Topic: Mormonism like Islam (Read 3163 times)

Jlaigle1 · « **on:** October 12, 2007, 07:00:00 PM »

Hi, I am new to this forum, so please forgive if this has been said before. I find Mormonism to be a kind of modern Islam, sharing the following things in common with that religion: in both cases, the whole idea refers vaguely to Judeo-Christianity, as if to borrow credibility from the latter, but changes the entire ideology based on one man's dream, ultimately edging out the religion on which it is based. Note that Judeo-Christianity is based on a plurality of books on essentially the same monotheistic theme, while each of these sects has only one book. Also note that both founders defended polygamy, and one could make the argument that the founders of each were really just lusty guys who wanted sex with more than one gal, so they pretended to be devout to provide cover. A recent film also shows the earliest devotees of Mormonism to be cruel and bloody in dispatching dissenters, not unlike Islam. If you can think of any other similarities, I would be interested. I am sure there are others.

Anthony Horvath · « **Reply #1 on:** October 13, 2007, 09:31:49 AM »

Hi JL, and welcome.

I resonate with this point in particular:

Quote

Also note that both founders defended polygamy, and one could make the argument that the founders of each were really just lusty guys who wanted sex with more than one gal, so they pretended to be devout to provide cover.

I'm glad that someone else has noticed this. I guess I haven't researched it to see how often it comes up, but until you mentioned this I hadn't heard anyone else making the same observation. It goes to credibility, doesn't it? If the question is: "Is God man-made or is Man God-made" then one good reason for suspecting that God is man made would be that the religious systems and perception of God would feed into the things that man prefers. A God that lets men get away with murder and a lot of unbounded sex would fit as smacking of one that is man-made.

Conversely, a system that puts limits on men (in particular, not 'men' as in humanity, but actual men) and insists that they behave is less likely to be one we'd expect a man to invent for themselves. If it is true that God is made in man's image, than God ought to be a lusty fellow, among other things. But Christianity insists that it is preferred that there is one man with one woman and divorce is abhorred and allowed only under some very strict circumstances. Christianity puts bounds on human behavior, and again, of men in particular.

That doesn't 'prove' Christianity is true, but it adds to its credibility (on this sort of question), I think. Similarly, that Islam and Mormonism so nicely feed into passions that men would prefer are unrestrained detracts from their credibility.

Good opening post, JL.

8d82thebone · « **Reply #2 on:** October 25, 2007, 10:09:22 PM »

Hi Jlaigle good to have you on board!
Isnt it funny that they all seem to have that little thing in common? Remember David Koresh and Jim Jones...?
Actually you have hit on just one of many things that the false religions have in common: I have found:
-they all claim that the true message has been corrupted
-they all claim that a new revelation needed to be given
-they all claim belief in the person of Jesus, but not the divinity of Jesus
-they all claim that a new messenger, or prophet, now speaks(spoke) for God, conveniently overlooking that messenger's blatant hypocrisy; they talked the talk, but didnt walk the walk.The Apostles all learned, through the power of the Holy Spirit, to emulate Jesus, who walked the talk for them first. He never once let them down as far as his life was concerned.( For instance, if Jesus had said to his disciples before he ascended "Go ye into all the world and behead every man who refuses to accept your message,", he would have nullified every single word that He preached.) But His actions supported his words, and vice versa, right down to the moment he prayed for those who were crucifying him. Just one of the many reasons I am totally in awe of him... Later, Peace!

valerie · « **Reply #3 on:** October 29, 2007, 03:54:06 PM »

Quote

in both cases, the whole idea refers vaguely to Judeo-Christianity, as if to borrow credibility from the latter, but changes the entire ideology based on one man's dream, ultimately edging out the religion on which it is based.

And you know this because you are an expert on Islam and Mormonism?

Quote

Note that Judeo-Christianity is based on a plurality of books on essentially the same monotheistic theme, while each of these sects has only one book.

Hmmm...sounds like your expertise on at least Mormonism is way off, unless I misunderstand your point.

Quote

Also note that both founders defended polygamy, and one could make the argument that the founders of each were really just lusty guys who wanted sex with more than one gal, so they pretended to be devout to provide cover.

And one could argue the complete opposite of that view as well. Just for the sake of fun...Why is polygamy "bad" when it is entered into by consenting and legal adults? There are obviously some abusers of this doctrine around but what about the fundamental principle of an man having more than one wife all of which he loves and cares for and the women know of the situation and love their husband?

