/lit/ - Literature

>>18589663
The Koran is a much larger fraud.

>>18589663
>>18589750
And the Testaments make 4.

>>18589663
Even if it’s not real it still he greater value than the Bible. Seethe Knowing you don’t have priesthood authority.

>>18590418
it's the priesthood of the antichrist

>>18590418
>greater value than the Bible

I'm an idiot for even replying, but whatever. It's not only theologically and philosophically inferior, I would forgive it that maybe. But simply as a work of art, the ramblings of some new age american schizo can't compare to a collection of works spanning multiple centuries, written in our distant past. The poetry isn't there, to put it simply.

>>18589663
But anon, I have a testimony that the Book of Mormon is true and that our prophet, Joseph Smith led the restoration of the church long lost in the apostacy. I know these things are true like I know anything. How can you tell me I'm wrong?

>>18591700
and I also have dubs

It's been refuted by Guenon
>Among the religious or pseudo-religious sects widespread in America, the Mormon sect is assuredly one of the oldest and most important, and we believe that it would not be without some interest to look at its origins.
>At the beginning of the nineteenth century there lived in New England a Presbyterian pastor named Solomon Spalding, who had abandoned his ministry in favor of commerce, where it was not long before he went bankrupt. After this setback, he began writing a kind of novel in biblical style which he entitled Manuscript Found, and which, it seems, he counted on to restore his fortune; in this he was mistaken, as he died before he could find a publisher. The subject of this book concerns the history of the North American Indians, who were portrayed as the descendents of the Patriarch Joseph; it was a protracted account of their wars and their supposed migrations from the time of Sedecias, king of Judah, up to the fifteenth century AD. This account was supposed to have been written by various chroniclers, the last of whom, named Mormon, is said to have deposited it in an underground hiding place.
> The success of Mormonism seems astonishing. It is likely that it is due more to the hierarchical and theocratic organization of the sect—very cleverly conceived, it must be acknowledged—than to the value

>>18591700
Ngl Mormanons usually have a lower chance of being killjoys. Don't have the worst theodicies either

>>18592614
not true at all
real mormons not schizo wanna-be LARPer converts who browse here are an almost robotic and very boring people. It's very hard to have an interesting conversation with them.
but they do live a very pure life and abstain from the modern vices which makes them somewhat redeemable
>t. Utahn who grew up in the heart of the Mormon suburbs

>>18589663
Read William James' The Varieties of Religious Experience. The rationalistic theologians and their atheist opponents are all the same: they think they can prove God exists or that religion is fake with arguments, but they don't take religious experiences seriously one bit, and that's their weakness. On the other hand, Mormonism is full of them, ranging from the smallest and most common, to some pretty incredible cases that sound especially credible when you see how comparable they are to things James chronicles in his book. The upshot from James is that instead of taking the plurality of religious experiences as evidence that no religion is true, or as proof of the material psychological origin of religion, you should instead put yourself in the shoes of someone with those experiences and consider how firm your belief will be first-glance and how religious experiences have an important value to you and to all (remember his pragmatism) which should be taken seriously. The thing is Mormonism's religious experiences really do go beyond just the level discussed by James, into the case of really impressive public miracles observed by multitudes at once. If any religion is going to be believed it has to be on a basis such as this. Anything else is just a presupposition, especially without evidence when the claims all date to thousands of years ago. Looking at Mormonism and all other religions outside of time, it actually stands ahead of them as far as the record of its religious experiences go. For they're far better attested to than Judaism for example, or Christianity. And the credibility of the claims is no less absurd, looked at outside of time, than those of Judaism, or Christianity, or Islam, or anything else. James values creativity and hates anyone who has prejudice against the new and the weird, but this generation is one full of prejudice against the new and the weird. Your epistemology ruler should not measure on this basis, ever. You need a more impersonal and atemporal perspective on religions than a resentful prejudiced apostate can ever provide.

>reading the cope letter
Seethe

>>18591700
Based and checked

>>18591711
>crypto-atheist LARPing mason
Didn’t read

>>18589663
>Guy begs for money on his site
Cool

The book of Mormon the biggest fraud?

I mean, if anything, it would be the bible before the book of Mormon. Both are just religious texts, saying it's like some other fictional book is like saying the bible is basically retelling of stories from africa and the middle east that are meant to be fantasies but are said to be real in the Bible.

Get a grip, Mormons aren't defrauding anyone, genuinely the only religion that seems to actually believe what they preach at every level anymore.

>>18590444
book of mormon is definitely more utilitarian than the bible. Bible's poetry comes from actively changing the words to sound pretty, book of mormon doesn't pretend to be just pretty stories, it's just block and densely packed theology. whole sections are just about how to exactly reproduce ceremonies and clarifying theological ideas.

mormons, even their sects, are relatively are all the same page because of that. You can't get even close to that level of consistency even within the same church building from week to week with any protestant religion.

>>18593895
>>18593529
seething counter-traditionalist

>>18593977
>Guenon
>traditional
Lmao

>>18593977
How was the second post related to Guenon or traditionalism at all?

do you seriously need something like that to figure out book of mormon is bullshit?

>>18594492
I learned some new shit

>>18589663
>implying it needs to be refuted in the first place

>>18589663
LOOK KIDS, A FAT ATHEIST WANTS TO TEACH US HOW TO LIVE

>>18594827
soon

what do moremuns even believe in? that they become space gods in the afterlife or something right?

Is the book of Mormon actually worth reading? It can’t be horrible if they have so many people in it

>>18594909
why are NPCs like this?

>>18594909
I think it's the weakest link in the Mormon canon, but it's better if you digest it and reconstruct what its about or saying after the fact. The experience itself is mixed, it's brought down by one main thing: the grammar isn't great. Translations of the Book of Mormon into languages other than English fix that as far as I know, like the Spanish Book of Mormon reads fine as far as I remember. I wonder what would happen if one translated the Spanish Book of Mormon back into English.

If I convert to Mormonism will they give me a wife. If so, I'll read this. I already have a copy.

>>18595098
Yes, there are tons of women out here in eastern idaho. Just do nofap for a few weeks and put a little bit of effort into pursuing them.

>>18595129
Sold!

>>18594827
Is this supposed to look appealing? A bunch of toeheaded, vacant-eyed kids and a bulbous mother-in-law with lips thinner than pencil lines?

>>18593945
>protestant religion.
We are talking about real, Bible believing Christians here, that is, Roman Catholics.

>>18595137
>Sold!
(For 30 pieces of silver, that is)

Something about this thread made me read D&C 93, D&C 121, D&C 88:118, Moses 7, Abraham 3, 3 Nephi 19, and Alma 32 in that order for some reason.

>>18594748
>watch the Mormon Stories podcast with the CES letter author
>admits that he doesn't think the map is a convincing argument but included it anyway

>>18594275
Not that guy, but he explicitly said he endorses New Age religiosity (the antithesis of traditionalism) because it's creative or at least gives assent to James' endorsement. It could be argued that he was merely inserting this interpretation of James into the discourse without advocating for it, but it's highly unlikely given he began the post in the imperative mood.

Don't misunderstand me, I actually think James/anon is saying something interesting here.

I was also amused by:
>incredible cases that sound especially credible

>>18596559
Doesn't Guenon believe in the importance of religious experience (intellectual intuition is his term of choice) and also believe that this experience is valid across a variety of religions (Islam, Hinduism, Catholicism, etc)? How is James being New Age? How is anything James doing different from what Guenon's doing anyway, in this detail at least?

Adjacent to this topic is Robert Matthews. If You don't know anything about him, I suggest reading The Kingdom of Matthias: A Story of Sex and Salvation in 19th-Century America (1994) - there are striking parallels.

>>18596591
Joseph Smith actually met Robert Matthews, in case you didn't know. It's an amusing episode, it's in the Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, pages 103-105. It concludes thus:
>I resumed conversation with Matthias, and desired him to enlighten my mind more on his views respecting the resurrection. He said that he possessed the spirit of his fathers, that he was a literal descendant of Matthias, the Apostle, who was chosen in the place of Judas that fell; that his spirit was resurrected in him; and that this was the way or scheme of eternal life—this transmigration of soul or spirit from father to son. I told him that his doctrine was of the devil, that he was in reality in possession of a wicked and depraved spirit, although he professed to be the Spirit of truth itself; and he said also that he possessed the soul of Christ. He tarried until Wednesday, 11th, when, after breakfast, I told him, that my God told me, that his god was the devil, and I could not keep him any longer, and he must depart. And so I, for once, cast out the devil in bodily shape, and I believe a murderer.

>>18596618
I was aware of their meeting, but I've never read it from Smith's perspective, thanks for posting this.

>>18596586
I can't really speak to Guenon having never read him, but you're correct in saying James is not strictly New Age, but he certainly does not favor "traditional" religious experiences over any contemporary ones. I think you can only place Guenon and James side by side if you confound pragmatism with syncretism. It would be interesting to see if Guenon ever referenced him in any of his works. A genius work that uses James to great effect is "The Idea of the Holy" by Rudolf Otto, admittedly I am more familiar with it than James' writings.

>>18596662
I'm curious to hear the Matthews side of it. He basically showed up at Kirtland one day, introduced himself as "Joshua the Jewish Minister," seemed intent on trying to convert Joseph Smith of all people, Joseph was a kind host and invited him to stay a little and even give a discourse, but then rumors went out that "Joshua" was Matthias from New York who apparently was accused of murder before showing up in Kirtland. The guy started claiming he was actually Christ. Kind of wild.

>>18596668
>but he certainly does not favor "traditional" religious experiences over any contemporary ones
What leads you to say this, or rather, what do you mean by it?

>"Joseph Smith was seventeen years of age when an angel of God named Moroni appeared to him and said that a collection of ancient writings was buried in Wayne County, New York, engraved on golden plates by ancient prophets. The writings described a people whom God had led from Jerusalem to America 600 years before Jesus' birth."

The Book of Mormon is so obviously bullshit that I think any "refutation" of it would be mostly a waste of time.

>recomended secondary materials for Mormons who agree with the CES letters
>section called deprogramming
>includes the God Delusion, the art of not giving a fuck, and sam harris books
What did he mean by this?

>>18596880
It meant he went from one lie to another

>>18596880
Resentful apostates are honestly so much worse than religious people seriously.

>>18596943
It's extremely difficult for me, specifically, due to my family being Mormon, so having the supplementary materials be a bunch of reductive atheist jobbers hurts my ability to properly come to a truth. The reddit page for ex mormons is circlejerks of people posting images of themselves drinking coffee and not providing any helpful material to those who are having legitimate faith crisises who don't want to completely rid themselves of Christianity or spirituality.

>>18592614
Part of what convinced me Mormonism is a cult instead of a wacky religion was living in a fairly big Mormon area and knowing a bunch of them growing up. It’s the classic move of acting friendly and confident when interacting with non-Mormons, but their family situations are always trainwrecks. They’re completely beholden to the church and it’s bureaucracy, not to God. One guy I knew told me that the leadership would use things his family had admitted during their equivalent of confession to turn them against each other and submit to the church (stemming from some minor drama about their family’s tithing), instead of attempting anything like absolution or encouragement.
Idk if that’s even the point of the ritual like it is in Catholicism but it’s still pretty evil to use a parishoner’s confidence like that.

>>18596983
Have you considered joining the real Church

>>18597022
Sociologists are taught not to take apostate atrocity stories seriously for good reason, the moment you people start doing this, not just all religion, but every social establishment, becomes a "cult" and the word loses its meaning.

>>18597022
well families everywhere are trainwrecks and I don't see it too bad where I live in Eastern Idaho. The ex mormons are usually kinda fucky though.

