The Glenn Beck Report

Glenn’s Mormon cult membership VS fundie Christians, part 2

with 37 comments

Not just about fresh-faced boys and a great choir

The Czars had a great choir, too.

I think the first exposure or awareness I had to the Mormons was just past the midpoint of the last century. My grandfather, retired from his job as county assessor, had taken a part-time job doing accounting work at a gas station in our little town. Our family didn’t have much money in those days so Gramps picked up a Christmas LP with a variety of artists singing Christmas carols. I think it was from Firestone tires and I think I may even still have it somewhere among my 1500 albums. If my memory serves me correctly, the Mormon Tabernacle Choir sang ‘Adestes Fedeles’ (O Come All Ye Faithful). We listened to that record hundreds of times over the years.

So, growing up, the only thing I knew about the Mormons was that they had a great choir. We didn’t have a Mormon church in our city, and we were near the end of the line, so to speak, so perhaps the Mormons hadn’t gotten around to mapping out our community yet. If they ever showed up at our door, they never got through it. During this period of my life, I was very much interested in religion and was even considering a career as a pastor at one point, which amuses me now given my agnostic/atheist beliefs. During my second year of college, there was a Mormon in our dorm who happily gave me a copy of the Book of Mormon, which I prized and kept near my Bible and Satanic Bible. Back in those days, people used to sit around and have ‘bull sessions’ about various topics, and religion was a favorite as it always included plenty of semi-informed speculation about what this or that might mean.

It's no use trying to hide from them, they'll catch up with you anywhere you go.

Flash forward to a new century, in a quiet town in a quiet state. Our doorbell rang about every 6 months and my wife would coldly yet politely shag the two young ‘elder’ Mormon lads who rang it down the road. This happened several times before I decided to let them in, sit them down and give them hell, and THEN shag them down the road once and for all. They sat down and we chatted about normal stuff for a while and during that conversation I realized that I really liked these fresh-faced kids. They reminded me of me when I was about their age, earnestly and eagerly wanting to talk about their religious beliefs and proselytize if the opportunity presented itself. (Of course, in my day, I was all about LSD, not LDS). We began to talk about religion, and I gave them fair warning that we both have religious beliefs (my wife is Catholic) and on we went. There was slight pressure in the conversation towards the Mormon beliefs but it was subtle and respectful. After a while they said they had to go but they wanted to pray for me first. I thought that was sweet. I invited them to come back any time, adding that they were welcome to come in out of the rain or cold, to warm up, have some water, use the bathroom, or whatever.

I think we saw that pair of young men two more times. One of them was from Portland, Oregon, and his mission was almost over. A second pair came in once, and after that we haven’t seen any more Mormon missionaries. From what I know now, I expect that records of each contact were carefully noted and reported. I think we have used all of our allotted opportunities to become Mormons.

I wouldn’t have ever even thought of Mormons again, possibly, if it wasn’t for Glenn Beck. That would have been unfortunate, because despite being a political junkie I may have never bothered to notice them because they operate in such secrecy. If you’re not actually looking for Mormon political actions and history you won’t see it because they rarely allow themselves to be seen. That is, unless you’re one of the people who they screw, as they did in to LGBTs in California and Maine by pumping millions of dollars into a hate-filled smear campaign against the civil right of marriage for all. This one I find to be rather interesting given the role of the government in ending polygamy in 1890 and the struggle that the Mormons fought for 50 years to hold to it.

Left Coast cartoon sums it up pretty well.

A quick side note. I got an email just yesterday from Fred Karger of Californians Against Hate. The Mormons have come out publicly supporting Salt Lake City’s proposed ordinance which prohibits discrimination against LGBTs regarding employment and housing. The ordinance also protects those with disabilities. Fred is hopeful that this is an opening step in a LDS church that is more open to granting civil rights to LGBTs. I take a more cynical view. In the last days before the November 3^rd election in which Maine overturned their LGBT marriage law, there was a dispute between gay LGBT advocates and NOM (National Organization for Marriage) which pumped $1.6 million into overturning the marriage law in Maine. A federal court ruled that NOM must disclose its donors under Maine law; they still haven’t complied with the ruling and I believe that this latest news from the Mormons ‘supporting’ LGBT civil rights in Utah is pure PR. They know that they are about to be cold-busted in Maine as the primary donor to NOM’s campaign.

Mormon History: steeped in blood, fraud, racism, sexism and lawlessness

This section is not intended to be comprehensive nor is it a mini-course in comparative religion. The history of all religions could be written in the blood spilled by their adherents. In any religion there is an ‘in’ group and an ‘out’ group defined by a dogmatic set of rules and codes that the in group follows and the out group doesn’t. The history of early Christianity has been filtered through the ages, but Mormon history is relatively recent so we have modern accounts dating back to its very beginnings.

Fraud

This guy was a fraud, a cheat, a murderer, a charlatan, a polygamist, oh, and by the way, the founder of the Mormon church.

The Mormon faith is founded on documents supposedly found by Joseph Smith, a self-proclaimed ‘Glass looker’ (also known as ‘money digger’) who said he could see things that other people couldn’t see by looking into a glass or special stone. One of the things he looked for was buried treasure, which explains why he never had any money. In the 1820s phonies like Smith were commonplace. In 1826 Smith was hired by Josiah Stowell in New York to find what he thought was a Spanish treasure buried on his farm. Smith spent a month on the farm living off of his host’s hospitality, and came up empty handed. After that small fiasco Smith was brought up on charges by those close to Stowell; Arad Stowell, Josiah’s son, was one who testified at the trial that he had observed Smith’s operations and that he was a fraud. Smith was convicted of Disturbing the Peace. (An odd charge, I think).

There has been a lot of controversy about the Book of Mormon’s origins, authenticity, and even plagiarism. The story is that Joseph Smith was out money digging and was guided to a buried box of golden plates which were there under the protection of the angel named ‘Moroni’. This find supposedly took place September 22, 1823, near Manchester, New York. This Moroni was a “rules person”, and Smith was not allowed to have the plates until he followed a bunch of rules, including coming back to them every year for 4 years. Smith finally got the plates but was not allowed to show them to anyone (of course). The plates were written in a language Smith referred to as ‘reformed Egyptian’, which is a language that no linguist has ever seen. It has no trace of existence on this planet. Smith began translating the plates by looking at his seer stone in the bottom of his inverted stovepipe hat, dictating the English to several people who took turns writing it down.

The Golden Plates which contained the Book of Mormon written in "reformed Egyptian". Gimme a break.

Since there are but a few eyewitness accounts of the plates, and since the accounts of what they actually looked like don’t match, there is not even any usable circumstantial evidence that proves they existed. Therefore the Mormons accept their existence and the authenticity of their translation as an article of faith. Those of us who don’t believe in magic tricks would be more easily convinced if there was any tangible evidence besides a book that is full of contradictions, inaccuracies, and even some suspected plagiarism. Passages from the Book of Mormon are almost identical to passages in the KJV of the Bible, which is odd because the plates were alleged to be 1100 years old and therefore predate the King James Bible, which was written in 1611, creating a compelling point for calling the golden plates story nothing more than hokum and charlatanism.

There is another book of rules called the ‘Doctrines and Covenants’, originally published in 1833 as the ‘Book of Commandments’. In 1834 the book was pared down to what were considered the most significant ‘revelations’. There was another version printed in 1876 contains disputed material attributed by some as revelations of Joseph Smith. There are about 100 revelations and lectures in it. So here’s another opportunity for FRAUD.

If a church claims that one of its bedrock doctrines is the word of God through revelation, and that God speaks directly through the Apostles, then it’s fraudulent when the church changes its dogma as a matter of convenience. It provides a stark example of how the so-called God-given code is nothing more than a phony rule somebody made up that worked out for them at the time but became uncomfortable or inconvenient so it gets changed. This is not a ‘revelation’ of God’s will, it’s a cynical game of opportunism played by the church Leadership.

About Face on Polygamy

In the world of Mormonism, men have needs, too many to be met by a single wife.

Note: the information regarding Mormon polygamy below is largely sourced from what is considered to be an authoritative paper titled ‘LDS Church Authority and new Plural Marriages, 1890-1904 written by D. Michael Quinn. Quinn actually ran this by Mormon President Gordon Hinckley before publishing it. It’s available at http://www.lds-mormon.com/quinn_polygamy.shtml but I get spooky popups from the site, I will just warn you in advance.

The Mormons have taken a dogmatic U-turn at least twice. The first example occurred in 1890 when they suddenly renounced polygamy at the same time that Utah was being held up from statehood over the polygamy issue. The church leadership had been fighting a losing battle with various state and local governments over this issue since the church formed in 1830. They were hounded out of New York, Ohio, Missouri, and Illinois where Joe Smith was killed while in protective custody in Carthage. (Accounts say he killed two of his assailants with a pistol before they killed him). Brigham Young move the church to Utah starting in 1847 to avoid persecution for polygamy and other heresies.

It wasn’t until 1852 that the Mormons made official what was already known by every community within they had lived, namely that they practiced plural marriages. In February 1851, Mormon President Brigham Young announced to a meeting of the Utah territorial legislature that he had more than one wife. Then in August 1852, Young announced that ‘celestial marriage’ was a doctrine of the church.

The Mormon church and its leadership were willing to break local laws, lie to authorities, and even develop the posture that truth was relative, not absolute in order to hold on to polygamy. In 1890, a document called the ’1890 Manifesto’ (Czary, eh, Glenn?) surfaced which declared an end to polygamy but muddied the waters with a whole big lot of controversy as to its origins, its meaning, its scope of authority, and place in the church’s hierarchy of dogma. Was it a revelation? Was it part of the D&C?

The short answer is that there is no short answer. The US Supreme Court had just upheld anti-bigamy laws in 1879. The Mormon leadership was on the run in Mexico. Anti-Mormon forces in Utah were gaining more control; Mormons were denied voting rights and barred from public office. Church property was being seized. The church was in turmoil and confusion for decades over this issue. So- zing! Just declare the sacrament that is central to the faith, the practice that is the life of practicing Mormons, to be null and void! Afterwards, persecution tapers off, Mormons regain control of Utah, which becomes a state, and the rest is history.

Another U-Turn of Convenience: Wassup, bro?

For 150 years, the Mormons taught that all blacks are cursed by God. This is just a plain, ugly fact. It is documented in the D&C. It is reflected in church policies, and their official’s public statements. This is well-documented at the following link http://www.christiandefense.org/mor_black.htm where specific quotations from the Book of Mormon, the D&C, and church leadership spanning those 150 years can be found. The racial prejudice was founded on their interpretation of the Bible, no less, saying that all black people were descended from Cain and therefore were not only inferior beings but were also cursed by God to live lives of suffering and servitude.

Yo, my new brother, was HAAPENIN, come on in, ya'll are cursed but you know how to keep our shoes SHINED

But- wait! In case of emergency, break dogma. For 150 years the Mormons refused to allow black men into ‘the Priesthood’. But in 1978 the pressure mounted on the church to a point where the Apostles had another convenient ‘revelation’. It might have had something to do with Stanford University’s declaration that they were banning football games with BYU because of racism. Maybe it was the pending NAACP lawsuit filed on behalf of Byron Marchant, a black man denied the position of Scoutmaster because the church required all Scoutmasters to be members of ‘the Priesthood’. For whatever reason, there was another ‘revelation’ that blacks could now be received into ‘the Priesthood’. Strangely, the text of the ‘revelation’ has never actually been revealed. It’s only been included as an ‘Official Declaration’ in the D&C, which states that the ‘revelation’ occurred. However, although the policy has changed, the idea that black people are inferior and cursed has NOT changed. This dichotomy of practice vs dogma is a perfect example of the church adapting itself to the environment.

Please note carefully: although the church institutionalized racism, this is NOT a universally-accepted doctrine of all Mormons nor has it been over the last 150 years. Many Mormons have been outspoken challengers of this policy and have championed black civil rights.

Blood on the sand, blood on their hands

In 1857, the Mormons in Utah were in a state of rebellion against the US government over the polygamy issue and others as well. The Mormons had formed a militia named the Nauvoo Legion and loudly claimed that they would defend Utah from any invading force. President Buchanan was incensed by this and ordered a force of 2,500 regular army to Utah to restore order.

About 140 human beings, men, women, and children were murdered in cold blood at Mountain Meadows on 9/11/1857. Maybe Glenn Beck should start a 9/12 Project about THAT.

Against this backdrop, a wagon train originating from Arkansas called the Fancher-Baker party passed into Utah territory on its way to Oregon. Church leaders wanted to off the interlopers, but they didn’t want to have to take responsibility for killing them. Their Big Plan? They dressed up like Indians. WTF? The initial attack became a siege as the wagon train put up a fight. After some period of time, the Mormons persuaded the wagon train to surrender. What happened next was horrible.

On September 11, 1857, at Mountain Meadows, the members of the wagon train surrendered to the Mormons. Every man, woman, and child that was deemed old enough to recount what happened was executed in cold blood. The men were shot by the Mormons. The women and children were killed by Piaute Indians who were assisting in the siege. Approximately 18 children were spared execution but lost their families and were assimilated into the Mormon whack factory. All the possessions of the wagon train were stolen, including 800 head of cattle.

Brigham Young’s role in the slaughter of humans like animals is controversial. But we know a few things. First, he stated ‘If any miserable scoundrels come here, cut their throats‘ during a sermon he delivered under the subject ‘Red hot blood atonement’. Second, he orchestrated a coverup to blame the murder on the Indians. There is a theory that Young ordered the massacre personally, sending a message to the militia, ‘Brethren, do your duty.’

A woman is a wondrous thing to own

Ah, the good old days, when men were men and women knew their place.

The Mormon church is designed by men to serve men and keep women subordinate. Women are excluded from holding positions of authority but all women are subservient to that authority. Women are not only subordinate in this life, but in the Mormon afterlife as well where they will fulfill their ‘equal power’ by spitting out babies like a Tommy gun.

The male chauvinism of the Mormon church is codified by statements of Leadership and teaching documents such as ‘The Latter-day Saint Woman – Basic Manual for Women’. In these writings, women are not only ordered to embrace their inferiority to men by affirmation, they are to embrace it spiritually as well. Further, women have no control or say over the vast Mormon fortune; this is the provenance of men alone. Women are required to serve the church when called without pay.

