The Cult of Mormonism

Text-only Version: Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.



eThneoLgrRnae
Mormonism denies the doctrines that make Christianity what it is and instead replaces it with their own f***ed up beliefs that are found literally nowhere in the Bible.


https://carm.org/mormonism/is-mormonism-cult


Just a few of the many screwed-up things mentioned in the article that supposedly "highly-educated" (lol) people of mormonism believe:

1) God used to be a man on another planet (Mormon doctrine p.321)


2) God resides near a star called "Kolob" lol (Mormon Doctrine p.428)


3) According to "The teachings of prophet Joseph Smith", after you become a good little cultist mormon, you have the potential to become a god lmao (sounds very similar to what darwinian evolution teaches about man eventually "evolving" to god status, eh?).


4) God is married to a spirit wife and has spirit babies (Mormon doctrine p. 516).


5) There is a mother goddess. (this is very similar to the roman catholics practically deifying Jesus's mother, Mary, who in actuality was not divine herself in any way, only Jesus was).


6) That the Holy trinity is actually three seperate gods instead of being One God as the real Bible (the King James) clearly teaches.


Probaly most importantly, they teach a works based salvation and strict adherence to God's law as the roman catholics do instead of putting their complete faith in what Jesus did on the cross. In short, they are about as "Christian" as roman catholics are. In their book "Doctrines of Salvation" it says their is no salvation without accepting Joseph Smith (the founder of Mormonism) as a prophet of God. They teach a false gospel just as roman catholics do. wink

ares834
It's almost as if Mormons follow other scripture then merely the Bible...

eThneoLgrRnae
...obviously, yes.


Real Christians though rightfully recognize that the King James Bible and the King James Bible ALONE is the only truly divine complete Word of God.

Patient_Leech
Originally posted by eThneoLgrRnae
Real Christians though rightfully recognize that the King James Bible and the King James Bible ALONE is the only truly divine complete Word of God.

laughing out loud

https://pics.me.me/so-you-like-the-king-james-bible-king-james-dont-19823793.png

Putinbot1
Ahh, trolling DDM...

Bentley
Darwinian evolution in no way or form suggest men will evolve into God status, and even if it did, that blalantly no longer concern current knowledge about evolution.

And Catholics don't believe Virgin Mary to be divine either, but at least I can see where this confusion stems from.

eThneoLgrRnae
Originally posted by Bentley
Darwinian evolution in no way or form suggest men will evolve into God status, and even if it did, that blalantly no longer concern current knowledge about evolution.


People may not say it openly but many of those who do subscribe to that darwin nonsense think that man will eventually "evolve" to a much higer status than they are presently. Many believe that man will merge with machines in a kind of Terminator-style scenario as the "next step" in "human evolution."




Many catholics put Mary on equal footing with Christ, Himself. That is an undeniable fact. Many of them pray to her a lot more than they do to Christ. They idolize and pray to her as if she can actually hear their prayers (she can't). How could someone who is not divine in any way hear everyone's prayers? They also erroneously call her "The Mother of God." If that were true that she is/was--which it isn't (God has ALWAYS existed, unlike Mary)-- how could she not be divine in their eyes?

Oh, and Mary is not a virgin anymore; she had other children after she had Jesus despite what brainwashed catholics believe.

NewGuy01
That's awfully optimistic. I guess I can't speak for everyone, but I don't even expect mankind to survive long enough for that kind of major change to occur. Even if I was to accept something absurd like humans developing God-like traits out of nowhere.

Also, modern human society probably screws with the natural processes somewhat, too. If humans do end up evolving into different species, I'd imagine it would be after some kind of cataclysmic event reduced us to a more primitive state.


Well, there might be some merit to the idea (though it may not even be possible in the "terminator" sense), but that would be something completely different from Darwinian evolution.

Surtur
Isn't every religion like a cult though?

eThneoLgrRnae
Originally posted by Surtur
Isn't every religion like a cult though?


I certainly don't agree with that.

Surtur
How would you define the word "cult"? Look at the first 4 definitions:

https://www.dictionary.com/browse/cult?s=t

1-a particular system of religious worship, especially with reference to its rites and ceremonies.

