darth_ender

CP3S said:

Tyrphanax said: 

The British have been drinking it for literally a billion years and they're alright chaps, mostly. It's just such an inconsequential thing to me; I mean, is God really going to be THAT mad at you for having a nice, hot cup of tea on a cold day?

Look what a billion years of tea drinking has done to their teeth! Clearly God just wants his truly faithful in the Americas to keep their pretty smiles.

The confusing part is cold caffeinated beverages are okay, so it isn't about how unhealthy caffeine is, as Coca-Cola is perfectly acceptable, which has more caffeine than many teas. Well... I guess I have a personal antidote that indicates not all Mormons are okay with drinking Coca-Cola...

I grew up in city that had a large enough Mormon population that we had a massive temple in the middle of it. If you were white and middle-class in that town, there was a very high chance you were Mormon. I once had an elderly woman approach me in the toy section at some department store when I was six or seven and tell me what an adorable young man I was, then asked if I was LDS. When I told her "no" her response was to look away, say "That's ashame." and not say another word to me. Creepy to start with, that just made it creepier. All that to say, the Mormon population was very high. I was one of literally a very small number of kids in my entire school who were not LDS. So much so that I can recall my public school teachers often mentioning Mormon doctrines and teachings in the class room. So, as a result, just about ever friend I ever had as a kid was Mormon. Oh right, this is suppose to be about Coca-Cola...

... so, one time while I was in the fourth grade I had a friend over to my house, I offered him a Coke from the fridge, he crinkled his nose, looked at me funny, and in a slightly insulted tone asked, "Why are you offering me that? If you're going to drink that you might as well be doing drugs." I stared at him over the rim of my Coke can as I gently chugged away, blinked a few times, then pulling the can away from my mouth exclaimed, "Dude, your dad works for Pepsi!

"Yeah, so?"

"Doesn't that make him kind of like a drug dealer?"

Don't really remember his response. Something about it being okay since his dad doesn't drink the crap. So, at least back in the early nineties some Mormons took serious issue with any caffeinated beverage.

 Funny anecdote.  And I know that it's difficult to be a minority in any group, including a minority in religion.  However, caffeine is not the rule per se, though many Mormons even today treat that as such.  The rule is coffee and tea for whatever reasons.  I don't pretend to know exactly why, and as long as I do not, I'm sure I will not provide a satisfying answer for the majority of you. 

Still hoping to get to these questions, but as I've stated many times before, I'm very busy and it's not lightening up until probably Thursday (and that itself is only relatively speaking), but I do intend to answer all questions.

In any case, since I started this thread specifically in response to criticism of Mitt Romney for his religion, I wanted to include a link to this news item.

http://news.yahoo.com/perry-camp-anti-mormon-message-011400919.html

I agree, it makes for an interesting idea and shows how the Jedi were deeply flawed in their intention to keep a perfectly controlled system.  However, I agree as well that it was not executed terribly well.

This is not an argument thread.  This is an informative thread.  Please "prove me wrong" in the religion thread.  Perhaps there I will addess civilizations that came to light far later than anyone could have expected, and the theory that perhaps there are numerous other peoples that once walked right where we are walking, yet we know absolutely nothing about them.

timdiggerm said:

Earlier in the thread you said that Christians and Mormons don't really believe very different things. This struck me as odd, as I just read a blog post by Al Mohler, a very conservative Baptist with whom I disagree about a lot (particularly Genesis, age of Earth, etc), in which he went on and on about how Mormons and Christians believe very different things. I'm not particularly interested in his point ("Is it okay to vote for Mitt Romney?!?!?!"), but I was hoping you could respond to his points about the differences, some of which I've quoted below.

