Mormons are a CULT!

[Gravity]

>>Forget religions for a moment, how many people do you think you could find on the planet that would sincerely swear they are certain God exists, as opposed to just believing, or thinking he might.

It would be far too many to be explained away as just self delusion, or mental instability, brain washing, or whatever.<<

Have been CERTAIN myself, and then continuing to have thought, learned and studied on it . . . and realized this certainty was an emotional rather than a logical thing, I know you are wrong.

Religions mutate and come and go, peoples certainty at each moment that they KNOW the truth, is consistant.

 

[Chromatose]

CULT: > ritualistic religious system

Incomplete.

cult --> A religion or religious sect generally considered to be extremist or false, with its followers often living in an unconventional manner under the guidance of an authoritarian, charismatic leader.

Mormons may be considered extremist by some, which strikes me as rather humorous, since we're really only "extreme" or "living unconventionally" in terms of things which tend to have us thought of as "goodie-goodies".

No smoking, drinking, cussing, sleeping with everybody in sight. Trying to look out for others, help others, donate money toward the welfare of others, volunteer time and effort to the church organization. We're definitely a spooky bunch.

The rest is gobbledegook come up with by ticked off Ex or Anti-Mormons.

 

[SkinWalker]

The Oxford English Dictionary defines "cult" as: "Worship; reverential homage rendered to a divine being or beings. A particular form or system of religious worship; esp. in reference to its external rites and ceremonies."

I think that would apply equally to the Mormon cult as it does all other Christian cults.

 

[Chromatose]

I would dare guess that maybe 99% of all mormons don't know Jesus enough to go to heaven;

Why does that remind me so much of the saying that 87.4% of all statistics are made up?

And 99%? Gimme a break.

If you take the 11,000,000 whatever LDS people and pare the bunch down to the really serious, active, practicing, wholehearted believers, it would easily be a larger percentage of the whole, than the same in any other religion.

 

[Chromatose]

Too many scientists (and atheists) have a couple of major misconceptions about it:

1 - That it is the only way of obtaining truth and knowledge.

What other way is there (assuming you are referring to 'science.' Your statement was ambiguous)?

Yes. Should have said "science", instead of "it".

If you know anything of LDS doctrine, you know they believe in "personal revelation". And it's not something reserved for them. Anyone who seeks God earnestly, prays, tries to follow scripture, teachings, be a good person, and the rest, is eligible.

I didn't come up with the wording i used. I was watching a discussion between different people with different takes on God and religion, not so long ago. All were highly educated, accomplished people and ranged from atheist, to agnostic, to spiritual, to devout. I was rather stricken by the comments of a woman who didn't belong to any organized religion.

First, at one point she said she couldn't imagine a life without Jesus, and said she had had many "religious experiences". Although non specific about what they were, she was specific and eloquent about her belief concerning their nature, and how by definition they were very personal and wouldn't stand up to any scientific scrutiny. I was intrigued.

Later she expressed the simple but profound thought that it was very arrogant and insulting of scientists to claim to be so certain that science was the only way to come by truth and knowledge. I realized immediately that religion was not the only example, and that at least to some millions who know God exists, it's so incontrovertibly true.

2 - That it's methods can apply to everything. (hence they try to do foolish things like apply their logic to God's actions)

Scientific method can apply to everything. It is just that humanity's natural affliction of magical thinking attempts to override the logical, critical thinking choice.

Rubbish.
Not all of the millions who know God exists fit into one of the categories the rest would like them to. They aren't all self-deluded, mentally ill, brainwashed, drugged, needy, of addictive personalities, etc.

I think it's funny how scientists with that view belittle the believers and say they're just blind to how they're being manipulated, or deluding themselves, etc. without knowing them.

Meanwhile, those who do know God exists, mostly who have fought long and hard and had many many things bring them around to that knowledge (knowledge; not conclusion, or belief), are looking back at the scientists thinking it odd how blinded they are by the constraints of empiracle evidence and their consuming obsession with scientifc study which keep them from ever doing what's necessary to find out God exists.

I've yet to come across an atheist who relies on science, who when confronted about what he's done to actually try to determine if God exists, can do anything but start asking "scientific" questions.

e.g. To something like "How do you know God doesn't exist? Have you really tried to find out? Have you studied scripture? Prayed? Sincerely gone at it with your heart in it?"

