Conquer Club

I just don't understand.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jFZ1jVO3-OE

You see they have Mormon Jesus and the other denominations have regular Jesus.

I have just two questions about the video.

1. Did Jesus marry his mother? Because it says he married three women, Mary, Martha and Mary Magdalene.

2. When did the Romans invade North America? Those were clearly Roman soldiers fighting the Native Americans.

not sure, but I think it has something to do with Christ...

-deleted-

jsholty4690 wrote:You see they have Mormon Jesus and the other denominations have regular Jesus.

I have just two questions about the video.

1. Did Jesus marry his mother? Because it says he married three women, Mary, Martha and Mary Magdalene.

2. When did the Romans invade North America? Those were clearly Roman soldiers fighting the Native Americans.

Mormons aren't a denomination. It's pretty clearly a completely different religion. I mean, the Muslims have Muslim Jesus, but they don't call themselves Christians.

As for the other two questions, I can't answer that, but you might want to consult the "religious" texts cited in the description bar of the video.

pimpdave wrote:

jsholty4690 wrote:You see they have Mormon Jesus and the other denominations have regular Jesus.

I have just two questions about the video.

1. Did Jesus marry his mother? Because it says he married three women, Mary, Martha and Mary Magdalene.

2. When did the Romans invade North America? Those were clearly Roman soldiers fighting the Native Americans.

Mormons aren't a denomination. It's pretty clearly a completely different religion. I mean, the Muslims have Muslim Jesus, but they don't call themselves Christians.

As for the other two questions, I can't answer that, but you might want to consult the "religious" texts cited in the description bar of the video.

The difference is that Muslims only consider Jesus to be another saint and not the son of god/prophet. Mormons still view Jesus as the son of god and due to the primacy they give Jesus can be considered Christians.

If you watch that video and think you have a handle on all of the teaching of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints you are horribly naive. While it does cover some of the doctrines that the LDS people believe it does so in way that makes it seems as outlandish as possible. If you were to learn of those doctrines in their proper setting and in a way that connects them to the much more basic principles of the Church they would seem much less outlandish and absurd.

I'm going to refrain from getting into yet another back and forth debate on LDS teachings in this forum as time and again it has been proved that an educated discussion cannot be had here, but I felt I needed to comment on how badly that cartoon attempts to take valid doctrine and twist it to look absurd and ridiculous.

If you want to actually learn about the LDS faith properly, try looking here: http://mormon.org

Optimus Prime wrote:If you want to actually learn about the LDS faith properly, try looking here: http://mormon.org

Will that include the original texts that were later completely changed? Will that include an admission that those changes were made? Will it acknowledge the criminal activities of it's founding leaders?

Somehow I doubt it.

I'm not trying to bash Mormons here. I just think it's thoroughly disingenuous and a pernicious lie for a completely different religion to call itself something it isn't. The differences between Mormonism and Christianity aren't like the differences between the Methodists and the Baptists.

You, OP, default immediately into I'm-being-persecuted mode (which helps explain how your religion formed in the first place and how it perpetuates itself, much like Juggalos) when all I'm saying is that you should call yourself what you are: a completely different religion from Christianity.

pimpdave wrote:

Optimus Prime wrote:If you want to actually learn about the LDS faith properly, try looking here: http://mormon.org

Will that include the original texts that were later completely changed? Will that include an admission that those changes were made? Will it acknowledge the criminal activities of it's founding leaders?

Somehow I doubt it.

I'm not trying to bash Mormons here. I just think it's thoroughly disingenuous and a pernicious lie for a completely different religion to call itself something it isn't. The differences between Mormonism and Christianity aren't like the differences between the Methodists and the Baptists.

You, OP, default immediately into I'm-being-persecuted mode (which helps explain how your religion formed in the first place and how it perpetuates itself, much like Juggalos) when all I'm saying is that you should call yourself what you are: a completely different religion from Christianity.

