Slashdot Mirror

No outside sources.

Really? Do historical accounts from multiple sources (not just the biblical account, but secular accounts as well), in addition to geological digs, predominantly supporting the historical accuracy of the biblical account not count as "outside sources" in your view? If they are not outside sources, then what in the world do you call them? They are not my internal wishes or thoughts, they are outside historical and physical evidence that confirm the theory that Christ rose from the dead. Note I did not say "prove," only "confirm" as in they support the theory.

All that humans believe to "know for a fact" about the world really boils down to a belief based on strong evidence and a lack of contradicting evidence. As contradicting evidence is brought to light, primary beliefs and "knowledge" is adjusted to this new information, and the theory is revised. This is a core part of the scientific method and of logical thinking. Even the theory of gravity is a belief. It is strongly confirmed by an overwhelming amount of evidence, but it is still a belief. If, tomorrow, it was found that gravity didn't exist, and some sort of generator was found at the core of the earth that was creating a field which kept us on this planet, like it or not, we'd be forced to change our belief in gravity based on the overwhelming evidence of the found artifact (assuming all the math correlated with this new find). An absurd example, but the point is made - all "facts" are a belief based on strong evidence.

For further study, try reading these:
Archeological and Historical Evidence - http://www.worldinvisible.com/library/ffbruce/ntdocrli/ntdocont.htm
Additional Archeological and Historical Evidence - http://www.irr.org/mit/bible-archaeology.html
Logical and Literary Evidence - http://www.allaboutjesuschrist.org/resurrection-proofs-faq.htm
Additional Historical Evidence:
- Cornelius Tacitus (55-120AD) Historian
- Pliny the Younger (62-114AD) Historian
- Gaius Suetonius Tranquillus (75-130AD) Historian

I'm not sure how much more external evidence you require, but that seems like enough that I'm not just blowing smoke and making wishes to believe that the biblical accounts are historically accurate, and that a real person died and was seen alive 3 days later by hundreds of witnesses.

Please see my other post summarizing

http://www.irr.org/mit/is-mormonism-christian.html

As a person who follows neither religion but knows some of the doctrinal positions of both, mormonism is *trivially* not a christian religion.

It is christian in the sense that intelligent design is a science. You redefine some terms and keep the words "god" and "jesus" but mormonism has some major breaks with fundamental points of christian dogma and teachings.

It is more akin to islam (not in a bad way-- just saying that islam uses jesus as a character too while not being a christian religion).

Absolutely not. The Church stays strictly out of politics, except where a serious moral issue is involved, and then only the moral at issue is taught, but the vote and the law is up to the members individually.

Explain Ezra Taft Benson's affilation with the Birch sociecty then; not to mention his political appointments. How about the bank that Joseph Smith founded to print money? Who was the governer of Navoo? What about the law of consecration and Brigham Young's confescation of all wealth (or the Nation of Deseret, for that matter)?

Including a majority of the Utah state government, of course. What of a church that routinely gets such perks as the land swap for the "reflecting pool" in downtown Salt Lake (complete with a censoship zone); or how about the temple ceremony, in which members swear to uphold their leaders on penalty of death? Here are some quotes by the church's prophets, seers and revelators on the subject.

On the contrary, the Church is only homogenous in that we share certain core beliefs.

Wow, that list doesn't even scratch the surface of what I was taught while growing up in the church:

• All religions apart from Mormonism are an "abomination" in the sight of God
• People of "dark skin" were less valiant in the pre-existence, so God cursed them in this life
• American Indians are really errant Jews, who lost the gospel when they rebeled against God
• There are three levels of heaven, and you can only get to the highest level by practicing polygamy; then you will be a God and have your own planet
• John the Beloved and the Three Nephites are eternal beings that roam the planet, even today, doing the work of God (and the prieshood needed to be restored through Joseph Smith... why exactly?)
• Joseph Smith could translate a common Egyptian Funeral Book, to find that it contained extensive writings by father Abraham
• Homosexuality is a disase that you must suffer for (I wonder when the 1978-esque "oops, my bad, blacks can have the priesthood now" gay revelation will come). Masturbation is almost as bad.

