Simply put, mormonism is absolutely verifiable as a fraud, because it is recent and we can fact-check many of the assertions of its basic dogma.

Mainstream christianity is based upon events that supposedly happened a lot longer ago. Application of logic should tell any objective person that it has most of the same issues that mormonism does.

Now, if you still choose to be christian, that's fine, more power to you. Just admit that it is simply belief on your part, and stop trying to pretend that there's some scholarly, scientific backing for your beliefs. There just isn't, and any insistence otherwise is self-delusion just as bad as any TBM's.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 12/09/2010 04:57PM by helamonster.

and Narnia, because they are both works of fantasy fiction.
There are still major differences, and they can still be compared.
Mormon theology is quite different from Christian theology, even if they are both fiction.

But thanks for playing.

The only difference is that you can't "quite" fact check everything about Christianity because it's older.

But both religions base themselves off of works of fiction. Bad girl's point. And yours.

Can't fact check? The earth is 6000 years old, god made man out of clay, the whole Noah story.. and the list could go on of things that have all been fact-checked and have all been proven, beyond any shadow of a doubt, that those postulations are complete fiction

The Bible has even more absurd stories within it's pages than the BoM.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 12/09/2010 06:24PM by vhainya.

The stories of the old testament are so laughable they cannot be taken seriously. Just recently, a group of orthodoc jewish rabbis publicly stated that the book is more fantasy than fact.

If that's the case, then its a good bet the new testament is equally bogus. The magical mystery tour both promote is a dead giveaway.

Mormions and christians are exactly the same in that both possess an unshakeable belief in fairy tales.

Timothy

Touting your cult as the "one-true" means you can't go around preaching the same stuff as everyone else. Joe constantly modified and tweaked mormon theology until it appeared to stand alone.

Moses, Paul, Joseph, whoever. You can call religious con-men many things, but dumbass ain't one of 'em. They all come-up with different schemes, but in the end they're all the same.

This is the Gospel according to Timothy ... Who is more foolish, the fool or the fool who follows him?

Timothy

Yes, Joe came up with some different dogma from the mainstream stuff.

But as you state later, it's all false, some just more obviously than others.

Great quote, btw.

Had one axe me on Facebook why I'm atheist. Told him I'd been agnostic for many years, but the events of 9/11/2001 finally pushed me over the edge.

During the course of our conversation, he noted how ridiculous it was that islamic types believe they'll get 72 virgins for dying horribly in the service of allah. Told him I thought it was fairly goofy as well, but not nearly as goofy as the notion that mormons get thousands of eternal concubines to help populate their planets for kissing god's a**.

He stopped sending messages after that little exchange. Don't know why.

Timothy



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 12/09/2010 05:37PM by Timothy.

The foundation for the Mormon Church is Joseph Smith. Everything rises or collapses on the truth claims of Joseph Smith. If the Book of Mormon is a nineteenth century fiction book, the First Vision is an unreliable story with various contradicting information in each version, the Book of Abraham is a proven fraud, and Joseph Smith is a con-artist.... then the Mormon Church collapses with Joseph Smith whether people recognize it or not.

For real Christianity it stands or falls on the Lord Jesus Christ. Our salvation, our gospel and are hope as well as faith is built on the foundation of the Lord Jesus Christ. Unless you can disprove Jesus Christ by proving that he was not who he claimed to be... then Christianity stands triumphantly whether you recognize it or not!

That is the major difference between the two.

Disagree with Christianity if you wish, but you cannot disprove and therefore you cannot dismantle it!

Now there's a twist!

The canonical gospels are, at best, third hand accounts and were written after the supposed fact. In addition, said accounts cannot be cross-referenced. Couple those accounts with the even more ridiculous notions of a virgin birth, talking donkey, turning water into wine and so on, and you've built yourself a fairly weak argument.

As it stands, there is no proof that JuHEEsus even existed, much less that he was the son 'o' god.

Debunking mormonism does nothing to bolster the credibility or veracity of christianity or any religion.

One doesn't "stand triumphantly" by default, Dougster. It doesn't work that way.

Timothy

When you can acknowledge I am correct, then you will be more than a laughingstock. But not until then.

There seems to be a lot of doctrinal differences, and many things that Mormons do weren't preached by Christ or the early apostles. But in the same vein, many things Christians do weren't preached by Christ or the early apostles.

