote the idea that other books cannot bring a person close to God---many can and do.

Your comments regarding magic underwear are staggering. No member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints would ever call it such even in the casualist forum. Your comments show complete disrespect to something we find sacred. This is nothing new; it is miraculous that God is consistent throughout time. In Exodus 29:4 it says, "And Aaron and his sons thou shalt bring unto the door of the tabernacle of the congregation and shalt wah them with water. And thou shalt take the garments, and put up Aaron..." You wonder why we don't discuss what more goes on inside the temple? For those like you would only degrade, dishonor, and destroy.

If you would like to know more, humble yourself, ask God what is right, and come find out for yourself.

My impression after viewing both segments of "The Mormons" is that it was a good attempt at providing a balanced view of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. When both members and non-members can perceive the same show in such different ways, I believe the director can claim success at not showing bias.

I am a member of the church and have been so since I was 29 years old and that was 34 years ago. I am happy with the truth and direction the church has provided me and my family over the years.

May the Lord Bless you in your search for Happiness.

Don

Mr. Mark,

I think I owe you an apology. I looked through your previous posts and you are correct: you have not displayed anger with Jesus. I think I was confusing your comments with some of the responses to your posts and to some of the posts by Christian Liberated.

You say my use of scripture is soporific. I cite scriptures in each of my posts because I want you and others to know that I base all of my beliefs on the study and knowledge of God's Holy Word. I know you don't believe scripture is valid and meaningful, but I try not to express any thoughts on this site without some guidance or tie to scriptural authority. To do otherwise, would render these discussion for me to meaningless emotion and argument.

I've spent well over 40 years reading and rereading the Bible and I'm continuously amazed at its beauty and timelessness. I look at God's Holy Word, like Einstein looked at the Universe: with great awe and reverance for the great mysteries and answers that it contains.

"The grass withers, the flower fades, But the word of our God stands forever."

Isaiah 40:8

Tell me that's not true and timeless?

What is bizzar about loving thy neighbor and putting family first. what a sad world when this belief is bizzar

if some of you would look into what is positive instead of anything bad you can make up you might discover it is not all that bad. we live in a pretty awful world why dont we use our energy to go after things that are distroying our society and not this religion that only wants to improve it.

Let's see, it's been almost 200 years. Yep, I think it's time I came up with a new religion.

Anyone wanna join? Free dughnuts......soda, water, and when we congregate, we do it with pot.

I am now accepting donations. And I will have George Carlin and Willie Nelson be my head ministers.

To comments people have made referring to magic underwear,
Many other religions wear symbolic clothing, unique hair styles, head coverings or tattoos that are considered sacred to it‘s followers. Do you apply demeaning nick-names to them as well? Using derogatory names for something that is sacred to others makes you appear ignorant and intolerant of the beliefs of others.

The reason mormons think they can become Gods is they do not believe the word of God that says in Isaiah 43:10 , "You are my witnesses, says the Lord and my servant whom I have chosen: that you may know and believe me and understand that I am He: before me there was no God formed, neither shall there be after me."

Failure to believe in the true and living God revealed in Jesus Christ to all who believe He became a man to give His perfect life as a sacrifice to pay the penalty for our sins against our Holy God. Then by the power of God was raised from the dead to prove He had defeated death, satan, sin and hell for all who believe in the Lord Jesus Christ. Acts 16:31

The mormons believe Jesus is a created being instead of the Holy One, uncreated as Isaiah 43:10 claims and all who are redeemed children of the living God believe.

Your sins have been forgiven and the only thing that can keep you out of heaven is to reject the One who has provided your forgiveness, either by saying no in word or actions or being deceived into accepting a false cure, i.e the mormon jesus who is created by the wisdom of men and thus unable to save to the uttermost.

Rejoice in the Lord, always!

to ghost buster

I thought I would respond to your question. I know it to be a true book. when I read it, it inspires and gives me direction. when ever I have come across info to disclaim it athentisity I only get confused and irritated. from Matt. 12: 33
33 Either make the tree good, and his afruit good; or else make the tree corrupt, and his fruit corrupt: for the tree is known by his fruit.
What is the fruit of the BOM only good value etc the fruits from things againdt it are hate, confusion, and often bigotry. one of my favorite scripture from the BOM is Moro. 7: 15-16
15 For behold, my brethren, it is given unto you to judge, that ye may know good from evil; and the way to judge is as plain, that ye may know with a perfect knowledge, as the daylight is from the dark night.
16 For behold, the aSpirit of Christ is given to every man, that he may know good from evil; wherefore, I show unto you the way to judge; for every thing which inviteth to do good, and to persuade to believe in Christ, is sent forth by the power and gift of Christ; wherefore ye may know with a perfect knowledge it is of God.
the wonderful thing about this is that it is given to all black, white, mormon, non morman, everyone. if you look at instances in your life I am sure there are time when this applied. I hope that is helpful.

Dear George & Believer -

George - the majority of atheists have moved well beyond the stage of being fearful of the imaginary judgement day that scares the crap out of you. Citing Bible verses and expressing your thinly veiled glee that "god'll show 'em...and torture 'em for eternity" is a silly mind game that may make you feel good about yourself, but it has zero effect on me. Listening to you voice your fears of the imaginary is like a person living in a democracy being told how wrong his lifestyle is by a serf living in a medieval kingdom.

How sad that you think you're living in the Bronze Age.

Believer - I'm not angry at Jesus or god - they don't exist. Quoting Bible verses as you have above is a soporific example of the circular argument from authority. It's the equivalent of a parent offering the phrase "because I said so" to their kids as a reason for everything they do. There's no truth or gravitas in such an exercise, so why do you bother?

You say I'm being caustic. Oh, really? Is it possible that what you really object to is having your beliefs questioned in the first place? Sorry, but this is the USA. I respect and defend your right to hold your beliefs, but that doesn't mean that I have to respect your beliefs as having an iota of truth behind them.

Enjoy your delusions.

Mormons will always look bizarre so long as so-called documentaries tend toward exposes and do not immediately allow a follow-up of criticisms by Mormons who have responsible and researched responses. The one-sidedness that concentrates on the bizarre -- without response -- can have no other effect than to bias the population against Mormons.

Jacob,

Enough with the Shiloh...I have Neil Diamond stuck in my head now.

To Jacob Jozevz

Riiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiight.

Amen, Fred.

Mr. Mark and Christian Liberated are angry because they stand in the light of day and are unable to see. They fault Jesus because He spoke the truth. They fault Jesus because He was Truth Incarnate. They turn their backs to the truth and say "We cannot see, we will not see."

The amazing thing is Jesus loves them just as much as He does anyone. He extends His gift of grace to them. How sad that they cannot see the truth when it is before them:

37Therefore Pilate said to Him, "So You are a king?" Jesus answered, "You say correctly that I am a king For this I have been born, and for this I have come into the world, to testify to the truth. Everyone who is of the truth hears My voice."

38Pilate said to Him, "What is truth?" And when he had said this, he went out again to the Jews and said to them, "I find no guilt in Him."

John 18:37-38

Isn't it amazing that this "On Faith" series seems to have attracted a huge number of vicious atheists? Isn't it amazing that they all say the same unsubstantiated and silly things? Modern atheism seems to have gone off its rocker. It's a hate cult now.

"It's important to understand the difference between Reformation and Restoration when we consider who might be the more authentic Christian. If members of the Church of Jesus Christ (LDS) embrace early Christian theology, they are likely more 'Christian' than their detractors."

What makes one a true Christian Mr/Mrs Anon Poll Ghost?

What is the belief system behind the characteristics exhibited? Is the "Church of Jesus Christ" the same as the orthodox Christian Church?

What if I got a 100% score on the poll according to Mormon doctrine but did not believe that Joseph Smith was a prophet? Is that OK? Would that make me more of a Christian than a Mormon who only scored a 75%?

I apologize for all the questions I've been asking. Usually these boards are pretty much the same every week. Its nice to have some different conversation and see many new kind faces.

Sir, did the Mormons hire you to write good things about them? There are many good people in many good churches, clubs and other organizations, but just because an organization has some good people in it doesn't make the entire organization good.

Take, for instance, Communism. I think Communism is horrible BUT that there are many good people trapped in Communism. Some of those good people have been tricked into thinking Communism is good, but we know it's not.

As for the Mormons, it's a bunch of old white men telling everyone under them how to live their lives, down to telling Mormon women it's a sin to have more than one piercing per earlobe!! Down to telling Mormon boys they "aren't worthy" if they do NOT wear a white shirt to church!! Mormons are very petty and bullying, but they learned this from their leaders to tell them "the thinking has already been done for you."

