DNA Vs Mormonism

[teancum79]

So you make fun of the Bible to validate the Book of Mormon? How is that “Christian”?

I’m starting to believe the folks that assert that Mormons are not Christians. They have a case. When the BOM is questioned, your solution is to attack the Bible. Obviously Christianity is not truly important to anyone who would choose to do that.

If you followed the directives given by Jesus at the Last Supper, for example, in your sacraments then you would:

1. Have unleavened bread, but Mormons don’t, the stuff I’ve seen looks more like WonderBread
2. Have wine, but Mormons don’t, they have water
3. Believe that you are partaking of the literal Body and Blood, Soul and Divinity of Jesus and not a symbol (of course it would have to be consecrated as such by one with the authority to do so, which the Mormon priesthood lacks)

All the rest is superfluous when you lack the basics. You do not follow Jesus on the most fundamental level. You ignore the clear directive of the Gospel and make your own ritual up.

I’m not attacking or making fun of the Bible. The only “attack” I’ve have ever made on the Bible is stating that it has imperfections in it. I was simply pointing out that the “strange hard to believe” LDS stuff is no more unbelievable than what the Bible teaches (that discussion was on another thread).

Unleavened bread was a mandate for the passover which was under the old law. It was what was there. I’ve read no scripture requiring it. Bread like wine are symbols. In a revelation fairly early in LDS church history JS was told that the symbols did not matter much.

the Priesthood held in the LDS church came from Christ through Peter James and John. (There are a few other details that aren’t worth getting into right now.)

While I respect the directions given by Christ and his chosen leaders 2000 years ago. I also respect what he and his chosen leaders have said more recently.

 

[MelanieAnne]

I believe that at least one of the reasons for TBM mormons’ defense of their preposterous “religion” is that nobody likes to feel that they have been conned. I think that many mormons have a sneaking suspicion that the “religion” that they have committed themselves to is indeed, a scam. But nobody likes to look like a fool, so rather than excercize some intellectual courage, they continue to practice and defend the deception. Or, even when presented with hard evidence of the fraud, they put their brains into neutral and stay in the cult.

Well, in all fairness, it’s difficult to leave the Mormon church, which is one reason it is often referred to as a cult. Members that “go inactive” are shunned, this is not official policy but in practice this is usually what happens. It takes great courage to leave your faith, all or most of your friends and challenge even your family to accept the adjustment you have made. Some people’s livelihoods are tied up with their church membership, so leaving isn’t easy, and it can be very difficult.

There have even been members of this forum who have posted their experience of converting to another religion, but they still attended the Mormon church for social reasons. The Mormon church exerts a tenacious hold on the membership, one that is difficult to break. For some, the very thought of it must be too overwhelming.

 

[teancum79]

I believe that at least one of the reasons for TBM mormons’ defense of their preposterous “religion” is that nobody likes to feel that they have been conned. I think that many mormons have a sneaking suspicion that the “religion” that they have committed themselves to is indeed, a scam. But nobody likes to look like a fool, so rather than excercize some intellectual courage, they continue to practice and defend the deception. Or, even when presented with hard evidence of the fraud, they put their brains into neutral and stay in the cult.

The same could be said of the CC could it not?

 

[hosemonkey]

The same could be said of the CC could it not?

You will find very few, if any, Catholics that have ever expressed the feeling that they have been conned. In order to con someone, you have to withhold some or all of the truth. The Catholic Church does not do this. The mormon “church” does.

 

[MelanieAnne]

I’m not attacking or making fun of the Bible. The only “attack” I’ve have ever made on the Bible is stating that it has imperfections in it. I was simply pointing out that the “strange hard to believe” LDS stuff is no more unbelievable than what the Bible teaches (that discussion was on another thread).

Unleavened bread was a mandate for the passover which was under the old law. It was what was there. I’ve read no scripture requiring it. Bread like wine are symbols. In a revelation fairly early in LDS church history JS was told that the symbols did not matter much.

the Priesthood held in the LDS church came from Christ through Peter James and John. (There are a few other details that aren’t worth getting into right now.)