>>18597036
can I keep my wives

>>18598848
You have to pick one (1)

>>18596943
Very accurate
When people leave Mormonism they don't leave quietly and they make sure everyone knows they left. They base their entire personality around it and it's embarrassing as fuck
t. from Utah and deal with these people constantly
Like. Just shut up. If you don't like the religion then fine, don't like it. But shut the fuck up about it already then if you don't believe it

>>18595383
>real, Bible believing Christians here
>Roman Catholics
AHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH

>>18597022
Show me a hierarchy that isn't a cult. That's not to excuse the LDS church or advocate for anarchism or whatever. But I'd love to find the uncorrupted, pure, NON-cult hierarchy that doesn't have authority figures that abuse or manipulate people.

BUMP

What are some /lit/ sections of the Doctrine and Covenants? D&C 121 is pretty good.

Out of the 34+ women he married, Joseph Smith married Helen Mar Kimball and Nancy Maria Winchester, both of which were 14 years old, below the age of consent for marriage. Joseph was 37-years-old when he married them. Even by 19th century standards, this is grooming, thus pedophilia.
Furthermore, as defined by revelation, the only justifiable purpose for Joseph marrying 14-year-old girls was to "multiply and replenish the earth", " raise seed", and "bear the souls of men" (sex), stated plainly in Doctrine and Covenants 132:63, Jacob 2:30, Discourses of Brigham Young, p.305.
We know Joseph had sex with his wives as admitted by Emily Dow Partridge and Sylvia Porter Lyon (two of his wives) and reported by five separate witnesses: Oliver Cowdery, William McLellin, Wilhelm Wyl and Benjamin F. Johnson.

"I would never have been sealed to Joseph **had I known it was anything more than ceremony.** I was young, and **they deceived me,** by saying the salvation of our whole family depended on it."
– Helen Mar Kimball (14-years-old when married), Mormon Polygamy: A History by LDS historian Richard S. Van Wagoner, p.53

In addition, how is it okay to pressure a 14-year-old adolescent girl by telling her that her entire family’s salvation and exaltation depends on her decision on marrying a man twenty-three years older than her and that she must make the decision within 24 hours? I personally question the morality and empathy of anyone who thinks it's acceptable for their god and prophet to condone such behavior.

>>18596766
>MORONI
>Moron
Yeah this guy was an epic troll

>>18602991
>literally white Muhammad
WTF?

>>18602991
You ever heard of Edgar Allan Poe?

>>18603429
Based Joseph Smith(PBUH)

>>18602991
>We know Joseph had sex with his wives as admitted by Emily Dow Partridge and Sylvia Porter Lyon (two of his wives) and reported by five separate witnesses: Oliver Cowdery, William McLellin, Wilhelm Wyl and Benjamin F. Johnson.
If Joseph had so many partners, where are all the sons of his bastards demanding recognition?

>>18603862
Fun fact: lots of women claimed Joseph sired children with them, and modern DNA tests proved every single one to have lied about it. Not sure what's up with that, but yeah.

>>18603862
There is such a thing as pulling out, anon
I think your dad should've looked into it

>>18603906
In any case, proving he didn't sire children wouldn't rectify the confirmed cases of grooming.

>>18604231
Joseph Smith in his early polygamy period was forced to take up the practice with high reluctance by God. The fact he married younger girls might look suspiciously like a preference thing til you realize who else he was marrying at the same time. It was three groups of women mainly: the young girls, really old women (50s and 60s and stuff), and women who had husbands of their own that he encouraged to live with said husbands. He was trying really hard to please God without committing to polygamy other than the ceremonial aspect. But of course to a nonbeliever it looks another way. The best proof that he had no intent for even sex is actually something John C. Bennett, already an ex-Mormon anti-Mormon, said later in his life. Bennett had before accused Joseph of using polygamy for fornication. But later, much later when he had no reason to do so...he recanted that. And he admitted Joseph's polygamy was always meant by Joseph (at the time) to be a sort of marriage for the next life. He (Joseph) married women to keep the commandment but tried to leave off the sex til the resurrection. It took til Brigham Young for people to actually start having children. These sort of things look objectionable and might well be, but Joseph was doing what he was told. The objectionable one is God, if anyone is.

>>18604314

>>18589750
Reminder.

>>18604391
Easily the best verbal beatdown this board has ever generated.

What made Smith so successful? How can I start my own spin-off of Christianity? It seems to be the route to success with Islam, Mormonism and doubtlessly other groups throughout time. I want in.

>>18604505
First, religious experiences have to be replicable in a new religion, with intense examples, that is to say, claims of actual miracles and visions and things like that, if it's going to survive. A lot of little religions that pop up are basically barren when it comes to that. Next, you have to have the sort of intellectual rigor (new revelations have to fit together sufficiently systematically) for your new religion to survive and convert smart people or raise future defenders of the faith. Again this is where a lot of little religions fail, and it's because a lot of new religious founders are actually idiots. Joseph Smith was very smart, Muhammad was very smart, Jesus was very smart, you can see it in the wisdom they actually left us to read. Last of all, new religions succeed best if they establish a strong social/cultural presence from the start, and make it clear from the beginning (leading by example) that said religion can certainly survive in the absence of the founder. Again Joseph Smith and the others excelled in this regard, whereas little cult leaders tend to suck at this because they're often too totalitarian and unstable for their religions to survive after their deaths. In a slogan, you need brains, soul, and community. Anything else is just a little personal cult project which will at best fizzle out, at worst end in some horrible disaster. Oh it might help to have God on your side, or demons.

>>18604505
To create a new religion you have to provide a philosophy that appeals to the people of the time. Joseph Smith appealed the jingoism of early America. Mohammed offered alternative to the Arabs against the Byzantines and the Sassanians. Take a modern issue like climate change or something, add a metaphysical and moral element as a solution, write a book about it and there you go.

Bump

>>18589750
it literally cannot be refuted

>>18606170
The only thing that gives me doubts is what it says about Jesus’ crucifixion, but besides that Islam seems like it is very close to the truth. I think a lot of people on /lit/ and /pol/ are blinded

>>18606170
>>18606196
Islam is too revisionist in a way that goes beyond Mormonism's contributions to Christianity's, or Christianity's contributions to Judaism. Muslims say Abraham was going to sacrifice Ishmael rather than Isaac for example, and they change the place where it happened from Moriah (the future temple mount in Jerusalem) to Mecca by the Kaaba. They teach Jesus was not crucified and that he did not die for sins as a result and that he also was not the Son of God when these things were taught extensively from the start of Christianity. This level of rewriting has such low regard for the original religions (Judaism and Christianity) that it acts as a reductio against Islam in the end. Besides the Quran puts in Dhul Qarnayn (originally Alexander the Great) from the (fictional) Alexander Romance and the story of seven Christian saints in a cave, but totally changes what happened as well. Muhammad (or his spirit of inspiration) was such an extreme case of revisionism I don't know why anyone takes it seriously.

>>18604505
Unironically because the Mormons got themselves their own territory. There have been plenty of cults before and since, but the Mormons took advantage of the material circumstances of United States to firmly root themselves.

>>18606450
There were a lot of little religious communes in America in the 19th century not to mention to this day (Amish for example) so that's not the only reason they succeeded since most of those failed and went extinct.

>>18589663
I don't understand why people get so much pleasure out of destroying religious communities. Yes, the Book of Mormon has many logical inconsistencies. But that's not the purpose of the book, nor the purpose of religion as a whole. It is a series of myths that give order to a desireable way of life. That's like people saying "You couldn't fit two of each animal on the same boat, checkmate Christkikes". There is a broad understanding that these books are mythological. 99% of religious people are not fundamentalist literalists and pressing the point just means you have a larger misunderstanding of religion.
Religion is like a compression mechanism to hold together a series of behaviors that would be impossible without it. It accelerates childbirth and promotes fertility in ways that atheist lifestyles constantly prove themselves unable to provide. We owe our existence to "illogical" religion, and I guarantee one of your ancestors believed in one too. And for that reason it will persist. I have spent a long time in the Mormon church and I honest fear for the future of all religions and more largely the future of humanity.
The PURPOSE of religion is to impose order that the universe does not on its own. For that reason religion MUST contain logic incompatible with "reason" and "science".
If you want to be an automaton, a literal robot, (who will be replaced by a better faster robot), then go ahead, be an athiest. But you will be misterable and you probably won't have kids, and those kids probably won't have kids unless they rejoin a religion.
Rant /over.

>>18606733
>If you want to be an automaton, a literal robot, (who will be replaced by a better faster robot), then go ahead, be an athiest.
>all my actions are because a magical bearded grandpa said so
>but I'm totally not a robot!

>>18606374
Islam is far more believable than Mormonism from the Christian perspective, since Mormons reduce God to a man, teach that humans can become gods, that the universe is eternal and uncreated and that God lives on a planet in space. Mormonism is basically a proto-UFO religion while Islam, having some unique twists of its own, has many commonalities with other monotheistic traditions and beliefs.

>>18607067
You people are so obsessed with your Greco-Roman theologizing that you will literally prefer a massively historically revisionist religion to one that teaches tritheism in line with what was taught by the early Church Fathers. Insane. You people make it sound like the real cult is monotheism.

>>18607067
>Mormons reduce God to a man, teach that humans can become gods, that the universe is eternal and uncreated and that God lives on a planet in space.
kek, really?

>>18589663

It’s on par with the Bible. If you can’t see that then you didn’t read it or are too blind by preconceived notions about Mormons

>>18590444
You’ve never read it. It upholds the Bible and clarifies multiple doctrinal descrepencies

>>18594909
It’s actually a great book.

>>18596250
Because you’re based

>>18596766
Yeah but A dude claiming he’s the son of god and being resurrected from the dead is 100% more believable guys TRUST me.

>>18596943
So true. Most ex mos become absolute degenerates for the sole sale of being contrarian to their “abusive religion”. Many turn leftist activist after bing brought to the “light”

>>18596983
The CES letter is the only thing they share

>>18597036
As a Mormon I would love to read as many books as possible to see how my faith holds up. I have yet to find a doctrinal system that is as comprehensive as the LDS doctrine. Please drop book recs below.

I’ve already read the Bible 6 times (KJV) as well as the entire Mormon canon 6 times.

>>18601254
D&C 88 is pretty good if I remember right.

>>18602991
14 was a normal age at the time. Judging past by current social standards is cringe

>>18606945
God is a concept.
Population biology has two eternally competing modes,"right wing" mindset is heirarchical, and "left wing" is egalitarian.
God is the top of that conceptual pyramid. God is the image of the perfect human at the top of the pyramid, perfect in every way. It is a concept to be approached, to fill the gap at the top of the pyramid so that someone striving to improve themselves has something to approach.
God is not magical sky daddy, and your immaturity and lack of understanding of this just proves how leftist you are at heart. Leftism has no room for a concept of god because their ideal is the average of all humans.
There is a reason right wing people have a growth mindset and left wing people have a gib-me-dat-for-free mindset. And that's you.

>>18606733
Based bro. That’s the thing people don’t get. It’s a world view that you dawn that allows you to flourish and sail through physicality with power and ferocity. Resin be damned if all you get from it is. Rippling depression and a sinister outlook on life. At the end of the day Religious people have far more positive output than non religious people so if we are going to compare who does more good for humanity(even if it is less logical) I’m going to have to go with religious people.

>>18607067
Mormon doctrine of luminaries those very truths within the Bible. Jesus said (be like me)

He never says you’re just going to be an Angel. Also the trinity makes no damn sense through the lens of the Bible. Mormonism clarifies the doctrinal inconsistencies of modern day Christianity.

>>18607247
The Bible trenches this same shit so yes. Modern Christianity is too full of fear to recognize the doctrine of their own savior.

