Are Mormons weirdo's?
- Thread starter Beantown
- Start date
I believe this for the most part. Which is why I didn't understand why the Prop 8 thing was blown so completely out of control
Marty McFly
Well-Known Member
Mormonism aren't any weirder than any other religion. The reason it seems like they are is Mormons actually stick to their guns and practice their beliefs (well, most of them). I grew up catholic and 90% of the catholic community would go to church on Sunday morning (which lasts an hour) (wearing shorts and a t shirt) and essentially forget they were catholic for the other 167 hours of the week. If you met a catholic person who actually followed the bible and the commandments they'd probably seem just about as weird as your average LDS person.
That said, lol @ religion
That said, lol @ religion
The strongest part of your posts are in bold.
I'm with Colton on this.
About the dark skin, I think it's pretty basic. Anybody who runs around almost naked all day, every day, will be "cursed" with "dark" skin... and it will be self inflicted. How many people today go out tanning to get dark skin? In the scriptures a curse from God is more a natural consequence of not listening to him, rather than him throwing a lightning bolt, or "dark skin" at someone from the sky.
Just my 2 cents
7StraightIsGreat
Well-Known Member
Colton Wrote:
If a book was translated by a Prophet of God, and we are to assume the words that he translates are god's words directly, why the need to change passages in the attempt "to better reflect what science has taught us"? Was God not up to speed scientifically speaking when he passed these words onto Joseph?
I'm sure that question sounds like I'm directly attack the LDS faith, which I'm not. We've seen modern day changes in many religious doctrines by many different denominations. My problem with it is, as Christian, I've been taught that God is all-knowing. He always has been, he always will be. Should his word not stand the test of time without nearly constant manipulation and changing?
If a book was translated by a Prophet of God, and we are to assume the words that he translates are god's words directly, why the need to change passages in the attempt "to better reflect what science has taught us"? Was God not up to speed scientifically speaking when he passed these words onto Joseph?
I'm sure that question sounds like I'm directly attack the LDS faith, which I'm not. We've seen modern day changes in many religious doctrines by many different denominations. My problem with it is, as Christian, I've been taught that God is all-knowing. He always has been, he always will be. Should his word not stand the test of time without nearly constant manipulation and changing?
Archie Moses
Well-Known Member
What do you think about changing the Mosaic Law, guy? What do you think about the Bible having prophets and apostles and having them now?
PearlWatson
Well-Known Member
They prefer "peculiar" for some reason.
The changes I was talking about are changes to the "Introduction". That's not part of what was translated by Joseph Smith. The Introduction was written by church leaders (presumably mainly Bruce R. McConkie, also author of the book Mormon Doctrine) sometime around 1980, I believe, to give readers a better starting point as to what the book was about. Sort of like a press release, almost. You can read it here: https://lds.org/scriptures/bofm/introduction?lang=eng. The change I mentioned is in the second paragraph.
For what it's worth, the Book of Mormon itself has changed very minimally since Joseph Smith's day. Spelling, punctuation, some typos, that type of thing.
OK. I'll bite, too.
The term "weirdo" is the special language of imbeciles and other substandard thinkers who are encountering something that ought to provoke actual new thinking, but feel uncomfortable about it, and just wanna diss it all outta hand.
It describes the person wielding the label and usually bears no intelligence about the folks so labelled.
I am impressed with some of the new apologetics Mormons are coming up with, but I think their haste to seize the 'Science' is unwise. Of course Joseph Smith would have been correctly apprised of the facts by the Angel Moroni who said the book was about ancient people in America who came here with Lehi. Of course everything we know to say about it all now, scientifically-speaking, will be looking pretty wrong in another two hundred years.
Here's a tease on what the problems with the science might be: Migrations of humans thousands of years ago are probably not conclusively known. Might not ever be. The migration of an individual into a population of millions can either go without propagation or for some trait or marker can become the dominant marker in that gene pool. Let's face it. Statistics are hard to follow, but the mRNA work limits the entire human species to descendants of only seven "mothers" living a hundred thousand years ago, and in a few ten thousands of years or so, these will all be lost as putative common ancestors. There is a discrete, real rate of "extinction" as well as a discrete real rate of origination of all genetic markers. While one must look for millions or billions of "ancestors" living only one or two thousand years ago, our ability to prove descent from any one grows statistically impossible over the same short time span.
Take a look at the marker used to prove the consistency of the cohens, Levites living among the Jews but reckoned by male descent instead of matriarchal descent like most Jews figure it. Judah and Levi were brothers, but the marker showing descent from Levi is virtually excluded from the Jewish men today. By the same standard, any marker existing in European Jews could just as well disappear from those living in the Americas for a few thousand years.
The term "weirdo" is the special language of imbeciles and other substandard thinkers who are encountering something that ought to provoke actual new thinking, but feel uncomfortable about it, and just wanna diss it all outta hand.
It describes the person wielding the label and usually bears no intelligence about the folks so labelled.
I am impressed with some of the new apologetics Mormons are coming up with, but I think their haste to seize the 'Science' is unwise. Of course Joseph Smith would have been correctly apprised of the facts by the Angel Moroni who said the book was about ancient people in America who came here with Lehi. Of course everything we know to say about it all now, scientifically-speaking, will be looking pretty wrong in another two hundred years.
Here's a tease on what the problems with the science might be: Migrations of humans thousands of years ago are probably not conclusively known. Might not ever be. The migration of an individual into a population of millions can either go without propagation or for some trait or marker can become the dominant marker in that gene pool. Let's face it. Statistics are hard to follow, but the mRNA work limits the entire human species to descendants of only seven "mothers" living a hundred thousand years ago, and in a few ten thousands of years or so, these will all be lost as putative common ancestors. There is a discrete, real rate of "extinction" as well as a discrete real rate of origination of all genetic markers. While one must look for millions or billions of "ancestors" living only one or two thousand years ago, our ability to prove descent from any one grows statistically impossible over the same short time span.
Take a look at the marker used to prove the consistency of the cohens, Levites living among the Jews but reckoned by male descent instead of matriarchal descent like most Jews figure it. Judah and Levi were brothers, but the marker showing descent from Levi is virtually excluded from the Jewish men today. By the same standard, any marker existing in European Jews could just as well disappear from those living in the Americas for a few thousand years.
7StraightIsGreat
Well-Known Member
Thanks for clarifying that with an actual response instead of the typical rhetoric I'm seeing from other board members.