Mormoms are cultists. Some still believe in plural marriage. Thats why I call them mormoms. They also wear funny underwear. Which is why others call them morons.
mormons are still allowed to get high by hyperventilating, and thats a pretty good trip, especially if you press your palms against your eyes, you can start to see some really intricate and interesting patterns. not that you would be wise to talk about that at temple, but it can be OUR little secret
Mormonism is a bit different from all the other wacky religions in that there seems to be pretty conclusive proof that it's utter bullshit. This is the "Book of Abraham" business. Basically, as most people know, Joseph Smith claimed to be able to read the magic golden tablets that the Angel Moron(i) showed him because of his magic "seer stones" (or something - I've also heard Crystal Spectacles). According to Smith, the tablets were written in "Reformed Egyptian" but his mojo allowed him to translate. Then, later, when he was more famous, he procured an actual Egyptian Papyrus from a traveling exhibition and claimed to translate that, and said it was a lost book of the Bible called "The Book of Abraham". Now this happened after the Rosetta Stone had been found, but before it had been cracked, so nobody in the world knew how to read ancient Egyptian writing, so he knew he was safe from being found out. But now Egyptologists can read ancient Egyptian and have translated at least some of what Smith claimed was the Book of Abraham and it is nothing of the sort: So, I guess that undermines the entire Book of Mormon then, doesn't it?
This reminds me of that Simpsons episode where Cletus the Slack Jawed Yokel points at Lisa and says "You're goofy-looking!"
i think it's debatable whether it's really different. mormonism's bullshit claims are historically more recent, but otherwise i don't really consider there to be much difference between revelation by seer stones in hats or american indians being hebrews, and global floods or virgin birth etc. certainly biblical literalist christianity is no less refuted by evidence than a literal interpretation of the founding texts of "wacky" religions such as mormonism or scientology.
The concept of a Prophet is nothing new. The mantle is passed on today just like it was in the days of Moses. We have the First Presidency and the Quorum of the 12 Apostles, they all give council to the Church twice a year. General Conference in not broadcast to temples but rather to meeting houses and homes across the world in many different languages. We also have the Quorum of the Seventies as found in the bible.
Hey Jet, nice to see you posting over here. I've asked you in O-live before but how come there isn't any archeological evidence that supports the Book of Mormon? Especially the battles between the Lamanites and Nephites.
Who says there isn't buddy? Just like I told you before, there is plenty of evidence to support the Book of Mormon. If you believe the Bible ( do you? ) then you must believe the Book of Mormon. Have you asked D-Rock about this? What is his response?
I'm more concerned about their views on Dark Skinned humans. So the race was punished because they stayed neutral in the war? Or is this just propaganda?
To be candid, there have been statements to that effect, but none of them have come under the mantle of official doctrine of the church. They were statements made in a time where racism was rampant and existed even in the Mormon church just as it did in pretty much every other church. The part I find interesting is that someone was trying to determine (from a religious perspective) why there was such a contrast in skin color. Not sure why that's the conclusion they drew, but it doesn't change the fact that it was mere speculation, and has never been given as church doctrine. There are references to white and dark skin in the Book of Mormon, but as I understand it, the "curse" has been and always will be separation from God as a result of sin, and not an indication that dark skin is synonymous with sin. There would be zero people of South American or African decent in the church if that were really what the church taught. As it stands, there are more members of the church outside America than inside; a great many of those in South America and Africa. As far as I'm concerned, and I believe this to be the official stance of the church, your skin color is simply a product of your heritage. I'm not aware of anything sinister. So to me, yes, it's complete propaganda. People conveniently forget that lots of people were racist long before Joseph Smith came along and long after the LDS church lifted its race based institutional restrictions. For some reason, we're the only ones still getting picked on for it.
Yeah I was trippin' on that view point because I was like "Wow I know African decent and latinos go to the Church. How do they feel about this belief?"
http://www.fairlds.org/Book_of_Mormon/Archaeological_Evidence_and_the_Book_of_Mormon.html It's from 2005, but I think it's an informative read. In particular, there are several links under the "Further Reading" section that are interesting. There's a link to an MP3 that I found enlightening. Unfortunately, John Clark isn't exactly the most engaging of speakers...