The pervasive integration of Mormon church membership into family life guarantees that women will get no better treatment at home than they do within the church. Women are expected to obey their husbands, serve them, support them, and make babies for them, lots and lots of babies.

Is the Mormon Church a Cult?

Do Mormons worship a false god or even Satan?

I have tried to give a brief overview of events and people who have shaped the Mormons into what they are today. I have not yet addressed some of the dogma that separates them from Christians. The church uses the words ‘Jesus Christ’ in their official name; however, they hold beliefs that the Christian world consider to be heretical, non-Christian, and fraudulent. To make this concise I’m going to just list some of them, as I’m already up to 3000 words for this part of my article and I don’t want you to have to take a whole day to read it. The next 10 points are written from a Christian point of view, which I am not, but know quite a bit about.

Heretical views of the Mormon Church:

1. Mormons believe in polytheism, or multiple Gods. They believe that men can become God in their own universe.
2. Mormons believe that God is flesh and bones, just like humans.
3. Mormons believe that God is married and that all spirits of all people on earth were conceived through sex.
4. Mormons believe in polygamy, even though they have a ‘revelation’ to stop practicing it.
5. Mormons believe that God has evolved.
6. Mormons believe that Jesus is the ‘spirit brother’ of Satan and was not born of the Holy Spirit and Mary, but instead through physical incest.
7. Since 1830 the Book of Mormon, supposedly the scripture, has been changed 4000 times.
8. You will never see a cross, the symbol of Christianity, in a Mormon temple.
9. There is no corroboration with the Book of Mormon in history, archaeology, geography, linguistics, or anthropology.
10. The Bible has little use in the Mormon worship service and usually only appears in the temple for Easter and Christmas.

I thought it might be useful to take a quick trip through to the characteristics of cults. Here’s a ‘checklist’ I found that covers a lot of what I have been thinking about since I got interested in this topic.

Characteristics Associated with Cultic Groups – Revised

Janja Lalich, Ph.D. & Michael D. Langone, Ph.D.

http://www.csj.org/infoserv_cult101/checklis.htm

Concerted efforts at influence and control lie at the core of cultic groups, programs, and relationships. Many members, former members, and supporters of cults are not fully aware of the extent to which members may have been manipulated, exploited, even abused. The following list of social-structural, social-psychological, and interpersonal behavioral patterns commonly found in cultic environments may be helpful in assessing a particular group or relationship.

Compare these patterns to the situation you were in (or in which you, a family member, or friend is currently involved). This list may help you determine if there is cause for concern. Bear in mind that this list is not meant to be a ‘cult scale’ or a definitive checklist to determine if a specific group is a cult. This is not so much a diagnostic instrument as it is an analytical tool.

‪ * The group displays excessively zealous and unquestioning commitment to its leader and (whether he is alive or dead) regards his belief system, ideology, and practices as the Truth, as law.

‪* Questioning, doubt, and dissent are discouraged or even punished.

‪* Mind-altering practices (such as meditation, chanting, speaking in tongues, denunciation sessions, and debilitating work routines) are used in excess and serve to suppress doubts about the group and its leader(s).

‪

Now we know. Briefs, sort of. What you have to wear to temple, under what you have to wear to temple.

* The leadership dictates, sometimes in great detail, how members should think, act, and feel (for example, members must get permission to date, change jobs, marry—or leaders prescribe what types of clothes to wear, where to live, whether or not to have children, how to discipline children, and so forth).

‪* The group is elitist, claiming a special, exalted status for itself, its leader(s) and members (for example, the leader is considered the Messiah, a special being, an avatar—or the group and/or the leader is on a special mission to save humanity).

‪* The group has a polarized us-versus-them mentality, which may cause conflict with the wider society.

‪* The leader is not accountable to any authorities (unlike, for example, teachers, military commanders or ministers, priests, monks, and rabbis of mainstream religious denominations).

‪* The group teaches or implies that its supposedly exalted ends justify whatever means it deems necessary. This may result in members’ participating in behaviors or activities they would have considered reprehensible or unethical before joining the group (for example, lying to family or friends, or collecting money for bogus charities).

‪* The leadership induces feelings of shame and/or guilt iin order to influence and/or control members. Often, this is done through peer pressure and subtle forms of persuasion.

‪* Subservience to the leader or group requires members to cut ties with family and friends, and radically alter the personal goals and activities they had before joining the group.

‪* The group is preoccupied with bringing in new members.

‪* The group is preoccupied with making money.

‪* Members are expected to devote inordinate amounts of time to the group and group-related activities.

‪* Members are encouraged or required to live and/or socialize only with other group members.

‪* The most loyal members (the ‘true believers’) feel there can be no life outside the context of the group. They believe there is no other way to be, and often fear reprisals to themselves or others if they leave (or even consider leaving) the group.

What it all boils down to is control. If you belong to an organization that controls a large part of your life, including the way you behave and the way you think, you may be a member of a cult. By my reckoning, the Mormons fit the definition “almost all of the above”. They control you, and if you try to get away from them they will make your life miserable.

Edit added 9/3/10… if you or someone you love is trying to escape from Mormonism and need some help, it’s available online. Please visit http://www.exmormon.org/.

NEXT: Glenn Beck, Mormon convert and de facto Teaparty Minister of Propaganda

Share and Enjoy:

• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 

37 Responses to 'Glenn’s Mormon cult membership VS fundie Christians, part 2'

Subscribe to comments with RSS or TrackBack to 'Glenn’s Mormon cult membership VS fundie Christians, part 2'.

1. #GlennBeck Mormon cult membership VS fundie Christians, part 2 – http://bit.ly/1ylSTo

   

   William Wexler

   13 Nov 09 at 4:29 pm
2. Mormons Are New Testament Christians, not Creedal Christians

   The Church of Jesus Christ (LDS) is often accused by Evangelical pastors of not believing in Christ and, therefore, not being a Christian religion. This post helps to clarify such misconceptions by examining early Christianity’s theology relating to baptism, the Godhead, the deity of Jesus Christ and His Atonement.

   Baptism:

   Early Christian churches, practiced baptism of youth (not infants) by immersion by the father of the family. The local congregation had a lay ministry. An early Christian Church has been re-constructed at the Israel Museum, and the above can be verified. The Church of Jesus Christ (LDS) continues baptism and a lay ministry as taught by Jesus’ Apostles. Early Christians were persecuted for keeping their practices sacred, and prohibiting non-Christians from witnessing them.

   The Trinity:

   A literal reading of the New Testament points to God and Jesus Christ , His Son , being separate , divine beings , united in purpose. . To whom was Jesus praying in Gethsemane, and Who was speaking to Him and his apostles on the Mount of Transfiguration? The Nicene Creed’s definition of the Trinity was influenced by scribes translating the Greek manuscripts into Latin. The scribes embellished on a passage explaining the Trinity , which is the Catholic and Protestant belief that God is Father, Son and Holy Spirit. The oldest versions of the epistle of 1 John, read: “There are three that bear witness: the Spirit, the water and the blood and these three are one.” Scribes later added “the Father, the Word and the Spirit,” and it remained in the epistle when it was translated into English for the King James Version, according to Dr. Bart Ehrman, Chairman of the Religion Department at UNC- Chapel Hill. He no longer believes in the Nicene Trinity. . Scholars agree that Early Christians believed in an embodied God; it was neo-Platonist influences that later turned Him into a disembodied Spirit. For example, it was an emperor (Constantine) . who introduced a term, homoousious, which defined the Son as “consubstantial” (one being) with the Father. Neither term or anything like it is in the New Testament. Harper’s Bible Dictionary entry on the Trinity says “the formal doctrine of the Trinity as it was defined by the great church councils of the fourth and fifth centuries is not to be found in the New Testament.” Furthermore, 11 of the signers of the Declaration of Independence were non-Trinitarian Christians http://scienceblogs.com/dispatches/2009/01/richard_price.php The Church of Jesus Christ (LDS) views the Trinity as three separate divine beings , in accord with the earliest Greek New Testament manuscripts and the Founders.

   Theosis

   Divinization, narrowing the space between God and humans, was also part of Early Christian belief. St. Athanasius of Alexandria (Eastern Orthodox) wrote, regarding theosis, “The Son of God became man, that we might become God.” Irenaeus wrote in the late 2nd Century: “we have not been made gods from the beginning, but at first merely men, then at length gods” Justin Martyr in mid 2nd Century said: “all men are deemed worthy of becoming ‘gods,’ and of having power to become sons of the Highest” Jerome wrote that God “made man for that purpose, that from men they may become gods.” Clement of Alexandria said worthy men “are called by the appellation of gods, being destined to sit on thrones with the other gods that have been first put in their places by the Savior.” Origen in reference to 1 Corinthians 8:5-6 said “Now it is possible that some may dislike what we have said representing the Father as the one true God, but admitting other beings besides the true God, who have become gods by having a share of God . . As, then there are many gods, but to us there is but one God the Father, and many Lords, but to us there is one Lord, Jesus Christ.” The Gospel of Thomas (which pre-dates the 4 Gospels, but was considered non-canonical by the Nicene Council) quotes the Savior: “He who will drink from my mouth will become as I am: I myself shall become he, and the things that are hidden will be revealed to him,” (Gospel of Thomas 50, 28-30, Nag Hammadi Library in English, J.M.Robinson, 1st ed 1977; 3rd ed. 1988) For further information on this subject, refer to http://NewTestamentTempleRitual.blogspot.com The Church of Jesus Christ (LDS) agrees with Early Christian church leaders regarding theosis.

   To paraphrase Origin’s thoughts in the words of Church of Jesus Christ (LDS) Apostle, Bruce R. McConkie: “There is and can only be one who is supreme, who is the head and to whom all others are subject”. Becoming like God is not saying we will ever be equal to Him, frankly we won’t and can’t He, and only He, will forever be worshipped by us.

   The Deity of Jesus Christ

   Mormons hold firmly to the deity of Christ. For members of the Church of Jesus Christ (LDS), Jesus is not only the Son of God but also God the Son. Evangelical pollster George Barna found in 2001 that while only 33 percent of American Catholics, Lutherans, and Methodists (28 percent of Episcopalians) agreed that Jesus was “without sin”, 70 percent of Mormons believe Jesus was sinless.

   The Cross and Christ’s Atonement:

   The Cross became popular as a Christian symbol in the Fifth Century A.D. The Emperor Constantine first used it as a battle symbol for his soldiers in his quest for the Roman Empire . Members of the Church of Jesus Christ (LDS) believe the proper Christian symbol is Christ’s resurrection, not his crucifixion on the Cross. [If your son died in a car accident, would you hang a replica of the smashed car around your neck!] Many Mormon chapels feature paintings of the resurrected Christ or His Second Coming, which give us assurance of the re-uniting of our bodies and spirits. Furthermore, members of the church believe the major part of Christ’s atonement occurred in the Garden of Gethsemane as Jesus Christ took upon him the sins of all mankind.

   Grace Versus Works

   One Evangelical Christian author wrote of his sudden discovery that his previous beliefs about salvation were very different from those held by the early Christians:

   “If there’s any single doctrine that we would expect to find the faithful associates of the apostles teaching, it’s the doctrine of salvation by faith alone. After all, that is the cornerstone doctrine of the Reformation. In fact, we frequently say that persons who don’t hold to this doctrine aren’t really Christians…
   Our problem is that Augustine, Luther, and other Western theologians have convinced us that there’s an irreconcilable conflict between salvation based on grace and salvation conditioned on works or obedience. They have used a fallacious form of argumentation known as the “false dilemma,” by asserting that there are only two possibilities regarding salvation: it’s either (1) a gift from God or (2) it’s something we earn by our works.
   The early Christians [and Latter-day Saints!] would have replied that a gift is no less a gift simply because it’s conditioned on obedience….
   The early Christians believed that salvation is a gift from God but that God gives His gift to whomever He chooses. And He chooses to give it to those who love and obey him.”
   —David W. Bercot, Will The Real Heretics Please Stand Up: A New Look at Today’s Evangelical Church in the Light of Early Christianity, 3rd edition, (Tyler, Texas: Scroll Publishing Company, 1999[1989]), 57, 61–62.

   The Church of Jesus Christ (LDS) agrees with the earliest Christians that grace is conditioned upon obedience to Jesus Christ’s commandments.
   •
   Definition of “Christian”: .

   But Mormons don’t term Catholics and Protestants “non-Christian”. They believe Christ’s atonement applies to all mankind. The dictionary definition of a Christian is “of, pertaining to, believing in, or belonging to a religion based on the teachings of Jesus Christ”: All of the above denominations are followers of Christ, and consider him divine, and the Messiah foretold in the Old Testament. They all worship the one and only true God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, and address Him in prayer as prescribed in The Lord’s Prayer. It’s important to understand the difference between Reformation and Restoration when we consider who might be authentic Christians. . Early Christians had certain rituals which defined a Christian , which members of the Church of Jesus Christ (LDS) continue today. . If members of the Church of Jesus Christ (LDS) embrace early Christian theology, they are likely more “Christian” than their detractors.

   • The Need for a Restoration of the Christian Church:

   The founder of the Baptist Church in America, Roger Williams, just prior to leaving the church he established, said this: “There is no regularly constituted church of Christ on earth, nor any person qualified to administer any church ordinances; nor can there be until new apostles are sent by the Great Head of the Church for whose coming I am seeking.” (Picturesque America, p. 502.) Martin Luther had similar thoughts: “Nor can a Christian believer be forced beyond sacred Scriptures,…unless some new and proved revelation should be added; for we are forbidden by divine law to believe except what is proved either through the divine Scriptures or through Manifest revelation.” He also wrote: “I have sought nothing beyond reforming the Church in conformity with the Holy Scriptures. The spiritual powers have been not only corrupted by sin, but absolutely destroyed; so that there is now nothing in them but a depraved reason and a will that is the enemy and opponent of God. I simply say that Christianity has ceased to exist among those who should have preserved it.” The Lutheran, Baptist and Church of Jesus Christ (LDS) churches recognize an apostasy from early Christianity. The Lutheran and Baptist churches have attempted reform, but Mormonism (and Roger Williams, and perhaps Martin Luther) require inspired restoration, so as to re-establish an unbroken line of authority and apostolic succession.

