Before there were computers...
Posted on 09/29/2010 3:05:05 PM PDT by zippythepinhead
Atheists and agnostics know more about major world religions than many people of faith, while Mormons can answer more Bible questions than their Catholic and mainline Protestant counterparts.
Those are among the somewhat startling conclusions about religious literacy in America the Pew Research Center’s Forum on Religion and Public Life drew after surveying 3,412 Americans.
Some of the multiple-choice questions were relatively simple: Where was Jesus born and who led the exodus from Egypt? What religion was Mother Teresa, what day does the Jewish Sabbath begin and what is the name of Islam’s holy book?
Others were more obscure: What is Indonesia’s dominant religion? Which Christians teach that salvation comes through faith alone?
About half the Protestants (53 percent) couldn’t correctly identify Martin Luther as the person whose writings and actions inspired the Protestant Reformation. Fewer than half of Americans (47 percent) knew the Dalai Lama is Buddhist and only 38 percent correctly associated Vishnu and Shiva with Hinduism.
John Morehead, director of the Western Institute for Intercultural Studies in Salt Lake City, had already noted religious illiteracy in the general population as well as in the evangelical community. But he did not expect Mormons to top them in their biblical fluency.
“Mormons tend to emphasize Mormon scriptures like the Book of Mormon rather than the Bible in their devotional life,” Morehead said in an e-mail.
Even some LDS scholars were surprised to find Mormons at the top.
(Excerpt) Read more at sltrib.com ...
Moroni 10:4 is not so much of a promise as it is a manipulative device. It promises a particular result if certain terms are met. But the terms reflect on the seeker's integrity as regards both his sincerity and resolve, and on his faith in Christ. To be willing to rely on the promise of this verse as a test for the Book of Mormon's truthfulness one must already have concluded somehow that its instruction is valid and its promise reliable. That is, one must already believe in the "truthfulness" of this verse.
If the verse is true, then the only possible explanation for failing to obtain the result promised is a failure to meet the terms. That is, one must lack a sincere heart, and/or real intent, and/or faith in Christ. If one believes the verse is true then one must obtain the answer promised, or face an embarrassing judgement of one's sincerity, intent, or faith in Christ. The seeker is forced into convincing himself he has had some kind of manifestation from God, just to vindicate his own character. Or worse, he is moved to a frame of mind where he will gladly and indiscriminately embrace any supernatural manifestation as though it were from God.
Plain reason, not to mention all the force of Scripture's revelation of the character of God, testifies that God would not, does not, use such manipulative mind/ego games against the human family to bring them to believe the truth. God does not approve, and truth does not need, such machinations.
Once again, you're missing the point. Jesus told some who called Him Lord and apparently performed acts in His name, workers of inquity. People can be sincerely wrong but wrong nonetheless.
Since "Orthodox Christianity" has no path for me to salvation if my religion is false, then by declaring it so, you have judged me.
Again, I only judge your doctrine. I don't know you personally nor could I ever know definitely what's in your heart, so how could I judge you personally?
Jesus was not exactly welcomed by the Sanhedrin, you know, the Authority of his day. It didn't make him wrong then, it doesn't make us wrong now.
As a self-proclaimed logician, you know that proves absolutely nothing. The actions of the Sanhedrin have no bearing on whether the Christian Community is correct in its opinion about Mormonism.
It does make you a populist for bringing it up as an argument.
So how can I state an objective fact about a consensus opinion without you claiming that I'm a populist? As a logician, you know that simiply raising an argument which could labeled as populist doesn't make a person a populist.
Because you post here to influence others, and I cannot let the lies and misrepresentations posted by some antis go without at least a modest challenge so that those who are reading will have the opportunity to learn and decide for themselves.
Fine, it is the purpose of the forum to discuss ISSUES. Stop personalizing everything. Do you have liberal friends? I assume you do. When you disagree with their political views which are often based on deeply-held philosophical (and sometimes religious) views, are you condemning them? It's the same principle here: we are disagreeing about validity of the ideas, not condemning the person who holds the view. As a logician, that should not a difficult distinction for you to grasp.
No, I did not judge you, I cautioned you against fighting against God. It's a good warning, one every anti of every religion should heed.
So this is okay? However, it's not okay for people to warn about Mormon doctrine? To do so, is personally judging you? You'll have to draw on all your powers as a logician to explain away that inconsistency.
Yet another opinion stated as fact...
So where is your evidence to the contrary? It's your ideas that we have been debating. You were called a "fool" based on the quality of your ideas and argumentation. A word that Bible doesn't prohibit being used but warns that it is to be done with reasonable grounds.