>>18607513
>Leftism ideal is the average of all humans.
>right wing people have a growth mindset
>left wing people have a gib-me-dat-for-free mindset.
*sigh*
>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Science_and_technology_in_the_Soviet_Union#Soviet_Nobel_Prize_winners_in_science

>God is the top of that conceptual pyramid. God is the image of the perfect human at the top of the pyramid, perfect in every way. It is a concept to be approached, to fill the gap at the top of the pyramid so that someone striving to improve themselves has something to approach.
God is not magical sky daddy, and your immaturity and lack of understanding of this just proves how leftist you are at heart.
Schizo rambling

Read a book when you have time

>>18607547
>if we are going to compare who does more good for humanity(even if it is less logical) I’m going to have to go with religious people.

>>18607601
Now do America per capita.

>>18607789
...Ok?
Not sure it helps your point though

>>18607789
Ah sorry, wrong thread

>>18607816
>>18607810
>>18607678
fedora moment

>>18607841
>no argument
Whoa...truly outstanding mental skills, the lot of you...

>>18593945
The consistency has much more to do is with being a minor offshoot only relevant in like two states, rather than having a strong foundation.

>>18607976
Do you know how small Christianity was when it had only existed for 190 years? But just a a little over a hundred years later they took over the Roman Empire.

>>18608031
That doesn't contradict anything I said. Mormonism still hasn't spread like Christianity and if it does (it won't) it'll have various offshoots like Christianity.

>>18608087
Mormonism has only existed for 190 years. That's my point. You're comparing it to Christianity 2000 years later, but if you compare it to Christianity when it was 190 years old it's doing better, if anything.

>>18589663
I find Mormonism very interesting even though it is of course fake as fuck. I wonder if anyone else feels the same. It’s kind of like a more successful Scientology in my mind. The mix of biblical veneer with a kind of quintessentially 19th America personality, ideas like manifest destiny, the idea of a new Eden possible in North America, it kind of reminds me of the stuff in Bioshock Infinite. There is an interesting book, No Man Knows My History, a biography of Joseph Smith by an ex-Mormon, published in 1945. I’ve read a bit of it but not the whole thing.

The other North American offshoots of Protestantism are interesting to me as well. Quakers, Shakers, Amish, Mennonites. I guess the Amish and Mennonites aren’t quite American-only, but it feels that way sometimes, most of them are in the USA or Canada aren’t they? Do the Amish and Mennonites have weird theology they don’t like to broadcast, other than the whole don’t-use technology-stuff?

>>18608206
Quakers did not originate in america iirc

>>18604399
basically just boomer rambling against taqiyah, you might as well just read shit from conservative pages on facebook

>>18606733
Once you start seeing a religion as a tool like this rather than as the truth, it's dead. Humans cannot be driven to live through rationality (which the attitude you suggest is, whether you meant it to be or not) without destroying themselves and their own values eventually.

>>18606196
>>18606374
>>18607067
What really puts me off of Islam is the idea that God chose an Arab as his prophet and the Word of God has to be read in Arab to be authentic. No just God would choose those people.

>>18608206
It is nothing like Scientology. Quakers, Shakers, Amish, and Mennonites all began in Europe. Shakers are nearly extinct there's like two Shakers left on the planet. As far as theology goes, the Shakers are the most heterodox. They believe Ann Lee is the female counterpart of Jesus Christ, and that in her the Second Coming was fulfilled, and they enforce a lifestyle without procreation, which is why they're nearly extinct. Quakers come in a few different flavors, some Quakers decided to become more mainstream-Protestant and others more liberal post-Christian, but the Quakers who stick closest to their origins are still a bit heterodox. These traditional Quakers believe that the pouring out of the Holy Spirit from Pentecost forth was the Second Coming, that this is the "kingdom of God within you" Jesus spoke of, therefore they too anticipate no other Second Coming. They reject the use of any sacrament/ordinance (no baptisms, etc). Something Quakers, Shakers, and Mormons share is that they all believe in an active Holy Ghost who can inspire individuals and give them personal revelations. As for the Amish and Mennonites they're pretty theologically mainstream, most of their unique beliefs are more about practice. But if you want to locate them within the Protestant framework, they are Anabaptists who believe you must be baptized as an adult, not as a baby, for the baptism to count, but unlike Baptists they don't require the baptisms to be by full immersion, they allow pouring as well.

>>18607247
Look up ‘Kolob’, ‘Mormon materialism’ and ‘God in Mormonism’. It’s wild

>>18608527
It fits with God’s promise to Ishmael in the OT to make a great nation out of them. Arabs are Ishmaelites

>>18606170
LMAO mussies really believe this

>>18609281
Sure but in that case whatever entity they're praying to isn't the God, because the ultimate prime mover of the universe would not give his word in Arabic.

>>18606733
Mormonism specifically can't be seen as mere myths imo.
Now don't get me wrong, I get it, but in the case of Mormonism, they just have too many records and histories. There is a clear path to discern when one wants to lay out the history of Joseph Smith and the church. Read through Quinn's massive volumes on the Mormon Hierarchy, Dan Vogel's essential contributions to Early Mormon History, and his edit of the History of the Church and his work on Mormonism Unvailed, and the Book of Mormon or Marquardt's body of work, including "Inventing Mormonism". Read what >>18602991 here said, it can all be verified and corroborated.
There are no myths here, but a lot of dirty history that's been doctored and changed, from Joseph Smith right down to latter day apologists. I don't see what the church has done as creating myths but more whitewashing and maybe that's just semantics.

>>18609553
Dude if you're going to bother reading all those supposed exposes you should at least read the volumes of responses too, and then read the countless records of Mormon miracles and religious experiences that range from Joseph Smith and other Mormons healing the sick, casting out demons, raising the dead, making true prophecies, revealing true secrets, receiving visions, and other such things. Some of these things were even experienced in large numbers (the Kirtland pentecost) while others were performed in the sight of then-nonbelievers and well attested to (such as the time Joseph Smith healed Elsa Johnson's arm). In this regard Mormonism is exactly on the same level as any ancient religion, if not having a better track record actually, precisely because of the extensive records. So many Mormons dig as deep as you weaker souls do into Mormon history, hell anti-Mormon history even, and we come out of it ever more increasingly convinced that our religion is true and strongly obviously so in light of all the evidence. Don't nitpick and don't be prejudiced and do your real homework.

>>18609643
I have.
Are you aware of the thorough counter-arguments and responses, some 900,000+ words long, that have been written to any and all of those arguments and stories?

In any case, what use are anecdotes, prophecies and apologetics anyway, when your original prophet is a confirmed and corroborated pedophile and con man, admitted even by the Church herself to a certain extent in her Gospel Topics essays?

>>18608527
considering the spread of Islam i'd say the choice worked out pretty well

I don't understand why anyone would argue for or against a religion revealed by an angel named Moroni
I refuse to believe that the creator of the universe sent a messenger named "Retardo" to teach his one true religion

>>18609673
>In any case, what use are anecdotes, prophecies and apologetics anyway, when your original prophet is a confirmed and corroborated pedophile and con man, admitted even by the Church herself to a certain extent in her Gospel Topics essays?
You have it upside down. You are starting from a conclusion that someone is immoral and then saying "What use is apologetics or miracles if the prophet is immoral?" Which is not the right way to look at it. Once you make that conviction of yours your rock, you're saying that nothing will change your mind even if God showed up in person to tell you you're wrong. Nothing about Joseph Smith's polygamy is out of order with the way the ancient prophets and righteous men of God behaved, and he wasn't a con man if the prophecies, anecdotes, and apologetics are right, so that doesn't even work.

>>18609691
>"Moron" was coined in 1910 by psychologist Henry H. Goddard[4]

>>18607561
The trinity is not even Biblical, Mormons just slipped even further into heresy with their nonsense about divine councils

>>18609999
You cannot be heretical if God declares it to be true. Otherwise every "mystery of godliness" revealed to the New Testament Christians that they said were not known beforehand in history would count as heresy. And if you ask any Jew, they'd say exactly that.

>>18609542
>saying what God can and can’t do
NGMI

>>18609933
>no u
Good one.

>>18610004
The trinity is not in the Bible, therefore it is false. Simple as.

>>18610020
I don't believe in the Trinity, but I also don't believe in a canon closed without a revelation in said canon declaring it closed. If you do, you already believe in something outside your own Bible.

>>18610020
How do you think the Bible came to be?

>>18610020
Are you aware that the Bible wasn't in the Bible until the Tradition was written down, then compiled by a Council? it's Church Tradition all the way down, and there's no reason to see the Bible as the end-all-be-all text for the Word of God, if not for Tradition.

>>18610020
>The trinity is not in the Bible, therefore it is false. Simple as.

>>18610032
Same Council during which they established the Creed containing the Trinity. So The Bible is pretty much equally as valid as a belief in the Trinity.

>>18610031
God willed it into being in the year 1611, until then mankind was simply lost wandering in the wilderness.

>>18610095
I became a Baptist after reading this post

>>18595070
>The experience itself is mixed, it's brought down by one main thing: the grammar isn't great
Interesting, any examples of this?

>>18610146
"And it came to pass" is repeated over 500 times in the BoM if I remember correctly.

>>18610146
Not off the top of my head. You know how Donald Trump when he starts saying something breaks midway in a sentence and says something else, and only sometimes comes back to the original sentence later? But it lacks the systematicity of thought-out semicolon or dash or parenthesis? The Book of Mormon sort of does that too.

The theology is pretty interesting, and there's something very uniquely American about Mormons. Different aim to its theodicy. Also glad that they recognize the uncreated and divine nature of the soul and can thus have a coherent concept of human rights. I'm surprised there aren't more sci-fi or fantasy religions based off of this.

>>18610171
>I'm surprised there aren't more sci-fi or fantasy religions based off of this.
For what it's worth a lot of sci-fi and fantasy authors, showwriters, filmmakers, and so forth are Mormons and that's precisely because Mormon theology has far more ennobling takes on human potential and man's place in the cosmos which fit well with science fiction and fantasy.

>>18610199
Huh, that actually explains a lot about those Sanderson novels and parts of Xenocide

Is there a good path for people who have doubts about the legitimacy of the LDS faith but who don't want to abandon faith entirely in reaction to that?
Specifically, I can't really agree to their view of the Godhead anymore after becoming convinced of the truth of the Trinity. I've been reading various Catholic/Orthodox works in an effort to find as close to the truth as has been found, but I'm still undecided, and furthermore unsure if the matter of the Trinity is enough to break from the faith I grew up in.
It's said that you can know the truth of a matter by its fruits, and the LDS faith bears fruits in the form of stable communities and strong families, compared to the tangled political webs of the Orthodox faiths and the seeming progressive bent of the Catholic. Yet it seems that the latter two have a greater measure of the truth in their doctrine than the former, despite their issues.
What should I do?

>>18610215
Literally me. I served a mission 10 years ago because I turned 19 and that's just what LDS men do when they turn 19.
Went inactive within a year and a half of being home and now I have serious struggles with my faith. I just don't know how the LDS church can be correct but I just can't seem to break away completely

>>18604314
>with high reluctance
Kek

>>18610235
Well, I don't know what the solution is but I hope you avoid the tendency many have to swing all the way to the other side and abandon religion completely.
There's something true out there somewhere. It just takes a lot longer to find than I thought.

>>18607456
Remembering my childhood friend growing up who went on a mission and came home and left the chuch and went completely off the deep end died his hair pink and got anti mormon tattoos. Fucking tattoos, just because of how bitter and resentful he was

>>18610277
I haven't and I won't. I just can't, I was in too deep for too long. My dad was a bishop for almost 10 years for crying out loud.
I just have internal struggles of "what if?" and all that. If it is true I'm going to hell. If it's not then what the fuck have we been doing with our lives?

>>18610215
>>18610235
The problem is mormon theology. If you look into any other christianity, protestant or Calvinism, their concept of God and cosmos is more philosophically sound and has endless apologetics and books explaining it.
The other world religions such as Islam or hinduism are more compelling theologically as well.