But to stick with the Mormons, a church that purports to be based upon the teachings of Christ:

- holy garments. I don't think Christ mentioned in the beautitudes that "those wearing holy garments shall know God." In fact, he preached a lot about outward appearances being false.

- temples. The Apostle Paul wrote, somewhere in his letters, that "God does not dwell in temples made with human hands."

- Joseph Smith seemed bent on self-validation, whereas Christ really was just going around healing people and raising the dead. I get sick when I think of that quote of his about being more able to keep a church together than Christ, and that the Mormons never left him. Christ just wanted to share love (my own interpretation).

I guess, however, it depends on what you define as mainstream Christianity. Many mainstream religions seem based on irrelevant power plays. I am an Episcopalian so can't claim to be a part of mainstream Christianity - we ordain gays! And women! And we never ever would claim to be the "only true church."

That was the other thing about the Mormon thing. I told my Catholic friend, ok fine, I know you think you are the only true church of God, but you know what? You have tons of saints, people like Mother Theresa, beautiful Churches, and a long history reaching back to the time of Christ. Notwithstanding all of the abuse of power that has taken place, you go ahead and be the one true church.

Jews have the Ten Commandments, the Torah, beautiful rituals and prayers and philosophies of God, awesome Rabbies, so you guys go ahead, be God's only covenant people.

But Mormons!? Really? With the underwear? The boxy temples? The suit-wearing prophets? Started in 1830? No. You cannot be the one true church! :)

I mean, look at that stuff the pope wears!

Timothy

yes, I agree. Pomp and circumstance.

Unless you can prove Christianity false then you only have assumptions. For us we have always believed the truth claims of Christianity based on faith so it does not diminish our beliefs one iota. Its always been a walk of faith for us. If everything was absolutely proven then there would be no need for faith!

This may trouble you... but for Christians its all part of God's plan.

What kind of god draws up a plan that includes having his only begotten son brutally beaten and savagely murdered to correct an oversight?

Not one I'd be inclined to worship!

Unless you can prove chistianity true, all you have is faith. Faith is believing in things you know ain't so (Mark Twain).

Hell of a plan you got goin' there.

Timothy

Enough of the mental gymnastics, Dougster. You have a *belief*. That is all. Acknowledge it and move on.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 12/09/2010 06:42PM by helamonster.

From talking to Christians I know, the main difference is that people will be saved based on the grace of Christ. It is enough if you accept Jesus as the Lord and Savior to attain eternal salvation.

Not so with Mormonism. Christ's atonement is not enough for a person to be saved. You have to do a bunch of other shit. Very Old Testament. Which is why Christians don't view Mormons as Christian.

This bugged me when I was TBM. I was like Mormons believe in Jesus, of course we are Christian! Nevermind that LDS Inc doesn't follow the MAIN point of doctrine of Christianity - that people are saved through the atonement.

FWIW, I'm not a Christian or religious and I think it's all crap anyway.

That since Christianity isn't provably false like Mormonism is, it's possible to still have a belief in it. Whereas belief in Mormonism would be based on an ignorance of the verifiable facts that prove it false. That makes sense to me.

I'm not a Christian, but I do find myself drawn to the music, art, architecture, celebrations and traditions. I've heard that a lot of people don't actually believe the supernatural claims of Christianity, but go for the reasons I mentioned. Mormonism doesn't give you that option. The Mormon church is constantly prying into your mind, asking you and testing your resolve to see if you really believe and then banishing you if you don't. That's another difference I see between Christianity and Mormonism.

Exactly Makurosu......

I attend a non-denominational Christian Church. I am not required to believe that the whole earth was flooded and only seven were saved in Noah's Ark, ect. I'm not even required to believe the Adam and Eve story. The only real key element in Christianity is...."faith in the Lord Jesus Christ" and I do have faith in Jesus Christ as my Savior who cleanses me of all my sins. Is it possible for me to prove that Jesus Christ is the savior of the world who suffered and paid for the sins of the whole human race? No. That's okay. I believe based on faith and not based on any verifiable evidence!

I know people who don't even believe in Jesus Christ as their Savior, but attend Church because of the friendships they have and for the singing... they are also welcome and respected!

Mormons aren't required to practice polygamy anymore or believe that white supremecy is the will of god.

After all, they have faith that the current prophet speaks the truth.