I guess Abraham, Isaac and Jacob were all "lusty guys" too.

Quote

A recent film also shows the earliest devotees of Mormonism to be cruel and bloody in dispatching dissenters, not unlike Islam.

Oh, then it is definitely true that devotees of Mormonism are cruel and bloody because it was in a movie.

Why is it people who question Mormonism or Islam for that matter NEVER actually research the religion from the sources of the actual religion?

Quote

If you can think of any other similarities, I would be interested. I am sure there are others.

And why exactly do these similarities matter? Because you think that if Mormonism is somehow akin to Islam then you have proved that both religions are wrong? What a ridiculous and unproductive venture that would be.

Nice to have you around Jlaigle1. I hope you decide to actually learn something about Islam and/or Mormonsim rather than just wave your "Look how crazy these people are!" flag around. Although I am sure there are plenty around here who would love to join you on your pointless crusade as is evidenced by the previous responses.

Anthony Horvath · « **Reply #4 on:** October 29, 2007, 04:37:42 PM »

"I guess Abraham, Isaac and Jacob were all "lusty guys" too."

Yea, actually.

"And one could argue the complete opposite of that view as well. Just for the sake of fun...Why is polygamy "bad" when it is entered into by consenting and legal adults? "

It would be 'bad' if God created it so that the ideal is just one man and just one woman. That is affirmed constantly throughout the Old and New Testament. Yes, David was lusty. So was Solomon. Jesus cites Genesis in his prohibition against adultery, and the epistles repeat that a man should be married to only one woman.

While I can appreciate why you'd be upset at these criticisms since they strike as close to home as they do (calling into question your Mormonism, not saying you are in a polygamous relationship), since Mormons claim to abide by the OT and the NT, the clear message of these documents should be accepted. But as 82nd pointed out, Mormons contend that in fact these docs have been corrupted. That is the Mormon position, is it not?

And I think it is quite reasonable to grant more credibility to a revelatory that limits human passion than the ones that expand those limits. No, that doesn't make it true. But I am mighty suspicious of a worldview that claims to be revelatory that so flatters the passions of a man. Perhaps the problem is you are a woman and not a man and so view sexuality differently.

I don't know a man who would turn down sex with as many women as possible if it were permitted and there was assurance all around that there wouldn't be any negative consequences. Such 'free love' is not realistic, and most would agree that the attempt is hardly ever beneficial. But I don't think women think this way. Granted, these are generalizations.

valerie · « **Reply #5 on:** October 30, 2007, 05:41:56 PM »

Quote

While I can appreciate why you'd be upset at these criticisms since they strike as close to home as they do (calling into question your Mormonism, not saying you are in a polygamous relationship), since Mormons claim to abide by the OT and the NT, the clear message of these documents should be accepted. But as 82nd pointed out, Mormons contend that in fact these docs have been corrupted. That is the Mormon position, is it not?

Yeah, this topic has never come up before, thus explaining how upset I am. Do you really think I have not heard about every argument and criticism available on this topic? And yet somehow I sleep just fine at night and still go to church every Sunday. But I guess this is where you pull out the BIG trump card of "you have clearly been brainwashed". Did you ever stop to think for even one small, tiny, itsy bitsy moment SJ, that you don't have all the information on everything? You really believe that through all of your study and discipline you have somehow managed to know and understand all that God knows? You really must be a saint!

Anthony Horvath · « **Reply #6 on:** October 30, 2007, 10:43:33 PM »

Yeesh.

Well, first of all, if ever I suspected I knew it all, my wife would gladly produce reminders otherwise.

Secondly, I can't say that I have ever said you have been brainwashed. That seems out of left field.

Third of all, you'll note that your diatribe about me being arrogant and presumptuous ends with a question: "That is the Mormon position, is it not?" That I think would cue your opportunity for clarifying exactly what the Mormon position is if in fact I have mischaracterized it.

And you didn't answer the question. Is it not the Mormon position that the OT and NT have become corrupted?

If you'd like, you could also expand on exactly why it is you are upset. My own posts have simply been repeating my contention that views that are self-serving to men don't strike me as having as much credibility as those that won't. I don't see how that is insulting or anger provoking.

valerie · « **Reply #7 on:** October 31, 2007, 05:49:50 AM »

Well, you are arrogant. It is simply a fact supported by this entire forum.

