Hypocrisy

[Guest Taoist_Saint]

All Christian anti-mormons are hypocrites to some degree, because they don't hold their own beliefs up to the same high standards that they expect of the Mormons.

They ridicule the LDS for believing in latter day revelations and scriptures, while they themselves believe in revelations and scriptures from 2000 years ago. For some reason this difference in TIME matters to them.

I think this deserves a new topic...I'm going to open one...

To the Christian Anti-Mormon, Latter Day revelation must be backed up by the Bible.

But they feel no need to prove the spiritual authority of the Bible itself.

Why should the Bible be above "proofs"?

Today, Anti-Mormons feel a need to put the burden of proof on the Mormons. 2000 years ago the burden of proof was on the Christians. Thousands of years before that, the burden of proof was on Judaism. And so on...

If there were modern day worshippers of the Ancient Greek religion, The Odyssey and The Illiad could be considered religious scriptures. They describe the actions of Gods and their interactions with Man. These books are older than the Bible. They contradict Christian scripture and LDS scripture. Yet they are older than the Christian/LDS scriptures...does that mean they have more spiritual authority? Can one prove that Zeus is not the true God?

Why do we discount the Odyssey as "mythology" but accept the Bible as "truth"?

Certainly not because of objective proofs?

I think it comes down to a few things:

1. Popularity of the religion (number of believers)

2. Political power of the believers.

3. The appeal of the message to the believers (is it positive enough?)

[Tr2]

All Christian anti-mormons are hypocrites to some degree, because they don't hold their own beliefs up to the same high standards that they expect of the Mormons.

Who said that? I'd really like to know. I cannot count the number of times where i have said the EXACT same thing. Then there are people like snow who openly admit that they do not compare the two with the same level of judgment.

So who said it?

To the Christian Anti-Mormon, Latter Day revelation must be backed up by the Bible

Little LDS "revelation" can be backed up by the bible.

1. Popularity of the religion (number of believers)

2. Political power of the believers.

3. The appeal of the message to the believers (is it positive enough?)

Then I guess the Nazi party was more true than the mormon church. They had more people willing to go to war for what they believed. The most powerful men of one of the greatest armies in the world were all Nazi's. If this is the standard than mormonism takes a back seat to the Nazi's, and communism.

[Cal]

Originally posted by Taoist_Saint@Mar 9 2004, 02:18 PM

All Christian anti-mormons are hypocrites to some degree, because they don't hold their own beliefs up to the same high standards that they expect of the Mormons.

They ridicule the LDS for believing in latter day revelations and scriptures, while they themselves believe in revelations and scriptures from 2000 years ago. For some reason this difference in TIME matters to them.

I think this deserves a new topic...I'm going to open one...

To the Christian Anti-Mormon, Latter Day revelation must be backed up by the Bible.

But they feel no need to prove the spiritual authority of the Bible itself.

Why should the Bible be above "proofs"?

Today, Anti-Mormons feel a need to put the burden of proof on the Mormons. 2000 years ago the burden of proof was on the Christians. Thousands of years before that, the burden of proof was on Judaism. And so on...

If there were modern day worshippers of the Ancient Greek religion, The Odyssey and The Illiad could be considered religious scriptures. They describe the actions of Gods and their interactions with Man. These books are older than the Bible. They contradict Christian scripture and LDS scripture. Yet they are older than the Christian/LDS scriptures...does that mean they have more spiritual authority? Can one prove that Zeus is not the true God?

Why do we discount the Odyssey as "mythology" but accept the Bible as "truth"?

Certainly not because of objective proofs?

I think it comes down to a few things:

1. Popularity of the religion (number of believers)

2. Political power of the believers.

3. The appeal of the message to the believers (is it positive enough?)

Frankly, I don't think the Christian anti-mormons have a logical leg to stand on. Ask me and I'll tell you why.

[Guest Starsky]

I think it comes down to a few things:

1. Popularity of the religion (number of believers)

2. Political power of the believers.

3. The appeal of the message to the believers (is it positive enough?)

Well...I think it comes down to....'what is truth'. Not what someone believes is truth...but absolute truth.

[Guest Starsky]

Frankly, I don't think the Christian anti-mormons have a logical leg to stand on. Ask me and I'll tell you why.

Why?

[Cal]

Originally posted by Peace@Mar 9 2004, 06:35 PM

Frankly, I don't think the Christian anti-mormons have a logical leg to stand on. Ask me and I'll tell you why.

