Mormon Church: Cult-Lite

[_keithb]

Yeah, but Jews, Catholics and even Southern Baptist beliefs and practices are not as bats*** as what goes on in Mormon temples.

Believing in a talking donkey is not bat crap crazy?

Believing that once you accept Jesus you are saved and can never fall from salvation is not bat crap crazy? Among other things, this would mean that Hitler, if he accepted Jesus, will be going to heaven while his Jewish victims will not.

Believing that people can spend eternity in hell is not bat crap crazy?

Believing that unbaptized children go to hell is not bat crap crazy?

Believing that someone can walk across the surface of a lake is not bat crap crazy?

I think the whole point of the video is that ALL religions believe crazy things, by the very definition of "crazy". To believe in a view that contradicts reality, even when there is evidence opposing that world view, is crazy.

[Guest]

-

[Guest]

-

[_ludwigm]

All churches are cults by definition.

I agree. This rarely happens.
by the way in Hungary, between WWI and WWII, the "Ministry of Religion and Education" (weird combo...) was unofficially called "Cult Ministry". The word cult have not so negative connotation than in English.

In addition, any born Jew, Catholic, or Southern Baptist in an active family is just as likely to feel the same pressure when considering leaving or marrying outside the faith.

My wife WAS member of Hungarian Reformed Church. ("Calvinist") Her father was a minister (You know, the devil's hireling...).
She married an atheist. Me. (Twice, but this is another story...) The kinsfolk had no objection.
She herself said me "Papa would have love you". I think he had.
Later, she was hijacked by mishies.
The first reaction was "Papa is rotating in his grave" - for a few month. Then all of them accepted. They and we are adults.
One thing remained to mention. The laughable definition. "Saints..." In Hungarian, it is not a member of some club called as such. In Hungarian, this is a level reached by somebody.

COJCOLDS? No, I am sorry.

Feel sorry for the Muslim where the penalty for leaving is death (on the spot....lol).

Allowing Women To Drive In Saudi Arabia Would Mean No More Virgins: "letting women drive would increase prostitution, pornography, homosexuality and divorce"



Amishes are far better...
Seven men have been charged with hate-crime in the US state of Ohio following a number of hair-cutting attacks in the Amish community.
Amish men and women have had their beards and hair cut in a spate of assaults that have been blamed on a breakaway group in the community.

I would save my goatee for any price...

[_beastie]

I agree that the term cult has limited uses, and is pretty pointless in conversations with believers. However, when outsiders specifically ask if the LDS church is a cult, I think "cult-lite" is a good way to recognize the characteristics of the LDS church that are cultlike, while recognizing the differences.

I'm sure some monastaries could qualify as cults. Different orders have different cultures, so it would not be possible to generalize.

[_Chap]

I'm sure some monastaries could qualify as cults.

Um, for a person as reasonable as you to say that you are sure that some monasteries could qualify as cults, it would be normally be thought to be necessary for you to be sure that at least one monastery of which you had knowledge did qualify as a cult.

Do you have an evidential basis for that?

If not, would you be OK with rephrasing to something like

"Frankly I am a bit uncomfortable with the idea of monastic life, and I suspect it could under some circumstances lead to abuses similar to those found in religious groups commonly called 'cults'. But I can't say I know of any actual examples of monastic institutions where that is the case."

(To remind: I am an atheist. I am not now, nor ever have been, a member of or associated with a religious order.)

[_selek]

I respectfully reminded her that all candidates of any religion believe in bogus claims that are completely contrary to science, reason or logic. It’s not just the Mormons.

I used transubstantiation as an example.

She got quiet.

Yes, but transubstantiation is not a falsifiable claim. By its very nature (change of the substance of the bread and wine into the body and blood of Christ while preserving their original perceptible properties, or 'accidents') it cannot be shown to be wrong by any means accessible to the senses.

There's logic you can't argue with!

So, what's more probable?:

1) Bread and wine magically turn into the body and blood of someone who (supposedly) lived 2000 years ago, but that change is imperceptable by any means we posess, and defies all known physical and chemical laws?