I think suggesting that any religion may have made stuff up along the way, changed text, interpreted text differently, broke rules, broke laws, or abused power is just so redundant as to not be mention worthy.

Every religion on earth has done this...except for the extreme possibility of one that may not have. If these things were not done, there would be one religion all with the same goal....that of actually making the world a better place for its people... not getting as much out of it as they can.

AAFitz wrote:I think suggesting that any religion may have made stuff up along the way, changed text, interpreted text differently, broke rules, broke laws, or abused power is just so redundant as to not be mention worthy.

Every religion on earth has done this...except for the extreme possibility of one that may not have. If these things were not done, there would be one religion all with the same goal....that of actually making the world a better place for its people... not getting as much out of it as they can.

Yes, thank you for stating the obvious, but that doesn't change the fact that Mormons aren't Christians. This isn't a difference in how baptism is performed or perceived. This isn't even a difference in how communion is taken, or how the church is governed.

Again, I'm not putting down Mormons. I'm not bashing them. I'm just trying to get someone to explain how Mormons can possibly be called Christians. No one has an actual answer yet, just a lot of evasion and persecution complexes.

pimpdave wrote:

AAFitz wrote:I think suggesting that any religion may have made stuff up along the way, changed text, interpreted text differently, broke rules, broke laws, or abused power is just so redundant as to not be mention worthy.

Every religion on earth has done this...except for the extreme possibility of one that may not have. If these things were not done, there would be one religion all with the same goal....that of actually making the world a better place for its people... not getting as much out of it as they can.

Yes, thank you for stating the obvious, but that doesn't change the fact that Mormons aren't Christians.

By definition a christian is anyone who worships christ. if you dont want to recognize that is your right, but it doesnt make you right.

add: If we started defining christians by their actions.....there would be a lot less counted christians no doubt...especially if we guaged that to the actual teachings of Christ.

And honestly, its as believable as any of it.

AAFitz wrote:By definition a christian is anyone who worships christ. if you dont want to recognize that is your right, but it doesnt make you right.

By who's definition? Joseph Smith? So if I call a rock the Christ, and worship it, and demand everyone give me their teenage girls (or kidnap them when those people refuse) so I can rape them and force them to marry me, and claim that the rock I named Jesus Christ gave me a holy revelation through golden tablets, that makes me a Christian? That makes my new cult a denomination of Christianity?

AAFitz wrote:add: If we started defining christians by their actions.....there would be a lot less counted christians no doubt...especially if we guaged that to the actual teachings of Christ.

Ah, the timeless debate of grace versus works!

pimpdave wrote:

AAFitz wrote:By definition a christian is anyone who worships christ. if you dont want to recognize that is your right, but it doesnt make you right.

By who's definition? Joseph Smith? So if I call a rock the Christ, and worship it, and demand everyone give me their teenage girls (or kidnap them when those people refuse) so I can rape them and force them to marry me, and claim that the rock I named Jesus Christ gave me a holy revelation through golden tablets, that makes me a Christian? That makes my new cult a denomination of Christianity?

Your followers will no doubt believe it.

pimpdave wrote:

AAFitz wrote:add: If we started defining christians by their actions.....there would be a lot less counted christians no doubt...especially if we guaged that to the actual teachings of Christ.

Ah, the timeless debate of grace versus works!

More like..."stupid is as stupid does."

Why would Optimus ever be upset about this thread?

thegreekdog wrote:Why would Optimus ever be upset about this thread?

I dont think he was. He was just pointing out that that video was not LDS belief anymore, from what I read.

By pimps calling him upset, he was essentially saying he himself was upset, given the posts are posted with at least the same tone...if not a little more outrage on the side of davy.

Its a very common trick... you just say...dave, wow... youre really upset about this...and try to imply that that means he must be wrong....instead of possibly just upset.

Interesting video to say the least though...and as I said... its as believable as the rest of it, if you step back and look at it independently.