My diatribe, as you called it, was in response to your following remark...

Quote

It would be 'bad' if God created it so that the ideal is just one man and just one woman. That is affirmed constantly throughout the Old and New Testament. Yes, David was lusty. So was Solomon. Jesus cites Genesis in his prohibition against adultery, and the epistles repeat that a man should be married to only one woman.

How do you KNOW that God did not command Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, David, Solomon and possible oodles of other kings and prophets to have multiple wives and concubines? The Old testament is replete with this kind of thing and I don't see anywhere (except with a few cases of David and Solomon) where God is condemning them for their behavior. In fact it is abundantly clear that Abraham, Isaac and Jacob were neither condemned but considered prophets! How does that equate with your "God created it so" scenario? Do you just toss our the entire Old testament and say it is corrupt?

Anthony Horvath · « **Reply #8 on:** October 31, 2007, 09:56:23 PM »

" In fact it is abundantly clear that Abraham, Isaac and Jacob were neither condemned but considered prophets! How does that equate with your "God created it so" scenario? Do you just toss our the entire Old testament and say it is corrupt? d'oh!"

We're still waiting for you to tell us if you think the OT is corrupt or not.

I think you need to look more carefully at the exchange. In answer to your question "Just for the sake of fun...Why is polygamy "bad" when it is entered into by consenting and legal adults? "

I said: "It would be 'bad' if God created it so that the ideal is just one man and just one woman. "

Don't you agree that IF God created it so the ideal is just one man and just one woman, it would be bad?

Please note the conditional phrase, 'if.' I did not assert that God didn't command them to behave that way. By using the word 'if' and giving some examples, I suggested that finding out just what God said would be an obvious point of discussion. I pointed out that Genesis references, apparently, one man joining with one woman, and Jesus affirms Genesis in his comments against divorce. I mentioned that elsewhere in the NT we hear a pretty explicit affirmation of monogamy. I didn't give examples, so here are two:

"Now the overseer must be above reproach, the husband of but one wife..." 1 Tim 3:2

1 Cor 7 would be a fine place to affirm something else but monogamy is clearly the normative basis beneath the text.

And that led to my question, which you still have yet to answer, which is, is it or is it not the position of the Mormons that the OT and NT are corrupted? If so, then arguing about Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, etc, is just silly. We could at any point suggest that any statement in it is actually a corruption. But if not, then it is incumbent upon you to do more than just provide examples of polygamy and deal with the texts that would seem to completely go against that reading.

Your argument that these people were not condemned but were considered prophets doesn't hold any water. No one expects God to trounce on each and every infraction in order to make it clear that he disapproves. David was termed a man after God's own heart and produced many of the Psalms, but he had a man murdered to cover up his extramarital affair and the consequences of that affair. Does this mean that God approved of what David did? Heavens no!

Here, of course, we have God actually saying something on the matter (assuming it isn't a corruption of the text) but there are other examples, too. Jumping immediately to mind is the incident at the end of Judges where we read that a certain Levite put his concubine out on the doorestep for the men of Gibeah and the owner of the house put his own daughter out, too, to be raped instead of the Levite.

In the morning, the concubine is dead. The best he can say to her is "Get up, let's go." (Judges 19:28). Distressed, he cuts his concubine up and sends the pieces out to Israel as a call to action against the Benjamites.

Now, nowhere in the text does it say that God disapproved of this conduct. It doesn't say that it was honorable for the Levite to put out his concubine or for the owner to put out his virgin daughter. It doesn't say if the Benjamites were actually wrong to rape the concubine to death. It doesn't say that the Israelites were correct to come out and wipe out the Benjamites. It doesn't say that the Israelites were correct- or incorrect- when after realizing that they'd nearly wiped out one whole tribe of their own brethern- they allow the remaining Benjamites to go and steal women for wives from Shiloh.

The only people I've ever met who believes that God's silence here signals his approval are atheists hell bent in attributing every bad thing recorded in the Scriptures as being done 'in his name.'

That clearly is not the case. Nor is it the case that just because these men had multiple wives but yet they were honored by God does it mean that God approved of their behavior.

valerie · « **Reply #9 on:** November 03, 2007, 09:12:47 PM »

Quote

We're still waiting for you to tell us if you think the OT is corrupt or not.