While I respect the directions given by Christ and his chosen leaders 2000 years ago. I also respect what he and his chosen leaders have said more recently.

You only have this “other information” through the Joseph Smith filter.

You have been misled. Jesus himself instituted the Eucharist. He said “do this”, He didn’t say “do it this way until I tell you otherwise”. He said “this is My Body and this is My Blood”, He didn’t say “these are symbols”. He gave people the option of leaving if they were not comfortable with what He was doing. His disciples stayed.

He used unleavened bread and wine deliberately because He was instituting a sacrificial rite. He didn’t do this so someone else could change the elements at their whim or for their convenience.

If you can’t follow Jesus on this level, then you aren’t following Him at all.

Perhaps the Mormon Jesus is “another” Jesus after all.

 

[hosemonkey]

You only have this “other information” through the Joseph Smith filter.

You have been misled. Jesus himself instituted the Eucharist. He said “do this”, He didn’t say “do it this way until I tell you otherwise”. He said “this is My Body and this is My Blood”, He didn’t say “these are symbols”. He gave people the option of leaving if they were not comfortable with what He was doing. His disciples stayed.

He used unleavened bread and wine deliberately because He was instituting a sacrificial rite. He didn’t do this so someone else could change the elements at their whim or for their convenience.

If you can’t follow Jesus on this level, then you aren’t following Him at all.

Perhaps the Mormon Jesus is “another” Jesus after all.

You are quite correct, the mormon “Jesus” bears no relationship to the Jesus that is worshipped by Christians. I think that mormons include Him only to appear less bizarre to true Christians.

 

[teancum79]

You only have this “other information” through the Joseph Smith filter.

You have been misled. Jesus himself instituted the Eucharist. He said “do this”, He didn’t say “do it this way until I tell you otherwise”. He said “this is My Body and this is My Blood”, He didn’t say “these are symbols”. He gave people the option of leaving if they were not comfortable with what He was doing. His disciples stayed.

He used unleavened bread and wine deliberately because He was instituting a sacrificial rite. He didn’t do this so someone else could change the elements at their whim or for their convenience.

If you can’t follow Jesus on this level, then you aren’t following Him at all.

Perhaps the Mormon Jesus is “another” Jesus after all.

So when Christ was sitting at the table with the Apostles they drank his real blood and ate his actual flesh when they ate a peace of bread and drank some wine… And you think a stone to translate something makes no sense, come on.
I hope your studies of the “shortcomings of the LDS faith” have not left you ignorant of our owns churches history its leaders actions that if done today might upset some people or its variations in doctrine from the Bible.

 

[hosemonkey]

So when Christ was sitting at the table with the Apostles they drank his real blood and ate his actual flesh when they ate a peace of bread and drank some wine… And you think a stone to translate something makes no sense, come on.
I hope your studies of the “shortcomings of the LDS faith” have not left you ignorant of our owns churches history its leaders actions that if done today might upset some people or its variations in doctrine from the Bible.

mormons place more faith in the ability of a backwoods con man to “translate” dubious “Golden plates” using a “peep-stone” than in the ability of God Himself to change bread and wine into His Body and Blood. This shows me exactly what mormonism represents. Joseph Smith supplants Almighty God in the pantheon of mormonism. No wonder you are called a cult.

 

[MelanieAnne]

So when Christ was sitting at the table with the Apostles they drank his real blood and ate his actual flesh when they ate a peace of bread and drank some wine… And you think a stone to translate something makes no sense, come on.
I hope your studies of the “shortcomings of the LDS faith” have not left you ignorant of our owns churches history its leaders actions that if done today might upset some people or its variations in doctrine from the Bible.