All the other world religions, with some exceptions, have God as the absolute basis of all things, which corrects the problems of mormon theology, which amounts to a supernatural atheism.

All religions have contingent and dogmatic aspects, so I would recommend attempting to see the esoteric dimension of their teachings.

>>18610299
isn't the mormon theology that god and jesus are separate?
you don't really think jesus was praying to himself in the garden of gethsemone or talking to himself on the cross?
them being separate makes the most sense of any other religion

who the fuck cares how troo and reel the book of Mormon is, its making it's followers into the most based community in the states. I'd convert and I dont even believe in God

>>18610299
The concept of God from the other Christian denominations cannot account for the motivation behind creating a universe, the attenuation of divinity, and the immorality of creating finite beings. Mormonism alters its theology to create a solve for these, but like any religion it invariably leaves new spaces unfulfilled.

t. Magician

>>18610310
Amish are more based, imagine living without the internet

>>18610320
>imagine living without the internet
The world was much better back when everyone was this way

>>18610295
In LDS theology wouldn't that be a purgatory? Iirc the requirements to become a Son of Perdition are highly stringent. I can't really give you much advice for your main question, given that I'm not in any of these religions, but I hope you're able to maintain your spirit at the moment.

>>18610320
true, but theyre dying out, arent they? meanwhile mormons are growing like weeds out in Utah

>>18610325
its a bummer realizing that the worst possible ending to the cold war was the one that we got, and we missed our chance for a nuclear Great Flood

>>18610308
I'm not christian, so I won't be able to give you a defense of the trinity. However, to think that the vast majority of Christian theologians who can read the Bible in the original language are unable to make a sensible exegesis of the necessary passages is just a lacking of doing ones research. It does interest me how often the trinity shows up in world religions, but like I say, I'm not Christian.

My point mainly is that God must be the absolute above all things or you run into philosophical problems. The major world religions understand this.

The classic argument Mormons use against atheism is that a clock on a beach wouldn't be naturally created, thus the cosmos aren't natural. The same could be said of the reality the mormon gods exist in. The gods are not absolute and don't create the higher laws, they don't create the pool of intelligence from which we all come, they didn't create the process by which we gain a spirit body, so where does this come from.

The mormon god exists in a preexisting environment, which they don't explain how that could be. The mormon God is not the absolute, he is made up of parts and exists in a larger system.

>>18610339
Last I heard they're growing pretty fast actually because they have lots of kids too

>>18610334
Yes, but "purgatory" to mormons is the terrestrial kingdom which basically is "really fucking great but you don't get families". Only in the celestial kingdom do you get to have families
This is something I've struggled with. If you're good but not perfect you go to the terrestrial kingdom and what if my family members do to and my wife, etc. So we're all in the same place but we're not together? How does that make any sense?

>>18610299
This isn’t even true at ALL. Mormon theology is the only one that is coherent all across the board.

>>18610169
It doesn’t do that at all.

>>18610339
Can confirm, I am one of 6 kids and most of my mormon relatives also have 4-6 kids as well. And now all of the married kids have at least 2-3

>>18610319
See more what I wrote here >>18610350

The points you raise are valid, but the other religions do deal with them in various ways:

>The concept of God from the other Christian denominations cannot account for the motivation behind creating a universe
There are various lines on this: God creates because he does which we cannot understand, to apply a need for God to create is anthropomorphic, the hindu line is that it is divine play, etc.


>the attenuation of divinity
We are in a created world or an illusion if you're hindu. The world exists, God must be perfect, so the religious line is attempting to attach these points.

>and the immorality of creating finite beings.
Sort of same as above, the world religions generally have a pessimistic view of existence in terms of it being fallen or lesser in some sense. It is imperfect, we have access to understanding the perfect (platonism), we must theologically align these points.

>Mormonism alters its theology to create a solve for these, but like any religion it invariably leaves new spaces unfulfilled.
Everyone attempt to do their part with these problems, my view is mormonism is the inferior and incoherent option.

>>18609933
Correct. Any Bible fearing Christian can’t get off in “Joseph smith was a pedo and con man” when the Bible is riddled with polygamy and horrendous crimes against humanity committed by prophets and men who were “highly favored of god”

>>18610363
See what I wrote here: >>18610384

You are simply being dogmatic, but I ca tell this will go nowhere.

What do you make of this:

>My point mainly is that God must be the absolute above all things or you run into philosophical problems. The major world religions understand this.

>The classic argument Mormons use against atheism is that a clock on a beach wouldn't be naturally created, thus the cosmos aren't natural. The same could be said of the reality the mormon gods exist in. The gods are not absolute and don't create the higher laws, they don't create the pool of intelligence from which we all come, they didn't create the process by which we gain a spirit body, so where does this come from.

>The mormon god exists in a preexisting environment, which they don't explain how that could be. The mormon God is not the absolute, he is made up of parts and exists in a larger system.

I've been skimming through some stuff to try to understand mormonism but there is still something I'm not clear on: Does God the Father have a father too and do the humans that become gods have children that become gods and so on? Is it an infinite cycle in both directions?
Kind of neat if so, I'm surprised that, as far as I know, no religion has framed things this way before since it is a decent explanation for why God bother to make the world at all. It would also make God seem a lot less significant and only relatively "godly" though.

>>18610394
The one thing that really fucks me up with mormonism is the whole "god was a man who was righteous and became a god and so can you" and teaches that god has his own god that he worshipped to become the way he is.
Why worship "your" god if there is a higher god that he worshipped? Where does it end? Who is the original god?

>>18610408
You are correct in all points, especially on how it makes god less godly in the sense he isn't the absolute. Also as you note it athropomorphizes God. The other religions do deal with these problems, in a superior way I would say.

>>18610408
Yes, mormon theology teaches that our God was once a man who worshipped a God and because of his righteousness was exalted and became a God himself and created his own universe with people who worship him
Yes, they teach or at least heavily imply that God has his own God and we can be the same way and become gods to our future spirit children

>>18610421
In the mormon view there is no original god. They get away with this by saying we don't understand eternity, however they mess up by showing that there would be a numerally different amount of gods at points in "time." They say "time" but you have a linear problem that there was a "time" wasn't god a god.

Specifically in mormonism you should worship your God because he is your literal father and the path way to your own theosis (becoming a god).

It doesn't end, the point is to have endless eternal children which is your glorification.

>>18610442
It's such a cop out I feel to say "you can't understand eternity so don't try" and then say "he's outside of time" and that time isn't linear to god
If time isn't linear then we get into the argument of predestination that I struggle with in Calvinism
If God is outside of linear time and knows past, present and future at the same time then our lives are predetermined. He knows our future and it is already decided, thus we do not truly have free will.
To counter this they just say "well pray about it and don't try to understand you can't comprehend it anyway"

>>18610380
can i marry a qt mormon if im already almost 30?

>>18610468
I was 28 when I got married but I have a sister that was 20. My neighbors growing up, two different ones, each got married at 18
In general they marry very young but 30 is probably the latest a mormon will ever get married. If you aren't married by 30 you will simply be passed on and overlooked for someone younger. There is an endless supply of horny mormons at BYU who will marry the first thing that comes their way. If you're 30+ your window has closed

>>18610454
Yeah I agree basically. The different religions and braches deal with divine omnipotence and omnipresence in different ways. I'm not particularly concerned with free will so much, so I don't study that issue. One line in the hindu sense, all things are brahma, so all would be "determined" by his infinite potential, however some say that since our atma is synonymous with brahma we could have that same divine autonomy to some extent and thus choice to be adharmic if we chose. The calvinists see God as determinative, but other Christians might say that God can do what he wants and so he could give us free will if he wants.

But I don't really concer myself with this problem so I don't have a real belief on it. I assume we have freewill as it seems the best gamble.

>>18609676
I don't believe God would. We have a duty to believe in a moral God and a moral God wouldn't choose Arabs or Jews.

>>18610497
meant for >>18610012

>>18609676
They got pushed out of all of the places worth being and relegated to the shittiest places on Earth.

>>18609933
>if you assume Joseph Smith wasn't a pedophile, then Joseph Smith wasn't a pedophile!

Is presuppositional apologetics really the best you can muster? Isn't that a little bit, idk, pathetic?

>>18610454
Check out Bulgakov's essay on Judas for a different take on eternity and time with respect to free will.

>>18610515
>Bulgakov
Not gonna read the ramblings of some alcoholic wannabe Hemingway

>>18610408
>Does God the Father have a father too and do the humans that become gods have children that become gods and so on? Is it an infinite cycle in both directions?
Every Mormon seems to take the answer "yes" to this question as a given. HOWEVER it's not actually in the scriptures we have canonized. It's not impossible that there was a "first god" rather than an infinite cycle. Heck, it's technically not impossible that the "first god" was God the Father. We have very good reasons to think the process goes back beyond the Father at the very least.
>>18610421
>Why worship "your" god if there is a higher god that he worshipped?
Because Mormons follow commandments because it's a covenant relationship. If our God never commanded anyone to worship him then nobody should do so. And we obey him because those are the conditions for the glory he has in store for those who are obedient. It's that simple. Non-Mormons have invented weird theologies where they think God has to be supremely perfect to just automatically "earn" praise, and that's why they break their heads when we tell them there is no such a being as the classical God and that our God is one among many with the same divine perfections but the only one we worship. They just don't get how it works for us.
>>18610299
The classical theological conception of God always ends in actual atheism. You've got everything upside down. When your theologians and mystics become so obsessed with a priori theologizing in terms of their preconceived ideas of divine perfections, they ALWAYS end up at the last step with some apophatic nothingness, some "above-being" divine simple that has to stand outside of relational (subject-object) thought or the positive assignment of attributes. It happened with all the nondualist Eastern religions (Hinduism, Buddhism, etc), and even nondualist and apophatic traditions in the West. From Plotinus, through Pseudo-Dionysius, through the Kabbalists calling God "ayin," all the way down to Prostestant theologian Paul Tillich saying "God does not exist" with a straight face (because saying God exists, Tillich claimed, makes God an object, and thus a creature, and thus not God). That is and has always been the logical conclusion of classical theology: declaring God to be basically void of positive attributes, and ultimately, better called a nothing, which is to say, non-existent. Which is atheism, pure and simple. Your "God" is so perfect that he just doesn't exist, but it's part and parcel of those paradoxical theological formulas to deny this and still affirm it at the same time. No wonder Trinitarians have no problem with adding just one additional paradox to their full list by accepting the consubstantial trinity doctrine.

>>18610509
It's not presuppositional though. The miracles speak for themselves. You're the one presupposing a moral judgment about a prophet and saying "No amount of argument or evidence of miracles throws this out."

>>18610554
>The classical theological conception...

Except thats not atheism. God is not a nothingness in the sense of being a void, except in some takes on Buddhism, he is by definition superior to all things.

He is beyond definition and some use the symbol of nothingness as a way of access to that understanding. God is beyond the word God and above all conceptions sure, but that must include the idea that all things are contingent to him. If God were nothingness there could only be nothingness, since there are things they must be predicated on the absolute reality beyond all things.

Mormonism is much closer to atheism in that they think the reality that God, who is made up of parts and thus emergent, exists in a preexisting reality equipped with a pool of intelligences, a process of attaining a spirit body, etc.

God as nothingness is a phrase you are obviously misunderstanding. He would have to be the infinite potential defined only by himself.