   

   Mormons Are Christian

   13 Nov 09 at 10:35 pm
3. I’m glad that you took the time to post to my website. I am not a theological scholar, but I believe that you raise some valid points and I will do my very best to dismantle them, one at a time.

   I suggest, if you haven’t already, that you read the list of Mormon heresies I put at the end of Part 2 of this series. I will be raising those points as I proceed.

   The title of this series is Glenn Beck’s Mormon Cult Membership VS Christian Fundies. I predict that the Teaparty movement will come apart on religious fault lines. In Part 3 I will talk about Glenn Beck’s relationship with the Teaparty movement and in Part 4 I will provide more detail about the battlefield upon which the Mormons and Fundies compete for the soul of the conservative movement.

   Thank you for your post, please check back for rebuttals of your points, one at a time.

   -Wexler

   

   admin

   14 Nov 09 at 6:23 am
4. Good article very informative. This is off topic I realize but that is without a doubt the most bitching drawing of Satan I have ever seen.

   

   Razorgeist

   15 Nov 09 at 2:29 am
5. This post is directed at “Mormons Are Christian”.

   No, you’re not.

   The very first line in your post says that you’re not “Creedal” Christians, you’re “New Testament” Christians. You then proceed to contradict yourself on a number of points and omit other points that are salient to the definition.

   Baptism: When a person becomes baptized is irrelevant, except that they have to be alive. Jesus never baptized a dead person, but he did baptize persons of all ages. Mormons baptize the dead.

   The Trinity: Mormons believe that God and Jesus exist today as flesh and blood. That is heresy.

   Theosis: I believe you are trying to make a case for polytheism. Mormons believe that each MAN becomes GOD equal to GOD and goes to live in their own universe. This is heresy.

   The cross and atonement: You say that atonement was somehow achieved in Gethsemane. The Christian world says that atonement was attained on the cross. Your view is heresy.

   Grace vs works: You say that people attain grace by obeying Christ’s commands. (As an aside, I think a whole hell of a lot of Mormons are in deep trouble if you think you’re obeying Christ’s commands). The Christian world believes that salvation is a gift of grace from God and that is why Christ died on the cross. Your view is heresy.

   Definition of Christian: Just because you don’t think that Catholics and Protestants are Christians doesn’t mean that YOU are Christian. Your cult of heresy doesn’t measure up to core Christian beliefs as described above. You cannot be polytheistic and Christian at the same time. You cannot believe that you can attain salvation through works alone and be Christian. You cannot believe that God and Jesus are flesh and blood and be Christian. You cannot believe that Jesus and Satan are twins. You cannot believe that YOU will become a God in your own universe. That’s heresy.

   You have a separate scripture book (Book of Mormon) and that is heresy.

   I could go on but I think you get the drift. If you have anything relevant to add to this thread you are welcome to post it but I will not entertain a rehash of modern Mormon mythology that restates the same case.

   -Wexler

   

   admin

   15 Nov 09 at 7:57 am
6. [...] One of them was from Portland, Oregon , and his mission was almost over. A second pair came in once, and after that we haven’t seen any more Mormon missionaries. From what I know now, I expect that records of each contact were carefully noted and reported. …. It might have had something to do with Stanford University’s declaration that they were banning football games with BYU because of racism. Maybe it was the pending NAACP lawsuit filed on behalf of Byron Marchant, …Click Here [...]

   

   Glenn’s Mormon Cult Membership Vs Fundie Christians, Part 2 | the … « bobbyswhateversite

   21 Nov 09 at 11:53 am
7. Two minor points on your reply:

   1st: Paul talks (ambiguously) about baptism for the dead. It would be great if he’d written a few more verses on it. (Okay, he wasn’t actually WRITING verses, I know.) The KJV COULD be interpreted to imply that baptism for the dead was so well understood by his audience (Church members in Corinth) that he didn’t need to elaborate.

   2nd: You’ve stated that Mormons believe God and Jesus have bodies of flesh and blood. I think you meant “flesh and bone.” Mormon theology typically teaches resurrected and exalted beings are bloodless.

   

   Rodney Bliss

   19 May 10 at 10:46 am
8. Oh, yeah, one other point, as recorded in the New Testament, Jesus never baptized anyone.

   

   Rodney Bliss

   19 May 10 at 10:48 am
9. I’m glad I stopped by to check again… your first comment was to a different page, I put up a short reply to that one.

   Again thanks, I hope to get some more time tomorrow or Friday (day off!)

   Wexler

   

   admin

   19 May 10 at 11:14 am
10. I can’t but agree.I always wanted to write in my site something like that but I guess you’r faster.

    

    Republican

    16 Jul 10 at 1:44 pm
11. I went to visit your blog.

    Interesting. What exactly are you doing over there?

    

    admin

    16 Jul 10 at 2:06 pm
12. One other hallmark of cults is secrecy. The Mormon temple ritual is secret and contains blood oaths and other strange practices and sayings, some of which Joseph Smith took from Freemasonry.

    Bottom line: If you can’t tell everyone about EVERYTHING about your faith, you are a member of a CULT.

    

    Margaret

    22 Aug 10 at 11:00 am
13. Thanks for your comment, Margaret.

    The first thing I always say to Mormons when the come over is “I’ll let you in my house the day you let me in your temple”.

    That’s right before I inform them that they are heretics and if they need help to get out just wink or give me a sign and I’ll put them in touch with the right people.
    

    

    admin(Wexler)

    22 Aug 10 at 5:33 pm
14. It saddens me to see someone so mock a group of people. Are you so disrespectful that you should tear apart a man’s belief, however different from your own?

    What’s more, you have utterly failed to do your research. Reading this article, I see the same garbage repeated by anti-mormon groups everywhere. Its like no one actually thinks about it, but merely repeats the same drivel and doesn’t bother to verify any of it. Whether you left details out on purpose or through ignorance, I do not know. But their absence is obvious to anyone well-acquainted with the subjects.

    I rather believe no matter what I say here, you will disregard it or endeavor to discredit it. So i say this not to you, but for those reading this post. If you want to learn about someone, do not trust a single source. Ask BOTH sides for information, and in the end decide for yourself (or, if you believe in prayer, ask God for assistance).

    To the author of this article, I would suggest removing the picture of garments. It is extremely disrespectful, and though you surely will not believe it now, God will not let such an act go unpunished.

    

    Dan

    3 Apr 11 at 1:03 pm
15. Well, God created good as well as evil. He also created photographs as well as underpants, so I really don’t think he’d care very much.

    As always, if you can find an outright falsehood on the page, please alert me and I’ll remove it immediately. It hasn’t happened yet.

    I don’t tear apart beliefs because they’re different than my own. I have many friends with different opinions than my own. I tear apart beliefs because they’re illogical, harmful, and are the direct cause of misery and death. And that’s what belief in god, and particularly belief in the Mormon doctrine, does.

    Good luck with the whole polygamy and hating gay people thing.

    

    admin(Quinlan)

    3 Apr 11 at 7:45 pm
16. Your opinion is that my beliefs are illogical, harmful, and the direct cause of misery and death. Yet my opinion is different from yours, in each of those cases. So tell me, who is right? Can beliefs and opinions of faith and God be proven?

    It is obvious any thoughts or evidence I could give supporting my argument would be viewed quite differently by yourself, and I likewise view your arguments differently than you view them. Therefore, we must rest upon that which we know. I know I am not miserable, harmed, dead, and do not view my beliefs as illogical. You, I rather suspect, would say the same of yourself. Then let us leave each other’s beliefs alone, and do no disservice to either, just as we would not mock another for his different skin tone or gender.

    As for outright falsehoods, I draw your attention to these:
    “# Since 1830 the Book of Mormon, supposedly the scripture, has been changed 4000 times.”

    The article does not mention that nearly every single one of these changes was grammatical or spelling related. Nor does the article mention how many times the Bible, also scripture, has been changed through the years. It is a complete misrepresentation of facts.

    “# You will never see a cross, the symbol of Christianity, in a Mormon temple as they do not accept grace from God”

    First, you will never see a cross in an LDS chapel, either, not just temples. Second, why is the cross THE symbol of Christianity? Does this mean everyone who doesn’t wear a cross necklace isn’t Christian?

    Beyond this, the really blatant part of the above sentence is saying we don’t accept grace from God. How many scriptures must I quote, how many statements from church presidents, would it take to prove that statement so blatantly false as to be absurd? Let 2 Nephi 2:8 suffice: “…there is no flesh that can dwell in the presence of God, save it be through the merits, and mercy, and grace of the Holy Messiah…”

    “# There is no corroboration with the Book of Mormon in history, archaeology, geography, linguistics, or anthropology.”

    Ever heard of the Olmecs? A group from Central America who just sort of appeared, were around for awhile, and then vanished suddenly? The time period exactly matches that of the Jaredites in the Book of Mormon. Who, also, just showed up, were around for awhile, and then wiped themselves out in a catastrophic war.

    Ever heard of the Mayans? Another group from Central America, who in the 300s AD and had a massive war which wiped out half the civilization. Sound at all like the war recorded in the last books of the Book of Mormon?

    Ever noticed how often the Book of Mormon uses the phrase “and it came to pass”? Come to find out, archeologists and experts on Mayan writing translated a glyph from Mayan ruins, which literally means “and it came to pass”. They have found thousands of this particular glyph in Mayan ruins, showing it was a common phrase for them in their writing. They suspect it was used to separate ideas, since Mayan writing had no punctuation. Interesting, then, that Joseph Smith remarked all the punctuation, chapter breaks, and verse separations were added to the Book of Mormon by himself, as the plates he translated from had none of that in them. Had he not added punctuation, the book would be nigh unreadable to us, as written English does include it.

    Need I go on? Its obvious the author has either never read the Book of Mormon to know anything about it, or has never studied Central American history. I am fine with someone stating individual aspects of the Book’s claims have not been proven, but to say there is no evidence whatsoever is completely false.

    “# The Bible has little use in the Mormon worship service and usually only appears in the temple for Easter and Christmas.”

    What is the temple mean in this sentence? Does the author have a firm grasp on the difference between a temple and chapel in LDS theology? Or is the word temple just used as a catch-all for whenever the author doesn’t know what word to use?

    I’d like to know on what authority this sentence was written. I’ve been to LDS services for two decades. We use the Bible all the time. As one example, our Sunday School, which takes an hour of our three-hour Sunday meetings, is on the Old Testament for a year, then the New Testament, followed by the Book of Mormon and D&C before repeating itself. So out of four years, half those are spent on the Bible, and everyone takes the class (albeit at different levels depending on age). My favorite scriptural writers are Peter and James. Seminary follows a similar cycle, with half the students’ time spent on the Bible.

    I feel it a waste of my time, and yours, to continue relating the falsehoods in this article. There are many portions which misrepresent, though cannot be declared outright false. There are many other areas that are outright false. And there are a few, precious few, things which are actually right and not misrepresented.

    It is the author’s prerogative to use whichever wording he wishes to use, but its disrespectful and, depending on the author’s knowledge, outright lying, to state falsehoods as though they were truths.

    Quinlan, your last statement shows your ignorance of LDS beliefs. There is a difference between hating a sinner and hating a sin, a difference Christ taught in the New Testament. I must admit, we all fall far, far short of Christ’s example, and I apologize if the actions or statements of anyone in the LDS church gave you the impression that we hate gay people.

    Our stance on gay marriage is very controversial, believe me I know. But then, we see it as legalizing theft or any other sin. But so far, no one has tried to legalize grand theft auto, so it hasn’t come up. In like fashion, our stance on abortion is similar, and similarly controversial. But we do not preach hatred towards those who perform abortions nor those who undergo the procedure. If this doesn’t help you understand the church’s position, then I fear I cannot explain it in a way which can make it clear for you. But at least believe me when I say I do not hate gay people.

    Additionally, polygamy was practiced in the Old Testament by several notable prophets; if you have an issue with it, you might as well lump every Christian, and the Jews, into the pile; its in all of our histories.

    

    Dan

    3 Apr 11 at 10:08 pm
17. I do lump other religions in on the polygamy issue. It’s simply more pragmatic to single out the Mormons since they continued it in western society long after others had stopped.

    Your idea that you hate the sin not the sinner, and simply want to prevent that sin, is completely illogical in the face of your actions. Will preventing gays from marrying prevent them from being gay? Or will it just make the sinner miserable?

    Let me tell you just a little tidbit about the hatred, misery, and death that your doctrine causes. I’m sure you’re familiar with your ‘cure the gay’ camps? Where children are sent, and told that God doesn’t approve of what they think, what they do, who they are? Children become miserable. They see people – some Mormon – hating them. And many kill themselves. Others live in miserable denial for the rest of their lives. And still more admit the fact that a cure for homosexuality is impossible, and then are disowned by their Mormon families and thrown out onto the street. So whatever else you tell me, don’t lie to me and say that LDS causes no harm.

    #Book of Mormon has been changed 4000 times

    Not all of the changes were minor – many were major. Simply these, I think, are enough to call the whole thing BS. But if you want to talk about the minor ones too, those are also valid. The fact that you feel something like scripture – holy doctrine – can simply be edited by the will of people, makes the entire thing sound entirely invalid to me. When Joseph Smith was translating those plates, do we really think no divine forces could guide him to make their doctrine perfect? Maybe we should just take it at face value and admit that he was a criminal and swindler.

    #You’ll never see the cross in a Mormon temple, they don’t accept grace from God

    I do know the difference between temples and chapels, and I’m inclined to think that the author (my friend and colleague Wexler) did as well. If you can provide a couple more valid examples of why the latter part of that is untrue, I’ll take it down. I’m reasonable like that.

    # There is no corroboration with the Book of Mormon in history

    Just as the Mayans had a term for ‘let it be’, MANY old languages also had a term for the word that is now ‘the’. Shocking! That proves all of our religious texts! Besides, civil wars are bloody. The simple fact that something occurred does not mean that something occurred for you.

    #Bible has little use in Mormon worship, only appears on Easter and Xmas

    Nothing that you wrote to counter this seems to me to be an actual counter. Worship is a different service than religious education.