Oh, I would have thought you would have known the answer to that by now. After all my chit chat here, actually answering that question a few times and also quoting from the Bible numerous times. Forgive me for overestimating your intelligence.

Simply put, the KJV of the Bbile is part of the standard works of scripture for the LDS church. In case THAT isn't enough, how about the BofM is subtitled "Another Testament of Jesus Christ", not THE testament of Jesus Christ. It is actually spoken of as a companion to the Bible. In case neither of those reaches you how about you read the following by the Apostle M. Russell Ballard and decide for yourself:
http://lds.org/conference/talk/display/0,5232,23-1-690-29,00.html

Quote

We could at any point suggest that any statement in it is actually a corruption. But if not, then it is incumbent upon you to do more than just provide examples of polygamy and deal with the texts that would seem to completely go against that reading.

Wow, glad we are on to this now.

I am glad you pointed out that it is incumbent upon me to "deal" with what you throw my way. Perhaps that would prove true and even useful if I thought for even one minute that you had all the facts.

Quote

Your argument that these people were not condemned but were considered prophets doesn't hold any water. No one expects God to trounce on each and every infraction in order to make it clear that he disapproves. David was termed a man after God's own heart and produced many of the Psalms, but he had a man murdered to cover up his extramarital affair and the consequences of that affair. Does this mean that God approved of what David did? Heavens no!

I would think God might be a little hard on the prophets at least when it came to this kind of behavior. And it is interesting to note that David wasn't in any kind of trouble UNTIL he took Bathsheba. You admit that God had a problem with Bathsheba and the means by which David took her but she wasn't his first wife. What made Bathsheba's case so special, just the murder of her husband? Was that the last straw for God, all the evil wifing and concubining before just wasn't enough to get under God's collar?

Quote

Now, nowhere in the text does it say that God disapproved of this conduct. It doesn't say that it was honorable for the Levite to put out his concubine or for the owner to put out his virgin daughter. It doesn't say if the Benjamites were actually wrong to rape the concubine to death. It doesn't say that the Israelites were correct to come out and wipe out the Benjamites. It doesn't say that the Israelites were correct- or incorrect- when after realizing that they'd nearly wiped out one whole tribe of their own brethern- they allow the remaining Benjamites to go and steal women for wives from Shiloh.

There is not only a LACK of disapproval on God's part with Abraham, Isaac and Jacob but God goes so far as to EXALT them even after all the wives and concubines they have. Very odd behavior on God's part to bless them and multiply what they have when you claim they were in a dire state of sin.

Quote

Nor is it the case that just because these men had multiple wives but yet they were honored by God does it mean that God approved of their behavior.

What the he** does it mean then? What kind of Christian are you where sinning gets you exalted? Oh yeah, stupid question, the typical kind of "Christian" walking around nowadays..."Pay no attention to my behavior behind the curtain!"

Anthony Horvath · « **Reply #10 on:** November 03, 2007, 10:23:31 PM »

Hmmm. Well, I can't rightly see where anything that I've said justifies the amount of derision and scorn that you are unloading. Sure, I certainly go looking for trouble often enough, but I didn't in this thread.

I wonder if it is wise to prolong the conversation.

As a corrective to your insinuation that there is no reason to think that the Mormons believe the Scriptures to be corrupted, this site has a brief catalog of quotations that would strongly suggest otherwise:

http://wri.leaderu.com/mormonism/bible.html

I whipped out my own personal copy of the BoM to confirm that the 1 Nephi passages are accurately represented, which alone I would say are d--ning:

"Wherefore, these things go forth from the Jews in purity unto the Gentiles, according to the truth which is in God. And after they go forth by the hand of the twelve apostles of the Lamb, from the Jews unto the Gentiles, thou sees the formation of that great and abominable church, which is most abominable above all other churches; for behold, they have taken away the gospel of the Lamb many parts which are plain and most precious; and also many covenants of the Lord have they taken away. And all this they have done that they might pervert the right ways of the Lord, that they might blind the eyes and harden the hearts of the children of men."

And on like that for awhile.

" Very odd behavior on God's part to bless them and multiply what they have when you claim they were in a dire state of sin."

I didn't categorize it that way. The truth is that we are all in a dire state of sin. You have ignored my passages from 1 Tim and 1 Cor. And Genesis.