>>18610592
Like I said, atheism is the logical conclusion of the classical theological conception. I don't mean everyone in the classical theological tradition ends up an atheist, but that if you keep pushing the perfection-based theology to its logical conclusion, you end up with this Above-Being Absolute which can only be talked about apophatically. The most consistent and extreme form of that is a non-object non-existent. That's the logical conclusion, and some of your theologians have been prepared to bite the bullet and admit that. Of course they still think they're not atheists but instead the most theist of theists. That's how people like Paul Tillich think of it. But once you deprive God of being an object with attributes, among which we must include existence and even our capacity to think about him, you really are left with literal nothingness, something non-ontological, not fit to even be called a "something" anymore--even talking about it already presupposes its capacity to enter into relations which count as attributes. Buddhists like you say are the only ones fully prepared to take the fully-honest nihilist leap into atheism. Mormonism is not close to atheism whatsoever. You're just assuming that it is because you feel our God is less perfect than your God. Which we'll accept. But he does have perfections: omnipotence, omniscience, moral perfection. We just differ from you in that we believe those can be freely combined with any other individual. It's certainly not a logical contradiction to believe that. From your point of view we're closer to atheism because our combinatorial egalitarianism means that the line between God and non-God is not impossible to cross. But we take pride in that. On the other hand, like I said, classical theology leads to atheism through its nonsensical a priori metaphysics. The more it strives for making God ever-more perfect, the more its God naturally becomes a non-ontic nothingness which, in the final step, literally IS nothing--the Buddhists reached that step, but people like Tillich are just one step away from it, and already saying things like "God doesn't exist."

>>18610497
Pure hubris and pride on your part.

>>18594827
Unfucking believable that there is this many mouth-breathing morons that would believe a 19th century retarded fraud before they listen once to an atheist

>>18610566
I am not presupposing a moral judgement, I am basing it on available corroborating evidence.
What you bring me in opposition to it is anecdotes that have further evidence corroborating their falsity.

Point each one of them out, make a list of all the arguments against them that you know of if you want, and the corresponding responses, and I can point to how they all fall apart when looked into, as opposed to Marquadt, Vogel, Runnells, and the already laid out evidence of Joseph Smith's grooming.

>>18610645
>The most consistent and extreme form of that is a non-object non-existent
Yes, above existence, above manifestation. However, the part you are ignoring is that every one of them would agree all things are contingent to that absolute reality without attributes, which is the opposite of what you are claiming they are saying.

>something non-ontological
Yes the hindu brahma is above being, or the catholic god as being itself only defined by itself.

>But he does have perfections: omnipotence
Except he doesn't have omnipotence because if he broke the Laws he would stop being God. He is inferior to the law, not the source of it and thus not omnipotent.

>On the other hand, like I said, classical theology leads to atheism through its nonsensical a priori metaphysics.
>God naturally becomes a non-ontic nothingness

Like I say, you are clearly missing the point that if all things are contigent to this non-ontic reality it's certainly not the "nothingness" you claim it to be but more the infinite unlimited potentiality. You are not understanding this obvious point.

>>18594827
This could literally be one of my neighbors. Half my neighborhood growing up looked exactly like this
Utah is a wild place

>>18610554
I thought That Joseph said it was cyclical forever in the King Folet Discourse know? I’ll have to revisit that but in my head it’s been a cyclical process forever. D&C 121 or something I’ll have to look confined that the continuation of the seed forever is the essence of eternal life and that would make sense if that pattern didn’t just keep going forever but idk

>>18610442
This is such a shit take it’s not even true. This isn’t what Mormon doctrine says. Lol

>>18610408
This is what the teaches imply yes and I agree nothing else makes sense. Which is why “heaven” in most Christian theology is us just chilling as angels with god. Very dry and nonsensical imo.

>>18610691
This is what I've gleaned from talking to lifelong Mormons, one of whom is a stake president (even though that doesn't prove anything). This is also basically the point outlined in Givens "Wrestling the Angel."

Please point out where I was wrong.

>>18610704
Thats only true if you concieve of heaven similar to life on earth to the degree Mormons do.
By definition, in heaven, in the eternal presence of God, it wouldn't be dry at all. It would be taking part in the glory of God which you couldn't get bored of. Inifite bliss outside of human hedonism would be a closer understanding.

>>18610649
It's got nothing to do with pride. I could understand if it was the Chinese or Hindis or Persians or hell even the Irish, but Arabs? You're telling me that God wanted everyone to embrace Arabic culture? Kek yeah whatever entity you're worshiping it ain't God.

>>18610394
He still is the absolute. As in my father will always be my father no matter what happened with anyone else’s father. Our Gods god raised him to be absolute. People who believe in the trinity shouldn’t have a hard time with this concept as the string of Gods is essentially one God bit in purpose not form. This is also consistent with the Mormons Godhead. Christ is seperate from God the Father but one in purpose. Does a separation of physical form really matter of the beings are perfectly connected spiritually?

Nowhere in the Bible does it say “God created the higher laws” so I don’t have to refute this as it’s already been fine by the scriptures themselves. We only know that he is bound by some laws. we can’t be in gods presence or we will burn up, he sends Jesus to get around these irrefutable laws of physics, same can be said about the fall of Adam and Eve it’s not that he just wanted to kick them out, it’s that they physically couldn’t live with him anymore in there imperfect state. The entire belief that “god can do whatever he wants Willy nilly” is fucking stupid. Most Christians think this be wise they have subconsciously rejected the importance of the rituals of the church organization that Christ established(not for fun or in a whim because that’s not Godly) he even says that no man can enter heaven accept he be baptized by water and by the spirit. This is the only way because any other way wouldn’t physically or spiritually be possible. This entire premise of God being bound by law screams out of the pages of the Bible itself.

Yes they DO create the pool of intelligence by some form of divine copulation. Other wise the male and female sealings in the temple wouldn’t be necessary. The entire purpose of becoming a god is to raise children and the process of being cleansed and following Christ is so that you can become a “new creature” (ie: a god.) for this exact purpose. We re baby gods who god is trying to raise to be able to fulfill our divine destiny that requires us to honor the laws of creation to a T.
There is nothing any less divine about Gods physical body being in a larger system called the universe. You’re stuck on think he can’t come in and out of this space. Point to me where it says in scripture that God HAS to be outside of space and time at all times. We do not know the extent of his being but having a physical body located in a place doesn’t mean he is only contained there in that space. To our understanding of physicality? Sure. Furthermore if God being one in purpose to his God means that they are literally still ONE being that he can always be outside time as well as inside time. To better understand this concept reread the intercessory prayer in John 17 before he goes to gethsemany and it becomes very apperently what he truly means by Oneness. Physical connectedness is not required as there is a far greater connectedness at work.

>>18610775
My point isn't that you can't make it fit with your reading of scripture, my point is that it has philosophical problems. These being that the mormon god is miniscule in relation to the absolute reality and its laws to which he is subject.

>>18610682
No you are the one not understanding me. You're saying "You don't get the real one true orthodox understanding." I'm not disputing your orthodoxy. I'm telling you what's the step that follows from your orthodoxy taken to extremes. You may never take those leaps but others before you have, and that's available for others yet to do, if they bite bullets you're not willing to bite. It's still explicitly because your whole tradition trades in a priori theology-of-perfections that any of this is even possible though. So I have every right to blame it, whether or not you take the same leaps they do. I fully understand that you don't take the leap, that you want to believe (as do many with you) that your God is this necessary being who everything depends on. But even me saying this already assigns attributes to God. Which is why this is several steps removed from the extreme logical conclusion I said you're not prepared to take. If you do go that far, you can't even consistently say God is the source of everything else. Even apophatic theology is kind of a cope, since as far as the thinking and the talking goes, even in a thought or sentence "God is not X" you already mention and think of the logical subject. It's embedded. A fully-consistent apophatic theology is impossible. The mystics realized this and tried hardest to make nondualist mystical experiences the only sure way to really access the Absolute, except that this very quickly goes from Brahman in Advaita Hinduism, to the Buddhist sunyata. Let me repeat one last time: It's not that I don't understand what you as your orthodox theologian think is the right and orthodox way to think. It's that your "orthodoxy" is a few steps removed from total atheism, whether or not you want to go that route. You already admit some bite the bullet and neither of us can deny that. Besides you're accusing Mormonism of leading to atheism when Mormons themselves are not atheists in their own view, so surely you can see how it works to be in the position I'm accusing you of being in? Now you know how it feels.

>>18610848
I think a lot of this is the difference between concepts meant to bring one to realization of God as opposed the concepts themselves being the truth which would be idolatry. This im sure you understand. Orthodoxy would be that which is accurate, so an innacruate interpretation as sound as it may be would not be orthodox. Which of course leads to an epistemological problem. Indeed the exact connect from the eternally self satisfied God and creation itself is a mystery that all world religions deal with in different ways. I don't think Mormons get around this problem however, as the cosmos that gods exist in is taken as a given, or a mystery we don't know about.

If some take this problem to some theological atheism it seems to be directly against the reason the problem exists. Which is: reality is populated with things, these things must be based on something, this something must be ultimate and above these things, so it can't be defined but by itself and can only be seen as infinite, absolute, etc.

To take that to the level of atheistic nothingness doesn't satisfy the elements of the problem, even if some come to that conclusion.

Further, I'm not saying mormonism leads to atheism, just that it has similar problems to atheism as I outlined above. Orthodox theology is an attempt to deal with these problems, so I can't see how atheism is seen as a valid answer. Plus, in most cases I would have to imagine these people you say take it to atheism likely have a very different stance than materialistic atheism. It seems you are conflating materialistic atheism with a god without attributes. In the history of ideas these are diametrically opposes. I suppose you would have to show me these people like tillich as being similar to materialist atheism. I would guess he believes in the resurrection and in christ being God, which would be a very different stance than you are implying. But I don't know anything about tillich.

However, as a barb, I could say mormonism having difficulty providing a good answer to these mysteries that isn't dependent on dogma and revelation could lead one to reject it and atheism. However, that isn't my point. Nor that mormonism has atheism as the logical conclusion.

I assume the root of your faith is archetypal mormon. You had the truth revealed to you in some sense, so a priori philosophizing is not compelling in that light unless is coheres. However, you have the problem of contradictory personal revelations, which I would assume leads to the classic, "all I know is what God has shown me." Which is the reason that a priori philosophy is necessary for religious engagement in my assessment. Which leads to the classic problem we are talking about, which the different religions seems to have a consistent pattern on which appears compelling to me.

>>18610566
From a speech by Bruce R. McConkie himself.

mormonleaks.io/wiki/documents/f/f0/HOW_TO_START_A_CULT-Bruce_R_McConkie.pdf

>>18610710
>one of whom is a stake president
Church leaders at the local level mean basically nothing. It's basically just like picking the smartest kid in class because there's no one else
Many don't know much about the "deep" doctrine at all

>>18611352
Which is why I said it doesn't prove anything.
I know many lifelong Mormons and I've studied the subject from books inside and outside the tradition.

I think I'm fairly aware of their doctrine, more than most. So, like I said, point out where I'm wrong, I'd appreciate the lesson.

Fun little resource:
A collection of books in PDF format that discuss the history, doctrine and structue of the Mormon Church, and the many ways in which it doesn't stand up to scrutiny and often is plain false and fabricated.