The obvious answer is "No", and why is all too obvious as the only types of answers they can give are; "Which scripture? Pray to which God? According to which religion's teachings. They all say something different and that the others are wrong."

In other words, they're so locked in on having to have some proven, substantive place to begin their search, they've never actually begun it. Or they say they have studied scriptures and various religions and history and they've got some whopping credentials on the topics and that's how they know it's all baloney. Oops. The problem was the same one. They "studied" it all in a thoughtful, "scientific" sort of way. Did they ever let go and sincerely go beyond that same scientific box, truly expecting to find something? No.

Also a well known part of LDS... history, or lore, if you wish, is that several supposed witnesses to the appearance of the angel Moroni, the brass and gold plates, and the rest fell away from the church. What? It wasn't enough "proof" for them to see and communicate with an angel? Same sort of thing happened in the BoM and Bible on various occasions. It's just so not about proof. The test doesn't end until you're dead.

But with regard to "god's actions," I'd have to ask which god?

Which?
Whatever one calls him or how one prays, there's only one God listening.

...and why would science wish to apply logic to magical thinking?

I can see you're no scientist. I don't know what "magical thinking is" but science is applied to questions about God and religion all the time. That's exactly where this sort of debate comes from. The LDS church must not be true because it can't meet the requirements of science even to the degree Catholicism can. After all, many Biblical events can be proven. Science studies the relics, places, origins, and history of religion all the time.

An interesting thing for me as a... some-time LDS member, is that scientists and historians now have enough knowledge compiled to explain away Christianity in general. Many did so quite eloquently in various shows right around the time "The Passion of the Christ" was released. Where the LDS church suffers scientifically because of the lack of evidence, the rest of the Christian sects have the opposite problem. The abundance of knowledge can now explain them all away in that it can nullify everything supernatural in and about scripture.

 

[Chromatose]

The Oxford English Dictionary defines "cult" as: "Worship; reverential homage rendered to a divine being or beings. A particular form or system of religious worship; esp. in reference to its external rites and ceremonies."

I think that would apply equally to the Mormon cult as it does all other Christian cults.

Indeed, it would. So i would suggest that to say "Mormons are a Cult" is to be disingenuous at best in it's singling them out.

And also, almost all people who don't belong to any religion, nevertheless have their own substitutes; their own obsessions. Science is one of them.

 

[Chromatose]

Have been CERTAIN myself, and then continuing to have thought, learned and studied on it . . . and realized this certainty was an emotional rather than a logical thing, I know you are wrong.

Exactly!
It's not a logical thing.
If true, yours is a run-of-the-mill turning away. The test goes on. Being certain one moment doesn't guarantee free sailing the rest of your life. If true you were certain, you simply surrendered to influences the other way (possibly including pride in your own self reliance and ability to logically think it out).

As i mentioned and is well known, even witnesses to miracles in the Bible and to the Angel Moroni and the brass & gold plates at the time of the creation of the LDS church, fell away later.

It's not about being able to study it out logically. It's about learning how God says it works, having faith, and sticking it out. God does make his existence known, but not through scientific study. The test of mortality would be pointless if incontrovertible proof were present.

Your or my weakness means very little. I've seen far too many people tested far too many ways that were absolutely unshakable. I've heard too many people across too many cultures, levels of affluence, backgrounds and every other difference speak with an uncanny assuredness and calm to blow it off.

As there is no proof God does not exist, you cannot know i am wrong.

 

[Nisus]

The book of Mormon is true.

 

[geeser]

so is easops fables,a 1001 nights and Basque Folklore, Celtic Folklore, the icelandic sagas, etc..

 

[Hapsburg]

DON'T WANT TO GO TO HELL!!!

Which does not exist anyway, so, you have no reason to fear mormons.
Really, though, it's annoying when christians say that mormons aren't christians...they are, they're just the stupidest members of a herd of stupid sheep.

 

[Prince_James]

Whilst I really have no desire to enter into this conversation on a long-term level, and this might even have been said before, I shall note but one thing:

-ALL- religions are fundementally cults. The distinction is in the eye of the beholder.