I am really sorry my opposition to and pointing out of the effects of your arguments makes your assassination of my religion difficult...(/Sarc)
Yes, everyone's been really impressed by the quality of your argumentation....(/Sarc)
Logic is not whiny....
Yet, your posts are. "You're not my judge" is a whine. It doesn't answer the objections to Mormon doctrine that were raised. It is often used as a ploy (as are all forms of defensiveness) to make the debate opponent uncomfortable while not addressing the point. But as a logician, you already know that.
, whining about someone else making your argument difficult is
Then prepare to call me a whiner a lot because every time you personalize an issue, I'll call you on it. Stick to the issues like the great logician you claim that you are.
Eternal Progression Data:
http://www.spotlightministries.org.uk/etimplications.htm
The Mormon doctrine of eternal progression teaches that God the Father was once a man, who progressed to Godhood through obedience to certain laws and ordinances. Part of this obedience involved getting married to a woman ("The Heavenly Mother"), who gives birth to God’s spirit children, who are sent to earth to inhabit bodies of flesh and bone. These spirit children, if they are Mormons, remain obedient to the laws of the Mormon Church, and are married in the Mormon temple, have the potential to become gods themselves. They will produce spirit children and rule their own planet. This process is then repeated.
The logical implications of this are as follows:
--The present God the Father and Heavenly Mother would themselves have had a Heavenly Father and Mother in existence before them, and they a Heavenly Father and Mother before them, and so on and so fourth. Indeed, not only does this logically follow through in Mormon theology, but many LDS leaders have specifically taught that the present God and Father had a Father above Him, and He above Him, etc. 1
--God the Father would have had to worship and pray to His God and Father as we do to Him.
--If the present God and Father of this planet is worshipped and prayed to by His spirit children, and if Mormon males hope to become gods in the same way, their spirit children would likewise pray to and worship them!
[At this point it is worth bearing in mind that the Bible says nothing about an infinite number of god’s past and god’s to come. On the contrary, Isaiah 43:10 is very clear when God states: "Before me no God was formed and neither will there be one after me." There was no god before God and there will certainly be no gods after Him. He is "the God of gods" (Deut. 10:17; Ps. 136:2; Dan. 2:4, 11:36). That is to say, although there are certainly so called "gods" in existence (1 Cor. 8:5), they are not true God by nature (Gal. 4:8). There is only one true God (John 17:3). ]
--If temple marriage is essential to becoming a god, as Mormons claim, then God the Father would likewise have been required to be married in a temple. Of course, there is nothing at all about this in the Bible.
--Jesus would have to have been married in a temple, otherwise He could not have been exalted and become a god (Christians believe He was always God, and not a god, but The God.). There is nothing at all in the Bible about Jesus being married in a temple, or even married outside a temple. Indeed, the Biblical temples were not even used for temple marriage, but for purification rites, and animal sacrifices.
--Some LDS leaders have not only taught that Jesus was married, but that He was a polygamist! 2
--If families are to be sealed in the temple as a family unit, to be a "family forever", what if one of those family members does not remain obedient to the Mormon faith? How can they remain together as a family, if some members of that family are disobedient?
--Bill McKeever of Mormonism Researched Ministry makes an interesting observation about eternal families. He asks how it can be that a Mormon family can stay together forever in eternity if, for example, the children of that family go on to become gods themselves and rule their own planets? Those family members could not be together if they are each ruling their own planets.
Footnotes
1. "We were begotten by our Father in Heaven; the person of our Father in Heaven was begotten on a previous heavenly world by His Father; and again, He was begotten by a still more ancient Father; and so on, from generation to generation, ... we wonder in our minds, how far back the genealogy extends, and how the first world was formed, and the first father was begotten" (Mormon leader, Orson Pratt, The Seer, p.132).
"Some people are troubled over the statements of the Prophet Joseph Smith.... The matter that seems such a mystery is the statement that our Father in heaven at one time passed through a life and death and is an exalted man. This is one of the mysteries.... The Prophet taught that our Father had a Father and so on. Is not this a reasonable thought, especially when we remember that the promises are made to us that we may become like him?" (Mormon leader, Joseph Fielding Smith, Doctrines of Salvation, vol. 1, pp.10, 12).
2."Jesus was the bridegroom at the marriage of Cana of Galilee...We say it was Jesus Christ who was married, to be brought into relation whereby he could see his seed [children] before he was crucified (Mormon leader, Orson Hyde, Journal of Discourses, vol. 2, p. 82).
"There was a marriage in Cana of Galilee; and on a careful reading of that transaction, it will be discovered that non less a person that Jesus Christ was married on that occasion. If he was never married, his intimacy with Mary and Martha an the other Mary also whom Jesus loved, must have been highly unbecoming and improper to say the best of it." (Mormon leader, Orson Hyde, Journal of Discourses, vol. 4, p. 259).