If you want a mindless drone who swears allegiance to his / her church OVER allegiance to America as your next president, fine, vote for the drone.

But before you vote ask yourself - do you want someone as president who puts the needs of America ahead of his church? Or someone who puts a church before his country??

PS: I think it's kinda treasonous for any president to sell out his country for oil, revenge, a church or anything, really!

Fiver:
Stoning?
You obviously have some issues here.
Jesus requires us to follow and uphold the law of the land. Stoning is not allowed, and therefore not followed.
On the flip side that does not mean that if there was no law against it that we would do it. Not at all.
Before you attack the Church of Jesus Christ, you should learn something about it. If you truly looked at it with an open mind, your position would change.

I think Cal Thomas' suggestion of a speech that outlines how Mitt Romney feels his religion will or will not overlap with his political practice if in office, and to outline his stance on the issue of separation of church and state, is a very intelligent one. I hope that if Romney ever makes such a speech it will be in a forum where he can be heard and understood, rather than in a setting where people are listening closely to find anything they can twist into something useful for their opposing political platform.

I believe that reasonable people make sound decisions when provided with clear, accurate information.

To George of the North:

Well said.

All I would add is that the Christian response to this persecution that may take place soon would be to accept it and continue to share our faith with others in love.

Some Christians are already whining about our rights and scrambling to protect them. I think we would better serve Jesus to accept our lot, as He did, and be quiet about politics and be vocal about the gospel.

For added thought, here is what JD Crossan has to say about atonement theology: (from his book, "Who is Jesus" co-authored with Richard Watts)

"Moreover, an atonement theology that says God sacrifices his own son in place of humans who needed to be punished for their sins might make some Christians love Jesus, but it is an obscene picture of God. It is almost heavenly child abuse, and may infect our imagination at more earthly levels as well. I do not want to express my faith through a theology that pictures God demanding blood sacrifices in order to be reconciled to us."

"Traditionally, Christians have said, 'See how Christ's passion was foretold by the prophets." Actually, it was the other way around. The Hebrew prophets did not predict the events of Jesus' last week; rather, many of those Christian stories were created to fit the ancient prophecies in order to show that Jesus, despite his execution, was still and always held in the hands of God."

"In terms of divine consistency, I do not think that anyone, anywhere, at any time, including Jesus, brings dead people back to life."

The only thing anyone knows for certain is that we're here now. That's it. Anything beyond that is a guess, and anyone who claims otherwise is either lying or delusional. If we really knew, we wouldn't be having this debate.

That doesn't mean we can't hope for something beyond this life -- I know I do -- but don't confuse what you hope or believe with what you actually know. If everyone -- Mormon, Protestant, Catholic, Muslim, Atheist or whatever -- would remember that, we would solve many if not most of the problem we have here and now.

I find it interesting that people are always bringing up Mitt Romney and his politics - what about Harry Reid?

I believe Mr. Cal Thomas needs to review the US Constitution - as do most US Citizens.

First, it explicitly states that there should be no religious test for office.

Second, there is no phrase in the US Constitution regarding separation of Church and State. That was taking from a letter written by President Thomas Jefferson to a minister wherein Jefferson was expressing his opinion that religion should be protected by and from the government. In fact, most US Presidents up until the Civil War attended religious services in the US Congress building and in the Supreme Court building.

For a veteran journalist like Mr. Thomas, he should, respectfully, know better.

That said, Mr. Romney has noted on numerous occasions the LDS Leadership is not telling him what to do. Nor has Mr. Romney brought up his religious affiliation unless asked about it. Nor has he been "proselytizing" his faith.

I would rather live a life knowing that I can become a GOD if I live following the footsteps of Jesus Christ, rather than living a life knowing that when I die, it will be the end of it all. That's when one can truly say that death is a tragedy, and Christ's atonement is in vain.

Mr. Mark:

It is sad that you are so quick to mock the God of the universe, accept it or not, and to be so caustic and crude about it. There will be a day when you will be able to try and explain yourself to Him, so best save your best posts for then.

It is simply amazing how most people on here can't wait to jump all over a "fundy" and disrespect them for their beliefs, never having chatted with them. It seems that you and others set out to prove that your humanistic sarcasm and acrimony are the answers. You have the full right to believe as you will, freely, without prejudice or persecution, yet the Christian is not afforded the same by you. Why is that? I have never supported political Conservatives, though I may agree with their theology; I am always dubious about mixing religion with government. There will come a day, I fear when I will need to take a stand based on my faith - look at Canada and it's terribly restrictive "hate speech" law aimed at protecting gays/lesbians. You can get busted (much to your delight, I'm sure) for simply mentioning that there is an alternative to it. For our neighbors to the north, that is going too far and is hateful and a prosecutable crime. I AM NOT ENTERING INTO A GAY DEBATE HERE, JUST AN EXAMPLE OF HOW RESTRIVE MANY SOCIETIES ARE BECOMING.

There will come a day when the rights of Christians are squelched by "good, well meaning people" trying to protect other well meaning people. Sadly, most of the people posting on here will cheer that day, for they will have silenced the "Moral Majority".

Then you may as well re-write the constitution to read "isolation of church and state", not just separation; you may also remove any reference to religious liberties as they apply to Christians.

Good day to all & God bless (whether you believe or not),

George of the North

It”s important to understand the difference between Reformation and Restoration when we consider who might be the more authentic Christian. If members of the Church of Jesus Christ (LDS) embrace early Christian theology, they are likely more “Christian” than their detractors.

* * *

And the National Study of Youth and Religion done by UNC-Chapel Hill in 2005 found that Church of Jesus Christ (LDS) youth (ages 13 to 17) were more likely to exhibit these Christian characteristics than Evangelicals (the next most observant group):
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . LDS Evangelical
Attend Religious Services weekly . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 71% . . . . 55%
Importance of Religious Faith in shaping daily life –
extremely important . . . 52. . . . . . 28
Believes in life after death . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 76 . . . . . . 62
Believes in psychics or fortune-tellers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 . . . . . . 5
Has taught religious education classes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42 . . . . . . 28
Has fasted or denied something as spiritual discipline . . . . . . . . . . . .68 . . . . . . 22
Sabbath Observance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 67 . . . . . . 40
Shared religious faith with someone not of their faith . . . . . . . . . . . . 72 . . . . . . 56
Family talks about God, scriptures, prayer daily . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50 . . . . . . 19
Supportiveness of church for parent in trying to raise teen
(very supportive) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .65 . . . . . . 26
Church congregation has done an excellent job in helping
Teens better understand their own sexuality and sexual morality . . . 84 . . . . . . 35

I wouldn't be surprised if a lot of the hateful stories about mormon neighbors are greatly exagerated due to some anger they have towards the mormons.

Mary C:

When we lived in Idaho as a corporate transfer family, our children all had good friends who when they turned eight years old told them they couold no longer be their friends because they were a danger to their mortal souls.

Nice try Mary, but I'm calling you on this one.

I say you're claim that they couold no longer be their friends because they were a danger to their mortal souls" ia a flat out lie.

I say no one ever said that to your kids and you are just an angry, hateful person.

Att: GHOST BUSTER et al:

V. O. T. E.: Eclati-On Party For:

((((((((((((( Gridarion ** Democracy ))))))))))))))

Ok, I've had some time to read some articles from Ken's website, FARMS, Raymond's long answer and John D's reasoning. Thank you all for your answers and opinions.

If J. Smith received a divine revelation and copied it word for word from engraved sheets of metal, he would indeed know that this book I have sitting right here on my lap is indeed the most correct book ever written in the history of the world.

So, what if Smith did not receive a divine revelation and the witnesses are not credible or are lying? Have you all investigated the evidence against Mormonism? Do you all have any doubts about your own beliefs?

Thanks for you time

Reality is bizarre. Existence is strange.

Mormonism comes closer to making sense of it than anything else I've encountered. But it's not easy to understand. Study and prayer and experimentation on the word through lived experience are needed.

But we have time and it's a joy.

As, I also said on the Jacoby thread, an old friend became an agnostic at the age of 10 when a Mormon missionary came to his front door. When the missionary told him all about the angel Moroni and the golden sheaves – buried in New York, no less - he realized that anyone could make up a crazy story and if it happened long enough ago, you could get people to believe it. (I learned recently that the comedienne Julie Sweeney had the same reaction to the Mormon story, as an adult).

While my friend’s reaction seemed logical to me, I still for many years thought it was a shame that he had also discarded what I perceived as the “real” story - the one about Jesus 2,000 years ago. Of course, when I finally started thinking about that story I realized my real knowledge was very sketchy. And when I started researching it in earnest – it fell apart like a house of cards.

