This may help some recovering Mormons on the differences between the Mormon theology they've been taught and Christianity.
http://www.mormoninfo.org/

Which "Christianity?"

There are well over 30,000 different sects of "Christianity," and they don't all agree on anything, and the doctrines and teachings of them very greatly (which is why there are 30,000+ different sects).

Let me guess: you've picked one particular version of "Christianity" that YOU happen to believe in, and consider that the only "True" version of "Christianity," to compare to. Which is, of course, exactly what mormons do. And neither of you has any more valid rational reasons to claim YOUR version is "true" than the other does.

There are very good, rational reasons to not accept Mormonism's truth claims. Either evidence shows them false, or no evidence shows them true. Comparing mormonism, though, to other belief systems that are in *exactly the same position* (evidence to show some beliefs false, no evidence for others) doesn't get you anywhere reasonable. It's just "I believe this is true, and what you believe isn't."

Indeed. There are branches of Christianity that get bit by rattlesnakes, that beat their children to exorcise Satan, that pray to statues, that pray to paintings but not statues, that believe Christ started out as a normal human, etc., etc., etc.

Yep. The only "Christianity" that counts around here is weird, bizarre, socially deviant and dangerous. If it purports to be moderate and sane, then let's just dismiss it as delusional and an historical myth. The root of all evils. The opiate of the masses.

Next subject, please!

caffiend Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Yep. The only "Christianity" that counts around
> here is weird, bizarre, socially deviant and
> dangerous. If it purports to be moderate and sane,
> then let's just dismiss it as delusional and an
> historical myth. The root of all evils. The opiate
> of the masses.

Of course, "moderate and sane" are subjective terms...and so it is that whatever brand of christianity a particular christian believes in is considered (by them) to be "moderate and sane," while all others are not.

Hence my point above :)

Oh, and the straw-man part of your sarcasm didn't help, either :)

also means a persecution complex that would make Glenn Beck say, "Dude, dial it down a notch or two."

Woo hoo! All those years of forced memorization have finally paid off!

ificouldhietokolob Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Which "Christianity?"

Formal Traditional Christianity, Primarily the Roman Catholic Church, its sister The Greek Christian church, and its many protestant offshoots. The Christianity that MORmONISM claimed it was going to supplant.

> There are well over 30,000 different sects of
> "Christianity," and they don't all agree on
> anything,

Sorry, but, they do agree on several very key and fundamental points. Going back to their bible text, they believe that their God is the supreme exclusive god / supernatural controller of the universe with out any peer or equal who has always been exclusively god and always will be exclusively god. This was in HUGE contrast to the previous belief system that Christianity replaced which had many competing, conflicting even warring gods, whose existence and actions seemed to exist as a reflection of mortal political conflicts even though it was supposed to be the other way around.

The new Christian belief system simplified and consolidated the role of God. The reason and motivation to do this was political, just as Christianity was a political movement as much or more than a religion. As the divine power of god was consolidated and concentrated, by a political figure, then so was the political power of those who claimed to represent god and to be the designate conveyor of God's will to the masses, which happened to be the same political figure(s). After that big change, when they spoke THE will of god there was no longer (supposed to be) any confusion about how the other gods might feel about the matter and what other gods might do to interfere with the latest divine (political) edict. This allowed the political leader to have a more clarion voice in governing which is exactly what he / they wanted.

When MORmON founder Joseph Smith got to the point where he declared that god had deital peers and that those gods had become gods by moving up through the ranks including a stint in mortality, which was politically expedient for Smith as Smith posed himself as well on the way to godhood and ahead of every one else, (just ask him), so Smith should naturally be every one's leaders along the way, it was a throw back to the old polytheistic system. It was also a grave violation of the Judaic code that Christianity was based on, a violation so grave that it was punishable by death in strict form. With this gross key fundamental violation of Christian Monotheistic convention, Smith also completely jacked his new MORmON religion OUT of Christianity and the Christian equation, regardless of how many Christian style references ( bell and whistles) that Smith had incorporated into his Book of MORmON based Church/ SCAM.

I am saying this an atheist, and some one who thinks that Christianity is one of the biggest shams and greatest evils ever, nonetheless, I can still understand Christian convention and the fact that MORmONISM fundamentally violates the Christian code of exclusive reverence for an exclusive deity.

smirkorama Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> ificouldhietokolob Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Which "Christianity?"
>
> Formal Traditional Christianity, Primarily the
> Roman Catholic Church, its sister The Greek
> Christian church, and its many protestant
> offshoots. The Christianity that MORmONISM claimed
> it was going to supplant.

Oh, I see, you mean the version of "Christianity" agreed upon by committee, enforced by burning heretic writings and killing heretics, inquisitions, etc. 'Cause, of course, since it's the most popular, it's clearly the "right" christianity.
Right.