Why?

Thank you for asking!

The Christians (particularly the born-agains) can no more defend their belief in the inerrancy of the Bible than mormons can defend the crediblity of JS. In fact, I think you can defend the credibilty of JS more than you can the inerrancy of the Bible. No one even knows who wrote the "gospels"! At least we know who wrote the BoM.

On top of that, whether Jesus really was divine or supernatural is as much a matter of faith as whether JS was telling the truth when he said he saw God. The stories of the NT about Jesus are so inconsistent and contradictory as to require FAITH to believe in--and, as I said, where those stories came from (Jesus' life, travels and ressurrection) are subject to serious question---most scholars agree that there was a Jesus, and that he taught interesting and controversial (for the times) doctrines, but there is serious doubt about whether the "gospels" are a credible witness of many of the events surrounding Jesus' life.

My point---Christians must ask us to believe on Faith every bit as much as Mormons do.

[Guest Taoist_Saint]

Originally posted by Tr2@Mar 9 2004, 05:16 PM

All Christian anti-mormons are hypocrites to some degree, because they don't hold their own beliefs up to the same high standards that they expect of the Mormons.

Who said that? I'd really like to know. I cannot count the number of times where i have said the EXACT same thing. Then there are people like snow who openly admit that they do not compare the two with the same level of judgment.

So who said it?

Who said what?

I said "Christian anti-Mormons don't hold their own beliefs up to the same high standards that they expect of the Mormons."

The easiest way I can think of to explain this is that a Christian Anti-Mormon demands that the Mormon prove his beliefs to be true, while he does not admit that his own beliefs (God, The Trinity, The Resurrection, Salvation, etc.) are not proven either.

Little LDS "revelation" can be backed up by the bible.

That might be true. That is really not the point of this thread...

1. Popularity of the religion (number of believers)

2. Political power of the believers.

3. The appeal of the message to the believers (is it positive enough?)

Then I guess the Nazi party was more true than the mormon church. They had more people willing to go to war for what they believed. The most powerful men of one of the greatest armies in the world were all Nazi's. If this is the standard than mormonism takes a back seat to the Nazi's, and communism.

I was not saying that those 3 points prove a religion true.

I was saying that people tend to believe that a religion is true based on those 3 things.

That explains the popularity of Christianity:

1. Large population of believers (today).

2. Political Power - it spread with the help of the Roman Empire and the European kingdoms descended from that empire.

3. Appeal of the message - mostly positive...we can all be saved from our sins by accepting Christ.

I'll repeat my question from my last post...

Why do we discount the Odyssey as "mythology" but accept the Bible as "truth"?

My answer:

1. It has no living population of believers in its Pantheon.

2. There is no political power encouraging people to worship the Greek gods.

3. There is not much appeal to the message of the Ancient Greek religion.

So...Christianity is not popular because the Bible is proven to be true...it is popular for other reasons (including the three I just mentioned).

[Guest Taoist_Saint]

Thanks, Cal.

This was the point I was trying to get across.

I'm going to copy your message into large letters because I think it is so important:

The Christians (particularly the born-agains) can no more defend their belief in the inerrancy of the Bible than mormons can defend the crediblity of JS. In fact, I think you can defend the credibilty of JS more than you can the inerrancy of the Bible. No one even knows who wrote the "gospels"! At least we know who wrote the BoM.

[Guest Starsky]

I think it is very interesting to comtemplate, but there an exact answer...which I would give if I wasn't at the library being told to get off my machine....my keyboard went loopy today...bummer...bye.

[porterrockwell]

Originally posted by Cal+Mar 9 2004, 07:40 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Cal @ Mar 9 2004, 07:40 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin--Peace@Mar 9 2004, 06:35 PM

Frankly, I don't think the Christian anti-mormons have a logical leg to stand on. Ask me and I'll tell you why.

Why?

Thank you for asking!

The Christians (particularly the born-agains) can no more defend their belief in the inerrancy of the Bible than mormons can defend the crediblity of JS. In fact, I think you can defend the credibilty of JS more than you can the inerrancy of the Bible. No one even knows who wrote the "gospels"! At least we know who wrote the BoM.

On top of that, whether Jesus really was divine or supernatural is as much a matter of faith as whether JS was telling the truth when he said he saw God. The stories of the NT about Jesus are so inconsistent and contradictory as to require FAITH to believe in--and, as I said, where those stories came from (Jesus' life, travels and ressurrection) are subject to serious question---most scholars agree that there was a Jesus, and that he taught interesting and controversial (for the times) doctrines, but there is serious doubt about whether the "gospels" are a credible witness of many of the events surrounding Jesus' life.