    

    admin(Quinlan)

    4 Apr 11 at 7:35 am
18. I’ve never heard of these “cure the gay” camps. Nor have I ever heard them preached from the pulpit (obviously, as I’ve never heard of them). You should not confuse the actions of a few with church doctrine. Just because some parents go to such extremes doesn’t mean the church itself teaches that they should.

    But to perhaps help illustrate the idea of hatting the sin, not the sinner, I know of a man who struggles with an attraction for children. If he acts upon this attraction, he would be a child molester. Would you agree with me, that this is not a desirable end? It has been some time since I have spoken with him, but when last I did, he was still struggling with this temptation. Yet he had not acted upon it, was happy, and in good standing with the church.

    In fact, the only reason I found out about his temptations was because I overheard part of a conversation I shouldn’t have between him and a counselor, whom he had sought out for help in this regard.

    Now you will surely agree this man had a problem, and it would not be right for him to claim it is undeniable, and even right, for him to act upon his temptations. Nor is it discrimination for him to not be allowed to act upon them.

    Those who are gay face similar temptations, just as others struggle with fornication or any other sin. But just because they struggle with it does not mean the church will ever change their stance and accept it. They will be allowed to attend church services no matter what they do, and will be permitted to serve in the church so long as they do not act on these temptations.

    Does that help clarify the church’s position? We do not view temptations as integral to a person’s being; we all have different temptations, and are all encouraged to overcome them. Some temptations are harder than others to overcome, and society (and the church) often reacts badly when people act upon some. But I stress, again, that the actions of a few do not mean the church teaches them to do that. I’d even wager that some bishops teach their congregations to do that which they should not. Bishops have been corrected, or excommunicated, before, and more will be.

    Corrections to the Book of Mormon
    We do not, and have never, claimed Joseph Smith to be perfect. One of the attributes of God is His allowance of free agency, even when His children screw up. God did not smite Hitler down, though millions (or billions) of people wish He had. If God would not do that, why would He correct one fallible man’s grammar?

    Moreover, many of the corrections and additions happened in the first few additions, by Joseph himself. As an example, the book contains two spellings of the same word: “strait” and “straight”. These have different meanings, but are often used in similar sentences. The first printer, upon seeing this, believed Joseph to have made an error, and he helpfully corrected it by replacing all of them with the same spelling. Joseph, upon finding this out after the printing was completed, corrected this mistake in the next printing, saying that the Lord had told him both versions, and it needed to be that way.

    Was it Joseph’s fault, then? Unless you can present specific instances where the Book was changed without cause, I will dismiss the whole idea without a second thought. I notice, also, that you failed to comment on the changes made to the Bible.

    God’s grace
    “Grace is the help or strength given through the Atonement of the Lord Jesus Christ. Through the grace of God, everyone who has lived will be resurrected—our spirits will be reunited with our bodies, never again to be separated. Through His grace, the Lord also enables those who live His gospel to repent and be forgiven.” -from LDS.org, http://lds.org/study/topics/grace?lang=eng

    “Wherefore, my beloved brethren, reconcile yourselves to the will of God, and not to the will of the devil and the flesh; and remember, after ye are reconciled unto God, that it is only in and through the grace of God that ye are saved.” -2 Nephi 10:24

    “And also my soul delighteth in the acovenants of the Lord which he hath made to our fathers; yea, my soul delighteth in his grace, and in his justice, and power, and mercy in the great and eternal plan of deliverance from death.

    And my soul delighteth in proving unto my people that save Christ should come all men must perish.” -2 Nephi 11:5-6

    “So Paul taught these people—who thought that they could be saved by some power that was within them, or by observing the law of Moses—he pointed out to them the fact that if it were not for the mission of Jesus Christ, if it were not for this great atoning sacrifice, they could not be redeemed. And therefore it was by the grace of God that they are saved, not by any work on their part, for they were absolutely helpless. Paul was absolutely right.

    And on the other hand, James taught just as the Lord taught, just as Paul had taught in other scripture, that it is our duty, of necessity, to labor, to strive in diligence, and faith, keeping the commandments of the Lord, if we would obtain that inheritance which is promised to the faithful.

    So it is easy to understand that we must accept the mission of Jesus Christ. We must believe that it is through his grace that we are saved, that he performed for us that labor which we were unable to perform for ourselves, and did for us those things which were essential to our salvation, which were beyond our power; and also that we are under the commandment and the necessity of performing the labors that are required of us as set forth in the commandments known as the gospel of Jesus Christ.” -President Joseph Fielding Smith. Also quoted in Doctrines of Salvation

    Just ask and I’ll give you more quotes. Or, if preferred, I can simply list references rather than quoting passages.

    Corroboration
    You have done nothing to discredit the evidence I gave, but you have (and rightly so) pointed out what little I gave is not sufficient to prove the Book of Mormon true. It is generally accepted that there is not enough evidence of the Book of Mormon to prove its authenticity without doubt.

    However, that is not to say there is not evidence. The question at hand is not whether I can prove it true, but rather there is any evidence whatsoever. Which there is.

    I will not retype what others have said better than I can. For more info, look to a few sources such as:
    http://www.the-book-of-mormon.com/
    http://www.jefflindsay.com/BMEvidences.shtml
    http://maxwellinstitute.byu.edu/publications/transcripts/?id=1
    http://www.fairlds.org/Book_of_Mormon/Archaeological_Evidence_and_the_Book_of_Mormon.html
    “The America’s Before Columbus” by Dewey Farnsworth

    Bible
    You misunderstand the means of our worship then. Seminary, yes I can see that as being separate from worship, though in our view it is but an extension of it. Sunday School, however, is a part of the “integrated block”. That is, its one of the three meetings church members attend every Sunday. It is part of our worship to learn of God, His ways, and His commandments. “If ye love me, keep my commandments.” (John 14:15). It stands, then, that learning of His earthly example and commandments shows our love for Him, for it is not possible to follow that example, those commandments, without first learning them.

    Is showing love not a form of worship? What’s more, those who listen to our general conferences will know the Bible is quoted often there, by the church leadership. Further, portions of the temple service come from the Bible.

    If some members of the church do not use the Bible as often as they use the Book of Mormon, it is to their loss, and a loss to the congregations of the church which don’t gain the benefit of added experience with scripture.

    Again, I ask not that anyone join the church or change their opinions based on what I’ve said here. Only that blatant disrespect for others’ beliefs be shown for what it is, and fallacies which are so commonly spread be put to rest.

    

    Dan

    4 Apr 11 at 8:59 am
19. What am I trying to do, if not discrediting your disrespectful beliefs and fallacies? The idea that homesexuality is something that can be averted, cured, even denied in happiness is fallacious and overtly disrespectful. Furthermore, your beliefs towards women and (some say former) beliefs towards minorities, particularly blacks are disrespectful as well. The Mormon families that disown their children may not be directly told to do so by their church (though I’ve heard stories in which they were pressured into doing so), but nevertheless the fact that they do so is dependent upon the Mormon disrespect for gay people. If LDS preached acceptance for what cannot be changed and does no harm, then little harm would be done.

    What is the difference between a homosexual and a pedophile? The homosexual does no harm. When you preach that he does, when you try to take away his very happiness for no reason other than a book tells you to, I consider that disrespectful, harmful, and honestly just plain mean.

    I know that the Bible has also been edited by many, many times. I am not a Christian, and I believe that the Bible is full of even more crap than the Book of Mormon, and that Christians over the years have caused far more harm than Mormons. I am an atheist and an antitheist. I will not defend the Bible, Christianity, or any other religion. The discussion we are having, however, pertains most closely to the Book of Mormon, so that is where my focus lies.

    Furthermore, you bring up another interesting point. God did not kill Hitler. God allows millions of innocents do die in cold blood. God himself, the Bible says, created evil. And yet you love him? You worship him? Why would you feel anything but hatred towards the very essence of evil? If God was a loving being, why not create just happiness? If God exists, which all logic forbids me from believing, he can not be a loving god.

    #Bible in services

    I define worship services as things such as mass. I believe that your definition, while somewhat plausible, is too much of a stretch for me to consider it entirely valid.

    #God’s grace

    I concede the point, I’ll remove that tidbit. My sincerest apologies.

    

    admin(Quinlan)

    4 Apr 11 at 9:26 am
20. #God’s Grace
    I appreciate your removal of the point on grace. This encourages me to believe that, unlike some I have met in other places, you are not so stubborn as to be blind. Rather, your beliefs are merely different from my own, and that I am more than okay with.

    #Bible in services
    To be honest, I have never attended a Catholic mass, and therefore have no point of reference for how the proceedings of one go. I can say, however, that the LDS view of worship involves singing hymns, praying, learning/studying God and the scriptures, bearing testimony, and partaking of the sacrament (a key point of which is simply remembering Christ’s sacrifice for us). It would not surprise me if others’ views on worship are different, and that is just fine. But to apply another person’s standard of worship to our religion seems to be a bit silly. Moreover, many of the things I listed take place during Sunday School (all, in fact, except the sacrament).

    #LDS views on gay people
    God teaches in both the Bible and Book of Mormon that certain things are sinful. One of which is acting on gay tendencies (or whatever wording you chose; the words I used just now do not seem the best but I cannot think of any better). Society of late has taken up the stance that many are born gay, and it cannot be changed, and fighting it will make one miserable. The LDS church has no stance on where or how people become gay; I have personal opinions, but they are my own.

    Now imagine if the US legalizes gay marriage. Would the LDS church, then, be discriminatory by not allowing gay marriages in their chapels? What of gay marriages in temples? Church doctrine then comes into direct conflict with the nation’s laws. This is one reason why Utah, and Salt Lake City in particular, have supported civil unions between gay couples, but have been adamantly against gay marriage.

    I will not apologize for the church’s doctrine concerning this or any other matter. I will say, however, that it is not our intent to make others miserable, and those who take it too far will find themselves punished by God in due course. Its remarkable that a group such as us, who have seen so much persecution in our history, would return it against others. Unfortunately, that’s human nature, and we all see how “perfect” we are.

    #Love of God
    You mention God creating evil. Tell me, where in the Bible is this stated? God did not create evil, but rather He created beings which have free agency, the ability to choose. Many of us, God’s children, have not chosen very well. Satan, one of God’s children, directly rebelled against God and was cast out.

    How much do you learn when everything is handed to you? If there is only one choice, do you ever gain the ability to weigh decisions? If God made us all righteous, we would remain naive and stupid for all eternity. Agency is vital to growth. To remove it is to stifle growth.

    As for human suffering, again, how much do you learn when everything is easy? If you never loose your job, would you realize you could gain more skills by going back to school? If you never had a cold, would you truly appreciate how it feels to not have a cold? Without adversity, there is no motivation to learn, grow, become stronger. Just as a muscle cannot grow when left alone, but rather withers away, and just as exercising can hurt and leave us tired, but ultimately strengthens us.

    But what of death! What of rape, disabilities, and other terrible things! What of the scriptural stories, when God stops or prevents such things, and then other stories in which He does not?

    The idea that because suffering exists, God is not loving, is very short sighted. It is valid only if this life is all there is. Because you have stated you are atheist, I know you do not believe in God, and am therefore unsure how you view the afterlife. This will only make sense from the perspective that there is an afterlife.

    It is not illogical for a loving God to allow suffering during this mortal life, which lasts for such a small time compared to eternity. When we die we are released from this test, whether to get good or bad rewards it doesn’t matter, we are beyond this suffering. LDS doctrines of the afterlife are quite different than those of other Christians, but that is another subject. Suffice to say, just because God allows temporary pain, doesn’t mean He doesn’t love us. What takes years, or decades, for us, is still but a tiny moment in eternity.

    Parents often understand this best, as they see their children doing things they know will hurt them. But if the parent intervenes, the child will not learn, and will likely repeat the mistake later when more is at stake. Better to learn in this life than be stupid in the next.

    What’s more, and again this can only be viewed from the perspective of God existing and loving us, all the pain we face in this life God can heal. Through the grace of Jesus Christ, the dead are raised up, with a body, for eternity. Pain is healed, suffering ended, wounds mended, etc. LDS doctrine states there is nothing which falls outside the bounds of Christ’s atonement (see Alma 7:11-13). With that power, God can certainly allow us to learn and experience in this life, and heal our wounds in the next.

    To be honest, I do not know the criteria God uses for when to intervene, and when not to. It is a matter of faith that He intervenes when He should, and does not when we need to learn (or others around us need to learn). I hate what some people do to others, and will stop it if ever I am in a position to do so. But I do not fault God for not stopping every misdeed, preventing every pain, easing every struggle, or saving every life. “That the trial of your faith, being much more precious than of gold that perisheth, though it be tried with fire…”

    I am just fine with you finding it illogical to believe in this. Taken as a whole, it has logic, but taken in parts, it breaks down into worthlessness and senselessness. If you do not believe in an afterlife, then any god over this world would have to be cruel indeed.

    #Women and minorities
    Though not originally in our discussion, it is in this article and relates to the topic at hand, so here we go.

    Firstly, to my knowledge there was never a revelation from God stating minority groups couldn’t have the priesthood. I know of two accounts, actually, when Joseph Smith ordained black men to the priesthood. But for years it was restricted, as if by custom.

    I can only guess why members did not ordain those of color to the priesthood. It is a question I’ve often asked and never found an answer. My best guess, which is shared by others, is that the members of the church were bigoted, but the doctrine itself remained pure.

    Many take fault with the Lamanite curse in the Book of Mormon. What is misunderstood is the nature of the curse. The changing of skin color is not the curse, but was done originally to separate the two groups. Later in the Book of Mormon, the Lamanites (with their dark skin) were more righteous than the Nephites, with light skin. The same can be said of the Canaanites of the Old Testament; the skin color is not a curse in itself, and those alive with it now did nothing to deserve the original curse. Their heritage carries the skin color, but not the curse. Hence they are not looked down upon by the church.

    As for women, its a false idea that because they don’t hold the priesthood, they are somehow “lesser” than men. Its a common joke that women don’t have the priesthood because they are better than men, and we needed it to try and catch up. Only the proud are concerned with the status of women in the church; those who look a little beyond the “very idea” of it notice how much respect is given to women, especially mothers, and how men are also strongly encouraged to fulfill the role the church teaches. The only difference is the roles and how society sees one as “superior” and the other as “inferior” without regard to importance.