So if you don't have an "exclusive deity," you're clearly not a christian. Because, um...(fill in "no true scotsman" and "appeal to popularity" and "argument from tradition" here).

ificouldhietokolob Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> smirkorama Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > ificouldhietokolob Wrote:
> >

> Oh, I see, you mean the version of "Christianity"
> agreed upon by committee, enforced by burning
> heretic writings and killing heretics,
> inquisitions, etc.

Correct.

> 'Cause, of course, since it's
> the most popular, it's clearly the "right"
> christianity.
> Right.

It depends on upon what you mean by 'the "right" christianity' in this instance.

It is the right Christianity because It is in fact the correctly identified religion or type of religion that IS being posed against MORmONISM for the sake of contrast in this instance.
It does NOT mean that Christianity is the religion that correctly identified who or what god really is and that has an exclusive relationship with god due to their superior defining and comprehension of god.

Organizations have rules and conventions. Mono theism in strict form is the stated convention for Christianity. MORmONISM violates that convention and then says it that does not violate that form. Then MORmONISM demands to be considered a legitimate form of Christianity in spite of violating the requisite basic forms / conventions of Christianity. Christianity is stupid but their rules are their rules. MORmONISM violates those rules and then demands to still be considered a legitimate form of the group whose rules they broke. MORmONISM has a need to cling to the frame work of Christianity while also viciously attacking it. MORmONISM took itself out of strict Christian context when it violated the basic Christian convention of monotheism. Then MORmONISM insists on being in that context anyway in spite of that self enacted exit. That is what makes MORmONISM even more stupid than Christianity in how ever many various superficial forms that Christianity may have. Those superficial forms of Christianity did NOT violate that basic Christian tenet of Monotheism, so they were in universal agreement on something, CONTRARY TO WHAT YOU INITIALLY SAID, WHICH MAKES YOU WRONG ON THAT ISSUE.


> So if you don't have an "exclusive deity," you're
> clearly not a christian.

CORRECT


> Because, um...
> (fill in
> "no true scotsman" and "appeal to popularity" and
> "argument from tradition" here).

Because Christians run Christianity in how ever many forms, NOT MORmONS, and Monotheism is a basic fundamental rule of Christianity that MORmONISM violates.

You can be a Christian without joining a church.

Because Mormons consider themselves more closer to the Crescent than the Cross.

Joseph Smith saying he's the Second Mohammed: https://bsimmons.wordpress.com/2006/11/29/i-will-be-a-second-mohammed/

Because of polygamy, WoW, No Alcohol, Death to Apostates, Modesty of Dress, New Scriptures, Prophets, Patriarchal Priesthood... They claimed "closer to the Crescent than the Cross" http://journalofdiscourses.com/3/7

***As a side note: Are you into Muslim MILFs? Click here for the absolute best in Muslim Milf porn.

NB: All models featured are certified aged 16 or under.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 11/22/2015 05:03PM by dydimus.

They are all myths anyway so take your pick and waste your life and, is some cases like TSCC, much of your free cash as well.

Denying baptism to children might be the thing that sets Mormons apart.

donbagley Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Denying baptism to children might be the thing
> that sets Mormons apart.


THere are some denominations that deny baptism to all children, and nobody can be baptized until 18. They think of it as a purely adult decision. So just as those denied by MOrmons, they are only denied until age 18.

so denying it to the eight-year-old child of gay parents is completely different from having all children wait until they're eighteen. It's targeted. Mormons have to own that and stop making excuses.

"My imaginary friend is better than your imaginary friend!"

Do we really need imaginary friends?

do people really need imaginary friends?

MORmONS do.

I find any organization claiming to be the "real" Christians to be very dubious, mormon or otherwise. IMHO, if you call yourself a Christian, then who's to say you are not one? What you believe about Christ is likely just as plausible is anyone else's doctrine, because unless you were there to see things go down in person, you just don't know do you? Oh you could have faith... the same faith Mormons have in JS restored gospel.

If you want to define a club of Christianity and choose who gets to belong that is fine. But it doesn't make any sense to me to pretend that there is an objective verifiable real Christianity that you can measure any group against.

The idea that Jesus saves by grace alone, that by trying to earn salvation with works you deny his grace, is totally self-contradictory. Either you choose Jesus or he chooses you. If you choose him, that is a mental act. If he chooses you then Jesus just plays favorites.

So you can be saved by the grace of God, unless you happen to perform the wrong ritual, or think that there is still a prophet on earth? Or believe that God has a body? Or that God is just one person with three jobs, but not three in one persons, Or whatever Mormons or other non Christians do that disqualify them from salvation?

I was reading the new testament once and told God sincerely that I accepted the true Jesus represented in those gospels as his son and my savior, but I kept on being a Mormon. Was I saved or not? But then I went on to become an Atheist. I mean maybe I am still saved in some Flannery O'Connor sort of way (love her stories). But if a church can't come up with a coherent message that lets someone know if they are saved or not, it hardly seems divine.