2-an instance of great veneration of a person, ideal, or thing, especially as manifested by a body of admirers

3-the object of such devotion.

4-a group or sect bound together by veneration of the same thing, person, ideal, etc.

Patient_Leech
Originally posted by Surtur
Isn't every religion like a cult though? Originally posted by eThneoLgrRnae
I certainly don't agree with that. Originally posted by Surtur
How would you define the word "cult"? Look at the first 4 definitions:

https://www.dictionary.com/browse/cult?s=t

1-a particular system of religious worship, especially with reference to its rites and ceremonies.

2-an instance of great veneration of a person, ideal, or thing, especially as manifested by a body of admirers

3-the object of such devotion.

4-a group or sect bound together by veneration of the same thing, person, ideal, etc.

Yes, the only difference between a cult and a religion is number of adherents.

"Argumentum ad Populum" is a fallacy that appeals to the number of people who agree. It has nothing to do with whether or not something is true. Large numbers of people can be decieved. We see it all the time and there are all sorts of psychological reasons for it.

Bentley

Bentley
Originally posted by Patient_Leech
Yes, the only difference between a cult and a religion is number of adherents.

"Argumentum ad Populum" is a fallacy that appeals to the number of people who agree. It has nothing to do with whether or not something is true. Large numbers of people can be decieved. We see it all the time and there are all sorts of psychological reasons for it.

Well, we live in societies that are ruled and weighted partially on a popular vote, so the idea of the size of a community being considered for such definitions is not as arbitrary as you make it sound.

Patient_Leech
Originally posted by Bentley
Well, we live in societies that are ruled and weighted partially on a popular vote, so the idea of the size of a community being considered for such definitions is not as arbitrary as you make it sound.

But we don't vote to determine what's true. Voting is more about popular opinion and how to steer policy, but it doesn't determine truth. That's an important distinction. There are more reliable methods for determining truth.

Like I said, there are all sorts of reasons why many people think cult-like things (like Jesus walking on water or rising from the dead or Muhammed flying to heaven on a horse) and none of them are particularly reliable. Self deception, wishful thinking, herd mentality, self-serving bias, confirmation bias, etc. These are prominent aspects of the human psyche.

Bentley
Society and majorities get to decide a lot on what we consider valid and real actually, they even define which concepts we accept in order to look for truths and the limits we impose to ourselves. But that's more of a philosophical technicality, I get what you are trying to say about religion, but I still think it's somewhat false.

If you look at the history of religious thought within big Religions you will notice that interpretations and rules will be widely adapted to fit the morality of their era. This is actually something that will only happen to religious practices that are big enough, because small cults will always be in the hands of a minority that can keep them in check and rigid. With big religions, they just go wild and the authorities can't get them under control, they shift and they change. Religious truth is determined by cultural beliefs and the prosperity of societies. Many modern institutions, such as the Catholic Church, will claim that the truth of the physical World is none of their business and that they only care about things touching faith (so they act essentially as a morality chart).

Putinbot1
I expect to be upgraded to a God status asap. Have no fear peons, I will be a benevolent Supreme Being.

Robtard
Originally posted by Putinbot1
Ahh, trolling DDM...

Bingo.

Seems DDM finally shoved his fist too far up star/fly's @sshole and this is the result

Robtard
Originally posted by Patient_Leech
laughing out loud

https://pics.me.me/so-you-like-the-king-james-bible-king-james-dont-19823793.png

Heh. Because it's true.

Patient_Leech
Originally posted by Bentley
Society and majorities get to decide a lot on what we consider valid and real actually, they even define which concepts we accept in order to look for truths and the limits we impose to ourselves. But that's more of a philosophical technicality, I get what you are trying to say about religion, but I still think it's somewhat false.

Not really. Societies and majorities determine policy and in some cases lawmaking. Why you want to conflate that with truth, I'm not sure. Scientific exploration is the more reliable method for finding truths about reality because it dials down the biases that humans are so susceptible to, which is why scientific understanding and research should largely influence policy and lawmaking.

Take people who believe in creationism, for example. I think the percent has dropped significantly here in the US recently, but at one point I'm sure it was a majority. That didn't make it true. It was always wrong. Science discovered it to be wrong.

So no, majority opinion doesn't necessarily have jack-shit to do with what's true. End of story.