Timothy

Tens of thousands of years ago, people began thinking: "Is this ALL their is to life? What happens to us when we die? Do we come back? Who created us? If they did, what was their purpose? Do we worship them? Why do people and animals fall sick? How come some herbs and plants make us feel better? Did the gods put them there for us? If gods did not exist, how can we explain the presence of beer? ;o))

In the mid-19th century Joseph Smith began thinking: "How can I get to make the beast with two backs with as many women as ever I possibly can? And how can I get young virgin girls into my bed, without my wife getting too suspicious? How can I become rich beyond my dreams and how can I become almost as powerful as the president of the USA?"

You have no way of knowing that's what the Bible writers were thinking or what their motives were. As far as you know they could have been the exact same as JS's motives.

Even if they were just looking for answers to explain the world around them, it doesn't mean the crude answers they came to reflect reality.

vhainya Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> You have no way of knowing that's what the Bible
> writers were thinking or what their motives were.
> As far as you know they could have been the exact
> same as JS's motives.
>
> Even if they were just looking for answers to
> explain the world around them, it doesn't mean the
> crude answers they came to reflect reality.

So you think people DIDN'T struggle for answers to questions, tens of thousands of years ago?

And don't forget, they were the first people to come up with those questions. The thinking had NOT been done! At least, not until they did it... ;o))

And oh yeah, I agree. Beer and wine are all the proof we need that God loves us. :-)

...between mainstream Christianity and Mormonism.

In my opinion, the first (and perhaps most fundamental difference,) is that mainstream Christians place the emphasis on being as opposed to doing. According to the New Testament, Jesus told the criminal who was on the cross next to him, "I tell you the truth, today you will be with me in Paradise." No mention of baptism, worthiness, works, tithing, or a temple recommend. As long as the man believed, ***he was worthy to be with Jesus in heaven***.

In a recent post, a ward clerk told how people would walk away from the yearly tithing settlement teary-eyed because they could not meet their tithing obligation to the Mormon church. Mainstream Christians would never, ever use an individual's ability to pay as a measure of that person's worthiness. Such an idea would be anathema to them. In fact, traditional Christianity emphasizes special consideration for the poor. Mother Teresa of Calcutta devoted her life in service to the poor. I don't think for one second that she ever considered herself to be one bit more worthy than the people that she served. Yet this woman, in all likelihood, will one day be declared a saint, worthy of imitation and vereration, in the Catholic church.

****************************************

Let's take a parable that Jesus told, and pretend that he is teaching at General Conference. ;-) In order to understand the changes that I've made, you need to know (as a university professor once taught me,) that the Samaritans were considered to be the lowest of the low in Jesus's time. I believe that this is how Jesus would tell the story to the Mormons:

On one occasion a General Authority stood up to test Jesus. “Teacher,” he asked, “what must I do to inherit eternal life? What is written in the Law?” [Jesus]replied, “How do you read it?” The General Authority answered, “‘Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your strength and with all your mind’; and, ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.’ ”

“You have answered correctly,” Jesus replied. “Do this and you will live.” But the General Authority wanted to justify himself, so he asked Jesus, “And who is my neighbor?”

In reply Jesus said: “A man was going down from Salt Lake City to Provo, when he was attacked by robbers. They stripped him of his clothes, beat him and went away, leaving him half dead. A priesthood holder happened to be going down the same road, and when he saw the man, he passed by on the other side. So too, a Stake President, when he came to the place and saw him, passed by on the other side. But an Apostate, as he traveled, came where the man was; and when he saw him, he took pity on him. He went to him and bandaged his wounds, pouring on soapy water and antiseptic. Then he put the man in his own car, brought him to a hotel, and took care of him. The next day he took out a great sum of money, and gave it to the innkeeper. ‘Look after him,’ he said, ‘and when I return, I will reimburse you for any extra expense you may have.’

“Which of these three do you think was a neighbor to the man who fell into the hands of robbers?” The General Authority replied, “The Apostate who had mercy on him.”

Jesus told him, “Go and do likewise.”

******************************************


The second major difference is that mainstream Christians are a lot less likely to take things that their leaders say at full face value. There is a much greater tendency to think for oneself. The entire Protestant movement is based on the ability of people to say, sorry but we disagree. And even the Catholics have their independent thinkers, such as the intellectual tradition of the Jesuits, the Liberation Theology proponents, etc.

no matter how big or small they make the letters on the chapel, no matter whether they put the Jesus part in the front of the Book of Mormon or in the middle, no matter.

They STARTED as something and the caravan just kept rolling along to a completely different place. The relevance pieces are always shifting, sometimes deliberately, sometimes accidentally.