It’s so easy to recognize someone else’s silliness and so hard to recognize one’s own – especially when the whole culture believes the same thing – or at least doesn’t question it – or is discouraged from questioning it and admonished to take anything that doesn’t make sense “on faith” as if believing in the otherwise unbelievable is a great virtue.

Remeber the Down Fall of "Tammy" & "Jim" Baker?

Who was that rich "Preacher Man" who said, "CHAVAS" should be assasinated"? {similar].

Amazing how short memory's Humates have.

After all, is it not true that HISTORY IS OUR JURY and hence we must trust but Verify?

Go Figure. Ya Ya.

John D writes:

"Not a single witness denied what they had seen, and many had every reason to do so. They had major fall outs with Mormonism and their continued assertion to have seen the plates grossly hurt their reputations.

The image of Mormonism at that time was beyond ill-repute, and these people had to live in the secular world continuing to affirm the reality of their experience.

Most scholars agree there was not a group conspiracy; it leaves too much to be explained. Unbelievers assert the group hallucination theory, but that is a strained speculation, and still does not do much to explain the sober, tactile experience of the eight."

Hearsay evidence, not proof.

Hey - it's entirely possible that the 8 were scammed by a magician named Joe Smith. Lot's of magic tricks look supernatural until Penn & Teller or The Amazing Randi expose the simple sleight-of-hand behind the trick.

Anyone who saw Smith's plates were first told by Smith what they were, ie: plates from god. If I tell you that I'm holding Albanian passports in my hand and show them to you, you have no way of knowing if they're legit unless you happen to know what an Albanian passport looks like. Was an independent witness brought in to verify that the plates were indeed made of gold? Nope, it's a cover story.

It reminds me of the Christian crazies who speak in tounges - why do they never break into fluent French or Portuguese? Why do half the words they speak end in nonsense syllables like "ba-toy-AH?" Yet, people who speak in tounges will swear that they're speaking in some actual language. Unless a casual observer is well versed in multiple languages, they can't say definitively that the Xian crazies aren't speaking Klingon.

Sorry, but it can all be dismissed all too easily.

BTW - I don't laugh at the Mormons for believing in magic underpants. After all, Mormonism is Xianity, and the OT god seemed obsessed with acquiring foreskins. There's a sick logic to all that.

Erict,

The answer is, no. Reid opposed the church position in the senate and the church likes to point it out to show it doesn't influence politicians.

Why should Mormon membership matter? Reid is a Mormon and one of the best Senators we have ever had (notwithstanding the idiot David Broder's comments to the contrary).

I would want to know if a Mormon politician could be excommunicated for supporting civil rights like reproduction and gay rights. The PBS series has been very informative, and the excommunication thing could impact some folk’s actions in office if it would be used that way.

Why should Mormon membership matter? Reid is a Mormon and one of the best Senators we have ever had (notwithstanding the idiot David Broder's comments to the contrary).

I would want to know if a Mormon politician could be excommunicated for supporting civil rights like reproduction and gay rights. The PBS series has been very informative, and the excommunication thing could impact some folk’s actions in office if it would be used that way.

Terra:
It's his loss, and he doesn't even know it. But I believe that your positive intent set up a corresponding postive vibration in her direction, and even if he would not allow you to actively pray for her, your desire to do so was helpful in and of itself. When I recently had to have part of my foot amputated due to osteomyelitis, a good friend of mine, who is Catholic, said to me, "I know that your path is different from mine, but would it be ok with you if I put your name on the prayer list at my church?" I told her that of course it would be ok - that I consider prayer of the type she was talking about to be a highly focused concentration of positive energy, and that I would gladly and gratefully accept any positve energy directed my way. Her response? "I'm so glad you feel that way! Get ready for an onslaught of positve energy headed your way!" Damn, I love that woman.

Terra Gazelle:

Sorry for your experience with that silly Mormon. We come in all types you know.

You can pray for me any time!

It kills me how they call Mormons racists due to the fact that black men were not allowed to hold priesthood until 1979 and that they consider women second class citizens. The Southern Baptist Convention (SBC) was founded in Augusta,GA in the 1840's so the members who had slaves could go on missions. The SBC apologized for their support of slavery in the 1990's. A few years ago the SBC also came out and said the women should submit to their husbands.

Mormons (LDS) have NEVER had slaves and in fact were staunch abolitionists. This was a major reason for the persecution in Missouri during the pre-Civil War early years that the PBS show did not mention. Also the president of the Mormon church has came out and stated that men and women are equal which is supported throughout the church. A statement like that made by the SBC has never been made by the LDS church. The first state to allow women to vote? Utah. Of course that is not mentioned in the PBS special.

TP

oh...

I belong to a political forum, I had been a member of it for a few years so I got to know the members pretty well. One of the members is Mormon. His wife was pretty ill and I asked if I may pray for her. We can not pray for anyone without asking..it is not polite. Well He said no, he absolutly did not. Why? I asked. He said.."you are Pagan, I can talk to you online, but I would never talk to you any other way...certainly my wife does not need your prayers."
A bigot...ohh yes. Hateful...yes. I have not spoke to him since.

terra

above post was mine - forgot to sign

Mary:
"Not all religious claims have the same value.
Mormonism's founder, Joseph Smith, was a fraud pure and simple. Atheists will say Mormonism is a fringe Christian religion akin to a cult, with not much to distinguish it from, say, Lutheranism. Yet the latter spread rapidly and enthusiastically throughout Northern Europe, was instrumental in disseminating the Bible in the vernacular, promoting literacy, founding divinity schools, &tc, &tc."
Mainstream Christianity of the day was also responsible for the deaths of many innocent people (Crusades, Inquisition). It has much blood on its hands. I don't recall any historical accounts of mass murder by Mormon hordes.

"The former is associated with a bogus angel (never any Biblical record of Moroni until he popped up in Ohio--or was it Illinois?)"
Maybe the committee that assembled the Bible as we know it decided that they didn't like Moroni - just like they didn't like the gospels of Thomas or Mary.

"sacred gold plates that 'happened' to be destroyed"
Anybody find that Holy Grail yet?

"and, later on, polygamy."
Polygamy is not forbidden by the Bible - in fact, it is practiced by many of the pivotal charactrs in Judeo-Christian mythology.

"Secondly,just because there are good people who are Mormons, it doesn't follow that Mormonism is a good religion. There are good people who are Wiccans, radical Islamists, and Shining Path guerillas. Even Stalin loved his mother! (Or was it his daughter?)"
One could say the same about any other religion, including "mainstream Christianity."

I think we agree that Mormonism is a pretty strange, in parts ridiculous--baptizing the dead, anyone?--religion and you can't really put it in the mainstream of Christianity: Orthodox, Catholic or Reformed.
How is baptizing the dead any more bizarre than a virgin birth, resurrection from the dead, or bodily ascension into the sky? ANY religion, (and I include my own in that generalization), looked at objectively, is pretty ridiculous. That's why it's referred to as a faith.

I remember when JFK had to asure people that he would not listen to the pope should he gain the presidency, and if it came down to his religious belief or the Constitution, he would leave the presidency.
That is the difference between now and then. Because now we have people that will force their religion down our throats, and the laws of the land are a poor second.

Now we are paying the price of having a president with a hot line to his god. I personally would better trust a person with no religious belief then what I have seen in the last few years. I am a religious person...but in too many political eyes, it would be the wrong religion. I think that if you want equal rights and justice for all...then there should be no mention of religion at all.

Has anyone been watching the PBS series The Mormons or HBO's Big Love?
terra

Cal Thomas - mainstream religions consider some of their doctrines not only extra-biblical, but bizarre (such as the teaching there are many gods and we can all become gods and goddesses).

Cal seems like the pot calling the kettle black. I don't believe in gods, but I do believe in Goddesses because I fall in love with them daily.

With regards to the separation of church and state, I find Cal totally hypocritical. Many Christian Fundamentalists assert the constitution says no such thing in the first amendment. Cal, do you really believe this? Haven't you been promoting more religion in the public sphere? I don't see you decrying Bush's dismantling of this sacrosanct foundation of our open society as he appoints only true believers to fill all posts in his administration.

The point of this blog/forum was to discuss feelings about the PBS documentary and perhaps about Cal Thomas's call for comments. Alas, most have fallen into name-calling and contempt that borders on hatred. Why?

Regarding the documentary, I'm not sure how I feel about it. Some of it seemed pretty thorough and based on the best available records and opinions of those who have studied the religion. Other parts of it seemed to be comprised of bias or unfounded emotion - for or against. However, there was no proof of truth or of lies, so neither cause can claim victory through some "smoking-gun" scientific evidence.

Simply because something seems unreasonable does not make it false. Because many people say or believe the same thing, doesn't make it true.