Originally posted by Bentley
If you look at the history of religious thought within big Religions you will notice that interpretations and rules will be widely adapted to fit the morality of their era. This is actually something that will only happen to religious practices that are big enough, because small cults will always be in the hands of a minority that can keep them in check and rigid. With big religions, they just go wild and the authorities can't get them under control, they shift and they change. Religious truth is determined by cultural beliefs and the prosperity of societies. Many modern institutions, such as the Catholic Church, will claim that the truth of the physical World is none of their business and that they only care about things touching faith (so they act essentially as a morality chart).

As soon as you use the term "religious truth" I stop caring. I don't care about "religious truth." It means didley-shit.


Originally posted by Putinbot1
I expect to be upgraded to a God status asap. Have no fear peons, I will be a benevolent Supreme Being.

laughing out loud

eThneoLgrRnae
Originally posted by Surtur
How would you define the word "cult"? Look at the first 4 definitions:

https://www.dictionary.com/browse/cult?s=t

1-a particular system of religious worship, especially with reference to its rites and ceremonies.

2-an instance of great veneration of a person, ideal, or thing, especially as manifested by a body of admirers

3-the object of such devotion.

4-a group or sect bound together by veneration of the same thing, person, ideal, etc.


By that standard then, Darwinism should be labelled a cult (a tax-funded one) as well since strong believers in evolutionism venerate little Chucky Darwin; and their strong adherence to the belief that life somehow "naturally" and randomly started from non-living matter and that apes somehow became humans is based entirely on faith (and hence is a religion, as well) since their is literally ZERO actual evidence to back any of it up.

Patient_Leech
Originally posted by eThneoLgrRnae
...since their is literally ZERO actual evidence to back any of it up.

Dig your head out of the sand and honestly research the evidence. And i don't mean read a bunch of Christian apologists who claim to know. I mean like actual biologists.

https://static.theceomagazine.net/wp-content/uploads/2017/07/19202109/CEO-Magazine-Ostrich-strategy.jpg

Patient_Leech
Originally posted by eThneoLgrRnae
By that standard then, Darwinism should be labelled a cult (a tax-funded one) as well since strong believers in evolutionism venerate little Chucky Darwin; and their strong adherence to the belief that life somehow "naturally" and randomly started from non-living matter and that apes somehow became humans is based entirely on faith (and hence is a religion, as well) since their is literally ZERO actual evidence to back any of it up.

Here you go, Ethneo. Hear it from your fellow Christians. BioLogos is a Christian organization who (in their own words) "affirm evolutionary creation, recognizing God as Creator of all life over billions of years..."

BioLogos - What does the fossil record show?

I honestly don't want to humiliate and mock you. It would show tremendous courage and growth if you learned more about it and evolved your understanding of reality.

Bentley
Originally posted by Patient_Leech
Not really. Societies and majorities determine policy and in some cases lawmaking. Why you want to conflate that with truth, I'm not sure. Scientific exploration is the more reliable method for finding truths about reality because it dials down the biases that humans are so susceptible to, which is why scientific understanding and research should largely influence policy and lawmaking.

Take people who believe in creationism, for example. I think the percent has dropped significantly here in the US recently, but at one point I'm sure it was a majority. That didn't make it true. It was always wrong. Science discovered it to be wrong.

So no, majority opinion doesn't necessarily have jack-shit to do with what's true. End of story.


If what you are suggesting is a direct link between belief and majority the you won't find any. That doesn't mean majorities don't dictate how we search for truth and how we deal with the information we have.

Point of view shifts, majorities change and this works for religion too.

Originally posted by Patient_Leech
As soon as you use the term "religious truth" I stop caring. I don't care about "religious truth." It means didley-shit.


Which is really my point. Religion only forces view on thing that are subsidiary to physical reality, so there is no attack in what you are calling truth.

The capacity for religion to take a step back is proportional to the number of adepts and their unrest. That was my point. The size of a cult is very relevant for dealing with how society trasforms

cdtm
Originally posted by Bentley
If what you are suggesting is a direct link between belief and majority the you won't find any. That doesn't mean majorities don't dictate how we search for truth and how we deal with the information we have.