I’ve studied both Christian and Mormon religions in depth. It’s been an area of study for me for as long as I can remember, some of that study has been on the University level. I submit that I know more about Mormonism than most Mormons, and more about Christian history and development than most Christians. Do not imagine you can tell me much about either that I don’t already know. Knowledge of Mormon beliefs does not blind me to the intrinsic flaws.

I trust Jesus. Jesus is God, the Creator of the Universe and everything in it. If Jesus says something I believe Him. Obviously you neither trust Him nor believe Him or you would not ridicule the Holy Eucharist.

 

[teancum79]

I’ve studied both Christian and Mormon religions in depth. It’s been an area of study for me for as long as I can remember, some of that study has been on the University level. I submit that I know more about Mormonism than most Mormons, and more about Christian history and development than most Christians. Do not imagine you can tell me much about either that I don’t already know. Knowledge of Mormon beliefs does not blind me to the intrinsic flaws.

I trust Jesus. Jesus is God, the Creator of the Universe and everything in it. If Jesus says something I believe Him. Obviously you neither trust Him nor believe Him or you would not ridicule the Holy Eucharist.

That’s as assumption on your part.

 

[teancum79]

mormons place more faith in the ability of a backwoods con man to “translate” dubious “Golden plates” using a “peep-stone” than in the ability of God Himself to change bread and wine into His Body and Blood. This shows me exactly what mormonism represents. Joseph Smith supplants Almighty God in the pantheon of mormonism. No wonder you are called a cult.

If it looks like I’m ignoring you I am. Your post show so much hatred and so little thought that I don’t find them worth responding to.

 

[MelanieAnne]

That’s as assumption on your part.

When you say “So when Christ was sitting at the table with the Apostles they drank his real blood and ate his actual flesh when they ate a peace of bread and drank some wine… And you think a stone to translate something makes no sense, come on.” you are ridiculing the Holy Eucharist. That’s not an assumption, that’s a fact.

We’re done here.

 

[teancum79]

No I’m simply stating that you have beliefs that “make little to no sense in the real world”, yet you seem to think that people should reject their beliefs because they don’t make much sense.

I do not desire to make fun of your beliefs. While I disagree with some (perhaps many) of them they are still important to you. I’m sorry if I came off as disrespectful, but given the constant stream of attacks on my faiths odd ideas I think that some perspective needs to be had.

 

[MelanieAnne]

I do not desire to make fun of your beliefs.

Well you’re doing a fine job of it, even if it is not your intention, and ridiculing God in the process. I don’t care really what you say to me, but I oppose ridiculing God.

While I disagree with some (perhaps many) of them they are still important to you. I’m sorry if I came off as disrespectful, but given the constant stream of attacks on my faiths odd ideas I think that some perspective needs to be had.

I appreciate the apology. I’m sure I understand much more about Mormonism than you understand about Catholicism. Suffice it to say, the Holy Eucharist is very important to us, it is the centerpiece of our faith.

As long as you are talking about perspective, I urge you to take your own advice. When you say Joseph Smith did or said something and people say it makes no sense, you’re still talking about a human saying and doing things that seem preposterous in the real world.

When you say Jesus said or did something, you are talking about God. If you assert that Jesus could not alter the bread and wine into His Body and Blood you are denying the power of God. When you say what you have said (“come on” for example) you are ridiculing what Jesus said in the Gospel.

The analogy you are making is not only completely flawed, it limiting God to human terms and human understanding. God is not like that. That is one of the flaws of Mormonism ~ reducing God down to human terms, human understanding ~ even making God no more than a glorified human. God is God, He’s not human. He never was human. God is all powerful and always was so and always will be so. He can do anything. The first step is to come to terms with the fact that the Mormon understanding of God is too limited to be true.

 

[teancum79]

Well you’re doing a fine job of it, even if it is not your intention, and ridiculing God in the process. I don’t care really what you say to me, but I oppose ridiculing God.

I appreciate the apology. I’m sure I understand much more about Mormonism than you understand about Catholicism. Suffice it to say, the Holy Eucharist is very important to us, it is the centerpiece of our faith.