Mormonism starts with an understanding of God that rejects both monotheism and the Christian doctrine of the Trinity. The Mormon concept of God includes many gods, not one. Furthermore, Mormonism teaches that we are now what God once was and are becoming what He now is. The Mormon doctrine of sin is not that of biblical Christianity, nor is its teaching concerning salvation. Rather than teaching that the death of Christ is alone sufficient for the forgiveness of sins, Mormonism presents a scheme of salvation that amounts to the progressive deification of the believer. According to Mormonism, sinners are not justified by faith alone, but also by works of righteousness and obedience. Mormonism’s teachings concerning Jesus Christ start with a radically different understanding of the Virgin Birth and proceed to a fundamentally different understanding of Christ’s work of salvation.

So, uh, thoughts?

Accidently almost skipped this one.  I would have stopped already, but I don't want to overlook this.  Unfortunately, this is a topic of lengthy discussion.  Whom do Mormons worship?  God the Father.  One God.  Do you worship the Son also?  Yes, we do.  How can you explain this discrepancy?  Well, we worship the Father in the name of the Son.  That is one way.  We worship the Son as our Savior, but see the Father as even higher.  That is another perspective.  But my favorite answer is that we see the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost as separate beings who are united in goals, intents, purpose, and mission.  We believe this to be strongly supported biblically, and even stronger still when examined in light of the ancient languages used to compose the scriptures.  What about other gods?  Well, we believe that God's ultimate purpose is to have his children (very literally his children in our belief system) become like him.  We see Gods, angels, and men as the same "species" so to speak.  We have the potential to be as he is.  We believe this to be supported in the Bible as well, and I will try to provide references at a later point (help me remember, I really have to go).  We believe that he will always be greater than we are, that he will always be God, and that as we become more like him, we will give him even greater glory.  Yes, we also believe God went through what we're going through, as in an eternal cycle of men growing to become gods.  Does this offend many?  Yes, I know it does.  Does this seem weird to those who read your posts?  Oh, probably, but at the same time, it can be seen as quite logical and beautiful when not simply perceived through pre-existent notions.  Do Mormons believe that Christ's atonement is not enough to cover our sins?  Nope.  This is where I said we were not too different.  Christ's atonement is all that covers our sins.  We believe that he expects us to strive for perfection, but no matter how imperfect, Christ can cover all our sins.  Remember, the sinners were the ones Christ said would get to heaven, not those who simply were living more righteous lives and missing the whole point.  See the earlier post for greater depth.  If this brief article is anything like the very nice book of the same title (both entitled Believing Christ by Stephen E. Robinson), you might better understand our similarities.  I think Evangelicals would agree with our position better, and I think more Mormons should understand our position better (yes, I think many Mormons do not understand this very important doctrine).

doubleofive said:

 

Tyrphanax said:

It just seems odd to me for someone who is intelligent and critical to stop their line of critical questioning at, "Well, because that's what the book says." How would, say, a by-the-book Christian scientist reconcile their latent desire to know things about the Earth with the proven fact that the Earth is much older then the Bible says? And why would they even want or try to reconcile the two opposite lines of thought when one is obviously wrong? Why would someone deny the proven deliciousness of pork products when, in general, they have caused no spiritual harm to anyone over the centuries just because a book says so for really no reason? Doesn't God have better things to do than worry about who ate pork when he supposedly put it here in the first place? Isn't it kind of an un-God-like dick move (yes, I realize he is famous for dick moves) to do that?

I don't have a problem with an old earth. A literal reading of Genesis causes all sorts of problems. Days could be eons, so on and so forth.

I believe the Jewish dietary laws were more for the Israelites of the time. Uncooked pork can have all kinds of bad things in them, and the locals were using them for sacrifices and stuff. Instead of giving the Israelites a cook book, God said to just avoid it completely.

One of my big things with Mormonism is that a lot of the events of the Old and New Testament and most of the places have other historical sources and archaeological evidence to support that they existed at one time. You literally can't throw a rock in the Middle East without breaking a clay pot with some historical document or hit an ancient city in the sands.

But the Book of Mormon seems to be the only record of an entire Jewish civilization that lived in America for thousands(?) of years. How do the leadership explain that no one has ever found their currency, old city walls, etc.?

