-
We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.
Is the Mormon religion a cult?
Page 18 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
Joe, thought so, and agree, that's why I just made it known that I vehemently dissagree with your position. It bothers me too when a discussion becomes sidetracked, but I did want to point out in this thread that I disagree with your position being as you made your position known in this thread.
Late 🙂
D
Late 🙂
D
Deut 4:2 It also talks about adding to or taking away from the word, as in Revelations. Basic problem being that the one who originally posed the idea (in this thread) was saying that since Reveations says you cant add or take away means else is false.
This is wrong for several reasons. 1)It dosent say you cant have additional sources of enlightenment, it is only talking about changing or modifying ~that~ one. 2)Since Revelations was written after several of the old testament books, if taken chronologically, you must also throw out parts of the New Testament, and 3)Since it gives us the same message in Deut, if you use that as a disqualifier for the Book of Mormon, you also disqualify most of the Old Testament and all of the New Testament.
It sounds like you take the Rev. passage as applying only to that letter, and having no bearing on the Book of Mormon or any other addition scripture. Is that right?
I'd also be interested in your views on the missing books from the bible. I updated my profile, btw, thanks for the reminder!
This is wrong for several reasons. 1)It dosent say you cant have additional sources of enlightenment, it is only talking about changing or modifying ~that~ one. 2)Since Revelations was written after several of the old testament books, if taken chronologically, you must also throw out parts of the New Testament, and 3)Since it gives us the same message in Deut, if you use that as a disqualifier for the Book of Mormon, you also disqualify most of the Old Testament and all of the New Testament.
It sounds like you take the Rev. passage as applying only to that letter, and having no bearing on the Book of Mormon or any other addition scripture. Is that right?
I'd also be interested in your views on the missing books from the bible. I updated my profile, btw, thanks for the reminder!
MadRat
Lifer
I'm pretty surprised anyone would use the last two paragraphs of the Book of Revelations to close the book on the New Testament. The statement about not adding or subtracting from the testament of John is neither figuratively or literally inclusive of the rest of the Bible. The Bible can be added or subtracted without violating the Testament of John.
If someone was going to criticize the Mormon religion I'd think they'd attack the credibility of free agency, the excommunication of the original Three Witnesses, why there are so few Chosen yet so many incredibily faithful (why are so many faithful doomed?), the Adam=God theory, the curse of being black (Cain), the credibility of these so-called golden plates, why Mormons cannot study without guidance, support for divorce and polygamy in direct conflict with Scripture, why natural history and archeology contradict his testament of the lost tribe of Isreal, etc etc
HardwareAddicted
Golden Member
Actually, the bible has fortold of the coming of the Book of Mormon.... you just have to study it a little to know this simple fact.
I could go on.... but I'll let you read up just on that for now.
MadRat
Lifer
This whole idea of Infantile Damnation is contradictory to Christ's teachings. God knew you before your conception and it is Free Will that leads man astray. A baby has no "Free Will" to damn itself just because it died before birth. Christ on more than one occassion also said children are blameless.
Bignate603
Lifer
I know, that's what us Mormons believe, that's why I'm confused on why some other religions believe in infant baptism.
EXman
Lifer
Cult? yes it is...
Christian? Nope not even in a loose sence. Closer to Buddists than Christians in practice
Racists? Yup officially until nine years ago. Now they say God changed his mind LoL 😀
I'd Love to get my Baptist Fundamentalist friend on here to fight with you over-educated heathens but I'm sure he would find it sinful and have to stop posting. 😀
Flame on Christianity bashers cause Hades is where your going 😀
Christian? Nope not even in a loose sence. Closer to Buddists than Christians in practice
Racists? Yup officially until nine years ago. Now they say God changed his mind LoL 😀
I'd Love to get my Baptist Fundamentalist friend on here to fight with you over-educated heathens but I'm sure he would find it sinful and have to stop posting. 😀
Flame on Christianity bashers cause Hades is where your going 😀
Youv'e got to be kidding me. All of these issues have been talked about it earlier posts. Not Christian?! more buddist? That is the most out rageous statment i think I've heard on this thread. And exactly what did mormons do in 1993 that makes you say that they were racist ? I assume you are reffering to "blacks" and the priesthood but the year 1993 had nothing to do with it. Although the determinning factor on whether a person could recieve the priesthood wasn't that they were black, but it was a matter of their lineage.