As long as you are talking about perspective, I urge you to take your own advice. When you say Joseph Smith did or said something and people say it makes no sense, you’re still talking about a human saying and doing things that seem preposterous in the real world.

When you say Jesus said or did something, you are talking about God. If you assert that Jesus could not alter the bread and wine into His Body and Blood you are denying the power of God. When you say what you have said (“come on” for example) you are ridiculing what Jesus said in the Gospel.

The analogy you are making is not only completely flawed, it limiting God to human terms and human understanding. God is not like that. That is one of the flaws of Mormonism ~ reducing God down to human terms, human understanding ~ even making God no more than a glorified human. God is God, He’s not human. He never was human. God is all powerful and always was so and always will be so. He can do anything. The first step is to come to terms with the fact that the Mormon understanding of God is too limited to be true.

When JS says Christ said do or don’t do this you say that we are not following Christ.

When John said Jesus said do or don’t do this you say that to disagree with how you read that is to ridicule God.

Do you see why I might have a problem with that “logic”

Our understanding of God is open to the possibility that he can do all things including help his children to grow up.

anyhow got to run take care

 

[hosemonkey]

If it looks like I’m ignoring you I am. Your post show so much hatred and so little thought that I don’t find them worth responding to.

mormonism does not inspire hated so much as it inspires wonder and pity. Wonder that so many can be so deluded and pity that mormons are blind to true teaching.

 

[RebeccaJ]

Christ was tried and executed for treason.

I did a little checking and mid teen marriages where not unheard of by any stretch in the 1800’s .
newsroom.lds.org/ldsnewsroom/eng/commentary/polygamy-then-and-now
british-genealogy.com/forums/archive/index.php/t-1969.html

perhaps you should read a bit more yourself before assuming that I’m uninformed.

I’m not saying the bank failing was a good thing, but it happened often and I find it disturbing that the Smiths get blamed for everything that went wrong.

It’s history, go buy any American History book and read it for yourself. Average age for women was early 20’s. That there were younger only means there were older as well. Also, the more prominent use for the young marriage laws were shotgun weddings. The use of this law for conning a young girl into giving up her virginity (flaming swords and threats of damnation or promises of salvation) for God was not what the law was intended.

Smith got blamed for what he did, his part, his bank, under his leadership. Other banks were not his responsibility nor his liability.

 

[RebeccaJ]

Christ was tried and executed for treason.

I did a little checking and mid teen marriages where not unheard of by any stretch in the 1800’s .
newsroom.lds.org/ldsnewsroom/eng/commentary/polygamy-then-and-now
british-genealogy.com/forums/archive/index.php/t-1969.html

perhaps you should read a bit more yourself before assuming that I’m uninformed.

I’m not saying the bank failing was a good thing, but it happened often and I find it disturbing that the Smiths get blamed for everything that went wrong.

Christ was executed for heresy.

 

[teancum79]

Christ was executed for heresy.

Luke 23

1 And the whole multitude of them arose, and led him unto Pilate.
2 And they began to accuse him, saying, We found this fellow perverting the nation, and forbidding to give tribute to Caesar, saying that he himself is Christ a King.

This would be an act of treason. What Christ said (if he where not the Son of God) would have been heresy, but the romans could not care less about such details. The Jews accused Christ of treason something he was not guilty of by any biblical accounts even if he was just a man.

 

[teancum79]

It’s history, go buy any American History book and read it for yourself. Average age for women was early 20’s. That there were younger only means there were older as well. Also, the more prominent use for the young marriage laws were shotgun weddings. The use of this law for conning a young girl into giving up her virginity (flaming swords and threats of damnation or promises of salvation) for God was not what the law was intended.

Smith got blamed for what he did, his part, his bank, under his leadership. Other banks were not his responsibility nor his liability.

yes there where older and younger people (being the basic concept of average). To cry foul for something that was not illegal at the time make little sense.