 

[Gravity]

2/3rds of humanity are Not Christian -- but then, thats being giving - to say that 1/3 of humanity is Christian because thats lumping together the folks from every Christian franchise: from Mormons, to Jehovah's Witnesses, to Pentacostals, to Quakers, to Catholics, to Baptists, to Amish . . . etc. Most of whom don't consider *each other* ''real'' Christians.

Yes, number don't prove anything. But in your smug self-rightous certainty that YOU are right . . . it should at least give you pause that the majority of billions of other folks don't believe anything faintly similar to you.

Those men, women, children . . . all over the globe, doomed to be tortured for eternity by your god of love?

Anything is possible, but I doubt it!

 

[Nisus]

U all need to pray right now

 

[Nisus]

and it's The Church of Jesus Christ
not the church of Mormon or w/eva u guys is talkin about.

 

[SkinWalker]

U all need to pray right now

Why?

 

[SkinWalker]

Later she expressed the simple but profound thought that it was very arrogant and insulting of scientists to claim to be so certain that science was the only way to come by truth and knowledge. I realized immediately that religion was not the only example, and that at least to some millions who know God exists, it's so incontrovertibly true.


Rubbish.
Not all of the millions who know God exists fit into one of the categories the rest would like them to. They aren't all self-deluded, mentally ill, brainwashed, drugged, needy, of addictive personalities, etc.

No. They simply believe. In the same way the Zande man "knows" that it was witchcraft that killed his uncle not cancer. The same way the Navajo "knows" the coyote he sees two days in a row in his back yard is a witch and not a canine looking to raid the garbage. The same way the baseball player "knows" it is the same exact meal he eats before each game that keeps his "luck" going. The same way the Indian "knows" the cow is sacred. The same way the Muslim "knows" Muhammed is a prophet of Allah and that all others are infidels.

They don't really all "know," they all believe. Knowing is being able to offer evidence. I know the sun will rise tomorrow morning based on the fact that it has everyday for the last 39 years of my life. I know if I cut myself, I will bleed. I know the rock sitting on my desk contains a carbonate because of the reaction it has to HCl. These are all 'testable' claims that have reproducible and predictive results.

The magical thinking of religion cannot provide this.

I think it's funny how scientists with that view belittle the believers and say they're just blind to how they're being manipulated, or deluding themselves, etc. without knowing them.

I don't recall ever stating in this thread that anyone was blind, manipulated or deluded. Certainly, there are those who believe various paranormal and supernatural things who are, but I think its clear that belief in the supernatural is a human condition. One that is just as important as critical thinking. It is the willingness to believe that very likely gave rise to complexity among humanity and defined us as a species. It is very likely that without belief, a species that was simply just "intelligent" might never manifest the characteristics of civilization such as technology and religion. Without religion, much of early human civilization would not have come to be, the Egyptians are a prime example of this with their rituals and cults that surround the Nile and its ability to benefit agriculture.

Meanwhile, those who do know God exists,

Whose god? There are many gods now and throughout history. Science cannot concern itself with being biased to any one deity and it certainly cannot concern itself with that which cannot be tested unless we are talking about anthropology and sociology, in which case gods make fantastic subjects. But to say you "know" a god exists is preposterous. "Believing" and "knowing" are not the same thing. One "knows" through testable, reproducible and predictive data.

I've yet to come across an atheist who relies on science, who when confronted about what he's done to actually try to determine if God exists, can do anything but start asking "scientific" questions.

Again, which god? Why not Wantanka? Why not one of the Hindu gods? Perhaps, if there is a god, it is Ba'al or Zeus or even Enlil and modern religions have it all wrong. But you've posed the wrong question. It isn't "what have atheists done to determine if god exists," it's "what have the various cults done to demonstrate a god really exists." And they've done precious little except say, "god(s) exists."

e.g. To something like "How do you know God doesn't exist? Have you really tried to find out? Have you studied scripture? Prayed? Sincerely gone at it with your heart in it?"