My point---Christians must ask us to believe on Faith every bit as much as Mormons do.

I agree whole heartedly Cal. Especially with that last line. If you can't have faith without proof, do you really have faith. I'm not saying that proof won't make men believers, but what is belief without faith previous to conversion?

[Tr2]

My point---Christians must ask us to believe on Faith every bit as much as Mormons do

I'd say it takes 10x the faith to believe what mormonism teaches. let's take the Jesus being married thread as a recent example. The best possible reason why people believe this is so is because the bible doesn't rule it out directly. Is there a slight, slight possibility? Yes. There is nothing in the bible to give anybody any reason whatsoever to believe Jesus was married. But LDS leaders have said so and that is all people need. Now that is what I call faith. Blind faith, but faith nonetheless.

No one even knows who wrote the "gospels"!

I do. Many people do.

I said "Christian anti-Mormons don't hold their own beliefs up to the same high standards that they expect of the Mormons."

I'd tend to agree. However the vast majority of mormons do not look at the BoM in the same objective light they view the bible.

That is really not the point of this thread

I thought that was relevant, but fair enough.

The easiest way I can think of to explain this is that a Christian Anti-Mormon demands that the Mormon prove his beliefs to be true, while he does not admit that his own beliefs (God, The Trinity, The Resurrection, Salvation, etc.) are not proven either.

But the difference is that the bible is a documented historical book, the BoM is not. Most of the bible was written and produced over 1800 years ago. The BoM came out less than 200 years ago. 200 years ago people all knew the importance of historical artifacts. The BoM is a very recent thing. It has not withstood the test of time as the bible has. In 1600 years we'll see if the BoM is still around in the same state as it is today, the bible is.

Why do we discount the Odyssey as "mythology" but accept the Bible as "truth"?

There is historical basis for the bible. Timelines match up, as do cultures. The oldest culture and timeline of the bible I know of is Moses. I read about an Egyptian general named Moses who was trained in the finest schools, led many armies to victory, and who was royalty. That timeline matches up with what the bible says about Moses. I don't know if every event of the bible is a true event, or if some is symbolic or metaphorical. What I do know is that for most of the bible there is a historical reason to believe it. Job is one that we know nothing about at all.

So...Christianity is not popular because the Bible is proven to be true...it is popular for other reasons (including the three I just mentioned).

Christianity is popular because of its proven track record and success. Throughout the most horrendous persecution of any religion, in the early centuries, it came through and has only gotten stronger. And in many areas of the world, Asia and Africa come to mind, that lifestyle is still in effect.

[Guest curvette]

Originally posted by Tr2@Mar 9 2004, 08:58 PM

let's take the Jesus being married thread as a recent example.

Trident. This is actually a topic that is debated within the LDS church. I had a couple of religion professors at BYU who adamantly believed that Jesus was not married. I've also heard non Mormon christians express a belief that he was married. It's not a thought unique to LDS.

Also, I agree that there is much historical verification of the Bible. I had understood though that there hasn't been anything found yet verifying the Israelite Exodus, Moses or even a large Israelite occupation in Goshen. Where did you read this information about an Egyptian general named Moses? It sounds interesting.

[porterrockwell]

Furthermore, there is no way at this point in time of knowing whether Christ was married. The reason why I believe that there is a possibility is NOT because the Bible is vague about it. It is because Jesus Christ was sent to fullfill all righteousness. He was perfect, yet baptized....in the Garden of Gesthemane he took upon us his sins, yet still crucified....to fullfill all righteousness. We don't know whether he was or wasn't and to the person that says he has more "proof" than that of the other is just as foolish as he deems the first to be. Whether or not it is "historical" does not prove anything. I can show you historical writings of those who plain and simply worshipped the devil and thought very highly of their fruits(even though corrupt). So much so that they documented it. There are a great deal of people that can give "historical proof" that we evolved from monkey-like beings. There also has YET to be sufficient findings pertaining to that of BOM, but even if there was, that would make you a believer? To a jury Johnny Cochrane gave "sufficient proof" that OJ didn't murder anybody...you see what I am getting at here. We should not tempt our Lord for a sign. If you need proof first, how then do you establish faith and conviction based on that faith. If there was NO evidence(historically speaking)that the Bible was historically factual...would you still believe it? I know I would. Oh ye of little faith.