    As an additional point, the family is placed higher than any church position, and teaching our children is likely viewed as the most important duty in the family. A duty mothers are encouraged to perform, with assistance from men. When you see the priorities we place on things, not the priorities society gives them, you will see there is no disrespect towards women.

    I hope this helps explain a few things.

    

    Dan

    4 Apr 11 at 12:35 pm
21. Again, thank you for bringing the grace thing to my attention. It’s in my best interests to tell only the truth on my website, and I appreciate anyone and everyone’s help with fact-checking.

    #LDS and gays

    In California, where I live and have the most experience, the Mormon church itself funded – and pressured its members into funding – Proposition 8, which made gay marriage unconstitutional. Why? Gay people would still have sex even if they weren’t married. They’d still fall in love. The clincher? Even if gay marriage HAD been legalized, no churches whatsoever would have been forced to perform the ceremonies. To answer your question, yes, refusing to perform these ceremonies would absolutely be discriminatory, by definition. But they’d still be allowed to. I don’t think this is right, but here we’re not talking about my opinion, we’re talking about the law.

    Regardless of what the Bible, Book of Mormon, or any other texts say on the subject of homosexuality, you should not force your beliefs onto others if the cost is misery and even death. Especially since we see no detrimental effects to homosexuality. Child molestation scars the child in more ways than one. Normal homosexuality, like heterosexuality, is practiced between two consenting adults that do no harm to anybody else around them.

    #Love of God/evil

    Isaiah 45:7 (King James Version): “I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the LORD do all these things.”

    We have no need to learn from our actions. God, being omnipotent, could teach us everything. We have no need to grow. God, being omnipotent, could make us as perfect as he desired. If God desired, he could do or not to anything. He could stop bullets from hitting innocent people. He could stop starvation. He could have stopped Eve from taking the forbidden fruit. Any evil that occurs is strictly because it pleases God to occur.

    Why is there a need for an afterlife? Why is there a need for a test to get in? The concept of heaven, for example, eternal happiness and perfection, why did God not just create Earth as such? Furthermore, as for the concept of hell, for me that proves that there can be no loving God. He creates no solid evidence of himself, and then forever tortures anybody that failed to believe in something they couldn’t see and disobeyed rules in books like any fairytale.

    #Women and minorities

    Why remain in a church that lets discriminatory men govern it? You think that the prophet receives orders from God, did god tell him to deny blacks? What about women?

    In terms of women, what you think colloquially is almost entirely irrelevant. When a woman cannot hold the same job as a man, we call that discrimination and the fact that LDS endorses it is disgusting to me. But that’s the least of the lady problems that plagues the church. What about polygamy, still occurring today, where women take such low priority and are mistreated? What about the Mormon doctrine on the afterlife – where only the men will become gods?

    When any two people of proper age and intelligence are treated differently in the same circumstances, that’s unfair and disrespectful . Your concept is that the woman is responsible to be a homemaker. Why? Why can a woman not be a breadwinner and the man a homemaker?

    

    admin(Quinlan)

    4 Apr 11 at 1:08 pm
22. We are beginning to run in circles now. There is a point where my ability to explain ends, partially because of my limited understanding and partially because it cannot be taken at once like a giant horse pill. Many concepts in LDS doctrine rely up a knowledge and/or acceptance of other doctrines, much as understanding calculus is impossible without grasping earlier mathematics.

    I feel that is where we are in the gay people discussion. There is little else I can explain, other than to say the harm it causes is not physical and emotional, like molestation or an injury. The harm is spiritual, a concept very difficult to understand without a knowledge of other doctrines. If you wish, I can try and explain it, but won’t unless you request it.

    I once studied the verse in Isaiah you quoted, but seem to have forgotten what conclusions I reached. To be honest, my first instinct would be to say its a mistranslation; a similar verse in Amos 3:6 is a mistranslation (according to Joseph Smith) and I know of two verses in the Book of Mormon that directly contradict this verse in Isaiah. But before you say, “How convenient,” that does not satisfy me; I will do some research into it and try to remember to report my findings back.

    In any case, LDS doctrine is that God did not create evil; rather, evil is the result of an absence of God’s light, much as a dark room is a room lacking light.

    The questions you pose about God creating everything perfectly, about an afterlife, about hell, etc. are all good questions. They are the sorts of questions most religions skirt around, as they are hard questions to answer. To get to the heart of the matter, I’d have to explain what we refer to as the Plan of Salvation- and in a lot of detail to answer the questions you posed. If you sincerely want to know the LDS viewpoint on these subjects, you should sit down and talk with a couple of missionaries.

    Something tells me you aren’t intimidated by missionaries, so that shouldn’t be a problem. You may enjoy seeing their facial expressions too . But many of those questions require the Spirit to answer properly, and its hard to do that in this medium (online). Besides, it’ll be good to get the young guys thinking about that sort of stuff; you’d be surprised how few people ask the sorts of insightful questions you posed. Most folks just sort of plod along through life (which is why many religions can get away without any real answers to these questions).

    That said, I can easily clear up some of the confusion. Firstly, LDS doctrine is that after this life, we go to a ‘spiritual waiting room’, if you will. That’s not what we call it, and its more complicated than that, but for the sake of simplicity stay with me here. There, those who never learned of God are taught, giving everyone a chance to accept. Modern prophets have said virtually no one will deny God there because of the ‘change in scenery’ you could say. But the choice is still there.

    Taken from this talk:
    http://lds.org/general-conference/2001/04/the-touch-of-the-masters-hand?lang=eng&query=everlasting+burnings

    “King Benjamin [a Book of Mormon prophet,] said that those who are evil will be “consigned to an awful view of their own guilt and abominations, which doth cause them to shrink from the presence of the Lord into a state of misery and endless torment.”

    The Prophet Joseph Smith said: “A man is his own tormentor and his own condemner. The torment of disappointment in the mind of man [or woman] is as exquisite as a lake burning with fire and brimstone.”

    That lake of fire and brimstone, ever burning but never consumed, is the description in the scriptures for hell.”

    It is not God who torments us. We do that on our own just fine.

    #Women and minorities
    As I said in my previous response, I have never seen an official declaration stating the priesthood should not be given to minorities. Irregardless, you place too much emphasis on the priesthood. Having or not having the priesthood will not hurt anyone in the eternities; those blessings will be given to them (and is part of the spirit waiting room I mentioned above). What’s more, minorities were never (to my knowledge) denied entrance into the church.

    There are no jobs in the church, per se. Its a lay ministry. In church lingo, we refer to them as callings. It doesn’t matter, so long as you understand nobody gets paid.

    That being said, there are many positions men cannot hold. Young Women’s President, Relief Society President, Primary President, just to name a few. Yet I have never, ever, heard anyone complain about discrimination towards men in this regard. Perhaps you can explain this to me?

    No Latter-Day Saint currently practices polygamy. Those who do are excommunicated. Do not make the mistake of thinking splinter groups are part of the church, endorsed by the church, or receive sympathy of any kind by the church. I remember when a famous polygamist (who’s name escapes me at the moment) was caught by police a few years back. I also remember cheering, until the media said he was Mormon. No one mistakes Catholics, Lutherans, and Methodists, but all three groups came from the same place. Please don’t mistake so-called “fundamentalist mormons” with Latter-Day Saints.

    Of course only men become gods. Women become goddesses, silly. I’ve been accused of many things, but never forcing women into getting a sex change.

    Jokes aside, I was serious.

    A woman can be a breadwinner, and a man a homemaker. But God gave us unique talents and abilities. Not all women are the same, nor all men, and there are various family situations we find each other in. The idea that the church forces families to do certain things is false. The church does encourage a division of labor, so to speak, but my mother worked from when I was five and still does. My experience has been that the church members can be more judgmental on the subject than church doctrine. Again, we aren’t perfect.

    

    Dan

    4 Apr 11 at 7:07 pm
23. Please explain to me, in depth, the spiritual damage that homosexuality does. Can we prove this?

    For that matter, can we prove, or even provide a single scrap of evidence for, anything here? What evidence is there for an afterlife of any sort? What evidence is there that women are more spiritual than men?

    This is the problem with the priesthood. You think this kind of discrimination is okay because it wont’ effect their afterlife. But you cannot prove this, and you cannot provide any evidence for this. But I can provide evidence for and even prove that by denying women equal opportunities, you’re holding them back in this life. I haven’t heard about the lesser jobs that men can’t hold, but the exact same reasoning applies. I support no job unless anybody can hold it regardless of race or gender.

    Why is polygamy no longer church doctrine? Joseph Smith announced that God had allowed him to have many wives, including underage girls. Yet when western society began to frown upon this particular Mormon doctrine, it was quickly repealed. To use your words, “how convenient.”

    I’ll let you do the research on God’s evil in the Bible, et cetera. This will be an interesting conversation.

    My opinions on missionaries fluctuate between anger and heartbreak. Anger because these people bother others to spread their own harmful dogma, and heartbreak because they’ve been raised to do so, and are often so far indoctrinated as to be beyond reprieve. That, I think, is one of the most fundamental evils of religion – denying children the right to think for themselves and to weigh opinions and beliefs before forming them.

    On the topic of the afterlife, this is another grain of God’s unfairness. Those who died without hearing about him are all but guaranteed to accept him and be rewarded. But those who had heard of him, even though no solid evidence was given to support him (and in fact much evidence to discredit his existence), will likely be punished. Why does he not give everyone a fair chance?

    

    admin(Quinlan)

    4 Apr 11 at 7:49 pm
24. Should we let children decide for themselves whether murder is bad or not? If you know something is good, or something is bad, you would be a negligent parent for not teaching your children that truth. My inability to prove it is true to you does nothing to lessen how firmly I know it is true, just as I know murder is bad and kindness is good.

    The very nature of all things spiritual defy scientific study. This is why science has such a hard time with it. You can’t see a spirit, you can’t feel it, you can’t smell it, taste it, hear it, or even directly see a spirit’s impact on the world. How do you prove, scientifically, something like this exists, much less its nature, characteristics, origin, etc?

    I can feel it. Science doesn’t do feelings very well. I’ve studied sociology and psychology, and though I am no expert on such matters, I can say that from what I have learned, they do not study emotions, but rather how people react to their emotions. How do you know someone is angry? From their expressions, body language, tone of voice, etc. But can you see the anger, itself?

    Some studies of the brain help, as we can see areas of the brain light up under different stimuli. I’ve never seen a study like this about which areas of the brain light up when someone is having a spiritual experience- it would be interesting to me to see such a study.

    Other than that, the only way anyone can know how someone else is feeling is through their response- and their words. So I say I’ve felt the Spirit of God, but you have no way to know if I’m lying, deluding myself, or telling the truth. I invite you to try it yourself, but the tricky thing about it is its uniqueness. God does not show miracles to inspire faith; He shows miracles because of faith. Nor does He reveal Himself to those seeking only to prove He doesn’t exist, or to mock another. The seeker must genuinely want to know.

    This, again, will seem like an impossible loop to get into, a convenient fact we believers invent to explain why others don’t feel what we feel. Sometimes, however, what seems convenient is actually true. Those who seek God honestly find Him, while others struggle with the notion that so many could be “so deluded.”

    So I’ll ask you the same question you ask me. I’m sure someone has asked you this before. Prove to me there is no God. Prove there is no afterlife. I’m not talking about trying to prove my religion is false, or my God doesn’t exist: I want you to prove there is no such thing as a higher being, a grand designer, or whatever else you want to call him/her/it. Prove to me this life is all there is, that you didn’t exist before this, and that you will cease to exist when your heart beats its last.

    This, too, is impossible, for those who go beyond this life don’t really come back to talk about it. Except for angels, which leads back to the same issues we have trying to prove the existence of God.

    Those who demand proof will get it, but probably not when that proof can do them any good. There are exceptions, like Saul of Tarsus in the New Testament. But mostly, God will wait until after this life to provide proof to those without faith and without any inclination to find faith.

    If I understand your position correctly, you do not believe in the spirit of man so much. We are alive, but that life is a product of our bodies, brains, etc. If this is incorrect, I apologize. But should this be your belief, there is absolutely now way I can explain spiritual matters in a way you may understand. You will question the very foundation of it, and thereby miss the higher order of thoughts involved.

    I do not mean this as an insult. I do not mean to be “holier-than-thou” or any of that nonsense. But to explain the taste of salt to a man who’s never had anything salty is nigh impossible. Much easier, then, to give the man salt. Unfortunately, it is not within my power to give you a spiritual experience. I do not command God, nor would I dare try.

    Having said that (rather long, likely boring) explanation, I find I cannot think of a way to explain how anything is spiritually damaging, much less how homosexuality is thus. I freely admit I cannot and will not attempt to prove the existence of God, nor an afterlife or any other spiritual matter. If it could be proven, no faith would be required, thus robbing the test of mortality its effectiveness. Even with proof, even if God Himself appeared in Times Square and did mighty miracles for a hundred years, some would still decide He was some sort of alien with advanced technology, or some other garbage. Joseph Smith actually taught this concept: after Christ comes again, there will be many who do not accept Him.

    I fear we are at the impasse all such conversations eventually reach. You want proof, I cannot provide it for you. I want you to seek the proof yourself, take the promise found in Moroni 10:5 and act on it. You cannot do this, for it goes against everything you believe.

    If your goal is to tear down false beliefs, show discrimination and hate while you do so, I would suggest not alienating your target audience. Take down the picture of garments. It does nothing to further your cause; only those already displeased with the church will approve or be swayed by it, and you don’t need it to sway them. The rest of us are merely offended by it, and perhaps some you would “enlighten” will be disgusted and turn away. If you truly seek to help end disrespect and discrimination, then you should not yourself be so disrespectful and discriminatory towards others; its hypocritical.

    And whatever else you may do or say, at least by removing it you can spare yourself a particularly nasty punishment from God should He really exist and care one iota.

    

    Dan

    4 Apr 11 at 10:54 pm
25. I don’t feel that we’ve yet reached this impasse. I’ve still things I’d like to ask you about, if you don’t mind sticking around.