So, both sides should stop trying to convince the other about something that cannot be proven true or false - on the basis of scientific evidence - because there isn't any.

All religions are based on some intangible quality of faith - even atheism - because there's no real evidence either way. (Absence of proof is not proof.) So why tear down one another's faith? For all any of us know, every word printed anywhere is a lie. We each have to use our own tests to find what we believe is the truth.

Let's try to lift more than we tear down. God knows (or it's obvious) we need more of that in this turmoiled country right now.

For scientific evidence of my claim, see previous posts - assuming you believe they're real.

Mr. Mark,

Though I understand this testimony does not compel belief, it is not something that can be so easily dismissed as you do.

Not a single witness denied what they had seen, and many had every reason to do so. They had major fall outs with Mormonism and their continued assertion to have seen the plates grossly hurt their reputations.

The image of Mormonism at that time was beyond ill-repute, and these people had to live in the secular world continuing to affirm the reality of their experience.

Most scholars agree there was not a group conspiracy; it leaves too much to be explained. Unbelievers assert the group hallucination theory, but that is a strained speculation, and still does not do much to explain the sober, tactile experience of the eight.

Call it mysterium tremendum, call it insufficient, but it does stand as a difficult to explain event in support of Mormon belief.

Raymond writes:

"The only rational explanation is that they told the truth, and that Smith actually had gold-looking plates with strange writing on them, and that the translation process was miraculous and divine. To deny the evidence of the 11 witnesses is to deny reality."

Oh, please. We're all adults here.

Isn't the ONLY rational/realistic/plausible/likely explanation that the 11 "witnesses" were LYING? What? You think that people can't get together and agree to tell a lie? If not, check out the lies the Bushies told in the run-up to the Iraq War. Hell, Cheney continues to tell those lies to this day.

So, David Whitmer, "actually took out a large ad in his local newspaper in Richmond, Missouri, to rebut rumors of him denying his testimony, even though it had been 40 years since he had associated with any Mormons." Now, why would he do that? Could it possibly be that he had been living a lie for those 40 years and didn't have the courage to fess up to it? That he couldn't face the professional and personal embarassment of his decades-old LIE being exposed? People don't do such things, do they? If you believe that, check out last week's revelation about the MIT admissions officer who lied about her college degrees for 28 years.

BTW - adding the word "actually" to your sentence above adds no weight of honesty to Whitmer paying for an ad that was an exercise in CYA. Honestly.

As far as taking out ads in newspapers, check out the myriad articles and op-eds written by Bush Administration apologists who testified to the truthiness of Bush's Iraq lies, even well after the lies had been exposed in all their bloody horror.

Sorry, Raymond, but you have absolutely no standards whatsoever when it comes to proof or truth. Mormonism's "proofs" are all hearsay, lies and fables, yet you buy it hook, line and sinker. Worse, you think there's nobility in being so easily scammed - and by pretty transparent scam artists at that. Even worse, you abandon all logic and avoid the simple explanation that is screaming from your post (ie: they LIED) and go with a convoluted exercise in the suspension of reason to explain away the inexcusable.

"What say you, Raymond? Was the Fatima "event" a case of mass hallucination, or did the sun actual crash down on the crowd? If so, why wasn't the world incinerated?"

Mr. Mark,

The eight witnesses propose a particular problem to a secular audience because it was not just a visual experience, but a tactile one. It is not absolute proof, but it is good evidence in our favor.

Dave E.,

You said,

"At least one of the five Mormons that I know is a racist. Is that above the national average?"

Mormons are actually bellow the national average in Racist attitudes.

See book by Sociologist Armaund Mauss "All of the Children of Abraham."

Good People, Bizarre Beliefs v Good Beliefs, Bizarre People.

I'll take the loony looking scientists every time. ;)

Worried,

Considering that statistically Mormons believe more deeply as they become more educated, perhaps the fraudulent nature of Mormonism is not as obvious as you've been taught to believe.

As Mormonism is relatively recent compared to Christianity, it is much easier to realize that there is no proof whatsoever to its allegations.
That anyone would believe such an obvious fabication is bothersome, but that persons in positions to make critical decisions would also be gullible is frightening.

Mormons and Muslims have a lot in common.

For once I agree completely with Susan Jacoby. Read her article. In net-speak, "What she said."

BELIEVER,

The martyred apostles ran afoul of Roman political and religious authorities because they preached, healed, and baptized for the conversion (and profit) to a non-Roman way of life. This support of an anti-Roman cult resulted in the typical murder/crucifixion of the cult leaders. The apostles' conversions also caused a dramatic drop in Roman/Jewish temple appearances and contributions and just like Jesus' Jewish temple outburst, it resulted in added punishment to include crucifixion.

And John 11: 25 as per many contemporary NT scholars was not said by the historic Jesus but was a later addition/embellishment to win converts. See Professor JD Crossan's commentary in his book, The Historical Jesus, pp. 331-332 softback edition.

oops last post was mine :)

"Good People, Bizarre Beliefs"

Pot, meet kettle...

Raymond Swenson writes:

"No "mass hallucination" theory can account for the sober and solid affidavit of the 8 men, while no secular fraud notion can account for the testimony of the other 3."

Uh huh. Let's see, 70,000 pilgrims at Fatima in Portugal in 1917 saw the sun "tear itself from the heavens and come crashing down upon the multitude." Strangely, no one in the rest of the world saw this.

What say you, Raymond? Was the Fatima "event" a case of mass hallucination, or did the sun actual crash down on the crowd? If so, why wasn't the world incinerated?

If it was a case of mass hallucination, then isn't there just an itsy, bitsy, teeny weeny chance that if 70,000 people could share the same hallucination, that 8 men could have done so as well?

Raymond Takashi Swenson,

Enjoying the thoroughness of your posts on this and other threads - thanks

Mary C.,

Very sad to read of your general encounters with Mormons. I'm sorry it was not a more positive one -- a good reminder for us.

Raymond
is it just me,
or wss your last post a mite long?

Dubya thought he could force democracy and equality upon Iraq. He consulted a "higher father." Five Roman Catholic men on the Supreme Court said restrictions on abortions were okay. Mormonism, bizarre as it is, is no more bizarre than what we have now. And Cal, who are you to call another's beliefs weird? Really now.

At least one of the five Mormons that I know is a racist. Is that above the national average?

Wilford Woodruff, fourth president of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, kept extensive journals, recording verbatim many of the statements and sermons of Joseph Smith. He recalled the statement made by Smith to his followers about the Book of Mormon being the "most correct book". It was clearly meant in the sense that the Bible as we read it in English is a translation from manuscripts that we know are not the originals of the gospels, the epistles, or the Old Testament. Translation was carried out by men according to their own abilities. While there is no question that the Bible is invaluable, understanding what the original authors meant can sometimes be difficult. The Book of Mormon, on the other hand, if you accept Smith's explanation for how it came into being, is a translation into English that took place under direct divine inspiration. The Book of Mormon itself asserts that it has preserved "plain and precious truths" about Christ and His atonement for mankind that would be lost over time from other sacred records. So basically, Smith's assertion was that the Book of Mormon did not have as much of a "lost in translation" problem as the Bible, and as a a record of divine revelations given to ancient prophets (mostly between 600 BC and 400 AD), it was the "most correct" in presenting the doctrines of God as they came from Him.

No one is required to believe anything the Book of Mormon claims for itself. However, the authors challenge readers to actually read and ponder its message about the love that God has had for mankind for eternity, and how that love is manifested in the life, death and resurrection of his Son, Jesus Christ. They promise that anyone who does so, and then asks God if the Book of Mormon is in fact from God (like the Bible), while exercising faith through Christ that God can in fact answer their question, will receive an actual answer, a confirmation that the Book of Mormon stands alongside the Bible as a new affirmation that Jesus Christ really is the Son of God and the Savior of mankind.

As crazy as you might think Mormon beliefs are, the Book of Mormon does NOT ask you to make a "leap of faith" without evidence, but rather to "experiment upon the word", trying out its teachings in everyday life, and relying on your existing faith in God and Christ to help you know whether the book and the church that produces it are really authentic. God provides the Book of Mormon as a tangible object that can be tested and evaluated, which declares that the heavens are opened again, that modern human beings are just as deserving of having God speak to us as the people 2000 to 3000 years ago.

After the title page of every Book of Mormon are the affidavits of eight men who affirm that they saw the gold colored metal plates, engraved with strange writing, that were the source of the Book of Mormon. The last of those men, David Whitmer, died around 1880. Every one of them affirmed to his dying day that his affidavit was true (Whitmer actually took out a large ad in his local newspaper in Richmond, Missouri, to rebut rumors of him denying his testimony, even though it had been 40 years since he had associated with any Mormons), even when some of them had become disaffected from the LDS Church (including Whitmer).