I'm not sure why your surprised considering what the book of Revelation says. "The Revelation of Jesus Christ..." Revelation 1:1. The statement about not adding to or subtracting from the Word of God is literally inclusive of the rest of the Bible. The Bible can't be added to or subtracted from without defiling it.
D
PS Lovepig, I pretty sure I responded to your questions in regards to tampering with the Word of God.
If I may. If those books constitute the Word of God, and they are lost, then God has failed to preserve His word. If God is unable to preserve His word, you'd be hard pressed to convince me, well, quite honestly you couldn't convince me, that He could raise me bodily to spend eternity with Him.
Having said that, one must take a step back and consider the situation. Since faith without reason is folly, God must have had a reason for mentioning those books, and I believe He did. I believe that while the infallible Word of God can only be found in the Bible, that does not mean that facts, true statements, truth can't be found in other books. Just because the Bible doesn't mention something doesn't mean it didn't happen. However, a believer must be mindful that whenever there is a conflict of doctrine between the Bible and another book, person (including oneself), or angel from heaven, the doctrine found in the Word of God is always the final Authority. Let God be true and all men liars. Will Durant's History of Civilization is one set of books that come to mind.
D
Petrek said, "The statement about not adding to or subtracting from the Word of God is literally inclusive of the rest of the Bible. The Bible can't be added to or subtracted from without defiling it."
WHY do you believe that there is nothing else that can be the word of God? If you just believe that then fine. But if you're basing it on scripture then you have a problem of either taking the scripture in the order it appears in the Bible, or in the chronological order in which it was written. Either way, if you are intellectually honest you are forced to throw out (potentially large) sections of the bible.
And besides if you literally believe that no changes can be made then you must have a serious problem with ~ANY~ translated versions right? since in any translation there will be words in which the exact word dosen't fit and they try to pick the closet one (in their opinion - not God's - unless you claim the transltors are inspired). There are also many phrases and figures of speech which are both time and culturally based that have little meaning to someone not of that time and place.
And what are your thoughts about prayer, since that is indeed current revelation (if you believe God answers prayers, anyway!)
Petrek also said, "If God is unable to preserve His word, you'd be hard pressed to convince me, well, quite honestly you couldn't convince me, that He could raise me bodily to spend eternity with Him."
As far as the lost books, If God tells us to read a book, revelation, or prophecy which is no longer around, then you believe He can't even raise you from the dead??!! Maybe that came out wrong, but it sounds as if you faith is pretty shaky right now. I hope you find your way through your crisis of faith. If I am misunderstanding, please feel free to clarify.
Or perhaps you mean that books titled (by the Bible) as books of seers, prophets, and revelations, (again by the Word of the Bible, not my name for the books!), are not the Word of God. In which case it seems you have shot you yourself in the foot by claiming the Bible to be perfect - ~except~ when it talks about these books! I must be confused on your stance. Please help me understand.
And just to stay a little on topic, I don't think the Mormons are a cult (obviously!) but if we are a cult, who cares? I care more about the things we teach, preach, and perform than what label you call me behind my back. Now, tell me my life is not in harmony (or at least ~trying~ to be in harmony) with the principles taught by Christ and then I will have cause for concern!!
WHY do you believe that there is nothing else that can be the word of God? If you just believe that then fine. But if you're basing it on scripture then you have a problem of either taking the scripture in the order it appears in the Bible, or in the chronological order in which it was written. Either way, if you are intellectually honest you are forced to throw out (potentially large) sections of the bible.
And besides if you literally believe that no changes can be made then you must have a serious problem with ~ANY~ translated versions right? since in any translation there will be words in which the exact word dosen't fit and they try to pick the closet one (in their opinion - not God's - unless you claim the transltors are inspired). There are also many phrases and figures of speech which are both time and culturally based that have little meaning to someone not of that time and place.
And what are your thoughts about prayer, since that is indeed current revelation (if you believe God answers prayers, anyway!)
Petrek also said, "If God is unable to preserve His word, you'd be hard pressed to convince me, well, quite honestly you couldn't convince me, that He could raise me bodily to spend eternity with Him."