Point of view shifts, majorities change and this works for religion too.




Which is really my point. Religion only forces view on thing that are subsidiary to physical reality, so there is no attack in what you are calling truth.

The capacity for religion to take a step back is proportional to the number of adepts and their unrest. That was my point. The size of a cult is very relevant for dealing with how society trasforms


I have nothing but respect for researchers.


But to claim policy that stems from scientific research has little political bias is just false, because of the selection process. Researchers are simply the work horses, and have little to no say in who takes their work, or whether or not their work is distorted to suit an agenda.



It's like the way "shareholder value" began from a book. Except the author of said book claimed he NEVER meant to say shareholder value is the ONLY duty of a corporation.


This is something certain interested parties wanted, and they used his work to push their agenda. And it worked.


The author had ZERO power to control the narrative stemming from his own work.



It's the same for researchers. Their do the research in good faith, but it's out of their hands once "spin doctors" get ahold of it.

Wonder Man
To make a long story short you are jealous that man and God have so many religions.

eThneoLgrRnae
Originally posted by Robtard
Bingo.

Seems DDM finally shoved his fist too far up star/fly's @sshole and this is the result


Nah, DDM had nothing to do with this.

I have had an extremely negative view of Mormonism long before I knew about DDM being a Mormon.

And DDM has never owned me, ever, nor has anyone else on this shitty forum... ever. I am supreme. ALWAYS.

He often owned you, Pooty, Bashy, and other crazy leftists on the forum though. It has always been entertaining watching the left-leaning DDM destroy all you other lefties an almost daily basis.

And before you whine about me bumping an old thread, let me remind you that you never b*tch when pooty/whirly does it.

Epicure
Originally posted by eThneoLgrRnae
Mormonism denies the doctrines that make Christianity what it is and instead replaces it with their own f***ed up beliefs that are found literally nowhere in the Bible.




Just a few of the many screwed-up things mentioned in the article that supposedly "highly-educated" (lol) people of mormonism believe:

1) God used to be a man on another planet (Mormon doctrine p.321)


2) God resides near a star called "Kolob" lol (Mormon Doctrine p.428)


3) According to "The teachings of prophet Joseph Smith", after you become a good little cultist mormon, you have the potential to become a god lmao (sounds very similar to what darwinian evolution teaches about man eventually "evolving" to god status, eh?).


4) God is married to a spirit wife and has spirit babies (Mormon doctrine p. 516).


5) There is a mother goddess. (this is very similar to the roman catholics practically deifying Jesus's mother, Mary, who in actuality was not divine herself in any way, only Jesus was).


6) That the Holy trinity is actually three seperate gods instead of being One God as the real Bible (the King James) clearly teaches.


Probaly most importantly, they teach a works based salvation and strict adherence to God's law as the roman catholics do instead of putting their complete faith in what Jesus did on the cross. In short, they are about as "Christian" as roman catholics are. In their book "Doctrines of Salvation" it says their is no salvation without accepting Joseph Smith (the founder of Mormonism) as a prophet of God. They teach a false gospel just as roman catholics do. wink

*Catholics
*seperate
*Trinity
*Probbably
*there

Getting that out of the way, does the bible say anything about how its a sin to be into transexuals? I assume that would be wrong considering fornication is wrong as is bestial as well. Based on your previous posting and others, you watch porn and ts porn right?

What does the bible say about that?

eThneoLgrRnae
Go take a long walk off a short cliff, loser. I'm not replying to your trolling posts anymore.

Epicure
Your posts themselves are trolling, why should anyone respond to a troll such as yourself, my fragile child.

you get thorns
Lots of wealth. Non taxable. We need a Church of Thorny, that would be sweet. I would like to own most of Oregon.

eThneoLgrRnae
Originally posted by Patient_Leech
Dig your head out of the sand and honestly research the evidence. And i don't mean read a bunch of Christian apologists who claim to know. I mean like actual biologists.

https://static.theceomagazine.net/wp-content/uploads/2017/07/19202109/CEO-Magazine-Ostrich-strategy.jpg


Yes, that is what idiotic evolutionists like yourself do. Bury your head in the sand and continue to ignore all the overwhelming evidence that debunks your retarded evolutionism religion.

Text-only Version: Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.