Why are people mormon considering it is obvioulsy fabricated?

[dianaiad]

To my statement:
"dianaiad:

It would be rather surprising if you did, Stephen, but don’t worry about it. Asking you to find something uniquely positive about Mormonism would be rather like asking Bryan to think of something uniquely positive about any school but the University of Utah.

Now me, since I AM Mormon, it would logically follow that I see quite a few uniquely positive things about Mormonism. I would have to, or I wouldn’t BE Mormon.

That said, in terms of this general conversation, who said that there has to be something uniquely positive about Mormonism in order to see anything positive about Mormonism? I mean, it is true that Utah has the fewest out-of-wedlock births of all fifty states, and that has a great deal to do with the major religion, but NOT getting pregnant when you are a teenager isn’t exactly unique, is it? Just…positive.

You write:

So there is nothing uniquely positive about Mormonism. Thanks for clearing that up.

Do you often find it difficult to read what is actually written, Stephen?

 

[RebeccaJ]

Did you read the book? History will always be open to interpretation. More discoveries may be uncovered which can make the Bushman book irelevant.

History is not a belief system.

 

[why_me]

History is not a belief system.

Are you sure? You may be surprised just how many people have aspects of history as a belief system. But as history changes, so do a person’s opinions about the past and their beliefs.

But of course, you haven’t answered the question: did you read the book?

 

[RebeccaJ]

Are you sure?

I am quite sure.

You may be surprised just how many people have aspects of history as a belief system. But as history changes, so do a person’s opinions about the past and their beliefs.

This is reverse of mormonism. As mormonism changes, so do their opinions about history and the past. The ever changing and shifting view of pre-Columbian America is a good example of this.

But of course, you haven’t answered the question: did you read the book?

Parts of it. I couldn’t make it through the whole thing. I agree with the conclusion of the NY Times review.

But but since logic played almost no part in Joseph Smith’s life, it may be fitting that it’s largely absent from this respectful biography as well.

 

[Dee_Dee_King]

The German arguments for making Scientology illegal are not based on whether they are true or false but rather that their purpose is not religious but rather the making of money.

i think the same could be said of joe smith. he made it up to gain power, money and women. the mormon church is just perpetuating the same lies. scientology is a religion.

 

[why_me]

I am quite sure.

Parts of it. I couldn’t make it through the whole thing. I agree with the conclusion of the NY Times review.

I don’t think that you tried nor did you have an inclination to make it through the book. And parts of it could mean one page a chapter. And as for the NY Times you really can’t make a judgement of agreement since you did not read the reviewed book.

But nice try in making a comment. It seems to me that you despise mormons, right? I know that you do not trust a single mormon…but do you also despise them. We usually can despise those we claim not to trust, especially if we include a whole group of people of similiar race, ethnic or religious background.

 

[why_me]

i think the same could be said of joe smith. he made it up to gain power, money and women. the mormon church is just perpetuating the same lies. scientology is a religion.

How about this: I think the same could be said of the popes. They made it up to gain power and money. The catholic church is just perpetuating the same lies.

Well? Now when I read what I wrote I see that I actually said nothing but my own bigotry. I certainly do not sound christian in my statement. See my point??

 

[PaulDupre]

This is reverse of mormonism. As mormonism changes, so do their opinions about history and the past. The ever changing and shifting view of pre-Columbian America is a good example of this.

In the old Soviet Union they used to say

“The future is known; it is the past that is always changing.”

The same with Mormonism.

 

[Religio71]

How about this: I think the same could be said of the popes. They made it up to gain power and money. The catholic church is just perpetuating the same lies.

Well? Now when I read what I wrote I see that I actually said nothing but my own bigotry. I certainly do not sound christian in my statement. See my point??

LOL if you’re really trying to make a Catholic parallel (as your response to all LDS criticisms seems to be ), you’d need to compare the first Pope of the Catholic Church to the first President of the LDS Church.

Your posts are very entertaining btw.

 

[Stephen168]

Mormonism is irrational. For example:

If there is nothing positive about mormonism then there must not be anything positive about mormons. Right? If you believe this then you will need to go to confession. The sacrament of reconciliation asks: Do I despise people of other creeds…? Your post would make me understand that you do despise mormons. Correct? Since it is impossible to separate someone from their faith’s influence.

The preceding rambling is another reason why I know you are not Catholic.

There is nothing uniquely positive about Mormonism. Anything you can say positive about Mormonism, you can say about another group; so unless you just want to engage in water cooler back slapping, I can’t think of any reason to say anything positive about Mormonism.

 

[Dee_Dee_King]

How about this: I think the same could be said of the popes. They made it up to gain power and money. The catholic church is just perpetuating the same lies.

difference is i can prove using science and archeology that joe smith was liar and fraud. you can’t prove that the popes made it up.

 

[MelanieAnne]

Mormonism is irrational. For example:

The preceding rambling is another reason why I know you are not Catholic.

There is nothing uniquely positive about Mormonism. Anything you can say positive about Mormonism, you can say about another group; so unless you just want to engage in water cooler back slapping, I can’t think of any reason to say anything positive about Mormonism.

WhyMe is a Mormon. The whole Catholic thing is obviously a pose he effects for the purpose of engaging in provocative dialog in this sort of forum. He was a Catholic until he was 18, according to his own story. It’s hard to know if even that is true. But it is very apparent that he is not a Catholic now. He must get quite a kick out of all the Catholics he stirs up by pretending to be Catholic. Perhaps we should all stop indulging him? At least make him come up with some other story to bait Catholics so he can continue to bash the Catholic faith?

 

[Synneve]

History is not a belief system.