[Snow]

Originally posted by Tr2@Mar 9 2004, 05:16 PM

All Christian anti-mormons are hypocrites to some degree, because they don't hold their own beliefs up to the same high standards that they expect of the Mormons.

Who said that? I'd really like to know. I cannot count the number of times where i have said the EXACT same thing. Then there are people like snow who openly admit that they do not compare the two with the same level of judgment.

Really, I said that? I don't think so.

I hold the BoM to the exact same standard as the Bible.

[Guest Starsky]

Okay...doesn't the tribes and rituals over in the middle east testify of the truthfulness of the Bible...at least the old testiment?

And doesn't some of the artifacts now being found over there also testify of the christian/nt movement?

Doesn't some of the cultural stuff found in South American testify of peoples coming over here from the old country?

I just don't get why it is supposedly all up to faith...

I do see how Christ being married or not can't be proven....and I don't see that it is necessary to know or Joseph Smith would have revealed that too...it just doesn't matter.

It is what we are to do....that is important. If Christ was married...it would mean he set that as an example...if He wasn't it works towards the Adam God thing...and If he was...it would mean that He wasn't always quoted correctly in the Bible.. ... for instance where it is stated by Christ that men should love their wives as He loves the church...and the church being referred to as the bride and Christ as the groom...

Anyway....that is my take on it.

[Guest Taoist_Saint]

Originally posted by Tr2@Mar 9 2004, 08:58 PM

But the difference is that the bible is a documented historical book, the BoM is not. Most of the bible was written and produced over 1800 years ago. The BoM came out less than 200 years ago. 200 years ago people all knew the importance of historical artifacts. The BoM is a very recent thing. It has not withstood the test of time as the bible has. In 1600 years we'll see if the BoM is still around in the same state as it is today, the bible is.

First of all, I am not speaking as a Mormon right now...I am speaking as a man who is just trying to objectively prove what it true...so I don't want you to think my opinions reflect on the Mormon opinions of the Bible. Mormons are generally supposed to view the Bible as the word of God...I do not.

In reply to your statements...

I agree the history of the Bible (alot of it) is true. There is no reason to doubt most of the historical events in there.

I agree that the BoM's historical information cannot be proven.

However, much of the historical information in the D&C can be proven. Joseph Smith existed. America exists. These things are just as real as the places of the Bible.

However, my purpose is not to look at the historical information.

I am trying to say that no one has ever proven the theology of the Bible to be true in those 1800 years. The doctrines just became popular. Not proven.

And if the Bible's theology cannot be proven, then "mainstream" Christianity's doctrines are no more credible than Mormonism.

Why do we discount the Odyssey as "mythology" but accept the Bible as "truth"?

There is historical basis for the bible. Timelines match up, as do cultures. The oldest culture and timeline of the bible I know of is Moses. I read about an Egyptian general named Moses who was trained in the finest schools, led many armies to victory, and who was royalty. That timeline matches up with what the bible says about Moses. I don't know if every event of the bible is a true event, or if some is symbolic or metaphorical. What I do know is that for most of the bible there is a historical reason to believe it. Job is one that we know nothing about at all.

I agree. There the HISTORY in the Bible is probably a mix of true and metaphorical events.

This does not prove that it is the word of God.

So...Christianity is not popular because the Bible is proven to be true...it is popular for other reasons (including the three I just mentioned).

Christianity is popular because of its proven track record and success. Throughout the most horrendous persecution of any religion, in the early centuries, it came through and has only gotten stronger. And in many areas of the world, Asia and Africa come to mind, that lifestyle is still in effect.

Judaism suffered persecution and has lasted longer than Christianity. Buddhism suffered persecution and has lasted longer than Christianity. Taoism has suffered persecution and lasted longer than Christianity.

Yes, Christianity spread more than those other religions, but can that not be attributed to the expansion of Christian empires and nations? Europeans colonized most of the world and brought Christianity with them.

This does not prove Christianity is true...it just proves that Christianity has had powerful political allies...and that alot of people like the message.

[Guest Taoist_Saint]

Originally posted by Peace@Mar 10 2004, 12:24 PM

Okay...doesn't the tribes and rituals over in the middle east testify of the truthfulness of the Bible...at least the old testiment?

And doesn't some of the artifacts now being found over there also testify of the christian/nt movement?

Doesn't some of the cultural stuff found in South American testify of peoples coming over here from the old country?