In this collection:
- Mormon Doctrine, by Bruce R. McConkie
- Inventing Mormonism, by H. Michael Marquadt
- Mormonism Unvailed, by E. D. Howe
- The Mormon Hierarchy trilogy, by D. Michael Quinn
- Joseph Smith: Rough Stone Rolling, by Richard L. Bushman

anonfiles / l9paj256uf / Mormonism_rar

I'm sure the burden of proof will be shifted back to me, but for the theists in this thread can anyone actually prove that God exists? I.e I claim that white light is composed of other colours of light condensed. A simple prism or additive colour paradigm can demonstrate that my model of white light is (under the terms so defined) correct. Do you think you can perform a similar demonstration to prove the existence of God?
If someone could do this with God I would probably convert. But in over 30 years of searching I cannot bring myself to take comfort in belief as I know there is no demonstration.
The historical record is of little importance to me. "Did Socrates exist?" type arguments get lost on me: first I don't say that Socrates subverted the natural order of death and physics, nor would it matter if Socrates was a mythic creation as the pragmatic contributions 'he' made would persist despite his fictional status. It doesn't matter to me Sun Tzu was real either.
But the claims associated to the Abrahamic religions are more than just simply that 'There was this dude in the desert 2000 years ago'. As above, they make claims that literally contest the natural observable order and thus require concomitant proof.
On the burden of proof statement: growing up as an edgy atheist in a religious community, refutation no.1 was always "Can you prove God doesn't exist? To me it is self-evident that there must be a God so the burden of proof is on you". No idea what /lit/ is like but I hope we don't go down that path. I can honestly say "No, I cannot prove God doesn't exist". But that is not a particularly useful way of going about investigating reality. You cannot prove fairies doesn't exist. How does that get us anywhere? My ignorance should not be the starting point of one of your premises. I could break this down further if people have an issue with it.
I guess the purpose of all of this is that it causes me some degree of alarm that we're here in the 21st century debating about what (to me) is a pretty obvious myth.

>>18611599

Asking for physical evidence of an Infinite Cause for all things, outside of time, space, and the quantum mechanics in this physical universe is rather silly for obvious reasons. The existence of God shouldn't be treated as a scientific hypothesis, doing so is unrealistic, uncharitable and frankly a bit silly, which is why the principle of Non-Overlapping Magisteria works. It is perfectly reasonable to be scientifically-minded and believe in scientific findings while at the same time holding a separate set of views and beliefs about the universe that aren’t held to that same set of standards, because those beliefs might be outside the scope of those standards.

Besides, I don't see what's universally preferable about the scientific approach as opposed to any different set of axioms or heuristics.
- You have the problem of the scientific method falling victim to financial conflicts of interest and biases, negotiations between different parties, data processors, compromises, exhaustion, lack of money, predatory journals, replication bias, national pride, etc.
- You have the problem exposed by the Parable of Alien Chess:
lukesmith xyz/ articles /the-parable-of-alien-chess
- The problem of creating a pop-scientific world, where people wanna pay homage to "knowledge," and because it isn’t something one can communicate with directly, this encourages people to distrust what they judge of the world in favor of the caricature of the consensus of institutionalized academics, who discover the secrets of the universe and communicate them through their journals. Science journalists, much like journalists generally, overwhelm the public with a confusion of findings that increasingly seem to micromanage a neurotic person's life. Deviation from this scientific catechism is frowned upon.

Only the directly accessible mental contents of the individual can be known for certain, everything else is subject to conjecture.
Our decision of what to trust is based on arbitrary assumptions (called “axioms”), and those axioms invariably take a leap of faith.
The ideas that are at the core of the scientific method, like that the best option to understand the universe is to create predictive models of it, or that induction works, are all axioms and thus not even science is exempt from the need of faith.

Since we can only justify beliefs about experience, but never know of it for certain, I don't see why intuition (refined by thousands of years of selective pressure) and our social norms/religions (which keep us to established safe routes) aren't preferable to a strict scientific framework in a vacuum.

(CONTINUED IN ANOTHER POST)

>>18611599

(CONTINUED FROM >>18611669 POST)

Does God exist?
Personally I think this question is mostly unanswerable and thus largely irrelevant. You can always find a definition of God under which He could be said to exist. For example: pantheism (God is everything, including us), and other such ideas.

I think the preferable and more relevant question is "should we believe God exists?" (in other words: “is there a good reason to have faith that God exists?”).

Well, it’s important for humans to know that we are at the whims of mysterious complex forces much larger than we could possibly imagine, since we're at the earliest point in our development. Our only possible option is to respect and humble ourselves before the order of the universe, because the only other path would be to believe ourselves to be more than what we are and thus never truly comprehend the importance of all that is before us. Therefore, a belief in God is the most logical path, because it helps us humble ourselves before a higher order of things, to always try to learn and understand that which we don’t know, accepting that we are never truly the smartest, wisest, most knowledgeable beings possible, and this can also give us a valuable anchor in things that precede and supersede us by a long shot, a higher authority for our lives than our mundane evolutionary tools like human logic or emotions.

Does God exist? Who knows, who cares. It’s useful to believe in Him, and that's more important.

But, if you still want a solid theological and philosophical basis for believing in His existence, read The Kalām Cosmological Argument, or alternatively Thomas Aquinas' Summa Theologiae.

>>18610786
“Mormon God is minuscule” no he isn’t. Again that’s based on a preconceived notion that you have that is in acturwte. Was Jesus any less divine because he had a body of flesh and bones? That view holds no water

>>18612025
I'm not a Christian so I can't say, I assume normative Christians would have similar issues with your view of God.

What I'm pointing out is that your conception of God is that he is subject to laws superior to him, which makes him inferior to a conception of God where he is the source of these laws.

>>18610530
Not that Bulgakov, dummy.

Lol Mormons actually believe in their God of flesh and bones who didn’t even create the universe? Big yikes

>>18612410
And he's one god of many, was a man, and you can be a God too.

>>18612050
There just is no God that fills the "greater conception" in our religion (and we'd say just as-is) so we Mormons have the highest possible conception of God within our own conceptual scheme.

>>18607484
>I have yet to find a doctrinal system that is as comprehensive as the LDS doctrine
Are you for real right now?
http://www.saintsbooks.net/books/The%20Roman%20Catechism.pdf

>>18610566
I’m interested in the miracle claims of Mormons. What are they?

Do the gods of mormonism have any unique traits or creative freedom with how they act or are they all basically identical as followers of a higher law?

>>18613453
There's many and the primary sources are scattered and although websites and compilation books try to put them together you still have to keep looking to find everything. There's a book called "Visions, Manifestations, and Miracles of the Restoration" that I know compiles some, but that's not the only one. You can find stuff if you dig around for Mormon miracles online and elsewhere. Some of the cases are pretty well known. Others are more obscure because in the 20th century the LDS leadership had a new tendency to "not cast pearls before swine" where they decided to shush about the miracles instead of publicize them. That's why you don't hear about them more often. The miracles range from healing the sick, to casting out demons, to raising the dead, to having prophetic visions and revelations that become fulfilled, and other such things like that.

>>18613494
I'm not too well versed in it either, but from what I can tell the main laws that are maintained are a continuation of the seed (i.e., fostering intelligences) and the principles of exaltation. Other than that there's no real description, sort of the same way how afterlives or the exact mechanics of supernatural beings aren't described.

>>18613494
Agreed with the other guy, the gods do have to follow at least some basic principles of morality and exalting their children and having some kind of plan of salvation but beyond that I'd too presume that they've got plenty liberty to design the universe and specific commandments however they want.

>>18614238
But it does say in DC that the same sociality with exist in the celestial kingdom. So there are some clues there.

>>18613429
Are you familiar with all of the ins and outs of Mormon doctrine? Otherwise what are you blabbering about. I’ll give this a read nonetheless

>>18612410
The Bible doesn’t say god created the universe. So not sure what you’re on about.

>>18615379
It does (I know what you mean and agree), but the word used is a word that just means "make", in fact that's true even of the English word "create." There doesn't exist a word in ANY language that makes "make out of nothing." Everything we do requires taking previous materials and using them to make new things. So any use of creation talk, ancient or modern, is innocent and has no ex nihilo commitment. That's just something Jewish and Christian theologians introduced. But it's not in the Bible, nowhere does it say God made the world from nothing. Actually the one time the New Testament says something, it specifically says God made the things we see from things which are not seen. That's the only time the Bible ever says anything about the nature of creation and it fits with Mormon views that creation was organization.

>>18613840
So, anecdotal evidence?

>>18615410
99% of what you know is anecdotal evidence: you have no means to verify everything you read online, get told in the news, in school, by people you know, by your parents, friends, etc. Epistemologists are quite in consensus about the value and importance and justification of appeals to testimonies. Without a network of anecdotes the world wouldn't work at all. Scientific progress, history, management, jobs, etc, it would crumble unless people could trust other people at their word. I'm just saying this because if you somehow thing anecdotal status means nothing you're just prejudiced.

>>18615375
What Mormon Doctrine?

The one laid out in Bruce R. McConkie's "Mormon Doctrine"?

Joseph Fielding Smith's "Doctrines of Salvation"?

The one explored in Duane S. Crowther's "Life Everlasting"?

The Book of Mormon, Doctrine and Covenants, and Pearl of Great Price canon? of which the most comprehensive and complete exegesis and interpretation is given by FAIRmormon, a jumbled compendium of apologetic ramblings? or alternatively, Chapel Mormons' paper-thin readings and understanding of it?

Any of the hundreds of contradictory, deprecated and gaslit-to-oblivion statements on Doctrine given by General Authorities throughout the years, up to and including Brigham Young's Adam-God Theory, Blood Atonement or Mark of Cain doctrines? plus aforementioned Mormon Doctrine and Doctrines of Salvation, including juicy TK Smoothie doctrine.

Or is it perhaps the as-of-most-recently endorsed framework of "only agreed upon by all of Q15"-doctrine? in which case you have the Articles of Faith, six Proclamations and the 1978 Revelation on Priesthood as your only available doctrine.

Which of these is the one you prefer, anon, and why is it the most comprehensive that you know of, in the face of Aquinas, Kalām, Creeds, Councils, Orthodox Tradition, or, hell, even the fucking Watch Tower Society's publications?

>>18615462
Are anecdotes that fly in the face of any and all vastly more thoroughly corroborated facts of nature and history equally as acceptable as those which conform to the larger accumulation of evidence to the contrary? bring Occam's Razor and psychological facts into the mix and your whole charade of a network falls apart.

>>18607976
>>18608087
>it's a /lit/ thinks mormonism isn't extremely popular overseas and doesn't really there are actually millions more foreign mormons and SDAs than living in utah

*closes tab*

>>18615537
If you exclude data from a collection of data (define the two sets of included and excluded however you'd like), the "excluded" data always "contradicts" the "included" data. That's a tautology: of course they contradict, because they lack something in common. The problem to solve here isn't the supposed "contradiction" between included and excluded data, but rather the problem of knowing when we have enough reason to include new data. This problem isn't rightly solved by asking for "corroborating" the new data in terms of the old data, which cannot (by definition) corroborate it, for it lacks the resources by which to deduce it (otherwise it would just "fall out" from the old data automatically). Imagine telling a scientist he cannot use his sight only his hearing and that appeals to the existence of visuals must be rejected because you cannot deduce visuals from sounds. It would be absurd. All I can say is that if you start investigating religious experiences more seriously, empirically speaking (meaning gathering the anecdotes and taking them seriously), the case builds up in their favor more and more, and beyond a point you'll take them seriously enough. And this is especially the case after you yourself have your own religious experiences. Very smart people, smarter than yourself, have felt that way. That includes scientists and philosophers with the best education in the world at the time.

>>18615763
So if you have a completely different set of axioms, heuristics and biases than a scientific method, and assume their validity on the strength of your conviction of it alone, due to religious experiences or what have you, then this set of "evidence" you have is equally as valid!

Is this any different from presuppositional apologetics?

>>18615537
>facts of nature and history
So you accept miracles attested to by chroniclers?

>>18615870
You will never be a woman.

>>18615537
Let’s say you see a glass of water turn into wine right before your eyes. Would you later deny it happened on the basis of having seen thousands of glasses of water that didn’t turn into wine?

>>18615875
Agreed, now do you accept or deny miracles attested to by chroniclers?