    Let me firstly assert that by ‘evidence’, I do not mean strictly scientific evidence since you’re correct that this can do little in terms of theology. I’ll also accept logical evidence (this, thus that) as I use quite a lot of this in my arguments as well.

    #Garments

    In terms of the garments photo, I’ve been waging a war on God for many years now, I’m pretty sure that this would be one of my lesser offenses. But if you can explain to me how this would instantly and brutally turn Mormons against my page, I would consider taking it down simply for the sake that they keep reading.

    #Gays

    Please, let me get this straight. You assert that homosexuality does spiritual damage. You do not know exactly what this damage is, or the nature of it. We cannot observe it, nor can we provide evidence for it scientifically or logically. And yet you’ll tell them that they commit a sin, urge them to fix themselves, convince families to disown them, and pay millions of dollars, ILLEGALLY, to prevent them from being healthy and happy? How about this: what if the Catholic church paid millions of dollars to pass a law that prevented Mormons from getting married? Pretty messed up, right? Now explain to me the difference.

    #Indoctrination

    Things such as murder, we’ve seen, are not really things that children need to be taught is wrong. If a child has a healthy brain at birth, he dents to figure those things out for himself. Furthermore, those things are universal opinions – almost everybody on the planet acknowledges that murder is wrong. But what of God? Why should you indoctrinate a child to believe in him, and harass others to come to this belief as well? I, an atheist, would not raise my child to be an atheist. I’d raise my child to be a free thinker. Admittedly I’d be a bit heartbroken if they turned out religious, but I would have still done the right thing.

    #Disproof of God
    I cannot provide you with a scientific disproof, but I can provide a whole heap of logical evidence, so much evidence that I’d more or less consider it proof.

    *Praying, for example. People spend hours of their lives getting on their knees, prostrating themselves before God, calling him awesome, and then what? He never gives them what they need. There is absolutely no outcome of prayer that could not be attributed to the praying person. There have even been studies in which large groups of people have prayed for a person’s sickness to ease, and no progress has been seen.

    *Coming right off of this, miracles. We haven’t seen them. Sure, you see them written about. But I also have read stories of wizards and Jedi, but does that make me believe in or dedicate my life to either magic or the force? No. Because we can’t see either thing, and never have.

    *Not a disproof for all religions, so much as for modern ones. Examine how closely your religion matches those of thousands of years ago. Did you know that Krishna has more or less the exact same story as Jesus? And he was invented thousands of years BEFORE Jesus’ supposed birth.

    * “Is god willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent. Is he able but not willing? Then he is malevolent. Is god both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil? Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him god?”

    * A loving god is an easy thing to logically disprove. If we believe the story of Genesis, particularly. God created a near-perfect world for humans. But he both created them with curiosity, AND put the method to unleash evil right in front of them. Do you know what that sounds like to me? A sadistic joke. Let’s put a 100 dollar bill on a string and use it to lead somebody into oncoming traffic. God is omnipotent. He could have made the fruit invisible, he could have made it not exist at all. Furthermore, in the Bible, God outright endorsed slavery and murder. God’s body count in the Bible is FAR higher than Satan’s. Through the Bible we also see blatant counts of God’s racism and sexism.

    *Contradictions in religious texts. If they were supposed to be gospel of God, why would he not fix them? Yet another grain of unfairness – I’m inclined not to accept a book presenting itself as truth, when it contains so many factual contradictions.

    *Creationism, the doctrine in which evolution did not occur, is demonstrably untrue.

    *God vs Santa. If I went around preaching the word of Old Saint Nick, people would laugh and call me crazy. But what’s the difference?

    And finally, my favorite:
    *God is said to be omniscient. People are said to have free will. Both things are mutually exclusive. If omniscient, he knows exactly what we’re going to do. If we have free will, it is impossible for anybody to know what we’ll do.

    There are many, many, more where these came from. These were simply some of my more liked ones, and some of the more simple ones.

    

    admin(Quinlan)

    5 Apr 11 at 8:47 am
26. Firstly, I asked you to disprove the existence of any higher being. You have not done so, and instead focused on the ideas of God presented by western religions (with one reference to an eastern religion). Am I to imply from this you are not, actually, atheist, but instead simply do not believe in any religion you have yet encountered? There is a difference between believing any god is impossible and simply believing the religions you have encountered are hoaxes or do not describe such a god correctly.

    Secondly, may I point out that any higher being would, of necessity, be different from us, if in nothing else than intellect and power. Explain to me how we are to fully comprehend such a being, its motives, etc. I would compare this to a chimp fully comprehending modern man; while the chimp has a measure of intelligence, mankind is on a whole different plane of intelligence, making it impossible for the chimp to really grasp what is going on. May I remind you that this exercise is for the concept of a higher being, not any specific one.

    #Garments
    There is a reason we hold them sacred, restrict who can wear them, etc. It comes from the ordinances performed in the temple, which I will not discuss. The church gets loads of flak about this “conspiracy” or “secret”, but its a matter of sacredness. If you do not see the difference, I will not try to explain it to you.

    The end result is someone has broken promises to God by taking that picture, uploading it, and now the image serves to mock God. Those who spread it likewise mock God. It doesn’t exactly make anyone who’s been in the temple happy.

    #Homosexuality
    You falsely say I do not know the spiritual damage homosexuality incurs. I merely said it would be impossible to explain without your having prerequisite knowledge of other topics, chiefly the nature of the spirit of man and the plan of salvation (mentioned previously).

    Because I rather suspect you will ask me to explain anyway, let me try anyway. Sin, no matter what kind, damages a man’s spirit and separates him from God. More grievous sins do more damage, and repeating sins will worsen the effect. Over time, a man in this state will lose the ability to feel God’s Spirit. Not to say he cannot be made to feel it, as God has shown the ability and disposition to do so occasionally. And should the man cease committing sin and do more righteous things, which is a step in the repentance process, that man can regain what he has lost.

    Why does this matter? For one, as sin separates us from God, we find we cannot endure His presence. Those who, in the world after this, do not go to heaven will not WANT to go to heaven. Its against their personality by that point- they have no interest in holy things. The presence of God becomes unpleasant or painful to them. The best analogy I can think of is staring at the sun on a summer day.

    This inability to feel God’s Spirit also impacts this life. We can feel pleasure doing righteous things and doing evil things, but actual joy only comes from doing good. That’s why you will see those who live the most wicked of lives are never satisfied; pleasure cannot take the place of actual peace, actual joy. This can inspire the individual to change their life around. Just because a person doesn’t know God’s laws doesn’t mean God does not encourage that person to live them. We are told God will judge us according to our knowledge, but as you said, it is a universally accepted fact that murder is wrong. God’s Spirit has a hand in this being “universally accepted”.

    I do not know how homosexuals will be judged, or to what extent that sin impacts their ability to feel God’s Spirit. I’m not supposed to be the judge. I wouldn’t want that kind of responsibility anyway.

    Most people will not notice the gradual withdrawing of God’s Spirit. But talk to someone who has turned their life around and they will often tell you how much happier they are now- its hard to notice the slow decline and the slow increase, but the lows and highs provide stark contrast.

    This, again, is why we teach our children of God. Loving parents want their children to be happy, and teach their children what they believe will help that child be happy.

    *Praying and Miracles
    So because you have not gotten a response to prayer, no one has? What a childish idea. Like an ostrich with its head in the sand; “I can’t see you, therefore you can’t see me.”

    This is even more true for your comment on miracles.

    I’ve heard of miracles, but I’ve also seen them. I’ve seen people healed, I’ve felt the Spirit of God many times, I’ve felt the presence of other spirits, and I know of people raised from the dead. I’m not talking about scriptural stories, but from my lifetime. But what does it matter if I tell you these things? If you wouldn’t believe someone else writing similar stories, why should you believe me?

    Many seem to mistake prayers for guaranteed success. We do not command God, we do not have any power of ourselves to perform miracles. There are a hundred and one thousand reasons why God may not answer a prayer the way we want it to be answered. This doesn’t mean God doesn’t exist, or that prayer is a hoax. It means its more complicated than asking a butler to bring you a soda because you want one.

    *”Is god willing to prevent evil, but not able?…”
    The problem with this quote is its complete misunderstanding of why God does what He does. If God wanted perfect little slaves, He certainly would force us all to be good. If He wanted robots, He’d create beings incapable of choice, and therefore incapable of sin.

    The first scenario, the slaves, would make God evil. Is it not evil to force one’s beliefs on another? To make them do what you want? God will certainly encourage, sometimes forcefully (Old Testament stories come to mind, or Saul of Tarsus). But there is always an option. God in essence says, “Do this or this. Here is the result of action #1, here is the result of action #2.” The result may be misery or mortal death, but from the perspective of eternity, mortal life is very short. Our preoccupation with it is merely a symptom of not knowing anything else.

    God can do all things, but He refuses to do evil things. Were He to do evil things, He would cease to be God. To force another to do something, even that which is good, is evil; this should be easy to understand. A slave doing good things is still a slave, and his master still a slaver.

    This notion will likely lead you to a logical paradox. How can this be? Would it not be evil for God to allow evil to happen, and not stop it? If He did nothing, it would be evil, and again God would cease to be God. To all things there is a consequence; sometimes it is reward, in the case of righteousness. At other times, punishment for wickedness. In this fashion, we learn and grow, God is not evil for making us slaves, wickedness still happens, and with it pain and suffering, but punishment is given and after the short period of mortal life, the pain ends for those who were wronged. Because we have all sinned, we would all be punished (and be unable to withstand God’s presence). So God sent a Savior, Christ, who lived a perfect life and thus could still return to God’s presence. Christ also suffered for our sins, meaning we do not have to suffer for them. This is how God set it up before the foundations of this world, and we now live in this situation.

    After this life, we will retain our memories- our pain, guilt, sorrow, joy, gladness, and so forth. Everyone, righteous and wicked both, will be resurrected, for God gave His children the gift of a body and declared it would never be taken from them permanently. Those who were righteous, did their best with the knowledge they had, did accept Christ and repented (in this life or the next) will be rewarded, Christ having taken upon Himself the suffering they would have had from their mistakes. The rest will be punished.

    You should know LDS doctrine does not teach heaven/hell for eternity. There is no dividing line that says, “Oops, you committed one too many sins, guess you’ll rot in hell forever.” There are multiple places prepared. 1 Corinthians 15:40-42 is one Biblical reference to this.

    *Contradictions
    Many such contradictions are the result of misinterpretation on the part of the reader. Some come from translation errors, or the misinterpretation of the previous generation of translators. Some come from the wording, which is not how modern man normally speaks. Some come because the topics taught are too deep for understanding without the Spirit of revelation (such as the book of Revelation in the New Testament). In other cases, its because parts of scripture were deliberately removed by wicked men in times past.

    Some of it comes when we take scriptures out of context, or when a scripture writer only speaks of a portion of a subject and doesn’t pause to explain every facet of it. In short, it comes because of human error and imperfections. This is why Joseph Smith said the Book of Mormon was the “most correct” book, not ABSOLUTELY correct. LDS doctrine does not teach that all scripture is 100% accurate in every iota; rather, it is very close.

    This may sound like a cop out. Well, sue me for knowing mortal man is not perfect. God would rather us see something wrong and seek answers from Him, thus strengthening our relationship with Him, than simply make scripture perfect. This is why LDS missionaries ask and plead and beg people to not just read the scriptures, but pray and ask God about them. Reading a book, any book, is no substitute for conversing with God.

    *Creationism
    Firstly, the LDS church has no stance on the precise details for how everything was created. Adaptation is very easy to see, and the logical conclusion of that is evolution. But it is still called the theory of evolution for a reason. Whether evolution is the answer, with God at its helm, or whether something else created the world as we know it, I don’t know. No prophet has said, and I don’t feel smart enough (or arrogant enough) to declare, “This is how it happened!” We know only that God was in charge.

    *God and Santa
    There is actually discussion among some that Santa came about as a merging of myth and religious principles. There are many similarities. But many actual churches are similar too, and all claim to be exclusively correct. So if you really want to know if Santa is real, you’d best start sending him letters, while like those seeking to know if God is real pray.

    *Omniscient
    That’s a contradiction. You said God might as well put money on a line and lead people into the street to get killed, and essentially did with the Garden of Eden. This means God knew they would fall. But here you say God couldn’t know what we would do, or if He did, that would deny us free will. You can’t have it both ways.

    A mother places warm cookies on the counter, and tells her four-year-old son not to eat them. What are the odds the kid leaves them alone? That mother likely knows as soon as she turns her back, that kid will make a beeline for those cookies. Does this mean the mother somehow forced her son to eat the cookies? Did she strap him to a chair and shove them in his face? Is the mere existence of cookies enough to say the mother made her son eat them?

    Just because I own a gun does not mean I will kill people. The mere possibility of an action, the mere existence of something, does not force anyone to do anything. There are lots of situations when I could be strongly encouraged to kill someone, but even if someone put a gun to my own head, I could chose to die rather than kill another.

    God certainly knows how we will react to situations. This does not remove our agency, as we still make the decision. God just knows each of us well enough to know how we will choose.

    So if God already knows, why go through so much pain and suffering? Why not just have Him tell us what would have happened, and be done with it? God may know, but we do not. Can you imagine, being punished for something you’d never done? Something you’d never dream of doing? Where would be the justice of that? But given a few decades of mortal life, we all change, and do things we surely would never have thought we’d do before this life started.

    

    Dan

    5 Apr 11 at 12:44 pm
27. Ahem.

    Dan, you are either being very disingenuous about your fraudulent pseudo-faith or you are very ignorant about it. At any rate you do not appear to have the standing to get anything taken down from this website unless the people here decide to do it out of pity. That’s because you are obviously full of bullshit, and your frankly childish arguments are just amazing. Amazingly bad, that is.

    First off, the burden of proof is not on the negative in any of the things you are challenging Quinlann to disprove. It’s often said “You can’t prove a negative”. Well, that’s not true; I can prove that I can’t fly to China under my own power. However, you are demanding that atheists (I’m one of those) are supposed to prove to you that God doesn’t exist. Sorry, chump, you lose. You have to prove that “he” does.