As far as the lost books, If God tells us to read a book, revelation, or prophecy which is no longer around, then you believe He can't even raise you from the dead??!! Maybe that came out wrong, but it sounds as if you faith is pretty shaky right now. I hope you find your way through your crisis of faith. If I am misunderstanding, please feel free to clarify.
Or perhaps you mean that books titled (by the Bible) as books of seers, prophets, and revelations, (again by the Word of the Bible, not my name for the books!), are not the Word of God. In which case it seems you have shot you yourself in the foot by claiming the Bible to be perfect - ~except~ when it talks about these books! I must be confused on your stance. Please help me understand.
And just to stay a little on topic, I don't think the Mormons are a cult (obviously!) but if we are a cult, who cares? I care more about the things we teach, preach, and perform than what label you call me behind my back. Now, tell me my life is not in harmony (or at least ~trying~ to be in harmony) with the principles taught by Christ and then I will have cause for concern!!
I realize this is a difficult concept to understand, but nonetheless, I remain firm in my position. Consider that if a lack of knowledge on the Word of God can cause doctrinal error, how much the more then if one were to change a lower case letter to a upper case (or vice versa), or add a punctuation mark, or a letter, or words. "For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled." Matthew 5:18. What does Revelation's say.
Preservation of His word is His responsibility. As well, all things known have been learned, except the law which God has written on man's heart.
To the first part, it's like someone coming up to me telling me they're a multibillionare who'll buy me a million dollar house...then asking me to buy them some food because they don't have any money, it makes no sense.
To the second, you're close. The point I was making is that just because the Bible mentions a book doesn't mean that book constitutes the Word of God, just like just because the Bible mentions a person doesn't mean that person is saved, or just because the Bible mentions an action doesn't mean that action is righteous. Hope that helps.
My understanding of a cult, is any group or organization that attempts to prevent or does prevent you from thinking for yourself.
D
MadRat
Lifer
Neither Jesus or God is dead. Revelations is God's plan for Man as revealed by Jesus through the Witness of John. It did not mention the text of the Bible itself. Nor did it say "I, Jesus Christ, will never reveal myself again until the Second Coming." Nope, the Revelation is a Testament of what was, is, and will be. This Revelation cannot be altered.
So many places in these posts people repeat how all Man is a liar. That is rather negative way to look at the fact that man is of limited knowledge from which to build his perspective. Ignorance lay in defining ones truth through a narrow definition of limited perspective. Many "lies" could be classified as "limited truths" if held to another test, one that accounted for the limited perspective of the source of testament. On the other hand you can classify many commonly believed "limited truths" as lies if you want to take this to the extreme.
John Smith, by any definition of truth, was a complicated man of delusion, perversion, and lies. Delusions would be like when he wrote about his "First Vision" while on a trip ten years after the fact, yet had somehow failed to mention this vision prior to that time. Some time later he expanded the lie and every new wrinkle parralleled what he had probably heard on his travels. The lie grew to the point of pulling in something like twelve others to testify to the fact that his source of inspiration was some golden plates. That all twelve witness later were excommunicated or left the Mormon Church is an unravelling of the story; all lies unravel when held to scrutiny. Much of what he said was based on truths laid out by others, which can be called perversion. An example of a truth perverted would be his claim of an Adam=God theory. Outright false claims are ones made with no support whatsoever, like the presence of a lost tribe of Isreal that ruled North and South America for 1,000 years. John Smith was delusional, a liar, and perverted the truth.
The point you make should be further explained. He probably doesn't realize the chronological order of the Bible if different from Catholicism to Protestant.
It is exactly why dozens of books were excluded from the Bible and why Protestant Bibles may contain different accounts than the Bibles used in Catholicism. There are an awful lot of translations of the Bible used by an awful lot of offshoots of Christianity.
Lovepig, now I see where you are coming from. But Deut 4:2 speaks soley of "commands" and nothing else. To the best of my knowledge, the only one to add any commands was God Himself in the person of Jesus:
John 13:34 "A new command I give you: Love one another. As I have loved you, so you must love one another. 35 By this all men will know that you are my disciples, if you love one another."
