|
Korean Job Discussion Forums
"The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Teachers from Around the World!"
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
faster
Joined: 03 Sep 2006
|
 Posted: Sat Oct 20, 2007 4:37 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
| elynnor wrote: |
| I just think when it comes to religion, one has to keep in mind that whatever they read or hear is perhaps 95% opinion and 5% fact. Just because someone has "studied" a lot, doesn't mean that they know what they are talking about. It doesn't mean that the sources they have studied are any more true or authoritative than, say, the things that get posted here. |
This is certainly true, but an overarching generalization is of little use here. Are you impugning any of the specific scholarship mentioned in this thread? If so, on what grounds?
This is not an attack, I'm honestly curious if you know something or are just smearing a thread. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
tomato
Joined: 31 Jan 2003
Location: I get so little foreign language experience, I must be in Koreatown, Los Angeles.
|
| Posted: Sat Oct 20, 2007 5:29 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Hello, elynnor!
Thank you for the apology.
However, I question the validity of your mode of inquiry.
It is like a court case which hears only the defendant.
Hello, Mr. Pink!
How am I biased?
The anti-Mormons have presented enough of a case to indicate beyond a reasonable doubt that Joseph Smith was a hoaxster.
My conclusion came after I read their material, not before.
I am all in favor of freedom of religion, but I am against absolving a party of all blame for religious reasons.
Look what God told the terrorists to do on September the eleventh.
Look what God is telling 부시 to do to innocent people in the Middle East.
That is why I oppose the whitewashing of a con artist who concocts a story about an imaginary angel leading him to an imaginary box containing imaginary plates written in an imaginary language by imaginary people.
Religious clause or no religious clause, a hoax is a hoax is a hoax. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
igotthisguitar
Joined: 08 Apr 2003
Location: South Korea (Permanent Vacation)
|
| Posted: Sat Oct 20, 2007 6:38 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| tomato wrote: |
That is why I oppose the whitewashing of a con artist who concocts a story about an imaginary angel leading him to an imaginary box containing imaginary plates written in an imaginary language by imaginary people.
Religious clause or no religious clause, a hoax is a hoax is a hoax. |
Almost sounds like Scientology's L Ron Hubbard  |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Mr. Pink
Joined: 21 Oct 2003
Location: China
|
| Posted: Sat Oct 20, 2007 6:42 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Tomato:
I wonder if you consider for a second the feelings of those who might believe "the con man"?
I used to be very judgmental towards religious doctrines. I guess I learned, that if some doctrines make people into decent, well rounded citizens, why not let them believe what they do?
I am curious Tomato, what are your views on Muslims and Mohammad? Was he an intellectual thief who ripped off the Jewish/Christian tradition or was he original, incorporating some of that history into the Quran.
I love religious debate, as long as it doesn't offend one side or the other.
Still waiting on CC to answer some of my questions!!! (from my previous, bigger post) |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
krats1976
Joined: 14 May 2003
|
| Posted: Sat Oct 20, 2007 7:08 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Hi Mr. Pink,
Thanks for your thoughts... I'm sure all LDS readers find your comments refreshing!!
| Mr. Pink wrote: |
| . I am not sure if Mormons go all sour once they find out you aren't a prospective "recruit". |
In all honesty, some will. I hope, though, that most are like me. My friends are friends, not potential recruits. I share my beliefs with them because I believe they will be a benefit to them. If they aren't interested, I don't hold it against them. Two of my best friends are Christians of other denominations and one is even an "evangelical." We simply focus on what binds us (or faith in Christ and trust in God), instead of the things we disagree on.
| Quote: |
| IMO actions speak volumes over words. |
Amen.
| Quote: |
This leads to the Book of Mormon...the thing I always had a problem with in regard as to seeing it as legitimate is why America? Also, at the time in which it seemed to be found, America was into the height of the Manifest Destiny doctrine...perhaps if C or CC are familiar with American history and what Manifest Destiny entailed, they could comment on the amazing coincidence of that and the Book of Mormon.
Also why would it be someone who spoke English? The Spanish were in North America before the British or French, and they were "Christian" - though how Christian you want to label Catholics is up to you. |
Interesting thoughts, and much has been made of this exact topic in history circles, which is why when Mormonism is discussed in US History texts it's always in the context of either utopian communities or westward migration.
My answer to your "why?" is "why not?" Why not in America and why not in English? If I weren't a believer, I'd point to Manifest Destiny as well. As a believer I see the hand of God in creating a situation where the Restoration could happen and thrive. 19th century America---that is, the United States on the cusp of becoming a world power, and one where the Locke/Jeffersonian concept of liberty was starting to take hold--really was the ideal place for the Restoration to happen.
| Quote: |
| Also, as an outsider, I find there seems a similarity between the LDS and Catholic/Anglican structure. Any comments on this? |
I think what you're talking about is the fact that both are very centralized. In other words, while most Protestant churches are more like a confederation with a loose central structure, the LDS & Catholic churches are more like a federation with most weighty decisions being made at the higher levels (Yeah... I've just finished teaching the Articles of Confederation vs. the Constitution!  ).