At least they acknowledge that the universe has been around for a long time...its far more believable than the young earth creationist christians.

pimpdave wrote:

AAFitz wrote:I think suggesting that any religion may have made stuff up along the way, changed text, interpreted text differently, broke rules, broke laws, or abused power is just so redundant as to not be mention worthy.

Every religion on earth has done this...except for the extreme possibility of one that may not have. If these things were not done, there would be one religion all with the same goal....that of actually making the world a better place for its people... not getting as much out of it as they can.

Yes, thank you for stating the obvious, but that doesn't change the fact that Mormons aren't Christians. This isn't a difference in how baptism is performed or perceived. This isn't even a difference in how communion is taken, or how the church is governed.

Again, I'm not putting down Mormons. I'm not bashing them. I'm just trying to get someone to explain how Mormons can possibly be called Christians. No one has an actual answer yet, just a lot of evasion and persecution complexes.

Actual quite a few people have. It's because they worship Jesus as the son of god, the difference is that they see the guy who founded Mormonism sort off like another apostle and see that parts he added to the bible just as valid as the rest of it.

So as a very basic rule of thumb if your religion is realy crazy about Jesus Christ you are a Christian.

AAFitz wrote:

thegreekdog wrote:Why would Optimus ever be upset about this thread?

I dont think he was. He was just pointing out that that video was not Mormon belief anymore, from what I read.

But that's where things get interesting. Since it's not a matter of interpreting the original texts in a new way (like during the Reformation) but rather a case of changing the texts wholesale, why do modern day Mormons continue to revere guys like Joseph Smith and Brigham Young, when they clearly were so wrong about so much, to the point where the text and the doctrine had to be changed?

AAFitz wrote:

pimpdave wrote:

AAFitz wrote:add: If we started defining christians by their actions.....there would be a lot less counted christians no doubt...especially if we guaged that to the actual teachings of Christ.

Ah, the timeless debate of grace versus works!

More like..."stupid is as stupid does."

So, then where do you stand? Are people saved by grace or by works? And what is your basis for this conclusion?

Please include in your conclusion how the man on the cross next to Jesus was then granted passage to Paradise, if one is saved by works.

AAFitz wrote: Its a very common trick...

There's no trick here. That video cites the original texts. To call that video outlandish and absurd is to call the religion of the Mormons outlandish and absurd.

But I'm not calling the Mormons outlandish and absurd, I'm just saying I fail to see how they are Christians.

I don't know, the name "The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints" seems to say a lot about what we believe in if you as me. I think most would agree that believing in Christ is a fairly basic definition of Christianity, but hey, who am I to argue the point, eh?

Optimus Prime wrote:I don't know, the name "The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints" seems to say a lot about what we believe in if you as me. I think most would agree that believing in Christ is a fairly basic definition of Christianity, but hey, who am I to argue the point, eh?

But again, that's just a label that's been placed there. Other than just calling it that, how is it actually Christianity?

pimpdave wrote:

Optimus Prime wrote:I don't know, the name "The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints" seems to say a lot about what we believe in if you as me. I think most would agree that believing in Christ is a fairly basic definition of Christianity, but hey, who am I to argue the point, eh?

But again, that's just a label that's been placed there. Other than just calling it that, how is it actually Christianity?

What is your definition of Christianity? I have yet to see you state it. Define what you believe Christianity to be at its basic and least complicated level and we'll see how things stack up, shall we?

Optimus Prime wrote:

pimpdave wrote:But again, that's just a label that's been placed there. Other than just calling it that, how is it actually Christianity?

What is your definition of Christianity? I have yet to see you state it. Define what you believe Christianity to be at its basic and least complicated level and we'll see how things stack up, shall we?

Now we're getting somewhere.

Let's try this: let's both, independently of one another, draft our own definitions of Christianity. Then, we'll pick a predetermined time to post them simultaneously (so neither of us has the benefit of using the other person's words to craft our own definition) and then we can compare and continue to dialog from there.

Let's say by the end of the week? We can set a more specific time later when we're both sure we'll be online at the same time.