>>18615819
I didn't say anything like what you're saying. You're obsessed with bringing up presuppositionalism but I don't think you realize you're presuppositionalist if I am (and if I am, everyone is). Do you think you can deduce truths from previous truth in a loop, or an infinite regress? What's the status of new sense experiences in your opinion, or of the axioms of mathematics? Are those "presuppositionalist", just because they're the starting point? Presuppositionalist theology isn't the same as just having a starting point, it's specifically about starting with the scriptures as a given. In appealing to religious experiences and testimonies I'm trying to appeal to epistemic means of new knowledge acquisition, whether you buy it or not, on the level of sense experiences. I could only be a presuppositionalist if I told you "Mormonism has to be accepted as true by default." But that's not what any Mormon does, we tell people to pray for example and have a religious experience of their own. Is it presuppositionalist for you to trust what your dad or mom tell you, or your friend, heck even me if I tell you I'm a person not an advanced AI computer program or a Cartesian demon?

>>18615897
So if I give you readily available anecdotes of ex-members who followed the Scriptural instructions on prayer for a religious experience to the letter, for years, and received nothing but frustration, what does that mean for your religious experience or anecdotes?

>>18615885
My first hypothesis would be schizophrenia or deceit, for reasons that should be obvious.

>>18615910
I can give you hundreds of stories of people who bought lotto tickets and got nothing but frustration, so I think based on that we can agree that no one wins the lottery.

>>18615932
Agreed. Lottery's a scam, just like Mormonism.

>>18615921
No, the reasons are not obvious. Schizophrenia isn’t a one off thing.

>>18615910
Terrible example anon, that's like asking me if the existence of blind people proves colors aren't real. I could throw you a bone and actually help you out in arguing better against me here, but I may just let you figure it out with your next post if you want.

>>18615921
Medically speaking, true schizophrenia is not just "experiences not verifiable by outsiders," though I know people would love to medicalize religion as a mental condition as you do. But seriously, schizophrenia specifically requires having delusions (persistent false beliefs) about your social relations to people here and there, stuff like being paranoid or thinking they're going to do certain things, stuff like that. There's a very obvious pattern to that stuff. Whereas someone who sees angels and visions and miracles, often with other witnesses, can have a very sound mind. I'm not telling you it's not mental, but I AM telling you it's by definition not schizophrenia.

>>18613840
Alright, I bought your book. If it’s dumb I’m sending my lawyer after you to get my $5 back.

>>18615968
Do feel free to chime in with any points of your own, free country yknow.

Isn't the existence of people "blind" to God's answers in revelation (which He gives to all generously and ungrudgingly according to James 1:5) in spite of a broken heart, contrite spirit, and following the instructions laid out Scripturally troubling for a system predicated on prayer for revelation in accordance with Moroni 10:4, “with a sincere heart, with real intent, having faith in Christ”?

What does it mean for this system that there are persistent failures to replicate the results by many who truly and profoundly wish (and deserve) to believe the Truth?
I am asking in good faith now because I sincerely want you to give me a good answer.

Ender's game was fine.

>>18616599
Don't Mormons think that Europeans are the decendents of the ancient Israelite 12 tribes?
Does anyone other than British Israelism and its offshoot Christian Identity believe this? Both are considered white supremacist groups.
Have Mormons ever been called out on this by woke types these days?

>>18594909
Get ready to read “and so it came to pass” 7,000 times

>>18616976
iirc they believe that one can be adopted into one of the tribes of Israel, and that a fair-skinned race present in North America was one of the tribes of Israel, I think Nephites is the term. I don't think they draw an explicit connection between Europeans in general and the Nephites. I assume most people who would call them out on this don't because it is obscure doctrinal stuff, sort of how like it is unclear in Jewish stricture if gentiles possess a divine soul and not just a nephesh + ruach

>>18607484
What makes you want to retain Christianity? (I am a Christian who has read Bible once and BOM once).

>>18607571
Tell me you’ve never read the Bible without telling me you’ve never read the Bible.

How is this related to the Torah? Shalom

>>18617031
Yeah, I want to guess that some of that is current apologetics for an older literal belief. Same as how they changed their stance on Indians being Israel decedents. They say something now like, Israelites were among the ancestors of Indians where their old stance was much stronger.

Here's the Wikipedia mentioning that some believe they are literal decendents of joseph. If no one more knowledgeable pops in I can try to find something more legit.

>Members of the LDS Church believe themselves, in a general sense, to be members of the House of Israel, many of whom believe themselves also to be the literal bloodline descendants of Ephraim, Joseph of Egypt's youngest son, but inheritor, notwithstanding, of Israel's "firstborn" birthright blessings. These modern Josephites claim, however, that many in their ranks are also of the tribe of Manasseh, Joseph's eldest son and a joint-recipient of the 'double portion' of Jacob's birthright blessing upon the heads of his grandsons.

Funnily enough, in the illuminati conspiracy circles this comes up sometimes as well. Fritz Springmier claims Joseph Smith was of the blood line of Merovingian the mythical bloodline of christ (also Mormons i believe claim Jesus likely got married maybe had children, so that would connect in some small way).
Tracy Twyman also claimed that one of the temples has an art piece showing the kings of Europe being decended from christ, but I've never been able to back that up. If anyone has a pic please post it.

>>18617077
Almost getting /x/ in here, I like it

>>18609933
Dude. The smoking guns of Mormonism are not about the morality of Smith but the reliability of Smith. And he is certified unreliable. Fake Kinderhook. Fake book of Abraham. King James errors in the BOM. And the responses and “refutations” to these are not refutations. They are long misdirecting essays that say “welp, yeah.”

>>18617080
Esoteric hours

>>18617077
I think Twyman may have been referring to pic related. Funnily enough i believe they were going to cover it up recently, but there was an outcry and they instead plan to restore it.

>>18607561
The Book of Mormon teaches the trinity way more clearly and unavoidably than the Bible does. Spend some time learning before you talk.

>>18617112
>Right next to a Native American chief
This is so surreal

I have a weird desire to read the Book of Mormon even if I think it's fairly easy to tell it's some bullshit. It looks like this weird mixture of masonic Protestantism, old-timey Old Testament prose (or at least a clumsy attempt at it which is probably even comfier) and this weird Americana. Even if it's "bad" from an aesthetic and literary point of view it's probably worth at least attempting to skim.

>>18597115
>>18599860
"Cult" should be used only to describe communities that seek to actively separate themselves from the larger and stress their differences and actively punish/threaten people who want to leave. Using "cult" to describe any religion or ritualistic community is peak Reddit-midwit.

>>18617120
Good catch, I thought that was Jesus at first glance.

Here's an article on the murals this lady painted in the temple. Might be some good info in there.

http://byustudies.byu.edu/article/minerva-teicherts-manti-temple-murals/

>>18617139
Yeah, the article seems to say nothing about lineal descent in the art, either the locations are different or the initial claim was a confused one.

>>18617136
It's a very unique religion, and I feel it sheds a surprising amount of light on American thought in the 1800s

>>18617167
Having read the very opening prologue it's weird because it seems to simultaneously state Jesus is God and that God is Trinitarian.
>And also to the convincing of the Jew and Gentile that JESUS is the CHRIST, the ETERNAL GOD, manifesting himself unto all nations
>And the honor be to the Father, and to the Son, and to the Holy Ghost, which is one God. Amen.
Don't Mormons actually deny the Trinity and claim that Jesus was only some kind of Arianist "servant of God"?

>>18617164
Yeah, could be the wrong mural. Could be Twyman was a bad source.

At best, I could say the gentiles are considered the tribe of Joseph in mormonism, the mural includes the European gentiles coming to America, so you've got the British Israelism deal possibly implied.

As for a merovingian element, its probably Twyman being over esoteric and finding connections not there, if this is the mural she was talking about. Which I could find the interview where she said all this. As bad of a source as I find her.

The Book of Mormon is one of the greatest works of fantasy / science fiction ever created, and it's extraordinarily pioneering, too. A full seven decades before similar enterprises would even begin to take off in England, Smith & co. invented an entire history of a continent, with invented cultures, religious conflicts, battles, systems of weights and measures, &c. A striking achievement.

>>18617336
Lol, this is a good way to annoy both sides.

>>18616976
Many Mormons believe Europeans have Abraham as an ancestor but they also tend to believe almost the whole Earth has Abraham as an ancestor by this point, but it could be as much as 0.00000001% ancestry, I don't think Mormons are going to dispute genetics and suggest Europeans or anyone else is majority-Jewish. This differs from British Israelism. But some specific Mormons have tended towards British Israelism and other brands of Israelism, they are more commonly "Israelist" about native Americans because of the Book of Mormon, but even this isn't in stone, again out of respect for genetics, so you can have 0.000001% ancestry from Lehi and via that Abraham for example, and we'd be okay with it.
>>18615503
Wow it's like saying every speculative theologian represents the canonical doctrines of Christianity because they hold a firm opinion that their interpretation is right, when they do contradict in some respects with one another. Don't be an idiot. The only 100% sure thing we think is doctrine is what is canonized as such, and we have a very specific process for canonization, which requires material to be submitted for canonization by the President of the Church to the rest of the apostles, accepted unanimously by these as canonical, and then submitted by these to the Church for canonization in the scriptures. Anything short of this very specific procedure, ranging from official proclamations and other kinds of official-seeming "consensus," down to less-than-official consensus, down to speculative theology, is not canonical, and subject to revision, and no Mormon is required to view it as canon, we have freedom to believe otherwise, which is why I can reject McConkie and Fielding Smith and Crowther and anyone I want from Joseph Smith himself to Russell M. Nelson when they speak as MEN, and not just as mouthpieces of God verbatim. Which (speaking as men) they do most of the time. And they've always told us of their fallibility and of the process I mentioned being the only sure format from the beginning and repeatedly. Just because some rank-and-file Mormons think more stuff is doctrine than really is doctrine doesn't mean they're right. Often you can now something isn't doctrine because there wasn't even a consensus between the prophet and the apostles when something was presented as if it were "doctrine" by some overly-confident and zealous apostle or prophet of the time. The Adam-God doctrine is a good example of this, it was resisted by Orson Pratt and others at the time, and it was never submitted for canonization, nor did Brigham ever prove God actually revealed something to him, or made it clear where the line between a possible revelation and his own interpretation fell, because we have no "Thus sayeth the Lord" text to look at, just his overzealous convictions.

>>18617845
I’m sorry some of your critics are idiots. There are plenty of easy grounds to attack Mormonism on, I don’t know why they don’t just stick to those.

>>18617194
Him saying He is God doesn’t contradict the fact that they have separate ohysical bodies. See John 17 in the Bible. Jesus’ intercessory prayer clarifies this truth.

>>18617136
It’s a beautiful book that rivals the Bible in ever facet. >>18617115
It doesn’t though. I’ve read

>>18617115
I’ve read the entire canonical text of Mormonism 6 times which includes the Bible. I’m aware that the Book of Mormon eludes to the trinity doctrine but when you look at the entire canon as a whole the trinity doesn’t make sense be fucking bit.

See Christ’s intercessory prayer in John 17. Oneness doesn’t have to be physical. So maybe you should stop being a dumb ass and read your one Bible.

>>18617051
I would be very surprised if you have read the Bible more than me. Seethe.

>>18617045
Because of Jesus. He is the truth and the life and the true vibe upon which all mankind can know their true potential. He’s the only way to become free from the fetters of sin and carnality. Why else?

>>18616002
I don't feel like we've gotten a satisfying answer to this question

>>18591711
(PBUH)

>>18593529
>not taking anecdotal evidence of supernatural events seriously in bad
Shit, I guess I should've taken my little brother seriously when he said he had a ghost in his room.

>>18606733
based retard.
Charlatans like joe smith warped the perception of order for his own monetary gain. if you think that is acceptable and therefor incompatible with reason, you are a charlatan yourself

>>18607513
>God is a concept.

>>18617195
Getting the source could help, admittedly. Was the first time I've heard of such a connection being made.