If you wish to insist that the BoM and the Bible is compatible and that you have a respect for it as uncorrupted, then you should explain why in 1 Tim Paul said that a man should only have one wife and reconcile that with Mormonism... realizing of course that the Mormon revelation has changed on the question.

"What kind of Christian are you where sinning gets you exalted?"

They weren't exalted for their polygamy. The text is silent on their polygamy, though Solomon doesn't fare well, arguably for other reasons. The text is silent on their polygamy, just as it is silent on the Levite's behavior. Find me a passage where it says that God approved of their polygamy, and it will be a different story.

It doesn't bother me in the slightest that God exalted sinful people. There are no other kind to exalt, apart from Jesus.

Nor do I necessarily think that this is a 'dire sin.' But it is outside the pattern laid down in the Bible, and if you wish to insist that the Mormons don't think the Bible is corrupted and find it authoritative, then you have to reconcile this clear incongruity. It has not been my intention to label it as a 'sin.' I aim only to show that it is a point of distinction between the Christianity of that "great and abominable church" and Mormonism.

So far, you've ignored the more explicit Scriptures that I've given and focused on an example. Your whole argument is that God exalted these polygamous people. But if they were not exalted for their polygamy, then this doesn't help you. The imagination is free to roam on interpretations for this silence in the face of their behavior. When I give a passage like 1 Tim 3:2 that says explicitly:

"The overseer must be above reproach, the husband of but one wife..."

There is little room for interpretational negotiation. I guess you could say that this applies only to 'overseers.' Is that the route you're going to go? That the leaders of the NT church were only to have one wife, but the rest of the congregation's men were free to take as many women as they like?

valerie · « **Reply #11 on:** November 04, 2007, 04:51:17 PM »

Quote

Hmmm. Well, I can't rightly see where anything that I've said justifies the amount of derision and scorn that you are unloading. Sure, I certainly go looking for trouble often enough, but I didn't in this thread.

I wonder if it is wise to prolong the conversation.

Probably right there. Nevertheless you so often dish it out and rarely take it. I suppose I pushed the opportunity too far. I am not sure this conversation is wise either but for different reasons. Perhaps if I could persuade you to take an opportunity to actually learn about Mormon doctrine here then I might continue. You may not like the doctrine, may disagree with it but perhaps you at least could take a moment to learn what the actual doctrine is.

Quote

As a corrective to your insinuation that there is no reason to think that the Mormons believe the Scriptures to be corrupted, this site has a brief catalog of quotations that would strongly suggest otherwise:

This is again what I am discouraged about. You constantly compartmentalize scriptures from the BofM without out having a truly in depth knowledge of all of the gospel.

Quote

If you wish to insist that the BoM and the Bible is compatible and that you have a respect for it as uncorrupted, then you should explain why in 1 Tim Paul said that a man should only have one wife and reconcile that with Mormonism... realizing of course that the Mormon revelation has changed on the question.

I would like to but I don't see as that would be productive in any direction. It would be akin to explaining Calculus to my eight year old child (not that you are like an eight year old child, I just couldn't think of any other comparison). Add to that you are not in the least interested in learning anything about Mormonism with an open mind.

Quote

So far, you've ignored the more explicit Scriptures that I've given and focused on an example. Your whole argument is that God exalted these polygamous people. But if they were not exalted for their polygamy, then this doesn't help you. The imagination is free to roam on interpretations for this silence in the face of their behavior.

No, I have ignored nothing and do not dispute the scriptures you have quoted. Nor is it my argument that God exalted these people that is makes polygamy ok. In fact you haven't actually let me get to core of my argument which is that God COMMANDED Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, David Solomon, Joseph Smith and probably many others to engage in polygamy. Mormon revelation has not changed on this question. If it were not against the law in the US it would probably still be in practice, at least until God commanded otherwise.

cimics · « **Reply #12 on:** November 04, 2007, 07:28:28 PM »

I am going to interject a question in this discussion betweem Val and SJ: Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob had multiple wives?

How many wives did Abraham and Isaac have?

Abraham had 1 wife at a time: Sarah, and when Sarah died, Keturah. He did have a child with another woman, Hagar, but she most definitely was not his wife. She was Sarah's servant, and Abraham had a child with her at Sarah's behest, because neither Sarah nor Abraham had enough faith in God's promise that he would provide Abraham with a son. And look at the mess that resulted. And it does look like Abraham had concubines. But those weren't wives. Are we saying God approved of concubines?