"Here is my true church. It is kind of confusing but it's the best I know how to communicate."

If you choose Christian beliefs carefully enough to become sane and moderate you end up with something that looks more like a philosophy than a religion.

Mormons claim God was no longer aligned with Christian Churches. None of them were valid.

Supposedly, Joe Smith had to restore true Christianity which was not related to the apostatized evil churches like Methodist or Catholic.

So Mormons can't be a part of the larger Christian community they distain and deny, not if they claim they are the only true restored church.

Say what you like about made up myths, or that there are "thousands" of different christian churches, but the linked page says "The Church is a body of various believers and groups of believers...made up of all those true believers from various local denominations or churches."

It goes on to say that "Unity in this body does not demand complete uniformity in its various manifestations. God loves diversity...the Church's unity is in Christ."

That sounds pretty inclusive and broad to me, not like a bunch of groups in disagreement.

TSCC claims to be the one true church, and dismisses all the rest. These are clearly two different groups, even if the one is an aggregate of multiple related groups. That's a significant distinction in my opinion (one of many).

Yes, but the linked page doesn't represent all sects of christianity, and a great many of those sects would declare the linked page doctrinally "wrong."
And you could make a good argument that:
a) the linked page uses a "No True Scotsman" fallacy ("all of those true believers...")
b) if "complete uniformity" isn't demanded, then mormons should be part of it. But they can't, because they aren't "true believers," with "true believers" being arbitrarily defined based on what includes the people they like, and excludes the people they don't like.

Look, the point I'm making is that when you argue against mormonism by "comparison" to other religions, you're largely presenting a losing argument. There is more than enough evidence to show mormon claims false -- that's all the argument you need. It's false, and here's why.
What you really CAN'T do (honestly or logically) is go with, "Mormonism is false because they have the wrong god concept compared to my preferred type of christianity." Because, see, there's no way to show your preferred type of christianity, or any other religion, has the "right" god concept. So the mormons have exactly as much chance as any other group of being right about their god concept.

Mormons are not Christians. There are too many differences on the main points which need not be restated. What is important is WHY LD$, Inc. wants people to think that Mormons are Christians. Polygamy was always controversial. Eventually the forces against it won out. Utah became a state and LD$, Inc. was left alone to accumulate wealth unmolested.


One of the most interesting things about Mormonism is that much of Mormonism has very little to do with the "Book Of Mormon." The book is more of a talisman or fetish rather than a sacred text. Mormonism is a total, all-encompassing way of life. With polygamy gone what did it mean to be Mormon? Mormonism became a conservative American prosperity religion. Mormons were just a small sect in the mountain West until the 1950s and 1960s. Greater exposure brought a greater desire for acceptance. Appearing to be "Christian" not only helped recruitment but also helped ameliorate the sense of exclusion.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 11/25/2015 11:31PM by anybody.

christian (noun)
A person professing belief in Jesus as the Christ

That makes mormons christians - they believe that. Not the same kind as lots of other christians, but lots of other christians aren't the same kind as lots of other christians.

Yes, they aren't Catholic christians, or Orthodox christians, or Calvinist christians, or Lutheran christians, or Anglican christians, or Methodist christians...they're mormon christians.

Almost all Christians believe in the Trinity and salvation by grace. Mormons do not. Muslims believe in Jesus, his virgin birth and messiahship, but they are not Christians.

+1.0x10^9



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 11/25/2015 11:32PM by anybody.

Mr. Kolob,

Your argument as I understand it is that because there are thirty thousand kinds of chairs it is superfluous to define the attributes of a chair.
Leave aside truth claims. I don't believe anyone was claiming that truth is voted in by democracy.

No by your own analogy, you can't walk into a room full of chairs and say, "This one chair right here is The Chair." when everything else in the room is a chair, too.

Nevertheless if you walked into a room full of chairs with four legs, some upholstered and some not and happened to notice a bean bag chair in the corner it's just common sense to say "wow, this is a different kind of chair."
As an example, if you were to ask the question "Do you believe God is the creator of the cosmos or do you believe that God is a highly evolved creature within the cosmos" I would submit that most sects that self identify as Christians (and Jews and Moslems, for that matter) would answer that they believe the former whereas Mormons (who also self identify as Christians) believe the latter. So, I don't think it's too much of a strain on the analogy to say that Mormonism is a kind of bean bag chair of Christianity.

Well, one is a man-made myth,

and the other is a myth made by man.

Catholics, who make up half of the 2.4 billion Christians, would not agree with many of these points. Orthodox Christians, 300 million, have distinct differences as well.

Protestants make up only 1/3 of Christianity, yet Americans think that Protestantism is the norm.

Christians approach God through Jesus.

Mormons approach God through Joseph Smith.