We see this centralization as a positive thing because it means doctrinal unity. Whether you attend church in Utah or Mongolia, the same doctrine is being taught. This is especially important for us as Latter-day Saints, since we believe that the church is led by a prophet who has authority to receive revelation on behalf of the entire church. As we see it, centrality of church government prevents the sort of schism that has existed in the church since the deaths of the original Apostles, due to individual congregational leaders trying to interpret the Bible based on their own reasoning instead of divine revelation.
| Quote: |
| I wonder how LDS can believe that they will rule over planets, as there is nothing even remote to that in the Holy Bible. The Bible does, if I recall mention that there will be a city 1000x1000 miles and that God's people will rule with Him there for 1000 years or something like that. How does this correspond with the LDS planetary doctrine? |
Essentially, this is one example of why we see the need for continual revelation. This doctrine is hinted at in some obscure scriptures in the Bible, but obviously never fleshed out. Why? Possibly because, as you mentioned before, the Bible only contains a fraction of the ancient scriptures. When it was compiled centuries after Christ's mortal tenure, a lot was left out. Perhaps it was something understood by the Ancients, but never recorded. Perhaps it was never there in the first place because it wasn't imperative for God to tell the Saints of the older days about it. To quote one of our Articles of Faith, "We believe all that God has revealed, all that He does now reveal, and we believe that He will yet reveal many great and important things pertaining to the kingdom of heaven." Throughout time, man has been taught "line upon line, precept upon precept" so perhaps we just weren't ready for it until the Restoration.
| Quote: |
| About the belief that Jesus and Satan are brothers. Does this mean that the LDS do not believe in angels, or that angels are subservient to God, Jesus and to an extent lesser beings than humans? How do you account for that scriptures that state that Satan was an arch-angel who had fallen with 1/3 of the host of angels because of rebellion? How do you account for the fact that it states throughout the Bible that Jesus is the SON of God in the flesh and is ABOVE Satan and the fallen angels? (Jesus has all authority over them...perhaps this is in Rev?) |
Latter-day Saints understand angels to be ante- or post mortal people. For example, the angel Moroni who visited Joseph Smith was the post-mortal Moroni who was the last prophet to write in the Book of Mormon. Jesus and Satan, like all of us, were children of God. Satan was rebellious and tried to take the glory of God for himself, resulting in the war in heaven (referred to in Revelations). When he lost, he and his followers were cast out of heaven. They lost the chance which we all have to come to earth, gain a mortal body, be tested and tried, and to return to our Father in Heaven. This fact leads them to live out eternity in a subservient role because they have no opportunity for increase or advancement.
NB...There is some flexibility in this concept, however. There is nothing in our canon that says there aren't other types of angels; in other words, beings that are of some other nature than us. However, there is nothing in our canon to tell if these exist and if so, their nature and purpose.
| Quote: |
| I always wondered how if you believe the Holy Bible to be the word of God, and if that word agrees with itself, how then can the Book of Mormon have things which contradict it? |
Many of the perceived contradictions between the Book of Mormon & Bible are actually contradictions between the B of M & traditional interpretations of the Bible. The Bible can be interpreted in a lot of ways, as evidenced by the, literally, thousands of Christian denominations worldwide.
| Quote: |
| I hope that C and CC and other Mormons will see my questions are honest and I hope you can answer them to shed some light. |
I'm always happy to discuss this stuff with people who are open-minded. If you don't agree, no problem... that's your prerogative. But I appreciate attempts to understand, even if they never lead to agreement.
~krats |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
faster
Joined: 03 Sep 2006
|
| Posted: Sat Oct 20, 2007 7:41 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| krats1976 wrote: |
| Mr. Pink wrote: |
| . I am not sure if Mormons go all sour once they find out you aren't a prospective "recruit". |
[color=darkblue]In all honesty, some will. I hope, though, that most are like me. My friends are friends, not potential recruits. I share my beliefs with them because I believe they will be a benefit to them. If they aren't interested, I don't hold it against them. Two of my best friends are Christians of other denominations and one is even an "evangelical." We simply focus on what binds us (or faith in Christ and trust in God), instead of the things we disagree on. |
I agree with this. I've had several Mormon friends, and none of them has really brought religion between us. In some cases (I drink, smoke, and don't believe in pre-sexual marriage), it is a barrier anyway, of course, but I've found the Mormons I've known to be good friends to a limited degree (ie. as long as you leave politics, ethics, religion, and history at the door -- I'm not willing to do this because I think these are subjects that do benefit from the clarification that discourse can provide, so I don't have any Mormon friends anymore). |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
igotthisguitar
Joined: 08 Apr 2003
Location: South Korea (Permanent Vacation)
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
CentralCali
Joined: 17 May 2007
|
| Posted: Sat Oct 20, 2007 7:52 pm Post subject: |
|
|
The LDS theology teaches that the Book of Mormon was not written in English. It was translated into English via a miraculous means.