The Catholics started something and their caravan just kept rolling too, but they are way better at it having had more practice.

You can't argue doctrinal differences because...wait for it...oops, the Mormons just changed their position (again). Mormons cleverly assert that their Church (or BOM or Priesthood or Pioneer Day Parade) is what it claims to be WITHOUT saying what it claims to be because--hey--we need that plausible deniability card.

Which is why it is pointless to argue doctrine. What is much more fun to compare and serves to dish up some reality is to imagine this conversation:

Me: I would like to be baptized Catholic, but I read about your history and I don't like the lies.

Catholic: Yes, there were a lot of lies. You mean the three popes? Or the Inquisition?

Me: I was thinking about the Inquisition, mainly, but there are so many horrible episodes in history, it's hard to focus on just one.

Catholic: Yes, which is why the church is true. God said it would withstand the gates of hell, and it has.

Me: Isn't that like saying the church is hell.

Catholic: Yes, hell bursting forth from within. Like the sex scandals.

Me: Yeah, what about those.

Catholic: Just shows how true the church is. There it is again withstanding the efforts of Satan to topple it.

Me: Wait a minute. Isn't the church and its priesthood supposed to offer an example of integrity and honor and holiness and virtue that the rest of us are to follow?

Catholic: We have a rich history to study.


Catholics don't feel any obligation to answer for anything. Their seniority gives them tenure on Christianity. Everyone goes to the Pope when they want to show how concerned they are about faith. Anyone's faith. Catholicism is a old man.

Mormonism is the snotty teenager on the block who is always mouthing off and has turned to sullen silence, meanness and dirty looks after embarrassing himself oh so many times. He pit digs to make him feel respected, watches porn and denies it while swearing on the Bible.


Anagrammy

PS. The real "school" answer to the question is that Catholics believe in the Bible plus tradition, Protestants believe in the Bible alone as the authority and Mormons believe whatever brings in the money.

anagrammy Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Mormonism is the snotty teenager on the block who is always mouthing off and has turned to sullen silence, meanness and dirty looks after embarrassing himself oh so many times. He pit digs to make him feel respected, watches porn and it while swearing on the Bible.

Very apt comparison.

Actually, though, I think that Catholics would be the first to admit that humans are all miserable sinners. It can take , as a church, a long time to admit institutional mistakes (hello, Galileo?) but eventually they do come around.

Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 12/09/2010 07:55PM by steve benson.

My beliefs are that there are three aspects to every religion
1. History
2. A Code of Behavior
3. Supernaturality

I can't speak for Mormonism with great authority, but from what I can understand, the basis for the curch is what is transcribed in the BOM. There is no historical basis for the book, and therefore that makes at least that part of it discredited. The doctrine of the curch is what it is. Morality is relative, so you can't theoretically judge any church on its code of behavior. Same with the supernatural.

That leaves the history to be the only basis for judgement, since the rest of it is all either relative or "unprovable."

The Bible (ala "Mainstream Christianity") is historically provable. There are some inconsistencies, and a lot of suspect supernaturality intertwined within its books, but in general it is consistent with things that are historic fact.

That's the judgable difference in my opinion. Of course there are theological and doctrinal (is that a word?) differences as well.

I can only speak from my experiences within Protestant Christianity after escaping from the clutches of Mormonism, but there seems to be two categories of importance.

1) The person of the Lord Jesus Christ and his work of redemption for the sins of the whole human race that he accomplished by proxy for us mere mortals through the infinite atonement... and the teachings of the Savior Jesus Christ that are intrinsically tied to himself as well as his moral character of which Christians attempt to emulate as we struggle as disciples of Jesus Christ. These points we largely agree on even though we may disagree on the purpose of some of these teachings(i.e does communion/Lord's Supper impart the grace(unmerited favor) of Jesus Christ or is it a symbolic ritual done to remember what Jesus Christ did for all of us through his atonement & suffering with his torn flesh and shed blood).

2) Everything else that is described in the Bible is widely argued and is peripheral stuff in my opinion. The stories in the Bible teach great moral and spiritual lessons, but not all of them are historical. Did Adam and Eve actually exist or was this story an allegory used to teach moral lessons and point to the theological conclusion that "God created everything"? Great question that people have been arguing over for centuries. However, whether you side with it as allegory or historical fact neither of those positions will disqualify you as a Christian. Having faith in the Lord Jesus Christ and striving to follow his teachings are what distinguish somebody as a Christian!