>>18620781
She mentioned it in passing on a podcast she was a guest on, I believe it was on her baphomet circuit. I'll try to find it if I find the time.

>>18607513
>God is a concept.

>>18591711

The BOM is made up of course, but the Solomon Spalding hypothesis has been disproven. I lost respect (or shall i say trust) in Guenon when I read this essay, because he passes off a disproven conjecture as fact, and I wonder if he does this in other areas.

OP here
Cant believe this thread is still alive lmao
LDSfags btfo

>>18617195
Mormonism is basically the most autistic book club ever invented

>>18621356
Make a thread about any religion with 10M+ members and you will have niggers seething on it until the thread caps, especially one as highly contested, easy to challenge, and thoroughly debunked as fucking Mormonism lmao

>>18607237
How is Mormonism in line with what the Fathers taught?

>>18621496
The line I've heard on this is that the fathers had already fallen away. The apostasy happened basically right after christ. The Mormons don't utilize the fathers really ever, sometimes the academics reference them if it happens to agree with their doctrine. They'll bring up Arinais to justify christ being separate from God, but I believe Arinais was saying christ was a creature of God and had a very different theology than mormon orthodoxy.

>>18621372
Islam exists

>>18621595
How do they justify teaching that everyone after Christ was in apostasy when verses like Matthew 16:18 exist?

>>18621665
I found this on reddit:
>As far as "and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it," it says:

>In the scriptures the phrase “the gates of hell” can refer to the powers of death or the powers of evil. Thus, the Savior’s promise that “the gates of hell shall not prevail” means that death and evil will not permanently overpower the Church. The Restoration of the Church in the latter days is one way this promise has been fulfilled. [emphasis added.]

>Basically, the Great Apostasy did happen, and the establishment of the LDS Church is how the gates of hell have not prevailed.

>>18621657
Islamists have consistent doctrine, legitimate authorship claims, actual myths, and don't believe in a confirmed con man who evidently and repeatedly lied about basically everything, up to and including his demonstrably fabricated scriptures where God is shown with an erect penis and fundamental claims changed between multiple editions.

I won't say they don't follow a pedophile because you got me there.

>>18621720
So because the Church exists now, it was okay for it to fall into apostasy for 1800 years?
I can't quite see the logic here.

>>18621842
Something something dispensations, latter-days yadda yadda cope
Restorationism is simply cringe.

>>18621842
Start with the axiom that the church is true, then work back from there.

Mormons believe in personal revelation. Basic model is they read the book of mormon, pray about it, and then have personal revelation that it is true. If that doesn't work, you didn't do it with pure enough heart.

Once you "know its true." All the other pieces fall into place.

Also why they constantly claim that the Bible we have is mistranslated. A claim I only ever hear atheists make. Anytime the Bible doesn't match mormon doctrine, it was mistranslated or was interpreted wrong.

One could call it the first postmodern religion in terms of their hermeneutics.

>>18589663
Lmao Mormons are fucking polytheistic and only worship Elohim because he created humanity despite being one among many others of equal power
>we worship him because he told us so le covenant yadda yadda
Yeah I wonder what would happen if he told you to worship some other external god. It's almost paganism

>>18621842
Read 2 Thessalonians 2 ("falling away" in the Greek is APOSTASIA by the way) and Revelation 12 and suddenly an over-a-millennium year apostasy and disappearance of Christianity is not that weird, but Biblically prophesied to happen. I mean you won't buy it but the texts are right there in the New Testament that Mormons look at and say "It says it right here look."

>>18606374
>these things were taught extensively from the start of Christianity
Huh???

>>18621883
>Mormons believe in personal revelation.
Oh cool, mystical experience are nice

>>18621496
There's a big number of Mormon-only doctrines that were taught in ancient Christianity, some are of course ones in common with Catholicism/Orthodoxy and others are in common with Protestantism but some are unique. Regarding the post you're replying to, pre-Nicene Christians were not Trinitarians. They were anti-modalists (at least people like Justin, Tertullian, Hippolytus, Clement, Origen) and anti-adoptionists as well. By modern Trinitarian glosses some of them were straight up tritheists, and the fact is Hippolytus called himself a bitheist, while Justin (one of the earliest of all the post-apostolic Fathers whose writings are extant) regularly called Jesus "another god" and a "second god" and in one of his dialogues with a Jew named Trypho he repeatedly uses Old Testament texts to argue there existed TWO Yahwehs, and that Jesus was the second one, and also the same as the "Angel of the Lord" or Malakh Yahweh, but rightly called a second god all the same. And in case you think he was a Trinitarian but being sloppy, he opposes a primitive kind of consubstantialism in chapter 128 of Dialogue with Trypho pretty explicitly. He was straight up a bitheist about the Father and the Son. We have no record of anyone thinking he was out of step in his day: on the contrary he seems to represent the pristine and earliest orthodoxy of his time. Actually if you do a little digging and connecting of dots, the consubstantialism he opposed might have originated in Montanism, and it was the brand of consubstantialism defended by Tertullian. But it was a corporealist consubstantialism, very different from modern consubstantial trinitarianism. Still, Tertullian attributes an analogy he uses to "the Paraclete" (meaning Montanist prophecy), and the same analogy shows up in Dialogue with Trypho 128, written when Montanism was very new, except Justin rejects it in favor of his non-consubstantial analogy.

>>18621736
Reminds me of Egyptian cosmogony by self-stimulation, representative of purity beyond female and male copulation. Pretty neat to see that esoteric theology among Mormons

>>18622088
The fact that Jesus was crucified is indisputably taught in early Christianity, even by the judaizing Ebionites that Islam degenerately stems from. It was only denied by the docetist Gnostics who unlike Muslims believed Jesus was fully divine and not even a man, but an incorporeal spirit. In other words nobody believed that Jesus was both a man, not divine, and not crucified, all at once, til Muhammad.

>>18622080
Neither of those chapters prophecy that the whole Church will disappear from the Earth and only return near the end of days. In fact its intended reading seems to be that the Church will only *disappear* near the end of days, not the other way around. In the context of Revelations and the Apostolic writings on the end of days, it's clear that the prophecy speaks of the time shortly before the Second Coming and not the next two thousand years of history.
This whole argument boils down to saying that when Christ charged his Apostles with the Great Commission, he failed to choose the right people for the job, and He might as well not have bothered establishing any kind of church at all in his age since it was going to disappear anyway, making the Apostles more like accessories than men he called by name to do his work.

>>18622141
Not trying to be a grammar nazi, but as a verb, it is "prophesy"

>>18622143
I've had a long week, okay.

>>18622161
Your fatigue is understandable.

>>18621595
>creatures
Icky

>>18622141
You know it's prophetic scripture so the fact we disagree shouldn't come as a surprise to you. It's still there and Mormons see in it what they see and it's not as crazy as you think. The day-year principle is well respected even outside Mormonism, based on prophetic principles found in Ezekiel, Daniel, the gospels, and so forth. What Revelation 12 says is that the woman will be gone for 1260 days, which is then to be understood as 1260 years, and Mormons are not unique in thinking that's a possibility, it's something that was popular in early Protestantism, the Seventh-day Adventists also believe in the same thing to this day. The idea that the Book of Revelation took place over centuries from John's day to the present is also not that rare: many Christians believe that, again, it was once popular with Protestants and the Adventists believe it to this day. The idea that Revelation speaks of just a small frame of time in the far future is not the only view possible. So no, it doesn't seem so "clear" to many people that it's about a short window of time, not just Mormons.
>This whole argument boils down to saying that when Christ charged his Apostles with the Great Commission, he failed to choose the right people for the job
No dude. You think God failed when only eight souls on the planet believed in him and he sent the freaking flood? Do you think God failed when only Abraham's household followed him? Numbers don't mean anything. Who are you to dispute how God manages his divine economy? All we know is that he foretold a falling away or apostasy, and a lengthy period when the visible church would be "in the wilderness." It's not a failure because in Mormon theology God manages his divine economy in a manner distinct from mainstream Christianity, we have a whole network of gospel-preaching in the afterlife and vicarious ordinances for the dead and such and such, so it's not like the gospel being gone for over a thousand years represents any sort of failure when in the end the gospel will reach everyone and everyone will have a chance to be saved or not based entirely on their choice. You Christians already have problems with the fact that God for long stretches of time only favored tiny Levantine communities while most of the Earth lived and died without true religion, but we Mormons have ways to account for that. Christ's apostles followed their orders and did the job they were supposed to, but those same apostles were taught mysteries of godliness you wouldn't understand if they had not told us they received them. And what Paul says and what John says is that there would be an apostasy and that the Church would be taken out, and the power of antichrist reign in its place for a period of time.

>>18622106
No doubt.

>>18622189
Probably better to think in terms of creation, not creature as a bad thing. However, most would think thinking of christ as a creature is heresy. For the record christ in mormon theology is no more a creature than God the father, sort of.

>>18622237
I am rather skeptical of the idea of Creation, but as I don't believe in it per se, the mundane world does not bother me overly much. I don't think that anyone is creature, including Jesus, the category is really hypothetical. Hence the "icky" comment.

Surprised this thread lasted long enough to reach autosaging. Felt like a nice inadvertent leak from /x/.

>>18622252
Interesting. Whats your intellectual lineage?

Is the world as creation (as opposed to manifestation) something you don't like? Is it too dualist for your taste? Do you see it as an illusion, then?

>>18619598
>>18616002
Your first question, whether something is "troubling" is fundamental a problem-of-evil kind of question. I'm not going to solve the problem of evil for you, but the question "Is God good?" comes apart from the question "Does God [or something like that] exist?" and I don't think you can say God doesn't exist just because of blind people, figuratively speaking. It goes back to the data question: at what point do we take new data seriously? That implies a threshold being crossed. I think it's crossable, you don't, but the reason I think it's been crossed is that I normally (in secular contexts) take it that we trust testimonies and anecdotes with just enough evidence, especially when we have good reasons to trust the testimonies based on a person having less reasons to lie, etc, rather than being overdemanding. The only reason atheists have a uniquely high standard when it comes to these religious experience anecdotes is that they believe all new data must be methodically replicable in controlled conditions. But that's to favor a form of knowledge acquisition that itself is dependent largely on a social aspect of testimony-trusting which we cannot get rid of in our society, our daily lives, our jobs, and so forth. That is to say: I think we have things a little upside down, and we need to be less skeptical of anecdotes. I'm not picky either: I take it if some Catholic or Hindu or whatever claims a miracle, then they have a right to believe it. Hence what I said last time about rational disagreement in epistemology. This isn't relativism or subjectivism because one of us is right and the other isn't, and whoever is the right one is the one with the knowledge. There's no point worrying about "How can we know that we know?" when knowledge is fundamentally fallibilistic. Nobody can have certainty in this world because the skeptical possibility of delusion always looms. The usual answer to "What is knowledge?" given in philosophy is "justified true belief" (JTB), and so as long as the belief is true and justified, it counts. Rational disagreement just means that mutually incompatible belief systems can be as justified as each other. The one that happens to be right is the one that happens to be a body of knowledge. My job is just to determine: "Is religious belief justified?" and I've given you my thoughts on that, you can take it or leave it. Also make sure to read and maybe reply to >>18593529 because it gets into some of these things in more detail, and nobody has really responded to it in detail so now's your time.
>>18620326
I take people seriously if I trust them and they tell me they've seen things so unless you have reason to think your brother lied so should you.

>>18621985
Yeah, why should anyone listen to their father when there are plenty of other fathers out there!

>>18622276
The mormon answer would probably be something like:
>another god wouldn't intrude on one God's creation and plan. If he did, he would be breaking divine law and would cease being a God, and so it is practically impossible.
Or
>the church which is true tells us who to worship and that is god our father.