As most LDS members I know have quite a few friends, including a lot of non-LDS individuals as friends, I know it is patently false that "Mormons will drop you as a friend if you don't convert."
The so-called "Spalding Manuscript Theory" has long been discredited. The support I find most amusing for the theory is that "Oh, no, it was a different mansucript of the Spalding's that was used, not the one that was found!"
On the issue of the Biblical Canon, there are a few canonical lists each known as The Bible. The most restrictive list, of course, would be the one used by the Samaritans. They only consider the Penteteuch to be the Word of God. Next would be all the other divisions of Judaism, which use the Old Testament. Protestant Chrisitanity generally uses the 66 book list, although some sects, such as the Episcopal Church and even the LDS, find that the Apocrypha is valuable for education but is not considered scriptural. This, of course, leads us to the Roman Catholic canon, which includes the Apocrypha. I am unaware of any Christian groups still extant using more books than the Catholic canon but less than the Ethiopian Church. There are two Ethiopian Canons, as far as I know: the Narrower Canon and the Broader Canon. The latter includes over 80 books.
I think it should be obvious why the Catholic and the LDS church structure would have similarities. After all, they both adhere to the concept of Apostolic Succession. The offices in each church are different; however, they both have a hierarchial structure. Due to that fact, it's easy enough to equate LDS Bishop to Catholic Parish Priest and LDS Apostle to Catholic Cardinal.
When discussing LDS theology, one must remember that the LDS hold more writings than that found in the Protestant Bible to be Scriptural. The LDS doctrine is founded upon all of their Scriptures.
The teaching of the LDS regarding Satan most emphatically is not the way some Fundamentalists portray that teaching. In the first place, the LDS teach that all spirits are sons and daughters of God. In the second, the LDS teach that Satan rebelled along with 1/3 of the hosts of Heaven.
For definitive answers on your questions, you should check either www.lds.org or www.mormon.org. You may disagree with their theology but that does not mean that the LDS church does not preach it.
I see that IGTG has high-dived into the shallow end of the pool yet again. The LDS church cannot "ban cartoons." It is not a government, not even in Utah. Here's hoping the next time he high-dives into the pool, it's into the deep end and there's water in the pool.
Last edited by CentralCali on Sat Oct 20, 2007 8:12 pm; edited 2 times in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
krats1976
Joined: 14 May 2003
|
| Posted: Sat Oct 20, 2007 7:52 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| igotthisguitar wrote: |
| Cartoon Banned By The Mormon Church |
Since when does the Mormon church ban media... or have the power to do so?
Last I checked, I'm free to watch or read anything I want.
Not that I bother with that kind of tripe... |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
faster
Joined: 03 Sep 2006
|
| Posted: Sat Oct 20, 2007 8:25 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| CentralCali wrote: |
| The so-called "Spalding Manuscript Theory" has long been discredited. The support I find most amusing for the theory is that "Oh, no, it was a different mansucript of the Spalding's that was used, not the one that was found!" |
1) Citation for this discrediting? I see nothing scholarly online. I know of no text written not written by a Mormon that provides evidence that Spaulding couldn't have been involved in the writing of the B of M.
2) NOBODY every said the B of M was the Spaulding manuscript that has been found. What has drawn (valid, peer-reviewed, scholarly) attention is an abundance of stylistic similarities and even blocks of text that are identical (to text in the known Spaulding manuscript). These could certainly be (a remarkably unlikely) coincidence, or they could be clues that the author of the manuscript (Spaulding) also had a hand in the B of M. It is also worth noting that eight people who knew Spalding personally produced sworn affidavits of direct and non-trivial similarities, and even his wife stated, "the names of Nephi and Lehi are yet fresh in my memory, as being the principal heroes of his tale."