The PBS show does not deal with the witnesses, because there is just no secular, materialistic explanation for their testimony and their constant reaffirmation of it, preposterous as it sounded to their contemporaries. 8 men actually "hefted" the plates, knowing that Joseph Smith was so poor he could not have acquired enough lead to weigh so much, and knew it had to be at least an alloy of gold. 3 men saw the plates as their leaves were turned by a shining figure who introduced himself as the same Moroni who had introduced the plates to Smith.

No "mass hallucination" theory can account for the sober and solid affidavit of the 8 men, while no secular fraud notion can account for the testimony of the other 3. The only rational explanation is that they told the truth, and that Smith actually had gold-looking plates with strange writing on them, and that the translation process was miraculous and divine. To deny the evidence of the 11 witnesses is to deny reality.

Joseph Smith was 24 years old when he finished dictating the Book of Mormon manuscript to his friend, Oliver Cowdery (who later was one of the 3 witnesses, and experienced other heavenly visits with Smith). He had almost no formal schooling, could barely compose a letter. He dictated a 520-page book in about 6 weeks, never going back or revising any of what he dictated.

For the first 100 years of Mormonism, the Latter-day Saints basically regarded belief in the Book of Mormon as something entirely based on faith in the goodness of its teachings. Then around 50 years ago, scholars like Hugh Nibley (PhD from UC Berkeley) began to compare the book to other ancient records from its Middle Eastern milieu. The astonishing things they discovered are largely summarized at FARMS.byu.edu, many of the books available for free download.

Scholars of ancient Egypt, Arabia, of archeology, of history and literature, discovered that the Book of Mormon is full of the characteristics of an authentic pre-exilic document. It contains complex literary poetic forms that are typical of ancient Hebrew writings, forms which were not recognized in Christian scholarship until well after Smith's day. It contains a detailed description of specific but little-known geographic features of Arabia that can be confirmed today. It contains references to ancient Jewish legends that are not preserved in the Bible but appear in Jewish apocrypha that have only been recovered and translated into English in the 20th Century. In other words, NO MAN in 1829 could have written the Book of Mormon as an intentional fraud, because the elements it contains marking its authenticity as an ancient Middle Eastern document were not understood by any scholar in Europe or America.

They were certainly not known to the unlettered Smith, and they were certainly not recognized by his contemporary critics. If Smith had in some fashion known these things, and intentionally put them in the book to give it verisimilitude, it failed in two respects: First, Smith never referred to those characteristics, because he did not know what they were. Second, none of his contemporaries knew what they were, so they were of no value in 1830 in convincing people that the book was authentic.

One characteristic of the book that Joseph did know and talk about was its material form as a record inscribed on thin metal sheets. At that point, the wider world was largely unaware of any ancient writings being preserved on metal, rather than frangible papyrus or parchment. Smith was ridiculed for the very notion. And the idea of anyone going to the trouble of making a record, and then hiding it in the ground, was also ludicrous.

That was before the Dead Sea Scrolls were found in 1948. That was before the Treasure Scroll was found among them, thin copper sheets with inscribed lettering, rolled up and hidden in a clay jar in a cave to be read by people over a thousand years in the future. Since then, over a hundred ancient metal records have been found all over the Old World. The earliest manuscript of the Bible is two thin silver scrolls dating from 600 BC--the start of the Book of Mormon.

Smith's concept of an ancient religious record written on metal and hidden away for 1400 years was now demonstrated to be quite common. But it was NOT part of the contemporary religious or cultural beliefs or knowledge of Smith's neighbors. He didn't get it from the Bible, nor his paltry education. If it was not true, then it had to be a very lucky guess, a creative thought out of thin air--which somehow became mundanely true by 170 years later. It is one thing to say that Smith was a creative religious genius. To say that his creations came true means that he is something else--a prophet.

We know how Jules Verne and H.G. Wells used meticulous deduction and wide reading to create their guesses about the future. Smith had no such resource, no way to forecast or deduce how the Dead Sea Scrolls would be found 120 years later. Nor did he have any way to predict the discovery of an Arabic geographic name from 600 BC in precisely the place he described it in the book.

Non-Mormons who read about this are going to say "That's very strange, but there must be a lie in there somewhere." But there isn't. Check it out at FARMS.byu.edu. These are very simple truths, truths which show that Smith was not a charlatan or a synthesist of 19th Century religion and culture.

Mormonism is challenging because it requires people who accept it to recognize that the real world is much stranger and wonderful than they have imagined, that God really does act in the real world.

People who reject Mormonism, when taught it, are people who don't believe the evidence presented by their eyes, ears, mind and heart. They would rather not see, not know. They don't want God to be too real, too immediate.

It takes courage to be a Mormon, courage to recognize and acknowledge truth, no matter how "bizarre" it first looks. Sort of like quantum physics.

Here's the problem with Mormonism,- particularly at this time when we have seen the ugly side of cronyism with this administration- it operates on a daily basis as a cult which gives precedence to fellow Mormons above all others. Anyone who has lived as a non-mormon in heavily LDS areas can attest to the ostrascism, the unfair business practices and, more importantly the terrible way mormon children treat the " heathens"- i.e., everybody else.
When we lived in Idaho as a corporate transfer family, our children all had good friends who when they turned eight years old told them they couold no longer be their friends because they were a danger to their mortal souls. Talk about humiliation. Also, one time we were invited to a department picnic and the head of the department had "thoughtfully" supplied a separate picnic cooler for our family that had cafeinated drinks and other beverage items that were "unfit" for them and their religion. Everything in done to make you feel unwelcome and definitely less of community member. When it came to business contacts- if you were not LDS you could not get contracts with businesses headed by Mormons. By the way, this was not some long time ago- but less than ten years. We have had too much specialism from our current group of evangelical righteous people who feel no need to include other's thoughts or ideas into the government. Let's not take it one step further!

Believer writes:

"No one, and I mean no one, can legitimately find fault with Him (Jesus) or His teaching."

Oh, what absolute drivel!

Are you saying there's no fault to be found by ANYONE in these teachings of your man-god?:

Matt 10:35 For I am come to set a man at variance against his father, and the daughter against her mother, and the daughter in law against her mother in law.
10:36 And a man's foes shall be they of his own household.
10:37 He that loveth father or mother more than me is not worthy of me: and he that loveth son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me."

Screw you, Jesus. My family will always matter more to me than any imaginary being.

Luke 11:23 He that is not with me is against me"

Self-centered tripe.

John 14:6 Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me."

Uh, how can you (Believer) say that "no on can find fault" with his teachings when Jesus says that any religion that doesn't follow him is BS?

Luke 15:6 If a man abide not in me, he is cast forth as a branch, and is withered; and men gather them, and cast them into the fire, and they are burned."

Ah, the love of Jesus on full display. If you aren't a Xian, you're damned to burn in eternal fire. Now, how could the 4 billion people on this earth who aren't Xians ever "find fault" with such a teaching?

Typical, non-thinking crapola from the world of arrogance masquerading as humility.

Concerned Christian Now Liberated:

"After Jesus' failure and death, his disciples stole his body and declared his resurrection in order to maintain their financial security and ensure themselves some standing." Quote from book by Crossan and Wright.

Gee, I guess the money grabbing and search for standing didn't fare so well for the disciples of Jesus since all but one (John) was martyred for adhering to a steadfast assertion that Jesus rose from the dead and appeared to them on numerous occaisions.

The bottom line deal breaker for all of these discussion threads is the same -- Jesus.

No one, and I mean no one, can legitimately find fault with Him or His teaching. You can deny Him, you can scorn Him, but you can't honestly deal with Him and not come away convinced He is the Son of God.

"I am the resurrection and the life; he who believes in Me will live even if he dies."
Jesus
John 11:25

Thanks Ken & John D. for the response. I will certainly check Ken's website when I get the chance.

John D. - I understand the reasoning about how following a book's teachings may bring someone closer to God. Honestly, I hear that about almost all religious books. Smith calls the Book of Mormon the "most correct of any book on earth, and the keystone of our religion". Do you believe this is fact? Is the book of Mormon 100% accurate and the keystone of what you believe?

Regards

I just wonder why those who don't want anything to do with "The church" keep picking at the sore. Let it scab over and heal!

"The Book of Mormon. I've the entire book and read about it from a variety of both LDS and critical sources. First, I'd like to know if you all believe in this quote. If so, what are your chief evidences that the Book of Mormon is indeed the most correct of any book on earth.