    And you can’t, and you never will. So demanding that they disprove God… why don’t you disprove that Thor the Thunder Gawd hasn’t kicked Mormon Gawd’s ass to hell where he sits in his girlie underwear being mocked by atheists like me?

    Regarding “grace”, in the words of Jim DeMint, you LIE. You are conflating two different senses of the word “grace” and you either KNOW it and are trying to do the clever Mormon end-run around the truth that you and your ilk always do, or you are a fool. Then maybe you’ll find out at death what a sucker you’ve been, because your works-based bullshit doesn’t cut it with “real” Gawd.

    For more reading on this why don’t you try THIS

    http://www.equip.org/perspectives/do-mormons-accept-what-orthodox-christianity-considers-biblical-salvation

    As an aside, I used to stop by here now and then to see what is up with Beck. It looks to me like Mormon Gowd has chosen to strike Glenn blind. Now why would he do that, even though Glenn has donated millions to the “church” and even tried to make nice with the Christians? Oh… maybe THAT’S it… Mormon God is angry with Glenn for trying to make nice with the Christians.

    Well that’s for you “religious scholars” to figure out. Obviously, nobody in your “church” knows their ass from a hole in the ground because you keep having to amend your doctrines and dogma to fit the prevailing politics of the day. It’s really quite hilarious to watch… it’s like watching the Catholics in fast forward.

    

    Yankyer Wanker

    5 Apr 11 at 4:11 pm
28. @Yankyer Wanker: While others are just as disrespectful as you are, they at least are intelligent enough to use words to express it, rather than just throwing out insults. I feel no need to address your comments whatsoever.

    

    Dan

    5 Apr 11 at 6:06 pm
29. Why don’t you come down from your ivory tower and dispute what I said? It’s because you can’t, isn’t it.

    You can’t

    1) dispute that the burden of proof is on the affirmative
    2) dispute that you are either mistaken or lying about what “grace” means to the Mormons compared to what it means to ALL others who claim the mantle of “Christian”.

    So what exactly is that you’re doing? Trying to earn a paycheck? I have seen you somewhere else, haven’t I? I will try to remember where and then we will find out how the Mormons are so corrupt that they feel it necessary to send out ringers to websites like this to plead their case.

    Don’t feel bad, Dan. I just read that the US Army is paying people to do this, too. So if you want to moonlight, you can Be All You Can Be plus you can still be as ignorant as hell about your own beliefs.

    

    Yankyer Wanker

    5 Apr 11 at 6:38 pm
30. While I can’t get entirely behind Yankyer Wanker’s choice of communication techniques, he’s got some entirely valid points. The article he linked to seems to be a good basis for me reinstating the bit about grace, though I’ll wait to hear from you before doing so. His point about the burden of proof being on you is also entirely correct. In a courtroom, the defender doesn’t have to prove he’s innocent, the plaintiff has to prove that they’re guilty. There is no evidence for God. If you want the right to convict nice people based on spiritual charges, you need to prove that existence first.

    #Garments

    I understand the difference between a sacred thing and a secret. The difference is that the sacred thing is COMPLETE BS, as opposed to BS going towards some purpose. I’ve been mocking God for a good many years now. He’s an asshole and he deserves it. Furthermore, I think that anybody so far gone as to have been gallivanting about in said garments is too far indoctrinated to see the message of this article anyway. I appreciate your concern, I really do. But I won’t remove something just because it displeases somebody.

    #Homosexuality

    I seem to recall that all sins were equal, so what’s all this talk of ‘more grievous sins’? And again, do you have a scrap of evidence for ANY of this story about sins separating people from God? Even if it was true, wouldn’t separating themselves from God be an individual man’s choice? If he’s not harming you, you have absolutely no right to interfere with the livelihood of another man. If you don’t mind, I’d also very much like to know what you think of my example of Catholics outlawing Mormon marriage.

    #Indoctrination

    You say that when children learn of God, they’ll be happier. Can you back this up? And even if you could, that happiness is at the cost of the happiness of many others. I also contend that it’s majorly harmful to the child himself.

    *Praying and Miracles

    I’ve witnessed neither of these things. Anybody that says that they have has no evidence. Almost all of these incidents of ‘prayers being answered’ were just things that the people could have accomplished alone. Coincidence?

    *”God can do all things, but He refuses to do evil things.”

    If you’re speaking as a Mormon, who believes in the Bible, then this is completely and demonstrably untrue. In the Bible, God killed 70,000 innocents when David ordered a census. He orders the destruction and looting of 60 cities so that Israelites (his favored race… racism much?) can live there. He orders the murder of all people of Jabesh-gilead, EXCEPT for the virgin girls, taken as wives to be raped. Later, when his followers want another virgin, God instructs them to kidnap and rape one. Come back to me with a straight face and say that none of these things were evil.

    *Omniscient

    Yes, they are contradictory statements. That’s the point. Two logical yet contradictory conclusions form an easy disproof of God. Long story short, God cannot be good, omniscient, and have created us with free will.

    As for your example of the mother, I’ve actually used an analogy very close to that one before (mine involved the father with the cookies though). And yes. If the mother more or less knows that the child wants the cookies, and she puts them within his reach, then it’s entirely her fault when he gets them. The child is a toddler. His capacity is much less than hers to resist, obey, and be good. In this example it was she being a bad parent.

    If God knows exactly what we will do, we do not have true free will. If we can do nothing, make no choice that God did not know about and thus INTEND us to make, what are we but slaves?

    

    admin(Quinlan)

    5 Apr 11 at 9:22 pm
31. I’ve read quite a bit about Valhalla and Olympus, and although there was a bit of depravity now and again, there was a lot less smiting and smoting and getting your schlong bent out of joint for being a regular working-class guy who was trying to make ends meet.

    Look what Mormon God is letting happen today. The currency could implode, or so hopes Glenn. 18 million without any job or hope of getting one. Truth finally revealed that HR departments start working to fire your ass as soon as you reach 50, Mormon BVDs or not. And you will NEVER WORK AGAIN in your field. That’s the clearly diabolical part. The system tells us that we have to be educated to make a good living and then gets us average paying jobs that last just long enough after graduation to pay back the student loans.

    But the Mormons wouldn’t know anything about BANKING, would they, wink wink nudge nudge?

    So Dan Dan the Dogma Man is a fizzle. As soon as you confront him with the facts he runs away, just as all Mormons do unless they’re holding the guns. But on the merits of the truth, they don’t stand much of a chance.

    What gets me about them is that they won’t stop the heinous fraud of calling themselves a “Christian” church. They’re not Christian and they’re not a church. They’re a temple, but not like the Jewish temple, it’s like the Masonic temple. Know the secret handshake, they let you in. Jews are more like Christians than Mormons are.

    I can’t think of one good “net net” effect of the Mormons being on this planet. Everything they might claim to be doing as “good” is so grossly overbalanced by destructive, anti-social, illegal, and immoral acts that it all flies into the trash heap where it belongs.

    If I had a 14 year old daughter and the 50 year old dude across the street started demanding sex from her I’d put a stop to that in a quick hurry. But not you, Dan. A good Mormon like you knows that your stake leader can do whatever he wants, whether it’s illegal or immoral or both. Y’all just look the other way. Nice, real nice. A church based on polygamy and child molesting.

    The only conversations I have with the mission boys any more is to ask them if they want to be saved from the horrible predicament that they’ve got themselves into. I tell them that we don’t have a lot of money but we can get them to a safe house where nobody who comes looking for them will find them and they can live their lives in safety, far from the influence of the Mother Ship.

    None have taken me up on it yet, but I’ll bet that someday they will. I wonder if it will be one of them or both.

    

    Yankyer Wanker

    5 Apr 11 at 10:36 pm
32. I’m sorry, my having things to do offline means I “ran away”?

    Quinlan, you know see why I was surprised by your words and reactions. I’m used to guys like Yankyer Wanker. It was a nice reminder that there are atheists who can speak their mind, be blunt, and still be fairly civil. Unfortunately, I don’t meet many who fit into that category. At least atheists are in good company- it seems most people who are willing to discuss religion are jerks to anyone who doesn’t share their views.

    I hope I haven’t come across as one.

    @Yankyer Wanker: I do not earn a paycheck. The LDS church doesn’t need to pay people to go out and do things; we actually care enough to do it on our own. Shocking, I know. If you have seen me before, I don’t remember it. I tend to avoid conversations like have taken place here, because of people like you. Why should I try and explain or defend anything when those reading it are so close-minded and disrespectful that it just becomes one big pit of contention?

    @Quinlan:
    As an atheist, I will appeal to your objectivity in the matter of God’s grace. There are at least two interpretations of grace; the LDS interpretation and the more common interpretation.

    Other Christians get very, very riled up because we dare to have a different view of grace than they do. Because its different, it must be heretical. This is a key point in their argument that Mormons are not Christian, for how can you be Christian and not believe in grace?

    What is misunderstood is what, exactly, our take on grace is. Its funny, because grace is likely the least understood doctrine among church members. I’ve probably explained the church’s position on it to members almost as much as to those outside the church. There have been a couple of general conference talks in the last couple years about grace, trying to get church members to better understand the concept as well.

    There are two types of death spoken of in the scriptures. Physical, and spiritual. God’s grace saves everyone from physical death, no matter what they do in life. It is universal and requires nothing on the part of an individual; they need not even hear of Christ, much less accept Him.

    Spiritual death is defined in LDS doctrine as separation from God. Only those who return to heaven (or more specifically, the Celestial Kingdom) are saved from this death, as they are the only ones without anything separating them from God.

    So, how does one become “saved”? How do you return to the presence of God?

    Says Paul, In Acts 16:31- “Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be saved.”

    Sounds simple. Believe, and presto, you’re in. Romans 10:9 is even more clear:
    “If thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved”

    Hence we get many churches teaching that if you but say the magic words, somehow its okay to do anything you want. That sounds like a pretty good program; it appeals to human nature. Why, if I can be saved by saying a quick prayer, once, and do whatever I want (even murder) and still be saved, then why should I ever believe in a religion that teaches I must actually DO something?

    So here comes the confusing part. James 2:17-22:
    “Even so faith, if it hath not works, is dead, being alone.
    “Yea, a man may say, Thou hast faith, and I have works: shew me thy faith without thy works, and I will shew thee my faith by my works.
    “Thou believest that there is one God; thou doest well: the devils also believe, and tremble.
    “But wilt thou know, O vain man, that faith without works is dead?
    “Was not Abraham our father justified by works, when he had offered Isaac his son upon the altar?
    “Seest thou how faith wrought with his works, and by works was faith made perfect?”

    And John records Christ as saying the following (John 14:12, see also verses 15, 21, 23-24):
    “Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that believeth on me, the works that I do shall he do also.”

    So which is it? Do you need to merely believe, or do you need to actually perform work? Unless we are to take these different references as contradictions (which some do), then it is quite clear we need both.

    To be saved from our sins, Christ has to accept us. It does not matter what you or I or anyone else does, we cannot qualify for salvation alone. Works never did and never will bring salvation; only Christ, through His atonement in Gethsemane and on the cross, can bring salvation. But He will not give it to just anyone.

    The entire point of the Gospel of Jesus Christ (and hence, the LDS church) is learning how to receive salvation from God. God has asked us to do things, and we do them. Merely believing is not enough, and merely doing is not enough. Even if we do both, it wouldn’t help us one tiny bit, except Christ will then save us.

    The often-used analogy is that of a child wanting to buy a bicycle. After saving his pennies for weeks, the little boy goes to the store with his dad to get a bike. He is so excited, until he sees the price tags and realizes he has but a few dollars, while the bikes cost far, far more.

    We are like this little kid; we cannot earn salvation. As soon as we sin, we have disqualified ourselves. We are pretty much lost before we even know being lost is a possibility. Christ may forgive us, allowing us the chance at salvation. But Christ has requested we do our best to become like Him first, and then He will make up the huge difference so that we can return to God.

    For a more detailed study, I suggest this link.
    http://lds.org/ensign/1981/04/salvation-by-grace-or-by-works?lang=eng

    No, LDS doctrine of grace is not the same as other Christian groups. But its core is the same- it is by grace we are saved, and nothing we can do could replace God’s role in our salvation.

    #Courtroom and proof
    I agree and disagree both. You see, we are both defendants and plaintiffs, for you accuse me of hurting others, while I accuse you of hurting Mormons. That is an oversimplification of our discussions, but true. My point in asking you for proof was to say that I cannot prove God exists to you, but neither can you prove He doesn’t to me, and therefore His “non-existence” does not give you grounds to disrespect me, destroy the church I belong to, or demand me to refute my beliefs. You didn’t use the same words I just did, but you did say this: “What am I trying to do, if not discrediting your disrespectful beliefs and fallacies?” Your inability to prove God doesn’t exist means you cannot claim it to be false, and while you may declare other aspects of my faith to be false, at least on that point you cannot do so.

    As neither of us can prove God’s existence one way or the other, we are at a stalemate in this regard. And I’m fine with that; my goal is not to change your beliefs, but rather the means by which you choose to express them (primarily, the utter disregard for anything to do with God). Failing that, I can at least help you better understand our doctrine.

    #Equality of sin
    And what gave you the impression that God sees rape as equal to stealing a candy bar? True, both are sins, and both must be repented of, and both disqualify us for salvation unless or until Christ intervenes on our behalf. But the idea that they are equal in severity is absurd. I’ve heard it taught and never understood how someone could believe it. Regardless, LDS doctrine certainly says not all sins are equally bad; some are worse than others.

    #God and evil
    There are a great many things I do not understand about God’s dealings with ancient Israel. Frankly, I get frustrated with the Israelite’s stupidity. At one point, it seems God threatens to wipe them out and start over with Moses; why He didn’t do that, I don’t know.

    In any case, I have two answers for you, and a possible third. The possible answer is that some of the scriptures as they are recorded are simply false. I have no way of saying which ones, or how many, could fall into this category. Or if any do. Hence, it is merely a possibility.

    One of the two answers comes back around to perspective. Society looks at death as the ultimate punishment; God does not. To us, destroying a city is cruel and evil, yet do we not advocate it often? In war, do we not wipe out millions? Killing civilians is almost always condemned; no, instead we bomb their countries to dust, destroy their ability to make food, transport goods, maintain communications and power, and in short, do our very best to make sure everyone in an opposing country starves or freezes to death.