I don't know that the Spalding-Ridgon theory is true -- probably nobody now living does -- but the evidence and facts (what little we know) are interesting. For those of us (the vast majority) who don't believe Smith's story (got plates from an angel written in a previously [and still] unknown language "Reformed Egyptian," somehow translated them through magic, gave them back when the angel returned to conveniently dispose of any physical proof. All of this happened less than two hundred years ago!), this is the best available lead, which makes it a relevant and worthwhile line of inquiry, even though it is certainly not an air-tight case. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
tomato
Joined: 31 Jan 2003
Location: I get so little foreign language experience, I must be in Koreatown, Los Angeles.
|
| Posted: Sun Oct 21, 2007 3:41 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Mr. Pink wrote: |
| I wonder if you consider for a second the feelings of those who might believe "the con man"? |
I hear what you are saying,
but I don't know any nice word for "hoaxster" or "con artist."
| Quote: |
| I used to be very judgmental towards religious doctrines. I guess I learned, that if some doctrines make people into decent, well rounded citizens, why not let them believe what they do? |
I hear what you're saying here, too.
But that is quite some "if."
I question that religion helps more than it hurts.
I used to attend discussion meetings at a mental health center.
The discussion group had a couple of serious depression victims who heard voices telling them that they were hell-bound sinners.
| Quote: |
| I am curious Tomato, what are your views on Muslims and Mohammad? Was he an intellectual thief who ripped off the Jewish/Christian tradition or was he original, incorporating some of that history into the Quran. |
I don't know about that last part,
but I once read the Koran in order to give Islam a fair trial,
and I was not impressed.
I can't imagine how an all-knowing and all-loving God would send a prophet to preach male chauvinism as he does.
Why does he staff heaven with voluptuous prostitutes for law-abiding men,
but provide no similar service for law-abiding women?
I think everyone in Islamic society is unfortunate, not just the women.
Scrupulous segregation of the genders in Moslem society has not had an effect in healthy sexuality.
Adult male attraction to boys is on a scale large enough to support a boy prostitution industry (Schild, 1988).
In fact, an estimated 40% of boys get violated by men by the time they reach puberty (Melikian & Prothro, 1954).
A similar cause-and-effect relationship can be demonstrated in animal research.
An adult male in either the primate class or the canine class who is deprived of adult females will be attracted to female juveniles (Mackey, 1990).
Mackey, W. C. 1990. Adult-male/juvenile association as a species-characteristic human trait: A comparative field approach. In Feierman, J. 1990. Pedophilia: Biosocial dimensions. New York: Springer-Verlang: 299-323.
Melikian, L. H. & Prothro, E. T. 1954. Sexual behaviour of University students in the Arab Near East. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology 49: 62.
Schild, M. 1988. The irresistible beauty of boys: Middle Eastern attitudes about boy-love. Paidika: The Journal of Paedophilia 1, 3 (Winter): 37-48. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
contrarian
Joined: 20 Jan 2007
Location: Nearly in NK
|
| Posted: Sun Oct 21, 2007 4:11 am Post subject: |
|
|
So! Mormons are "in the eyes as such as Tomato" bad, But then Islam is so much worse! And they are seldom seen as "bad". The mind boggles.
 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
tomato
Joined: 31 Jan 2003
Location: I get so little foreign language experience, I must be in Koreatown, Los Angeles.
|
| Posted: Sun Oct 21, 2007 8:31 am Post subject: |
|
|
I didn't say Mormons and Moslems were bad, I said they were hampered.
If you win a race despite carrying a brick in your hand,
does that mean the brick helped you win the race?
Last edited by tomato on Sun Oct 21, 2007 6:04 pm; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
contrarian
Joined: 20 Jan 2007
Location: Nearly in NK
|
| Posted: Sun Oct 21, 2007 8:45 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Yea, I guess throwin away its beliefs made basic chrsitianity lighter on its feet. lightey in its. beliefs and everywhere else. To many of my fellow Canadians ir translates into I believe. Yes, I beleive all have abother beer. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mindmetoo
Joined: 02 Feb 2004
|
| Posted: Sun Oct 21, 2007 3:27 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I like the look on Elohim's face when he knocks on Mary's door to have sex with her.
Of course at the end of the video, during the live portion the guy likens it to Battlestar Galactica. That's a bit like saying Jane Austen's Emma is a bit like the movie Clueless. He's got it ass backwards (Christians of any stripe tend to be illogical and stupid). Battlestar Galactica was based on Mormon myths. So, duh.
I always find any church that uses "elohim" in its literature to be on the freak patrol end of the scale.
What I do like about the mormon creation myth is it makes some fully testable scientific claims. Indians should have semitic genetic markers (they don't). We should find pre-Columbian horses (we don't). We should find technology of Smith's day in archaeological digs from pre-Columbian times (we don't).
Mormons really need to move all this stuff into "it's story meant to teach a lesson" like sane Christians do regarding Genesis.
Associated link:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KsXzHLiHTOU&mode=related&search=
57 seconds in the fundy guy keeps going on about wanting to see a man's underwear. Are all Christians closet homos? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