"I told the brethren that the Book of Mormon was the most correct of any book on earth, and the keystone of our religion, and a man would get nearer to God by abiding by its precepts, than by any other book." (History of the Church, Vol. 4, page 461)"

I think the context of that quote by Joseph Smith
implies that the Book of Mormon is perfect in precept. The only evidence one can have of the veracity that statement is through following its teachings and seeing if it brings them closer to God.

The ... chief ... evidence for the Book of Mormon is the same as it has always been, the same for any humble believer who is willing to accept the words of Jesus Christ:

"And Jesus answered and said unto him, Blessed art thou, Simon Barjona: for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven." (Matt 16:17)

The Spirit reveals truth to those who seek -- to those who are genuinely willing to open their minds and their hearts, and then to conform their lives to the truth they purport to desire.

But the witness of the Spirit is not the ... only ... evidence. Ghostbuster, please select "Sheer Dumb Luck?" at my website, and maybe you can get your question answered.

Best,
Ken Kuykendall
MormonCentury.org

I'll try this again...

A question for any Mormon believer,

I've the entire book of Mormon and read about it from a variety of both LDS and critical sources. First, I'd like to know if you all believe in the quote below. If so, what are your chief evidences that the Book of Mormon is indeed the most correct of any book on earth?

"I told the brethren that the Book of Mormon was the most correct of any book on earth, and the keystone of our religion, and a man would get nearer to God by abiding by its precepts, than by any other book." (History of the Church, Vol. 4, page 461)

Dear Mr. Mark,

I should have split my post in half. Only the first line was intended for you.

But, thanks to my lack of clarity we are now talking about magic underwear.

Regardless of whether one thinks that the teachings of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints are "bizarre"; they are largely unique in terms of modern day religious beliefs. However, when you talk of an individual like Mitt Romney, you can see that his integrity stems, in large part, from his religious beliefs. Ought we not be grateful to adherence to principles that encourage honesty in public office?

"Is it bizarre to actualy follow what the bible says?
I think not."
Mark
Posted May 2, 2007 2:13 PM

I think so. But, then again, I hold other bizarre beliefs (e.g. killing someone by throwing rocks at them is barbaric - even if they did pick up sticks on a Saturday; outer space is probably not made of water; stoning a rape victim because she was raped in a city isn't justice; etc.).

Anyone believing in a literal interpretation of the Bible either hasn't read it or has some serious mental health issues. (By the way, I'm still looking for a fundamentalist Christian that eats kosher. Anybody even hear of one?)

mark writes:
"Is it bizarre to actualy follow what the bible says?"

Yes - big time.

Andrea asks about Magic Underpants. Here:

ttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Temple_garment

In some denominations of the Latter Day Saint movement, the temple garment (or the Garment of the Holy Priesthood, or informally, the garment or garments) is a set of sacred underclothing worn by adult adherents who have taken part in a ritual ceremony known as washing and anointing ordinance, usually in a temple as part of the Endowment ceremony.

In modern times, the temple garment is worn primarily by members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (LDS Church) along with several small religious groups who broke from the LDS Church. Adherents consider them to be sacred and therefore may be offended by public discussion of the garments. Anti-Mormon activists have publicly displayed or defaced temple garments to show their opposition to the LDS Church.

The garment is thought to symbolize the "coats of skins" which Jehovah (Yahweh) made for Adam and Eve before casting them out of the Garden of Eden (Genesis 3:21). It is worn, in part, to remind adherents that they have made special oaths and covenants to God. Members of the LDS Church today are commonly clothed in the garments, together with outer temple clothing, for burial. The garment is believed to be a spiritual "shield and protection" against the powers of evil (and against physical harm, according to some adherents).

In the 19th century, the temple garment was a one-piece undergarment resembling a union suit, with an open crotch and a collar, extending to the ankles and the wrists. It was made of unbleached cotton, and was held together with ties in a double knot. The garment had four marks that were snipped into the cloth as part of the original Nauvoo Endowment ceremony ( Bennett 1842, pp. 247-48; Buerger 1987, p. 56). These marks were a reverse-L-shaped symbol on the right breast, a V-shaped symbol on the left breast, and horizontal marks at the navel and over the right knee. These cuts were later replaced by embroidered symbols.

According to generally-accepted Mormon doctrine, the marks in the garments are sacred symbols (Buerger 2002, p. 58). One proposed element of the symbolism, according to early Mormon leaders, was a link to the "Compass and the Square", the symbols of freemasonry (Morgan 1827, pp. 22-23), to which Joseph Smith had been initiated about seven weeks prior to his introduction of the Endowment ceremony.[1] Thus, the V-shaped symbol on the left breast was referred to as "The Compass", while the reverse-L-shaped symbol on the right breast was referred to by early church leaders as "The Square" (Buerger 2002, p. 145).[2]

John 3:5 was a continuation of the financial aspects of "dunking" aka baptism.

Early Christian economics 101:

The Baptizer drew crowds and charged for the "dunking". The historical Jesus saw a good thing and continued dunking and preaching the good word but added "healing" as an added charge to include free room and board. Sure was better than being a poor peasant but he got a bit too zealous and they nailed him to a tree.

Paul picked up the money scent on the road to Damascus. He added some letters for a fee and "Gentilized" the good word to the "big
buck" world. i.e. Paul was the first media evangelist!!!

Along comes Constantine. He saw the growing rich Christian community and recognized a new tax base so he set them "free".

The Holy Roman "Empirers"/Popes/Kings/Queens et al continued the money grab selling access to JC and heaven resulting in some of today's
richest organizations on the globe i.e. the Christian churches (including the Mormon Church) and related aristocracies.

An added note: As per R.B. Stewart in his introduction to the recent book, The Resurrection of Jesus, Crossan and Wright in Dialogue, ( Professors Crossan and Wright are On Faith panelists).

"Reimarus (1774-1778) posits that Jesus became sidetracked by embracing a political position, sought to force God's hand and that he died alone deserted by his disciples. What began as a call for repentance ended up as a misguided attempt to usher in the earthly political kingdom of God. After Jesus' failure and death, his disciples stole his body and declared his resurrection in order to maintain their financial security and ensure themselves some standing."

In conclusion, money is a major foundation of Christianity to include Mormonism. Ditto for Islam.

Is it bizarre to actualy follow what the bible says?

I think not.

Mr Mark,

Magic Underpants?

Ghostbuster writes:

"Mr Mark -what are your chief evidences that the Book of Mormon is indeed the most correct of any book on earth."

????

The Book of Mormon is just as idotic as any other religious book. The only reason it's considered more idiotic than the Bible is because (as Susan Jacoby points out in her column) it is more-recent and doesn't have the false patina of ancientness about it as does the Bible.

What made you believe that I held some brief for Mormonism? Speaking of briefs and Mormonism...MAGIC UNDERPANTS!!

Glen,
If you grew up as a non-Mormon in Utah your questions would not be retorical:

Do they discriminate against non-Mormons and treat them as second class citizens out there in the great state Utah? Yes, they do in both schools and the workplace. "How many of you in this class are LDS, raise your hand" "You want a job here, what Ward do you go to?"

Do the Mormons practice separation of church and state and not just pontificate on this principle while combining church and state out there in Salt Lake City?

No, they don't practice separation fo church and state in Utah. Mormon legislators are pressured by the Church and the Church donates thousands to political causes like the anti-gay amendment in California.

Ah Mr. Mark, you are the Artful Dodger ;)

The Book of Mormon. I've the entire book and read about it from a variety of both LDS and critical sources. First, I'd like to know if you all believe in this quote. If so, what are your chief evidences that the Book of Mormon is indeed the most correct of any book on earth.

"I told the brethren that the Book of Mormon was the most correct of any book on earth, and the keystone of our religion, and a man would get nearer to God by abiding by its precepts, than by any other book." (History of the Church, Vol. 4, page 461)

Why the argument over a person can become a god? Aren't we all godly in some way?

Ever felt the presence of a person? Ever felt the energy that they radiate? Being a good person and following the laws of a book don't make you a God, or bring you any closer to God.
Mastering your abilities, and being able to control your inner strength and let others benefit from it, now that makes you God-like.

The doctrine that humans can become gods or are already "god" is not strange. While I believe it is Satan's oldest lie, every single religious world view believes this, outside of the Bible-believers (Christians and Jews).

(such as the teaching there are many gods and we can all become gods and goddesses)

Lets just call this eternal progression.

This is substantially behind the number of Protestants and Catholics, so by numbers alone it is difficult to say that the faith has entered the "mainstream of American religious life."

Lets just call this media bias. It depends on where you live, it is substantial in the intermountain west.

STATISTICAL INFORMATION CAN BE FOUND @
http://www.lds.org/ldsnewsroom

If I wanted to know about a religion I would go to their website.