Isaac had 1 wife: Rebekah. As far as I know, that's it. He didn't even have a concubine. Isaac is a model of monogamy.

Jacob had two wives to begin with. The only reason he had two, instead of just one, was that his uncle Laban tricked him into marrying Leah instead of Rachel, and then Laban let Jacob marry Rachel too. And it was competition between Leah and Rachel (for children) that led to them pushing their maidservants onto Jacob as "wives" (of course, Jacob seemed all too willing). So Val, are you saying God approved of this child-bearing competition?

If Jacob hadn't been tricked by Laban to begin with, he would have had only one wife, instead of four. It seems a lot to say God encouraged polygamy with Jacob when the polygamy is the result of a trick.

David and Solomon (esp. Solomon) did have multiple wives, without these sorts of strange circumstances. And they had all sorts of trouble. David had to deal with a rebellion and an interfamily rape, and that's aside from Bathsheba. And Solomon's wives helped turn him away from God and paved the way for the division of the Israelite kingdom.

One other thought. Why is only the KJV authoritative? You do know, don't you, that the KJV has some translation errors?

Anthony Horvath · « **Reply #13 on:** November 04, 2007, 08:28:43 PM »

"Nevertheless you so often dish it out and rarely take it."

That's nonsense. I take it left and right. And except for characterizing Mormonism in ways that you don't like, I have never dished it out to you. Haven't you noticed?

"This is again what I am discouraged about. You constantly compartmentalize scriptures from the BofM without out having a truly in depth knowledge of all of the gospel."

I don't agree. I hardly ever talk about the scriptures of the BoM. My quoting of Nephi here is the first time, ever, that I have quoted the BoM in a debate. Ever. That's because in my other conversations with Mormons they have not denied the particular point you are trying to deny here.

It is true that I don't have the kind of knowledge of the 'gospel' according to Mormonism, but I have to choose wisely where I invest my time. I see no reason to give the 'scriptures of the BofM' the time of day, and I have had Mormon missionaries sitting in my living room to give them reason to tell me why I should.

"Add to that you are not in the least interested in learning anything about Mormonism with an open mind."

Sure. I made up my mind. And when said Mormon Missionaries had their opportunity, they concluded with telling me to ignore my questions but rather ask God to reveal whether or not the BoM is genuine. That is pretty unsatisfactory: I replied, didn't they know the Bible says to test the spirits? How do I test the spirits? To which they replied "You'll just know."

I think I have the measure of the worldview well enough to form some conclusions. On the other hand, what I have learned about Mormonism has come from the only proper place to derive that knowledge: Mormons themselves.

For example, you have not dealt with my citation of 1 Nephi which clearly indicates that according to the BoM the 'abominable church' has cut out aspects of the Gospel, which is a pretty clear statement to me that the Mormons would find the Bible to be corrupted.

And the other citations on that page do well to corroborate that.

"No, I have ignored nothing and do not dispute the scriptures you have quoted."

This is the first you've addressed them. So, you don't dispute them. Interesting. So, move on to the 'core.' I'm not keeping you from doing anything.

"If it were not against the law in the US it would probably still be in practice, at least until God commanded otherwise."

No doubt.

valerie · « **Reply #14 on:** November 04, 2007, 09:38:43 PM »

to cimics...

Quote

How many wives did Abraham and Isaac have?

I don't know, I only know what you know in the Bible and little bit more from modern day revelation. I once read that concubines were actually wives but of a lesser status than the "wives" due to inheritance laws. Sorry, can't remember the source and it may not be correct, just a thought.

As for the KJV...I am sure there are translation errors in every version of the Bible. Difficult to sort through them without some kind of divine help, in my opinion.

to sj...

Quote

I take it left and right. And except for characterizing Mormonism in ways that you don't like, I have never dished it out to you. Haven't you noticed?

Gee, thanks for your generosity. I probably never deserved it.

Quote

It is true that I don't have the kind of knowledge of the 'gospel' according to Mormonism, but I have to choose wisely where I invest my time. I see no reason to give the 'scriptures of the BofM' the time of day, and I have had Mormon missionaries sitting in my living room to give them reason to tell me why I should.

Then why are you even on this thread? Why, for that matter did you create it this section? You couldn't possibly believe you might have some influence over poor unsuspecting Mormons? Ah, you truly are a saint out there to save us!