    Traditionally, after destroying their ability to fight, they give up. But what if your opponent never does? Tell me, is it more merciful to make them starve or simply wipe them out with the sword? I honestly do not know the answer. What I do know is this life is a test, and God is the proctor. When He judges we have failed the test, there is no reason for us to continue, especially if we will do harm to others. So He removes us from the test.

    My second answer to God’s apparent cruelty comes in the form of an analogy. I drive my car all the time. I can put gas in it, rotate the tires, all that jazz. I understand the basics of a combustion engine. But I do not understand more than the basics; I’m certainly no mechanic. If you asked me to name the parts of an engine, I could perhaps get 50% of the big ones, and maybe 2% of the smaller components.

    I do not understand how it all works. But it is quite obvious to me that it does; I see it working all the time. I even have a pretty good grasp on its limitations and an idea how complex it all is.

    I cannot answer every question you have. Want to know one of mine I can’t answer yet? 2 Kings 2:24. Why in the world does he seemingly murder 42 kids? It seems completely against the idea of a loving God.

    But I’ve seen the Gospel work. I’ve felt God’s Spirit, I cannot deny He is there and that the LDS church is His church. But there are still many things I do not understand about the scriptures and some doctrines.

    I hope you did not expect me to know everything. Because I simply do not. This lack of knowledge is often described as blind faith, and severely mocked by scientists. But look at it this way: when did mankind begin using fertilizer? How many centuries did it take us after that fact before we actually understood why fertilizer worked? Because they didn’t understand it, should ancient farmers be mocked for using fertilizer? Certainly not; they knew it worked, and I know God lives.

    #Indoctrination
    And how would you propose I back it up? There are a few studies about how satisfied people report themselves to be, with those who are heavily religious reporting they are more satisfied with life. But I don’t think those studies are particularly telling.

    If you accept that living God’s laws brings us closer to Him, and makes us happier, is true, then it makes obvious sense that teaching children of God will make them happier. But if you do not accept that God exists, much less has laws or that obedience to said laws will do anything for us, well it becomes rather difficult to say teaching children about God is important. In fact, it would be quite harmful to the child to teach him something which is false.

    So now we are back to trying to prove the existence of God. Funny how its all connected, wouldn’t you say? Its really hard to tear apart a building and have the second-story doors still work; likewise, its pretty rough trying to separate individual doctrines.

    #Omniscient
    If what you say is true, then we need to arrest and condemn every gun manufacturer. They made guns, knowing they can be used for evil, knowing some people will use them for evil, and therefore they are responsible for the actions of others. Because, after all, they provide the opportunity.

    Likewise, we’d best arrest everyone in the tobacco industry. They keep making cigarettes, knowing the harmful effects. They know millions die, that millions of others are addicted, and therefore if they stop producing cigarettes they could save all those people by removing the option of smoking.

    And why stop there? Car accidents kill, so we’d best get rid of cars. And buildings, because they can kill people when there are earthquakes, or trap them during a fire. In fact, because people sometimes trip on their shoelaces, we had best outlaw shoelaces as well.

    Do you see how the conclusion you have reached is a logical fallacy? Merely creating something does not give you responsibility over everything that can be done with it, or will be done with it.

    Let us examine the three attributes of God in question: kindness, omniscience, and the creator of humans with free agency.

    We know humans have free agency. We cannot prove God created us, but if we operate under the assumption He did, just for a moment while we discuss the other two, we do not need to address this yet.

    So is God kind, and is He omniscient? You contend He cannot be both. I say the mother can know her toddler will eat the cookies. Yet the mother is still kind because she made the cookies. She knows it will be better for her son to eat the cookies after having something more nourishing first; her son does not know this.

    Let’s say the mother does turn away, and little Johnny eats some cookies. Will the mother punish him for disobeying? Yes. Will she also forgive him? Yes. Will she later make cookies, and will Johnny eat some when he shouldn’t? Almost certainly.

    However, as Johnny grows, he will connect the ideas of punishment and commands. Johnny will learn that to avoid punishment, he must not do that which he is told not to do. Later, he will even learn why his mother didn’t want him to eat the cookies then.

    In essence, this is a rough analogy for mortal life. We start out very ignorant. Over time, we grow and learn and mature. If we still chose to eat the cookies when we shouldn’t, and when we know better, we are no longer innocent little Johnny’s. Now we are willfully rebelling against a command. We know the rule, and we disobey it anyway.

    We all do this. Should we try our best, and repent when we fail, we will find ourselves in a position like an average teenager. They screw up, but their parents will forgive them. However, if they continually disregard what they know to be good (they know it because they were taught it already), then the parents will not be so forgiving.

    The mother is not evil because she made cookies, nor because she told her son not to eat them, nor for turning around and giving her son the opportunity to go for it and think he’ll get away with it. The mother would be evil if she did not try and teach her son, or if she removed every decision he had in life. By giving her son a chance to learn, the mother is doing him a service; eating a cookie before dinner has far less damaging effects than disobeying other commands, such as street laws. Best to learn when the consequences are small.

    Now if we flip this back around, accepting that God can be loving and omniscient at the same time, we must combine it with the idea that He created us and with free agency. We know we have free agency, so the only question is whether He created us. That is not something I can prove by logic or evidence.

    But the above explanations should help to show He could have created us, with our agency, and yet remain loving and omniscient. The goal is to learn, not to avoid all pain.

    I’m sorry all of my posts end up being so long. I must not be intelligent enough to shorten them while retaining the ideas. Abe Lincoln once said something about that concept- apologizing for not taking the time to shorten a letter, I believe it was. I suppose I too should apologize for not knowing how to shorten these posts.

    

    Dan

    6 Apr 11 at 1:10 am
33. Quite alright about the shortening. I’d rather you be long and informative than curt and flippant.

    I hope I don’t come off as rude by asking you a third time, but I truly would like an answer to my “Catholics outlaw Mormon marriage” analogy. I think your opinion on that will provide a great amount of insight into our conversation.

    #God’s Grace

    Here’s what I’ll do: I’m going to reinstate the bit stating that Mormons don’t accept it, but I’ll clarify that it’s strictly the Christian sense that they don’t accept. That seems fair to me.

    #Becoming Saved

    I’m glad you brought this up, because this is one of my absolute favorite religious topics. Imagine for a moment that you are a god, having created and ruling over a little planet. The people on this planet are god, and treat each other well. They are all very kind, and sin is at a minimum. But when they die, you don’t allow them salvation. Why? Because they didn’t spend years of their life prostrating themselves to you and telling you that you were awesome. Do we see how conceited God is now? No matter how many good deeds, no matter how many people a person has saved from starvation or misery, no matter how few sins this person has committed. If the best person on Earth did not spend hours sucking up to God, he will not be saved. Why do you respect such conceit?

    As for a second analogy, a boss gives no promotions to the best and hardest workers. He only promotes the brown-nosers. This is patently unfair.

    #Courtroom and Proof

    I can prove many times over the nature of your hurt to others. When I write articles such as these, I am simply attacking the attackers. I’m just trying to rally support to stop you from doing things like you have been doing. It’s self-defense. Does this clarify?

    #Equality of Sin

    You’re quite right that the notion of rape being compared to petty theft is quite absurd. This is a notion that many Christians like to use and I’ve heard a few Mormons use as well. It is not in the Bible, in fact there are a few passages that would seem to counter it. Funny, isn’t it, how so many atheists seem more knowledgeable about the Bible than the devout? I’ve spent years researching it, and sadly so many Christians I talk to seem to follow blindly. This is another bit about indoctrination – you cannot teach somebody to follow blindly. I’ll get to that in a minute.

    #Indoctrination

    You admit that if God doesn’t exist, it’s harmful to teach the child that he does. I will admit that if God did exist, it would be harmful (to the child himself, merciful to others) to raise the child an atheist. So why, as I proposed, do we not just raise the children to be neutral? Encourage them to read religious texts as literature. Educate them about religion. But do not tell them what to think, and let them form their own opinions while they grow? Does that not seem fair? One thing, and I hate to say it, that I’ve got to credit Mormons for is their level of commitment to indoctrinating their children. Mormon adolescents know what they’re talking about, know what they’re supposed to believe. But it seems like many others that I talk to of other religions believe in God, call themselves Christian/Jewish/etc., and know nothing of the dogma. I think that this is just disrespectful. If you’re going to believe in utter crap, at least be able to back that utter crap up.

    #Omniscience

    Yet another point I’m glad you’ve brought up. I do think that, while the manufacturers shouldn’t necessarily be arrested as they were just men with jobs, the sale of tobacco and firearms should certainly be discontinued. But how do we compare this to God? Great question. If God was selling the tobacco, he would have the ability to prevent it from being harmful to the body. If God was selling firearms, he would have the ability to prevent them from working on humans. But he does not. God has created things far more evil, far more destructive than tobacco and guns. These things didn’t need creating. Even if he did want to create them, he could have created them harmless to humans. So you see, we don’t condemn and arrest the manufacturer that makes a car that crashes. We arrest the manufacturer who knew a car would crash, but also knew exactly how to make that car safe.

    In terms of free agency, it’s possible that we simply think we have it. That is something I’ve heard before, that God, wanting us to be happy, simply gave us the illusion of choice. As I’ve stated, omniscience denies free will, since if God knows exactly what we’re going to do then he wants us to do it. Either we are slaves, or there is no God. I see no third option.

    In terms of the mother – yet ANOTHER example of bad parenting on her part. If the child was mine, I would have sat down with him and explained why stealing is wrong and why disobeying me is wrong. I would have told him to just ask me nicely if he ever wanted anything, such as cookies. But no, this mother cannot be so kind and objective. She sets her child up to be punished. She KNOWS the child will go against her will. And she KNOWS that she is going to punish him for it. If the lesson can be learned in another way (many other ways in the case of God), why do we choose the route that involves punishment?

    #God’s Evil

    I kill 42 children and I’m a mass murderer. I’ll become a pariah and be given the death penalty. God kills 42 children (billions of children, actually) and though you’re a bit confused, he still must be a good god. I exterminate a race of people and I’m the next Hitler. I become a pariah, become infamous throughout written history, and be given the death penalty. God exterminates an entire race of people (many, actually) and he’s a good god. You’re even confused as to why he didn’t exterminate another. Do we see a pattern emerging here? It is written of God’s evils. We see proof of God’s evils by the day. But you refuse to believe that he is evil. But there are many lines in the Bible that occur only once, and yet you choose to take them as very important things (i.e. Lev. 18:22). You should read all of Leviticus, by the way. I’m pretty sure a lot of Mormons trim their beards, and that’s a sin. And you see, if you admit that the bits about violence could be false, what stops anything from being false? Why aren’t all the bits that say God is the LORD false?

    I’ll also ask you, how do you know that LDS is the religion of God? You must realize that all practitioners of all other religions think that God belongs to their religion and none other. They can’t all be right.

    

    admin(Quinlan)

    6 Apr 11 at 9:21 am
34. I’d like to share with you my favorite quote.

    “I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours.” – Stephen Roberts

    

    admin(Quinlan)

    6 Apr 11 at 9:26 am
35. @Dan…

    You posted

    I’m sorry, my having things to do offline means I “ran away”?

    No, what means you “ran away” is that you are in a headlong gallop fleeing as fast as you can while the truth is nipping at your heels.

    I have read the Church Handbook of Instructions so please don’t try to bullshit me. You and your ilk are taught to avoid any of the controversy over your cult by diverting the conversation to religious dogma of frighteningly detailed minutia. This is designed to make you seem sincere, well-informed, and disarming.

    It’s not happening. To refresh your memory, I asked you to defend your statement that atheists had to prove a negative and my charge that you are not Christian by any other Christian’s definition of “Christian”. Just SAY it, Dan. IT’S REALLY SIMPLE. Just say “Mormons believe that Jesus died for our sins and that anyone who believes on Jesus is saved”.

    You can’t. That’s NOT what you believe, unlike the rest of the thousands of Christian churches.

    If you can’t answer a simple question about logic and won’t answer a simple question about dogma, then what are you good for? Maybe you could go to this page

    http://glennbeckreport.com/glenn-beck-mormon/mormon-heresy-101/

    and start at the top of the list and tell us why those are not heresies of your cult. I already know they are, so you can just ignore me if you want to. But I bet there are a lot of people reading this thread that want to understand exactly what you mean when you spew out weasel words.

    To anyone who has even the slightest doubt that Mormons are trained liars, I suggest that you read the Church Handbook of Instructions. Also, visit the link below… and get it straight from the pen of someone who saw the light and had the courage to get away from these child-molesting assholes.

    http://mrm.org/ten-lies

    

    Yankyer Wanker

    6 Apr 11 at 11:13 am
36. @Quinlan
    I actually realized I hadn’t said anything about the Mormon/Catholic scenario you mentioned, but it was after 1AM. It was time for bed.

    I must say, the quote you gave is actually fairly deep. I don’t agree with it, but it is well-worded and insightful.

    I’ll have to respond to the rest later, as I’m supposed to be working on other things at the moment.

    @Yankyer Wanker
    Tell me again how your words are actually arguments? Each of your responses has been a list of insults mixed with a few bits of logical arguments you take from someone else and fleshed out with so many lies I can’t help but laugh.

    Which you probably won’t like to hear; your comments seem aimed at making me angry. Does it make you feel better about yourself to put others down? Or do you simply enjoy manipulating the emotions of others and watching the effects? I apologize for not becoming angry as you seem to desire.

    You know, I kind of wish I was a trained liar. Perhaps then I could convince my wife I “need” cake for dinner. But jokes aside, I utterly refuse to visit any link or further respond to any other comments you make until you can learn to do so civilly. It isn’t really that hard, so I’m sure you can do it. And if not, its no skin off my nose.

    

    Dan

    6 Apr 11 at 1:47 pm
37. @Dan

    In other words, business as usual.

    People, take note. They are trying to sell you a falsehood.

    

    Yankyer Wanker

    6 Apr 11 at 2:15 pm

Leave a Reply

Name (required)

Mail (will not be published) (required)

Website

CAPTCHA Code

This site is using OpenAvatar based on