"In the Church councils, it was spoken of: "Joseph F. Smith_ He spoke upon the marriage in Cana of Galilee. He thought Jesus was the bridegroom and Mary and Martha the brides."(From prominent Mormon, Journal of Wilford Woodruff, July 22, 1883).
"The grand reason of the burst of public sentiment in anathemas upon Christ and his disciples, causing his crucifixion, was evidently based upon polygamy, according to the testimony of the philosophers who rose in that age. A belief in doctrine of a plurality of wives caused the persecution of Jesus and his followers. We might almost think they were Mormons (Mormon leader, Jedediah Grant, Journal of Discourses, vol. 1, p. 346). "One thing is certain, that there were several holy women that great loved Jesus, such as Mary and Martha her sister, and Mary Magdalene; and Jesus greatly loved them and associated with the much; and when he arose from the dead, instead of first showing himself to his chosen witnesses, the Apostles, He appeared first to these women, or at least to one of them--namely, Mary Magdalene. Now, it would be very natural for a husband in the resurrection to appear first to his own dear wives, and afterwards show himself to his other friends. If all the acts of Jesus were written, we no doubt should learn that these beloved women were his wives." (Mormon leader, Orson Pratt, The Seer, p. 159).
More to follow ...
Yep; that sure sounds like JS and especially BY!!
Hell!
You got REAL mormon 'brothers' and THEY can't even get in!
Take your phony ECUMENism back to Resty's house.
Men?
They are YOUR prophets; non-brother!
Before there were computers...
Lurkers please note, this is the best they can do when faced with logic questions.
And will you do the same for the Book of ABRAHAM?
No, I did not judge you, I cautioned you against fighting against God. It's a good warning, one every anti of every religion should heed.
What is the underlying assumption here - that DU's definition of 'God' and that god's word is the truth. Therefore any 'word' counter to it is fighting against it. The charge by du is a defacto statement of judgement against you Commerce as well as any one else who challenges mormon 'truth'. For he places everyone else as 'anti's'. It is proof that mormonism cannot stand on its own in the field of ideas without demonizing and - demeaning - other beliefs contrary to itself.
And as you point out - when unable to defend its claims the standard victim card is whinned out about 'judging'. If it weren't for double standards - as du's comments prove - mormonism would have no standards at all.
20 Neither pray I for these alone, but for them also which shall believe on me through their word;Yep, when read with decent reading abilities, a rational and honest and straightforward mind, it precludes the creation of a Dogma (man made belief system) like the dogma of the Trinity.
21 That they all may be one; as thou, Father, art in me, and I in thee, that they also may be one in us: that the world may believe that thou hast sent me.
22 And the glory which thou gavest me I have given them; that they may be one, even as we are one:
23 I in them, and thou in me, that they may be made perfect in one; and that the world may know that thou hast sent me, and hast loved them, as thou hast loved me.
Good Q, 'Zilla. Here Mormons for generations, twice per year, have "sustained" their "prophets" during the general conferences like the one they just had.
Have you known any of your "prophets" ever to not be "sustained", DU?
Mormons try to somehow claim that a "prophet" is only a "prophet" when speaking as a "prophet." But it's actually the reverse: We should assume a "prophet" or apostle is speaking as a prophet or apostle unless or until he claims he is specifically only representing himself in what he is saying...especially when these words are being published in official Lds sources and often spoken from places like the Mormon tabernacle.
The principle of eternal progression cannot be precisely defined or comprehended, yet it is fundamental to the LDS worldview. The phrase "eternal progression" first occurs in the discourses of Brigham Young. It embodies many concepts taught by Joseph Smith, especially in his King Follett discourse. It is based on the proposition that "there is no such thing as principle, power, wisdom, knowledge, life, position, or anything that can be imagined, that remains stationary—they must increase or decrease" (Young, JD 1:350).
Progression takes many forms. In one sense, eternal progression refers to everything that people learn and experience by their choices as they progress from premortal life, to mortality, to postmortal spirit life, and to a resurrected state in the presence of God.
Personal progression is possible in each of these states, but not the same kind of progression. Progression apparently occurred in the premortal life, for most spirits there chose to follow Christ and some were noble and great, while others chose to follow Lucifer. Entering mortality affords opportunities for further progression. Obtaining a physical body is a crucial step, enabling a person to experience physical sensations of all kinds and to progress in knowledge and understanding, all of which will rise with the person in the Resurrection (D&C 130:18). Brigham Young taught that even in mortality, "We are in eternity" (JD 10:22), and the object of this existence is "to learn to enjoy more, and to increase in knowledge and experience" (JD 14:228). "When we have learned to live according to the full value of the life we now possess, we are prepared for further advancement in the scale of eternal progression—for a more glorious and exalted sphere" (JD 9:168).