Quote

For example, you have not dealt with my citation of 1 Nephi which clearly indicates that according to the BoM the 'abominable church' has cut out aspects of the Gospel, which is a pretty clear statement to me that the Mormons would find the Bible to be corrupted.

Well, actually it doesn't even mention the Bible, but that is splitting hairs. Have some patience with responses, I have a family to care for you know. What the Mormons find corrupted is just what the scripture said, the great abominable church. That great abominable church includes anything and everything that is against God and Jesus Christ and his church. It could mean people, churches, books, music, movies etc...
Do Mormons believe pieces of the Bible were taken out, not included or translated incorrectly? Sure, but who doesn't believe that? Are we done with this topic now? I sure am.

Polygamy...God commanded it, Old testament. Then God un-commanded it New Testament. I surely have some modern day revelation to support this but I don't think you would be interested. Not much more to add there unless you want to discuss what is so bad about it outside of the current philosophy that God commands against it.

Anthony Horvath · « **Reply #15 on:** November 05, 2007, 10:01:16 AM »

"Gee, thanks for your generosity. I probably never deserved it."

So I haven't 'dished it out' to you and you're complaining?

"Then why are you even on this thread?"

I meant to say that I don't have as much knowledge as you. But that doesn't mean I don't have knowledge enough.

"Well, actually it doesn't even mention the Bible, but that is splitting hairs. Have some patience with responses, I have a family to care for you know."

I do too, thank you very much. You seem to have really become spiteful against me in this thread, and continue to do so, and I have done nothing to deserve it.

"Do Mormons believe pieces of the Bible were taken out, not included or translated incorrectly? Sure, but who doesn't believe that? Are we done with this topic now? I sure am."

So if I get this straight, you believe the Bible was not corrupted, but that pieces of the Bible were taken out, not included, or translated incorrectly... but it wasn't corrupted. Well, that certainly clears that up.

Actually, I do not believe that pieces of the Bible were taken out or not included. And since we have the texts in their original language, 'mistranslation' into English is irrelevant. We can't really check to see if Smith's translation was accurate, as we do not have the original texts. You have insisted that the testimony of the three and the testimony of the eight corroborates the existence of the tablets. Well, can we corroborate the translation?

"Polygamy...God commanded it, Old testament. Then God un-commanded it New Testament."

I think both Cimics and myself are interested to see your support for the notion that it was commanded in the OT. Furthermore, Genesis 2 clearly represents a single man with a single woman and there is no hint at all that there is more than one woman 'commanded' or intended.

Quote

"This is now bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh; she shall be called woman for she was taken out of man." For this reason, a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and they wil become one flesh.

That's Old Testament. And of course, a translation out of the Hebrew. So, if you wish to quibble about whether or not one man/one woman is justified from the text, you at least have the ability to go and learn Hebrew, or find someone who knows Hebrew, and check it yourself.

valerie · « **Reply #16 on:** November 05, 2007, 12:25:23 PM »

Quote

"Well, actually it doesn't even mention the Bible, but that is splitting hairs. Have some patience with responses, I have a family to care for you know."

I do too, thank you very much. You seem to have really become spiteful against me in this thread, and continue to do so, and I have done nothing to deserve it.

I don't see how my statement was spiteful and I don't see any other statements that were spiteful. I only mentioned that as to excuse my sometimes erratic responses. I usually can't answer all questions in one response due to people tugging at my sleeve.

Quote

So if I get this straight, you believe the Bible was not corrupted, but that pieces of the Bible were taken out, not included, or translated incorrectly... but it wasn't corrupted. Well, that certainly clears that up.

Certainly, even well meaning, inspired individuals may have omitted something because they did not think it was relevant or didn't know better. It does not make the document corrupt.

Quote

Actually, I do not believe that pieces of the Bible were taken out or not included. And since we have the texts in their original language, 'mistranslation' into English is irrelevant. We can't really check to see if Smith's translation was accurate, as we do not have the original texts. You have insisted that the testimony of the three and the testimony of the eight corroborates the existence of the tablets. Well, can we corroborate the translation?

Why would you need to? You do not see that accepting the testimony of those who handled the plates means accepting JS as a prophet of God? That all he said and did, pertaining to the church, were commanded and orchestrated by Jesus Christ? JS could translate nothing without the power from God, to question the translation is to question God's own intent and design.