In one sense, of course, you’re totally right. History is simply wie es gewesen – what happened.

But no book of history, no historian, no reader, knows all that happened precisely as it happened. We know a portion of the relevant facts, and we interpret them. In that sense, history as humans actually do it plainly is “a belief system.”

A careful reading of Peter Novick’s That Noble Dream: The ‘Objectivity Question’ and the American Historical Profession (New York and Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1988) would go a long way toward curing the historical naïveté that seems to afflict many people.

joe smith. he made it up to gain power, money and women…

No he didn’t.

There. I’ve just refuted you, using the same level of evidence and logic that you did.

Mormonism is irrational.

No it’s not.

(See above.)

i can prove using science and archeology that joe smith was liar and fraud.

Bold words.

Try it.

you can’t prove that the popes made it up.

Why on earth would any of us want to do that? I have utterly no interest in “proving” that “the popes made it up.” I don’t believe that they did.

You see, your contempt is not reciprocated.

.

 

[ParkerD]

LOL if you’re really trying to make a Catholic parallel (as your response to all LDS criticisms seems to be ), you’d need to compare the first Pope of the Catholic Church to the first President of the LDS Church.

Your posts are very entertaining btw.

Religio71,
Every time I hear Peter referred to as a pope, I have to think, “where in the world did that silly notion get started?” (Oh, of course–it was by one of the men who was trying to prove that he had Peter’s authority. It was a good ruse, and it worked.)

 

[Religio71]

Religio71,
Every time I hear Peter referred to as a pope, I have to think, “where in the world did that silly notion get started?” (Oh, of course–it was by one of the men who was trying to prove that he had Peter’s authority. It was a good ruse, and it worked.)

Not really, since the Orthodox do not accept Papal Infallibility, Papal Supremacy, and other doctrines related to the Pope, yet they still recognize that Peter had a primacy, and was the first Bishop of Rome.

Funny, I do think the same thing though in reference to Peter, James and John being the first First Presidency, with Peter as the first President/Prophet. Somehow it’s agreed that Peter had some sort of primacy.

 

[MelanieAnne]

Not really, since the Orthodox do not accept Papal Infallibility, Papal Supremacy, and other doctrines related to the Pope, yet they still recognize that Peter had a primacy, and was the first Bishop of Rome.

Funny, I do think the same thing though in reference to Peter, James and John being the first First Presidency, with Peter as the first President. Somehow it’s agreed that Peter had some sort of primacy.

This is essentially a Mormon construct designed to fit with the whole “apostasy” theory. If you’re going to start your own church, and claim that all other churches are wrong in the process, might as well start at the BASE to start hacking away!

Unfortunately for Mormons, what is put on display by this sort of reasoning is their utter lack of knowledge about Early Church History.

 

[Religio71]

This is essentially a Mormon construct designed to fit with the whole “apostasy” theory. If you’re going to start your own church, and claim that all other churches are wrong in the process, might as well start at the BASE to start hacking away!

Unfortunately for Mormons, what is put on display by this sort of reasoning is their utter lack of knowledge about Early Church History.

It’s interesting that Peter, James, and John were the first First Presidency, yet they were part of the “Quorum of the Twelve”, but now, the First Presidency is not part of the Quorum of the Twelve. Latter-day revelation of course.

 

[MelanieAnne]

It’s interesting that Peter, James, and John were the first First Presidency, yet they were part of the “Quorum of the Twelve”, but now, the First Presidency is not part of the Quorum of the Twelve. Latter-day revelation of course.

Religio, some future “latter-day revelation” will disavow those aspects of Mormonism that stand in the way if the faith being considered yet another mainstream Protestant faith. Coffee and tea will probably be OK by then too! Something to look forward to!

 

[ParkerD]

Not really, since the Orthodox do not accept Papal Infallibility, Papal Supremacy, and other doctrines related to the Pope, yet they still recognize that Peter had a primacy, and was the first Bishop of Rome.

Funny, I do think the same thing though in reference to Peter, James and John being the first First Presidency, with Peter as the first President/Prophet. Somehow it’s agreed that Peter had some sort of primacy.

Religio71,
I agree that Peter had a primary leadership role in the original church after Christ had ascended, but he was never called the “first Bishop of Rome”, except by the men who came after who wanted to establish that they were duly authorized in his absence. There was no document when Peter was alive that called him the “first Bishop of Rome.” He was never called the “first Bishop of Rome” by any of the apostles. (This will come as no surprise to you, of course.)

 

[dianaiad]

It’s interesting that Peter, James, and John were the first First Presidency, yet they were part of the “Quorum of the Twelve”, but now, the First Presidency is not part of the Quorum of the Twelve. Latter-day revelation of course.

The members of the First Presidency have not ceased to be apostles because they have the added responsibility. There is the quorum of twelve…but in reality there are fourteen or fifteen…a quorum is a minimum, not a maximum.

I see your point about the Presidency not being ‘part’ of the twelve—but where is there in the bible anywhere to say that Peter didn’t hold the same sort of position that the first presidency does now? I would suggest that the very evidence that you use to proclaim him the 'first Pope" indicates his rather special position. Remember, our claim isn’t that there were ONLY twelve, is it? Quite the contrary…and then after a bit, our claim is that there were not even twelve, hence the apostasy.

there is also no mention in the bible that there were to be ONLY twelve…all we do know is that efforts were made to replace those who died or were otherwise disqualified (Mattias for Judas). And do we really know who Paul replaced?

This is really an interesting argument coming from a Catholic who has…how many cardinals to vote for the next Pope…currently available? More than twelve, certainly.