Speaking of the leadership, one of my other big things is that I find it really hard to believe that Jesus would let the entire salvation of the world fall apart so soon after the Resurrection and would let it continue that way for 1800 years, until He remembered that He made this newer testament and needed to establish a succession of prophets He never mentioned needing. To me, letting the church wander about for 1800 years when they couldn't rebel against things they were never told sounds like one of those moves Tyr was talking about.

 

I realized I didn't answer your question completely.  Unlike most other Christians, we don't believe that God judges all men based on their acceptance of Christ in this life alone.  How many people in the world today know nothing more about Jesus than, "Oh, that guy that the Westerners think is really important"?  We believe that everyone, whether they've heard the name of Christ in this life or not, will have an opportunity to accept him, even those during that big gap without the truth.

walkingdork said:

doubleofive said:

One of my big things with Mormonism is that a lot of the events of the Old and New Testament and most of the places have other historical sources and archaeological evidence to support that they existed at one time. You literally can't throw a rock in the Middle East without breaking a clay pot with some historical document or hit an ancient city in the sands.

But the Book of Mormon seems to be the only record of an entire Jewish civilization that lived in America for thousands(?) of years. How do the leadership explain that no one has ever found their currency, old city walls, etc.?

Speaking of the leadership, one of my other big things is that I find it really hard to believe that Jesus would let the entire salvation of the world fall apart so soon after the Resurrection and would let it continue that way for 1800 years, until He remembered that He made this newer testament and needed to establish a succession of prophets He never mentioned needing. To me, letting the church wander about for 1800 years when they couldn't rebel against things they were never told sounds like one of those moves Tyr was talking about.

I agree. It's hard to believe that anything happened in America when some of the other civilizations they come across, like the Hittites, where around throughout the Bronze Age and are well documented. I know darth_ender mentioned that some groups of people migrated, but the migration from Asia to the Americas took tens of thousands of years, which is longer than some Christians think the earth is.

My only idea is that maybe Noah taught all the animals to row during the flood, but even then it's an impossible trek. Unicorns probably died off because they had to get out and push. :)

I believe the Jewish dietary laws were more for the Israelites of the time. Uncooked pork can have all kinds of bad things in them, and the locals were using them for sacrifices and stuff. Instead of giving the Israelites a cook book, God said to just avoid it completely.

Yeah, you can't eat pigs and snakes all willy nilly.

I know you're teasing and pointing out perceived foibles, but if you do indeed want to poke fun, the religion thread is probably a better place to do it.  As I said, I don't have the answer but rather a few suggested possibilities.  There are entire civilizations that we don't learn about for years and years in spite of their being right under our nose (I've read this before and will try to find my source, but I have to start wrapping up for today though I'm not done answering everyone).  Sometimes we draw absolute conclusions based on minimal archaeological evidence.  Occam's razor suggests we utilize the simplest answer, but it has been demonstrated time and time again that, while there is wisdom in this, the truth is often far more complicated than we presently understand.

CP3S said:

TV's Frink said:

But the fact (?) that Jesus turned water into wine does make me wonder (again) why alcohol has to be off-limits.  How is this reconciled?

Back when I was in university I once had this discussion with an acquaintance of mine. His response: "Do you really think they put alcohol in wine back then?"

After a few moments of feeling dumbfounded and not knowing how to proceed, I decided the simplest thing would be just to concede his point and end the discussion right there. My response: "No, I suppose you're right. Adding alcohol to our fermented beverages is a fairly modern practice, I believe."

Sadly he seemed content with this and we moved on to other topics. Surprisingly, I've heard the "Clearly it was non-alcoholic wine" on several other occasions. Leads me to believe people will contort their brain to believe anything, no matter how unlikely, as long as it supports what their religion teaches.  Never mind that in a time when refrigeration didn't exist non-alcoholic wine (grape juice?) would spoil in no time flat, clearly wine was non-alcoholic in those days.