I could answer "yes" to the last three questions. I'm well versed in scriptures (christian as well as others). But I'm also well versed in many ancient texts and see evidence that many of the myths of scripture have their roots in older, less advanced cultures. The tale of Gilgamesh, for instance. Literary evidence suggests that the author of the Noachian myth was well-versed in the older tale of Gilgamesh, which was, in turn, a derivitive of the Atrahasis and the Deluge, both older still. Prayer? No evidence of it ever working. With "my heart in it?" Assuming that you mean with sincerity and not something anatomical, yes. I was once sincere in my beliefs. Education and application of critical thinking gave me new insight and caused me to question the validity of what I was taught. Answers to those questions didn't make sense or were not forthcoming. A new worldview was formed.

The obvious answer is "No", and why is all too obvious as the only types of answers they can give are; "Which scripture? Pray to which God? According to which religion's teachings. They all say something different and that the others are wrong."

Why aren't those questions valid? Why is the scripture of your cult better than that of another? Why aren't the Navajo beliefs as valid as the Lutheran? Why aren't the religions of the indigenous tribes of West Africa as valid as Islam?

In other words, they're so locked in on having to have some proven, substantive place to begin their search, they've never actually begun it.
Or they say they have studied scriptures and various religions and history and they've got some whopping credentials on the topics and that's how they know it's all baloney. Oops. The problem was the same one. They "studied" it all in a thoughtful, "scientific" sort of way. Did they ever let go and sincerely go beyond that same scientific box, truly expecting to find something? No.

The derisive and pejorative nature of your remarks doesn't invalidate the premise they ridicule. You're saying that because those that choose not to believe in the god of your cult have studied the cult scriptures, the scriptures of other cults and the texts of ancient civilizations (as well as the archaeological record) that they are somehow less educated in their opinions than those who choose to ignore all but the narrow context of a single cult's "knowledge." That, somehow, the learned atheist is less qualified that the ignorant believer because they're trapped in a "box" called science.

I say poppycock. One could easily posit that the believer is the individual trapped in the "box" of his cult and refuses to think outside of it. The believer expects to find salvation and everlasting life. But show me one believer who has either and I'll show you someone who has only some hope and a dream.

Which?
Whatever one calls him or how one prays, there's only one God listening.

How do you know? You keep saying you "know," but you never say "how." You read it? Perhaps you'll answer as some dare, "God spoke to me." To that I'd ask how is this different than Whitley Streiber who believes that space aliens have visited him and taken him to other worlds? He wrote a series of books on the subject. If I "read" it, does it mean that I, too, can "know" these visitors are genuine?

I can see you're no scientist.

I'm not sure where I laid claim to that title, but I'm certain that I've written nothing to indicate that I'm not. If so, don't simply resort to half-witted attempts at insult and actually validate your claim.

I don't know what "magical thinking is" but science is applied to questions about God and religion all the time.

Only with regard to human behavior and human response. It is never used as an explanation or direction of research. "God" and religion are the result of magical thinking, where two or more events are interpreted as if one is a cause of the other(s) without regard to a causal link. Lightning strikes the man next to you dead, just moments after he shouts a curse at his neighbor. Obviously a sign from a god, right? It wasn't a god, but the conductivity of his body to the electricity in the atmosphere that killed him. Beyond anthropology and sociology, science has little use for "god."

After all, many Biblical events can be proven. Science studies the relics, places, origins, and history of religion all the time.

Far fewer than you might believe. Indeed, there are many biblical myths that simply have no archaeological cooboration or actually have contradiciton. The bible is myth. Myth based upon the oral traditions of ancient cultures, and important to the anthropological understanding of these cultures, but not to be taken with any degree of literal meaning.

The abundance of knowledge can now explain them all away in that it can nullify everything supernatural in and about scripture.

Really? That global flood nonsense and the stopping of the sun for a full day doesn't appear to have any ready explanation.

 

[WildBlueYonder]

The book of Mormon is true.

based on what?

facts? like tech, flora & fauna?
history, like archeology, DNA & linguist studies?

mister magician Joe Smith, the treasure-seeker?

 

[WildBlueYonder]

and it's The Church of Jesus Christ
not the church of Mormon or w/eva u guys is talkin about.

calling yourself the "church of this or that" doesn't make you whatever you say you are or who you say you follow, there are other "Churches of Jesus Christ", are they worthy of the title or only your brand?

by reading the Bible, 'it don't look good for your team', but Jesus will be the final judge