- OR -

2) Some religious person(s), prior to the onset of modern scientific method, made it up to serve a religous purpose?

My point was, as was Teller's in the video, that reasonable and intelligent people will suspend reason and intelligence when it comes to religious belief!

Now, suppose for a minute that transubstantiation had not been a belief of the Catholic church all these years. The Pope comes out next week and declares it as a new doctrine. How would the modern world react to such a claim?

In Mormonism, we also don't hear a whole lot of "prophesying" or bold claims that defy science and reason anymore.

[_Chap]

I respectfully reminded her that all candidates of any religion believe in bogus claims that are completely contrary to science, reason or logic. It’s not just the Mormons.

I used transubstantiation as an example.

She got quiet.

Yes, but transubstantiation is not a falsifiable claim. By its very nature (change of the substance of the bread and wine into the body and blood of Christ while preserving their original perceptible properties, or 'accidents') it cannot be shown to be wrong by any means accessible to the senses.

There's logic you can't argue with!

So, what's more probable?:

1) Bread and wine magically turn into the body and blood of someone who (supposedly) lived 2000 years ago, but that change is imperceptable by any means we posess, and defies all known physical and chemical laws?

- OR -

2) Some religious person(s), prior to the onset of modern scientific method, made it up to serve a religous purpose?

My point was, as was Teller's in the video, that reasonable and intelligent people will suspend reason and intelligence when it comes to religious belief!

Now, suppose for a minute that transubstantiation had not been a belief of the Catholic church all these years. The Pope comes out next week and declares it as a new doctrine. How would the modern world react to such a claim?

In Mormonism, we also don't hear a whole lot of "prophesying" or bold claims that defy science and reason anymore.

By failing to quote my entire post, I fear that you inadvertently misrepresent my position. I said:

Yes, but transubstantiation is not a falsifiable claim. By its very nature (change of the substance of the bread and wine into the body and blood of Christ while preserving their original perceptible properties, or 'accidents') it cannot be shown to be wrong by any means accessible to the senses.

It can on the other hand be shown (for instance) that the translations appended to the Book of Abraham facsimiles are not in the common meaning of the word a translation of the ancient Egyptian text written thereon. Mormonism is in a considerably worse case than Catholic Christianity in this as well as other regards.

The second paragraph is the main point I was trying to make. You may reasonably find some Catholic theological positions implausible or far-fetched. But there are not that many that can easily be shown to be simply untrue. (I do not believe that the Catholic religion is true, by the way). The same is not true of some of the claims of Mormonism: the Book of Abraham is a good example of Mormonism making claims that are demonstrably not true.

[_selek]

By failing to quote my entire post, I fear that you inadvertently misrepresent my position. I said:

Yes, but transubstantiation is not a falsifiable claim. By its very nature (change of the substance of the bread and wine into the body and blood of Christ while preserving their original perceptible properties, or 'accidents') it cannot be shown to be wrong by any means accessible to the senses.

It can on the other hand be shown (for instance) that the translations appended to the Book of Abraham facsimiles are not in the common meaning of the word a translation of the ancient Egyptian text written thereon. Mormonism is in a considerably worse case than Catholic Christianity in this as well as other regards.

The second paragraph is the main point I was trying to make. You may reasonably find some Catholic theological positions implausible or far-fetched. But there are not that many that can easily be shown to be simply untrue. (I do not believe that the Catholic religion is true, by the way). The same is not true of some of the claims of Mormonism: the Book of Abraham is a good example of Mormonism making claims that are demonstrably not true.

You are correct that I misread your position and I apologize. Just so I'm clear, you're saying that both claims (transubstantiation and the Book of Abraham) are far-fetched, but the Book of Abraham claims are in a far worse position because they can be demontrated to be untrue?

If that is your point, then we agree.

Again, sorry if I misread your post.

[_Chap]

Just so I'm clear, you're saying that both claims (transubstantiation and the Book of Abraham) are far-fetched, but the Book of Abraham claims are in a far worse position because they can be demontrated to be untrue?

If that is your point, then we agree.

Again, sorry if I misread your post.

Yup - we agree! Thanks for having a second look!