 

In 1833 when the revelation was given, it was termed a "word of wisdom," which is now our general term for the whole principle.  However, it originally meant just that, a wise suggestion.  Over time, it later came to be held as a commandment.  Joseph Smith drank alcoholic wine on occasion, even after this revelation, and it was used for religious services prior.  Sometimes God adjusts his commandments to meet the needs of his people.  I am under the impression that you are religious, so you should understand this.  God does not hold all people at all times to the exact same standards.  This is apparent in the Bible, even within the same timeframes, such as the taking of the gospel to the Gentiles, the disbanding of circumcision, etc.

doubleofive said:

 

Tyrphanax said:

It just seems odd to me for someone who is intelligent and critical to stop their line of critical questioning at, "Well, because that's what the book says." How would, say, a by-the-book Christian scientist reconcile their latent desire to know things about the Earth with the proven fact that the Earth is much older then the Bible says? And why would they even want or try to reconcile the two opposite lines of thought when one is obviously wrong? Why would someone deny the proven deliciousness of pork products when, in general, they have caused no spiritual harm to anyone over the centuries just because a book says so for really no reason? Doesn't God have better things to do than worry about who ate pork when he supposedly put it here in the first place? Isn't it kind of an un-God-like dick move (yes, I realize he is famous for dick moves) to do that?

I don't have a problem with an old earth. A literal reading of Genesis causes all sorts of problems. Days could be eons, so on and so forth.

I believe the Jewish dietary laws were more for the Israelites of the time. Uncooked pork can have all kinds of bad things in them, and the locals were using them for sacrifices and stuff. Instead of giving the Israelites a cook book, God said to just avoid it completely.

One of my big things with Mormonism is that a lot of the events of the Old and New Testament and most of the places have other historical sources and archaeological evidence to support that they existed at one time. You literally can't throw a rock in the Middle East without breaking a clay pot with some historical document or hit an ancient city in the sands.

But the Book of Mormon seems to be the only record of an entire Jewish civilization that lived in America for thousands(?) of years. How do the leadership explain that no one has ever found their currency, old city walls, etc.?

Speaking of the leadership, one of my other big things is that I find it really hard to believe that Jesus would let the entire salvation of the world fall apart so soon after the Resurrection and would let it continue that way for 1800 years, until He remembered that He made this newer testament and needed to establish a succession of prophets He never mentioned needing. To me, letting the church wander about for 1800 years when they couldn't rebel against things they were never told sounds like one of those moves Tyr was talking about.

 

I've got not problem with the scriptures not always being literal.  I too believe in an old earth.

Again, logical with the reason for kosher laws.

As far as historicity, knowing that Jerusalem and Jericho exist still does nothing to prove the Bible is true.  Your faith and belief that God has communed with you tells you the Bible is true.  The same can be said of the Book of Mormon, though it lacks the obvious evidence.

That being said, it is not without real evidence.  I know of various surprising evidences, such as Hebrew style poetry that was not even known in Hebrew documents till the 20th century, yet is present in the 19th century Book of Mormon (see chiasmus here and here), various potential locations, names, gold and silver weights/currency (not coinage, but a system of weights that is similar to that described in Alma 11 (see here for starters), etc.  It's not enough to prove to skeptics and scientists, but it's more than one would expect out of sheer coincidence and supports the testimony of the faithful.

As for succession, I am assuming you are Roman Catholic or something related (such as Orthodox), given your belief that Christ would not have allowed such a fall of his Church shortly after his death.  It should not be terribly surprising, however, given that previously people were quick to reject God's message.  Paul's letters themselves speak of the consistent intrusion of false doctrine among those who had only recently proselyted.  See here for a nice start on our understanding of a Great Apostasy following Christ's and his apostles' deaths, with scriptures to back it up.  It's not of great depth, but as is most of this stuff, it's a starting point for understanding our perspective.

Tyrphanax said:

Whatever.gs sounds like some obscure foreign website.