Life is never static. "One must progress or retrograde. One cannot stand still. Activity is the law of growth, and growth, progress, is the law of life" (A. Bowen, in Christ's Ideals for Living, O. Tanner, ed., Salt Lake City, 1980, p. 368). A person's attitude about ""eternal progression' will largely determine his philosophy of life…exalting, increasing, expanding and extending broader and broader until we can know as we are known, see as we are seen" (Young, JD 16:165).
At the Resurrection and Judgment, people will be assigned a degree of glory. Further progress is believed possible within each degree. Marriage and family life, however, continue only in the Celestial Kingdom, allowing "eternal increase" through having spirit children (see Eternal Lives, Eternal Increase). "All this and more that cannot enter into our hearts to conceive is promised to the faithful, and are but so many stages in that ceaseless progression of eternal lives" (Young, JD 10:5).
No official Church teaching attempts to specify all the ways in which God progresses in his exalted spheres; "there is no end to [His] works, neither to [His] words" (Moses 1:38). God's glory and power are enhanced as his children progress in glory and power (see Moses 1:39; Young, JD 10:5). Ideas have been advanced to explain how God might progress in knowledge and still be perfect and know all things (see Foreknowledge of God; Omnipotent God).
The concept of eternal progression is a salient feature of the gospel of Jesus Christ, readily distinguishable from traditional Christian theology. The philosophical views of the Middle Ages were basically incompatible with such a concept, and the idea of progress that emerged in the eighteenth-century Enlightenment was that of social evolution (Bury, The Idea of Progress, London, 1932). The traditional Christian view has held that those in heaven enter "a state of eternal, inactive joy. In the presence of God they would worship him and sing praises to him eternally, but nothing more" (Widtsoe, p. 142). Latter-day Saints, however, constantly seek personal and righteous improvement not only by establishing Zion in this world, but by anticipating the continuation of progression eternally.
Bibliography
Widtsoe, John A. "Is Progress Eternal or Is There Progress in Heaven?" IE 54 (Mar. 1951):142; see also Evidences and Reconciliations, pp. 179-85, Salt Lake City, 1960.
Encyclopedia of Mormonism, Vol. 1, Eternal Progression Copyright © 1992 by Macmillan Publishing Company I'm wondering if Delph will ever explain the mormon/LDS/FLDS DOCTRINE of eternal progression? Probably waiting upon the FARMS/FAIR delegated data for posting what the hive currently approves.
GF -
One has to shake their head that a simple link to a ‘google’ search PROVES necrodunking, let alone necrodunking was an approved practice of the first century church. Especially when that link provides sources that further refute the practice -
http://www.irr.org/mit/baptism-for-the-dead.html
http://www.christiancourier.com/articles/74-mormon-doctrine-baptism-for-the-dead
http://faculty.gordon.edu/hu/bi/Ted_Hildebrandt/NTeSources/NTArticles/BSac-NT/Reaume-BaptDead1Cor-BS.pdf
http://www.catholic.com/library/Mormonism_Baptism_for_the_Dead.asp
Does this mormopnism eternal progression stuff sound an awful lot like the wheel of Samsara(sp?) of karmic exchange?
My testimony of the experience is HERE
I have posted here before that after much study, prayer and fasting, I received a message from the Holy Spirit that the Book of Mormon was not a message from God, that Joseph Smith's "revelation" was not from the spirit of God, and that Christ is the Savior of mankind. That Christ is with me always, and that HE is the only way to salvation through HIS grace, not through empty works or rituals.
This is MY testimony to all.
I invite all Christians to praise Him here, but I don't believe it necessary to "defend" your faith against a challenge from those who are mislead. If any care to take up the challenge of reading the Book of Mormon and asking God its truth, please do so. But be aware that if you receive a message that it is NOT true, you will be told by mormons that YOU failed in some way.
"I'm asking you again, how exactly did you receive your negative message?
What exactly were you asking God in your prayer?
What exactly were your preparations for an answer from on high?
Please understand I am not trying to tear you down, but your actions are not consistent with your words here and I as an analyst must either conclude that you have left something vital out of your report, or you have falsified it in some way. I do not like to think that my Christian brethren would lie about something so important to the salvation of the soul, so I ask for more information to help me and any Lurkers to rectify the apparent contradictions of your story with your actions."
So, if anyone is tempted to take challenge to "read and pray about the Book of Mormon"...be wary of posting the result here, lest you be arrogantly called a liar.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.