To be fair, the church has changed dramatically over the past 50 years, and it continues to evolve into a more mainstream puritanical protestant sect (I bet Joseph Smith is rolling in his grave). Most of the members are people of high quality; heck, all my extended family are still members. They are generally great people to know, associate with and love. Despite that, I just get ruffled when the church portrayed as something that it really isn't; I did enough of that on my 2-year mission with the ultra-simplistic 6 discussions.

If you are interested in apologetic responses to any of the above, feel free to visit the FAIR website.

Leave the Mormons, er LDS folk, alone. It's not their fault their prophet was inspired by a rock in his hat.

Oh yeah, send me a postcard next time you visit Kolob.

Make up some insightful piece of fictional technology and then sell your religion to us.

For more info on the true nature of Mormonism, visit The Institute for Religious Research.

True. However, LDS folks also believe in upholding, honoring, and sustaining the law.Which means that when push came to shove and every appeal through the courts had been exhausted, the choice was given to the one person who had the authority to make the decision -- the president of the LDS church at that time -- a man named Wilford Woodruff. According to his journals, he saw in "a vision" what would happen if the church continued to follow and defend polygamy, vs. what would happen if the practice were abandoned. Hmm.. it took a vision from god to notice that when the government says 'Quit polygamy or we disband your religion' they mean what they say. Interesting. Also interesting is the fact that after polygamy was outlawed, and the church leaders forsook the practice in public, they themselves (including woodruf) continued to proactice it in secret. he was given knowledge by God, and the right to make the decision, which he did, ending the practice. He also stated that if God had said "continue", he would have obeyed God even knowing he was in violation of the law. Ahh, perhaps thats why he kept on doing it in secret. Thus, anybody attempting to perform a plural marriage after he said "stop" would be violating their sacred covenants. True, but those married to multiple wives beforehand were exempt apparently. This is all fact, its even in the church history, which the church has repeatedly censored and modified since its publication. Ever wonder why the church sealed up all its historical documents a few years back? The historians at BYU kept finding juicy tidbits like that, and others such as multiple versions of the first vision, correlations between josephs joining the Masons and the changes in the endowment ritual. Swearing to die by disembowlment, sliced throat, and something else (i forget at the time) if you broke the secret to the endowment? Oh, and dont forget that after the mormons were run out of missouri, the endowment contained an oath to 'swear vengance upon this nation and its leaders' until the blood of the saints was redeemed. Very interesing. No wonder the mormon church is one of the most censor happy instiutions.. Cant have stuff like that getting out.. Check the following for reference materials: http://members.aol.com/VeilW orker/endowment.index.html http://www.xmission.com/~count ry/reason/mormhist.htm http://www.irr.org/mit/default.html If I seem a little antagonistic, its because I was a mormon (born and raised) for many years, and then I find out about this stuff which the church so convieniantly hides and censors.

If the mormons are going to block sites that detail their religious cerimonies and truth about their history like:

http://members.aol.com/VeilW orker/endowment.index.html

http://www.irr.org/mit/default.html

or even:
http://www.utlm.org/

now that would be filtering...

;)

Needless to say, any church which tries to keep its members from watching such things as Schindler's List and Saving Private Ryan has definite problems. Add to those the fact that evolution is strictly against church doctrine and the incredibly helpful information at http://www.irr.org/mit/, and you have a recipe for a Christian denomination which I would advise keeping as far as possible from.

But back on topic, it's amazing how far religions will go to show that they won't force people to believe the same as they do...they'll just force people to live as if they believed it.

Well, that's it...good thing this Utah State University department that I'm working for doesn't monitor employee's web access. Insulting Mormonism around here can get you fired really quickly, 1st Amendment issues not withstanding.