 

Anyway, Ender, I wasn't implying religious people are stupid; I know plenty of intelligent people from most of the major religions. I just don't understand why critical, free-thinking people would choose that route when you could go another route and be able to drink tea, too. The British have been drinking it for literally a billion years and they're alright chaps, mostly. It's just such an inconsequential thing to me; I mean, is God really going to be THAT mad at you for having a nice, hot cup of tea on a cold day? If he isn't, then why bother with the rule? If he is, then he sounds like a dick; because who gets mad over a cuppa?

Also: Could you take some tea leaves and chew on them?

It just seems odd to me for someone who is intelligent and critical to stop their line of critical questioning at, "Well, because that's what the book says." How would, say, a by-the-book Christian scientist reconcile their latent desire to know things about the Earth with the proven fact that the Earth is much older then the Bible says? And why would they even want or try to reconcile the two opposite lines of thought when one is obviously wrong? Why would someone deny the proven deliciousness of pork products when, in general, they have caused no spiritual harm to anyone over the centuries just because a book says so for really no reason? Doesn't God have better things to do than worry about who ate pork when he supposedly put it here in the first place? Isn't it kind of an un-God-like dick move (yes, I realize he is famous for dick moves) to do that?

 

I guess my point here is that tea ain't never hurt nobody. Give Tea A Chance.

Once again, quick replies, as I have lots to do today.  Probably can't answer them all right now.  As I've stated, Mormons believe in the scriptures, but are also quite open to the science of things.  Many of us are quite literal in our scriptural interpretation, but many of us are open to more broad interpretations, and are not so "by-the book," as you put it.  But let me posit a simple question:  If the whole aforementioned health revelation was given before the negative effects of many of the mentioned substances were known, and you were a Mormon following that revelation in spite of then-current knowledge that there is no negative health effect, how would you feel when scientists discovered that those substances do indeed have bad effects?  Would it strengthen your belief in the revelation, even if the whole had not yet been proved?  In other words, we are learning new health-related information all the time.  Some things thought healthy yesterday are now known to be bad.  For instance, the recent belief that a glass of red wine a day is good for you is now starting to look less and less correct.  Is it possible that such is the same for tea?  Furthermore, perhaps caffeine is the reason God would not want us to drink tea.  We haven't been told thus far, but while I do drink caffeinated beverages now and then, I certainly don't go for six Monsters and a Red Bull every day.  It is still a drug which can cause health issues in large quantities.  Perhaps God wants us to obey the letter and spirit of the law, and simply avoid it.  He hasn't specified caffeinated soft drinks as yet, but maybe he will.

Going to be very busy today and I'm not sure I'll be able to respond to anyone's queries.  I will get to everyone as soon as possible, and again, if I overlook your question, I assure you it is an accident; please ask again.

Revisited

Doing homework or wasting time on this forum?

This thread is about intoxicated flightless birds of a leafy color ;)

Wow, you truly can read between the lines!  That's exactly what I was getting at, TV's Rejectathon ;)

This thread is currently about GRUMPY OLD MEN.

This thread is currently about...ROBOTS THAT SHOULD HAVE BEEN INCLUDED IN THE STAR WARS FILMS

Tyrphanax said:

corellian77 said:

darth_ender said:

In response to Frink's inquiry, I'm sure I will take flak for this, but sometimes a person of faith acts on faith, even if they are not sure why.  Sometimes God simply wishes to test our obedience.  Looking at the kosher laws of the Old Testament, God did not mention how much cholesterol or the various parasites you might find in pork.  They simply obeyed because God wanted them to.  "Oh no!  Blind faith!"

More to follow soon...

Reading this made me want to chime in.  I think accepting something "on blind faith" simply because a religion advocates it is the first step down a potentially very dangerous and disturbing path.  When people forgo reason and common sense in the name of their religious beliefs, it opens the door to a whole host of questionable, and possibly terrible, acts.

Granted, abstaining from drinking coffee or tea is an innocuous rule to observe, and one with no societal repercussions.  But the same rationale of following a questionable rule on nothing more than faith could lead someone of another belief system to condemn others (e.g., homosexuals, people of other ethnicities) for no other reason than "our church/mosque/shrine/religious leader/religious text told us to."