And as all have not faith, seek ye diligently and teach one another words of wisdom; yea, seek ye out of the best books words of wisdom; seek learning, even by study and also by faith.
D&C 88:118

Another good website for answers to the MORMON Question would be
http://www.fairlds.org
The Foundation for Apologetic Information & Research (FAIR) is a non-profit organization dedicated to providing well-documented answers to criticisms of LDS (Mormon) doctrine, belief and practice.

Stephen, the Biblical scripture reference is:
1 Cor. 15:29: "Else what shall they do which are baptized for the dead, if the dead rise not at all? why are they then baptized for the dead?" (King James Version)

Mary,

On the "baptizing the dead" that you mentioned; it is actually a living person being baptized for the dead. For Bible authority, see 1st Corinthians 15:29.

However, pointing that out, or where Moroni is spoken of in the New Testament, or even solid evidence that Joseph Smith, Jr. was actually a real prophet of God will not convince you.

In order to determine the validity of these or any Mormon doctrine, you must follow the Lord's counsel, "If any of you lack wisdom, let him ask of God, that giveth to all men liberally, and upbraideth (criticize) not; and it shall be given him." (James 1:5)

Basically, after reading and studying the Book of Mormon and Bible for yourself, you have to ask God whether the Book of Mormon is the word of God--just like the Bible is the word of God.

Happy studying,
Joshua

Mary, I'm sorry, but I feel like you truly don't understand the teachings of the Church. I invite you to fully understand them then pray to God the Father about it.

First of all, Moroni is not a Biblical prophet. He is a prophet from the Book of Mormon, an ancient account of the inhabitants of the Americas.

I invite you to start by reading the Book of Mormon and the Bible. Then you'll have a greater understanding of our beliefs. Baptism for the dead should not be equated to "baptizing the dead." We do not baptize dead people but are baptized ourselves in their behalf.

Jesus Christ himself was baptized by John the Baptist, not because he needed cleansed from sin but to show us an example, who are in need of cleansing. John 3:5: "Jesus answered, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God." (King James Version)

Baptism for the dead, anyone?

If the dead rise not at all, why are they then baptized. Paul the apostle of the New Testiment.

They will live, resurection is a free gift given to all by god. Salvation or exaltation is given by grace through repentance. All souls of men will be on an equal playing field on judgement day. Heaven thus is not exclusive to those in the know but to all men.

Mary,

Most Excellent!!!!

Not all religious claims have the same value.

Mormonism's founder, Joseph Smith, was a fraud pure and simple. Atheists will say Mormonism is a fringe Christian religion akin to a cult, with not much to distinguish it from, say, Lutheranism. Yet the latter spread rapidly and enthusiastically throughout Northern Europe, was instrumental in disseminating the Bible in the vernacular, promoting literacy, founding divinity schools, &tc, &tc. The former is associated with a bogus angel (never any Biblical record of Moroni until he popped up in Ohio--or was it Illinois?), sacred gold plates that 'happened' to be destroyed, and, later on, polygamy.

"By your fruits..." doesn't work too well either. Lutheranism and its challenge to the Catholic Church precipitated terrible wars and ethnic cleansing throughout Europe--none worse than in my native Ireland where we are only just recovering from its effects. Nothing much came from Mormonism except Salt Lake City and very large families. Still, Protestantism was tremendously productive, and I'm saying that as a Catholic. Not all religious claims have the same value.

Secondly,just because there are good people who are Mormons, it doesn't follow that Mormonism is a good religion. There are good people who are Wiccans, radical Islamists, and Shining Path guerillas. Even Stalin loved his mother! (Or was it his daughter?)

I think we agree that Mormonism is a pretty strange, in parts ridiculous--baptizing the dead, anyone?--religion and you can't really put it in the mainstream of Christianity: Orthodox, Catholic or Reformed.

I just want to comment on one thing...Jesus Christ was not mentioned much, if at all, in the documentary... Jesus Christ is the focus of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints. Jesus Christ is the corner stone, and the central focus in The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints and to its members..Jesus Christ is the reason for family unity, temple worship, missionary work, and mans salvation.......

Joseph Smith was a man and a prophet that proclaimed the Divinity of Jesus Christ and God the Father, and that Jesus Christ is the Savior and Redeemer of the world and the literal Son of God......That is the basis of Mormonism.

"The Mormons" is a nickname for the church...We are not Mormons church..We are Jesus Christs church. Mormon was a man and a prophet in the Book of Mormon who testifies of Christ and His divinity, and that Jesus Christ is the Son of God.... We are The Church of Jesus Christ. We are Christians. We proclaim in our hearts and to the world that Jesus Christ is our Savior,Redeemer, Lord, and King...

The truth we know about a person or a group of people has more to do with their ACTIONS than with their words. A JFK speech would be nice but we hear this everyday from some of the most violence prone people in the world. And then after their speeches they continue. Is anyone out there aware of atrocities committed by the Mormons or by Mitt? Does the Mormon church try force others to become Mormons? Do they discriminate against non-Mormons and treat them as second class citizens out their in the great state Utah? Do the Mormons practice separation of church and state and not just pontificate on this principle while combining church and state out there in Salt Lake City? In other words, do these people leave the rest of us pretty much alone to make free choices without a threat of torture or discrimination? I am not aware of any of these Mormons slitting the throats of non-believers. So the JFK speech would be fine but is really not necessary because we have a historical record and that record is clean, as far as I know.

Ghostbuster asks:

"Mr. Mark,
In your opinion, is Mormon theology generally more bizarre or equally bizarre to Christian theology?"

Let me put it this way: if religions didn't have their bizarre stuff, they wouldn't have any followers.

Ghostbuster
to answer for Mark

objectively considered, they are both pretty bizarre. Transubstantian, anyone.

Again, I think it hard to make distinctions regarding the reasonableness of Supernatural Beliefs.

Is believing in Christs resurrection
(he was taken up into heaven)

Less bizarre than believing
that my brother was abducted by Aliens in a spaceship?

The "Men becoming gods" topic often falls victim to massive oversimplification. Men don't die, resurrect, and POOF! become like God.

It's actually, in Mormon theology, referred to as 'eternal progression.' This means that resurrected beings will continue to learn and grow on and on forever, which would mean that sometime way, way, way out into eternity, the possiblity exists that one can learn from God how to be like him. But an earthly man/woman is practically fetal in that progression.

I do believe there is a seed of divinity in us all, placed there by God and meant for unimaginable growth-- at a time further away than we can see from here. I don't find that a bizarre consideration.

And as far as 'secretive' temple ceremonies-- I acknowledge that people fear the unknown and have trouble taking anyone's word for it. But from personal experience I can tell you that there is no performance in a Mormon temple that isn't par with any other religious rite performed by other churches. And there is no more 'secret' to it than there was in any ancient temple-- just an inherent duty to protect what we hold sacred.

I mean, look around you. You're probably touching elbows daily with someone who holds nothing sacred. Were I a non-Mormon, I'd be glad to occasionally touch elbows with someone who does hold something sacred, whether I understood it or not.

I agree with Mitt Romney's stance of "I'm running for President, not Pope." Especially if he reveres his religion the way that I do-- as a public figure, it would be ill advised for him to answer doctrinal questions as though he spoke on behalf of the Church. He's not a general authority, and a misstep or poorly worded phrase could give all of America the wrong impression of Mormonism.

Never mind that sound bytes all over the news of a Presidential candidate talking about religion is the equivalent of political suicide. Nobody wants to see a president who looks more like a preacher at a pulpit. Look at some of you already, saying he's ready to endoctrinate the country with Mormonism. What if he actually brought it into the campaign?

People who want to know what a Mormon candidate believes spiritually need look no further than a Mormon neighbor, the official LDS website, or those two guys with the nametags walking through their neighborhood. If a reporter wants a clip, he can get it from an LDS spokesperson or a general authority, whose comments will actually hold official weight. I guarantee, whatever it is they glean from reputable sources will be more valid than anything Mitt Romney could say, however well-meant.

Sorry Cal,

You lost me when you shaved the moustache. Grow it back and we'll talk.

P.S: Say hi to Jerry for me and no, I have not forgotten about that $2,000.00 he owes me. Love offering, my fanny!!

Hey Anon-Ghost,
Looks like Candide beat you to the punch by 5 minutes. Next time, type faster.

Mr. Mark,
In your opinion, is Mormon theology generally more bizarre or equally bizarre to Christian theology?

To reiterate, it is all about the founders of the major religions and their favorite "tinker bell(s)" aka angel.

Joe Smith had his Moroni.

Mohammed had his Gabriel (this "tinkerer" got around).