I just don't get why it is supposedly all up to faith...

I do see how Christ being married or not can't be proven....and I don't see that it is necessary to know or Joseph Smith would have revealed that too...it just doesn't matter.

Anyway....that is my take on it.

The historical facts of the Bible (and the possible proofs for the BoM) only prove that the HISTORY is true.

It does not prove the theology is true.

That is the point I am trying to make.

In both cases (Traditional Christianity and Mormonism) it is all up to faith.

[Guest Taoist_Saint]

Originally posted by Tr2@Mar 9 2004, 08:58 PM

Why do we discount the Odyssey as "mythology" but accept the Bible as "truth"?

There is historical basis for the bible. Timelines match up, as do cultures.

This is also true of The Odyssey and The Illiad.

Scholars still debate if there was actually a Trojan War (around which those poems were centered)...and there is no reason to believe that there was not a Trojan War.

There is an estimated time frame for when this war probably happened.

The Ancient Greek culture existed at that time.

So...timelines match up, as do cultures.

Those stories are filled with "miracles" and events guided by the actions of gods.

Why do we discount the Odyssey as "mythology" but accept the Bible as literal "truth"?

Neither book has any more evidence for its theology than the other. Both are based around historical events.

Yet we choose the Bible, because we grew up with the Bible. We live in a civilization where Christians have basically conquered the western world, militarily and culturally.

The Ancient Greek religion was the loser. Christianity was the winner.

The winners write history, and we accept it as true.

[Guest lt]

"Christian anti-Mormons don't hold their own beliefs up to the same high standards that they expect of the Mormons."

Now that is so true.........When ever a mormon does anything they are watched like a hawk and critisized for everything, even when they don't do wrong. I think if others lived up to that same expectation they would feel very sufficated and overwhelmed.

LaurelTree

[Tr2]

I still cannot believe BoM believers are getting involved in this discussion. Words cannot describe this well enough,

[Jenda]

Trident, the topic is about faith, not historicity. Everyone who accepts a religious dogma does so on faith. Precisely because the things that define the code of beliefs are unprovable. That is what dogma means. Unprovable.

[Tr2]

You are right, it is about faith. Anybody who could believe in Mormonism clearly has 10x the faith I have. Many people have allowed their faith to overstep their intelligent judgment.

I hold the BoM to the exact same standard as the Bible

I honestly don't think you believe either one.

[porterrockwell]

Jenda, not proveable to worldly standards. But do we need worldly standards to verify that which is true. If the Lord intended for things to be proven easily, we would not have vail placed over our spriritual eyes, nor would we be in this probationary state. It's about faith. I have one question for everybody, a simple yes or no will do(actually kind of a self reflecting question). Let's say that you walked with the Savior during his ministry...Would you with disbelief in your heart require a miracle of the Savior as physical proof of his ability and true nature? Or would you rely on prayer and true intent to know the Savior and his mission by the confirmation of the Holy Ghost? I would choose the latter myself, so my answer to the first question is NO!

[Jenda]

Porter, I agree with your assessment of faith. IMO, that is exactly why we are here.

To answer your question, I would like to think that I am one who would take Jesus to be the Savior because of the impress of the Spirit, but that, in itself, is a miracle (of sorts). I have had that kind of miracle in my life, and because of it, I no longer believe, I know. Until then, I was like Tao, believing in something because of the good things it stands for but not having a testimony of it. But, I would like to think that I would accept Jesus as the Christ if I was in that position.

[Guest Starsky]

Originally posted by Taoist_Saint+Mar 10 2004, 01:01 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Taoist_Saint @ Mar 10 2004, 01:01 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin--Peace@Mar 10 2004, 12:24 PM

Okay...doesn't the tribes and rituals over in the middle east testify of the truthfulness of the Bible...at least the old testiment?

And doesn't some of the artifacts now being found over there also testify of the christian/nt movement?

Doesn't some of the cultural stuff found in South American testify of peoples coming over here from the old country?

I just don't get why it is supposedly all up to faith...

I do see how Christ being married or not can't be proven....and I don't see that it is necessary to know or Joseph Smith would have revealed that too...it just doesn't matter.

Anyway....that is my take on it.

The historical facts of the Bible (and the possible proofs for the BoM) only prove that the HISTORY is true.

It does not prove the theology is true.

That is the point I am trying to make.

In both cases (Traditional Christianity and Mormonism) it is all up to faith.

Well that is interesting...but I don't know how you could separate the two.