Sorry for the rant, but I just find the observance of religious doctrine at the expense of logical thought a bit worrisome due to where it can potentially lead.

Yeah, this is another reason I'll never understand religion. Humans have been granted this pretty awesome brain that's far advanced over any other animal's brain, and yet they'd rather let an old book make their decisions for them.

I understand people don't like to think for themselves and make their own decisions because it's hard and can be scary and gives you a lot of responsibility for your actions and the outcome and whatnot, but damn; if you can't drink tea because a book says you shouldn't for really no reason other than "just because"... I mean, c'mon.

 

Also, I almost asked what Greeny asked, but thought I'd be a bit more tactful. =P

To address this a little more deeply, let me ask you, do I seem like the kind of person who simply follows authority because I'm told to or follows the crowd because of pressure?  I understand it's hard to get to know someone over the Internet, but I assure you, I'm not so naive or simplistic.  The answers I've given here, even the "cop out" (not sure if CP3S was joking or not) were simplistic in nature.  I have a very philosophical personality, and I am better read on this topic than your average Joe.  It takes a lot of courage for someone to put themselves and their faith on the line here and allow a bunch of others with their probing questions to try to answer everything honestly and with sufficient depth so as to improve understanding with the hope that you haven't further alienated these people from your belief.  This is not simply a Church project that my leaders told me to do.  This was a completely self-motivated challenge that I pray I am up to, simply to inform a few folks who will probably not be swayed to ever join my church, and for the basic reason that they may understand who I am and who we are.  You've all been very respectful thus far and I'm not getting offended, but I hope you appreciate the intelligence behind these comments and not take for granted the amount of time and energy it takes to provide you with this information.  Being a Mormon is not about ignoring your noggin.  You'd be surprised how intellectual Mormons tend to be and how many prominent scientists, philosophers, and historians, living or deceased, are members of my Church.

In some parts of the world, it's tomorrow.

"I am more afraid that this people have so much confidence in their leaders that they will not inqure for themselves of God whether they are led by him. I am fearful they settle down in a state of blind self-security, trusting their eternal destiny in the hands of their leaders with a reckless confidence that in itself would thwart the purposes of God in their salvation, and weaken that influence they could give to their leaders, did they know for themselves, by the revelations of Jesus, that they are led in the right way. Let every man and woman know, by the whispering of the Spirit of God to themselves, whether their leaders are walking in the path the Lord dictates, or not". -Brigham Young, second prophet of the Church

We do not believe our faith is so blind.  We believe that we must come to an understanding of truth through faith and prayer.  Simply trusting our leaders is not enough.  We must pray to know if what we are taught is right.

As for wives, let me check....*in the distance* Honey, how many wives I got?  You sure?  Would you consider the possibility of a spare?  Uh, no, I like my head where it is.  Okay.  *footsteps returning*

Honestly, I believe I already (at least implicitly) answered this question: post 54.

This thread is now about WEIRDOS!

If he'd posted here, we could have at least hammered out a discussion instead of simply a flame war about flamers (just using the pun, not intending to offend).  I think it is a worthwhile discussion and needn't immediately get so aggressive and bigoted and nasty.  Oh well, all good things must come to an end.

Also available is this lovely thread about how politely disagreeing with those who are nothing more than mistaken in their concept of the universe, believing in a deity and such notions.  I am bumping this to make sure that my Mormon thread stays available for genuine inquisition about our beliefs, and all the bashing of any religion (read between the lines atheists: evangelical Christians are always in season) can be done here.  Then it will provide a nice opportunity to bump another brilliant thread I created!

Please use this thread to discuss the merits of religion, security blankets, or whatever you want to call it.  It's difficult to discuss faith with those that consider it weakness, but if you want to do so, feel free to use this other lovely thread, started by some brilliant guy who wanted to promote more discussion in this topic.