Jesus and his family had Michael, Gabriel, and Satan, the latter being a modern day demon of the demented.

The Abraham-Moses myths had their Angel of Death and other "no-namers" to do their dirty work or other assorted duties.

Contemporary biblical and religious scholars have relegated these "pretty wingie thingies" to the myth pile. We should do the same to include deleting all references to them in our religious operating manuals. Doing this will eliminate the prophet/profit/prophecy status of these founders and put them where they belong as simple humans just like the rest of us.

Some added references to "tinker bells".

"Latter-day Saints also believe that Michael the Archangel was Adam (the first man) when he was mortal, and Gabriel lived on the earth as Noah."

Apparently hallucinations did not stop with Joe Smith.

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07049c.htm
"This belief in guardian angels can be traced throughout all antiquity; pagans, like Menander and Plutarch (cf. Euseb., "Praep. Evang.", xii), and Neo-Platonists, like Plotinus, held it. It was also the belief of the Babylonians and Assyrians, as their monuments testify, for a figure of a guardian angel now in the British Museum once decorated an Assyrian palace, and might well serve for a modern representation; while Nabopolassar, father of Nebuchadnezzar the Great, says: "He (Marduk) sent a tutelary deity (cherub) of grace to go at my side; in everything that I did, he made my work to succeed."

Catholic monks and Dark Age theologians also did their share of hallucinating:

"TUBUAS-A member of the group of angels who were removed from the ranks of officially recognized celestial hierarchy in 745 by a council in Rome under Pope Zachary. He was joined by Uriel, Adimus, Sabaoth, Simiel, and Raguel."

And tinker bells go way, way back:

"In Zoroastrianism there are different angel like creatures. For example each person has a guardian angel caled Fravashi. They patronize human being and other creatures and also manifest god’s energy. Also, the Amesha Spentas have often been regarded as angels, but they don't convey messages, but are rather emanations of Ahura Mazda ("Wise Lord", God); they appear in an abstract fashion in the religious thought of Zarathustra and then later (during the Achaemenid period of Zoroastrianism) became personalized, associated with an aspect of the divine creation (fire, plants, water...)."

"The beginnings of the biblical belief in angels must be sought in very early folklore. The gods of the Hittites and Canaanites had their supernatural messengers, and parallels to the Old Testament stories of angels are found in Near Eastern literature. "

"The 'Magic Papyri' contain many spells to secure just such help and protection of angels. From magic traditions arose the concept of the guardian angel. "

For added information see the review at:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Angel

"Good People, Bizarre Beliefs" is something I could say about the majority of Christians - the only Christians that wouldn't be covered would fail the first part of the statement, not the second.

Anonymous writes:
"Here come about 25 posts stating that what Cal Thomas believes is equal to or more bizarre than what Mormons believe."

As well there should be. ;)

I do not remember anywhere in political history where we have ever asked or required a president or presidential candidate to stand and defend his religious beliefs. Granted i am only 40-years old and I am human and perhaps i am mistaken about that. However, he does not in my opinion need to or have to outline his beliefs or defend them either. That, last time i checked was a constitutional right. If you want to know what his beliefs they are:
The Articles of Faith of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints
We believe in God, the Eternal Father, and in His Son, Jesus Christ, and in the Holy Ghost.
We believe that men will be punished for their own sins, and not for Adam's transgression.
We believe that through the Atonement of Christ, all mankind may be saved, by obedience to the laws and ordinances of the Gospel.
We believe that the first principles and ordinances of the Gospel are: first, Faith in the Lord Jesus Christ; second, Repentance; third, Baptism by immersion for the remission of sins; fourth, Laying on of hands for the gift of the Holy Ghost.
We believe that a man must be called of God, by prophecy, and by the laying on of hands by those who are in authority, to preach the Gospel and administer in the ordinances thereof.
We believe in the same organization that existed in the Primitive Church, namely, apostles, prophets, pastors, teachers, evangelists, and so forth.
We believe in the gift of tongues, prophecy, revelation, visions, healing, interpretation of tongues, and so forth.
We believe the Bible to be the word of God as far as it is translated correctly; we also believe the Book of Mormon to be the word of God.
We believe all that God has revealed, all that He does now reveal, and we believe that He will yet reveal many great and important things pertaining to the Kingdom of God.
We believe in the literal gathering of Israel and in the restoration of the Ten Tribes; that Zion (the New Jerusalem) will be built upon the American continent; that Christ will reign personally upon the earth; and, that the earth will be renewed and receive its paradisiacal glory.
We claim the privilege of worshiping Almighty God according to the dictates of our own conscience, and allow all men the same privilege, let them worship how, where, or what they may.
We believe in being subject to kings, presidents, rulers, and magistrates, in obeying, honoring, and sustaining the law.
We believe in being honest, true, chaste, benevolent, virtuous, and in doing good to all men; indeed, we may say that we follow the admonition of Paul—We believe all things, we hope all things, we have endured many things, and hope to be able to endure all things. If there is anything virtuous, lovely, or of good report or praiseworthy, we seek after these things. Writen by Joseph Smith, Jr.
If you have any other questions about LDS beliefs or views you are welcome to view: www.mormons.org

No I don't think that Mormons are bizarre, I respect the fact that they have sacred ideals in the a secure world. Those that I have worked with are full of integrity, and honesty. For the US to focus on a religion that has been around almost as long as the nation its self with so much confusion is very odd to me. I think that time will tell whether Mormons are maintstream or not but I do know that they are imperfect people who never tire from trying to do whats right.

As an ex Mormon who is thoroughly familiar with Mormon beliefs,
yes
they are "Strange"
but not much more strange than the beliefs
of Most Religions.

The Virgin Birth is pretty strange. Parting the REd sea was pretty strange.

and Cal Thomas's beliefs and value systems are VERY strange.

All religions are based on Supernatural beliefs that would be considered crazy if they didn't have the intimidating backing of the God Concept and Social Pressure.

Making distinctions among the Strangeness of Supernatural Phenomena is a job for the Jesuits.

Bizarre? On the topic of humans and their ability to become gods.

I believe it is much more bizarre to believe humans cannot become Gods. It is preposterous to think that plants, animals, and even humans can reproduce and create more of their own kind and yet an Almighty God is limited by some way and cannot reproduce his own kind. Is he limited? Do we posses something he does not?

To believe this is to place human kind, even plant life and the animal kingdom above Godhood, therein lies the truly bizarre belief of the rest of "mainstream" Christianity.

We need a rodent hunter with magic underwear in the White House.

Hey, couldn't be any worse than the incompetent boob who lives there now.

Americans have always chosen presidents with bizarre beliefs and all have been main stream Christians,Protestants and one Catholic.

Mainstream Christians comprises approximately eighty two percent of the U.S. population, according to the Pew Research Council. This is substantially higher than the the number of Mormons, but by numbers alone it is difficult to deny or to affirm that the bizarre faith of mainstream Christianity has entered the "mainstream of American religious life."

Still, practicing mainstream Christians I know are decent and consistently kind and helpful despite their bizarre faith and cult worship. In fact I was brought up as one and have remained decent and kind and helpful despite the bizarre belief I was taught and practise. Our strong sense of family values remains despite our bizarre beliefs such as man named Jesus was born of a virgin and that he performed miracles and that he rose from the dead among other nonsensical beliefs.

While mainstream Christians have served with distinction in public office mostly without a hint that they have sought to use their power to advance church teachings, the mainstream churches are bound to come under intense scrutiny because of Mitt Romney's candidacy for president opens both Mormonism and mainstream Christianity to scrutiny.

To ease suspicions about our mainstream churches and our bizarre form of idolatry and man worship, Bush or whichever mainstream Christian succeeds him should deliver a JFK-type speech that spells out any areas where his/her faith and public life intersect. He/she should also articulate his view of the separation of church and state. It is okay to worship a man as God, ie Jesus, and attribute nonsensical actions to this man who may not have been historical so long as this idol worship and cult form are kept private and not brought into politics the way Bush has tried to do.

Such a speech before the right audience could help dispel increasing suspicions surrounding the mainstream Christian faith faith and its churches. Such honesty might even increase the number of mainstream Christians.

Here come about 25 posts stating that what Cal Thomas believes is equal to or more bizarre than what Mormons believe.

It would be 100 posts, but many of you will read this first.

Matthew 7.1 Judge not, that ye be not judged.

"To ease suspicions about his church, he should deliver a JFK-type speech that spells out any areas where his faith and public life intersect. He should also articulate his view of the separation of church and state."

I think every candidate for president should do this.

Yes Mormon beliefs are bizarre. But no more bizarre than those who take the teachings of the sado-masochistic New Testament seriously.