Quote

I think both Cimics and myself are interested to see your support for the notion that it was commanded in the OT. Furthermore, Genesis 2 clearly represents a single man with a single woman and there is no hint at all that there is more than one woman 'commanded' or intended.

Of course, I was generalizing a bit for lack of time. I was more referring to Abraham and his seed.

D&C 132:
34 God commanded Abraham, and Sarah gave Hagar to Abraham to wife. And why did she do it? Because this was the law; and from Hagar sprang many people. This, therefore, was fulfilling, among other things, the promises.
35 Was Abraham, therefore, under condemnation? Verily I say unto you, Nay; for I, the Lord, commanded it.
36 Abraham was commanded to offer his son Isaac; nevertheless, it was written: Thou shalt not kill. Abraham, however, did not refuse, and it was accounted unto him for righteousness.
37 Abraham received concubines, and they bore him children; and it was accounted unto him for righteousness, because they were given unto him, and he abode in my law; as Isaac also and Jacob did none other things than that which they were commanded; and because they did none other things than that which they were commanded, they have entered into their exaltation, according to the promises, and sit upon thrones, and are not angels but are gods.
38 David also received many wives and concubines, and also Solomon and Moses my servants, as also many others of my servants, from the beginning of creation until this time; and in nothing did they sin save in those things which they received not of me.
39 David

cimics · « **Reply #17 on:** November 05, 2007, 01:30:23 PM »

Quote

As for the KJV...I am sure there are translation errors in every version of the Bible. Difficult to sort through them without some kind of divine help, in my opinion.

So, we should be prepared to consult multiple translations of the Bible, so that, through divine help, we can ascertain which translations are correct with respect to which passages, right?

Quote

I think both Cimics and myself are interested to see your support for the notion that it was commanded in the OT. Furthermore, Genesis 2 clearly represents a single man with a single woman and there is no hint at all that there is more than one woman 'commanded' or intended.

Of course, I was generalizing a bit for lack of time. I was more referring to Abraham and his seed.

D&C 132:
34 God commanded Abraham, and Sarah gave Hagar to Abraham to wife. And why did she do it? Because this was the law; and from Hagar sprang many people. This, therefore, was fulfilling, among other things, the promises.
35 Was Abraham, therefore, under condemnation? Verily I say unto you, Nay; for I, the Lord, commanded it.
36 Abraham was commanded to offer his son Isaac; nevertheless, it was written: Thou shalt not kill. Abraham, however, did not refuse, and it was accounted unto him for righteousness.
37 Abraham received concubines, and they bore him children; and it was accounted unto him for righteousness, because they were given unto him, and he abode in my law; as Isaac also and Jacob did none other things than that which they were commanded; and because they did none other things than that which they were commanded, they have entered into their exaltation, according to the promises, and sit upon thrones, and are not angels but are gods.
38 David also received many wives and concubines, and also Solomon and Moses my servants, as also many others of my servants, from the beginning of creation until this time; and in nothing did they sin save in those things which they received not of me.
39 David

valerie · « **Reply #18 on:** November 05, 2007, 02:38:35 PM »

Quote

we should be prepared to consult multiple translations of the Bible, so that, through divine help, we can ascertain which translations are correct with respect to which passages, right?

Why are you asking me that? I have no interest in telling you how to resolve the issue, I am certain you have your own methods.

Quote

These quotes are not from the OT.

I am pretty sure I made it clear that they wouldn't be and that you would not be interested. Nevertheless, SJ said you both would be interested so I posted the scriptures, sorry I missed the part where they should be from the OT. Here is what I said:

Quote

I surely have some modern day revelation to support this but I don't think you would be interested. Not much more to add there unless you want to discuss what is so bad about it outside of the current philosophy that God commands against it.

kreil45 · « **Reply #19 on:** November 20, 2007, 10:27:34 AM »

whats up new here. i will answer the ? about what mormons think about the new and old testament. mormons do believe in the KJV of the Bible. as a lot of people would agree the bible can be confusing and contradict its self. thats why so many people argue about it. so there are things in the Bible that mormons dont believe or it could be said that there are things that other religons do believe that are in the bible. the Bible has been translated many times. have you heard of the niacin creed? they were part of that translation thing and took and add stuff. and they were not the best of people. so yes mormons believe in the Bilble ot and nt.

Author Topic: Mormonism like Islam (Read 3163 times)