I do take the end of Revelation to be a statement of adding no more to Scripture. I'm taking some license here, but God new all along what the FINAL product of all the writings would be.... He knew the order in which they would be placed... and He, Himself is the ultimate author of them. He knew that we would call the compiled collection of Scripture "The Book" (latin "biblia", greek "biblion") and John starts the document as a communication originally directed to 7 specific churches (a letter) but ends by saying that no one can add to "this book" as opposed to calling it a letter or correspondance. There may be holes and flaws in my reasoning.... but I, just like everyone else, am still on the journey... I've got a long way to go before getting to the end of it, so I expect that I'll more solidify on some issues and change on others as my knowledge grows.
EXman, I hope that you realize that if you compare your words to those found in the Bible, you resemble the Pharisee's who helped get Christ killed, and don't resemble the speaking of Christ or His followers. I sometimes get "riled up", but what you just posted was hideous.
To follow up on my previous post... isn't the LDS sort of like a Theological Amway? I'm being serious here. It's my understanding that the LDS believe that the Universe is eternal and that it is (the first) God (or Father?) that had a starting point. That he had reached perfection and so others worshipped him. Someone who worshipped him reached perfection and was promoted to being a god too, at which point others worshipped him... and so on and so on.
Is this correct.
Joe
John 13:34 "A new command I give you: Love one another. As I have loved you, so you must love one another. 35 By this all men will know that you are my disciples, if you love one another."
I do take the end of Revelation to be a statement of adding no more to Scripture. I'm taking some license here, but God new all along what the FINAL product of all the writings would be.... He knew the order in which they would be placed... and He, Himself is the ultimate author of them. He knew that we would call the compiled collection of Scripture "The Book" (latin "biblia", greek "biblion") and John starts the document as a communication originally directed to 7 specific churches (a letter) but ends by saying that no one can add to "this book" as opposed to calling it a letter or correspondance. There may be holes and flaws in my reasoning.... but I, just like everyone else, am still on the journey... I've got a long way to go before getting to the end of it, so I expect that I'll more solidify on some issues and change on others as my knowledge grows.
I find their belief no more bizzare than that of Mormons and I agree with neither. Baptism is an outward sign of one's commitment to Jesus... much like a wedding band is the outward sign of marriage to another person. Baptism in water has no "magical" power, it is just a sign. The RCs and some close to RC denominations believe that it somehow seals a person to God and thus baptizing a child protects them. Since the child made no personal decision, I find this absurd... but I find it less absurd than a third person being baptized for someone who is already dead! BTW, I don't believe that God punishes people for our predisposition to sin... it's only when we can understand right and wrong and willingly decide to do what is wrong that we are heald accountable and what age that is only God Himself knows for each individual.
EXman, I hope that you realize that if you compare your words to those found in the Bible, you resemble the Pharisee's who helped get Christ killed, and don't resemble the speaking of Christ or His followers. I sometimes get "riled up", but what you just posted was hideous.
Thanks Jeremy... you just had to get him started, didn't you! 😉
As I posted before, this is exactly why I feel the need to have several translations at hand.... including a Catholic Bible.... the Deuterocanonicals are good reading even if not sacred.
To follow up on my previous post... isn't the LDS sort of like a Theological Amway? I'm being serious here. It's my understanding that the LDS believe that the Universe is eternal and that it is (the first) God (or Father?) that had a starting point. That he had reached perfection and so others worshipped him. Someone who worshipped him reached perfection and was promoted to being a god too, at which point others worshipped him... and so on and so on.
Is this correct.
Joe
SirFshAlot
Elite Member
it's funny to see people searching for truth by arguing the meaning of verses
so lost
so disappointing that you present as wanting to be guided by Christ, yet miss the message
so lost
so disappointing that you present as wanting to be guided by Christ, yet miss the message
HardwareAddicted
Golden Member
How lucky I am, how blessed I feel because I have been given an answer to the validity of this church & my redeemer....
This is very real and happened to me, and I consider it one the biggest life changing events in my life.
Moroni 10
3 Behold, I would exhort you that when ye shall read these things, if it be wisdom in God that ye should read them, that ye would remember how amerciful? the Lord hath been unto the children of men, from the creation of Adam even down until the time that ye shall receive these things, and bponder? it in your chearts?.
4 And when ye shall receive these things, I would exhort you that ye would aask God, the Eternal Father, in the name of Christ, if these things are not btrue?; and if ye shall ask with a csincere heart, with dreal? intent, having efaith in Christ, he will fmanifest the gtruth? of it unto you, by the power of the Holy Ghost.
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes + WCL Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 24K
-
-
