Mormon

Iwasfrozen

Is there a church of Jesus Christ of the Latter Day Saints in Ireland ? I was looking through their belifes which strike me and I was hoping to attend one of their services out of curiosity.

apoch632

Might be of help
http://www.lds-church.ie/

I've never understood the appeal of Mormonism in Ireland. It seems like its specifically trying to make Christianity an american thing

Iwasfrozen

Thanks for the link, to be honest one could say the Catholic Church is trying to make Christianity an Israeli thing.
Mormons believe that Joeseph Smith was a prophet just like Luke or Job.

philologos

Christianity was always a Jewish based religion though. Mormonism is a religion which is based on Christianity.

Mickeroo

Jakkass wrote: »

Christianity was always a Jewish based religion though. Mormonism is a religion which is based on Christianity.

Would it not be considered a christian denomination then?

Splendour

Jakkass wrote: »

Christianity was always a Jewish based religion though. Mormonism is a religion which is based on Christianity.

Mormonism is a religion which is based on the Book of Mormon and the teachings of their current 'living prophet.' They view the bible as being uncomplete and flawed and not the authoritative word of God...

philologos

By based on Christianity, I mean that it has a basis in Christianity but it has deviated from it.

Mickeroo: In the US the view is more common that it is a Christian denomination. I personally would consider them Christian-based religions rather than Christianity itself since there are clear differences from what would have been advocated in the Biblical text. Likewise with the Rastafarians and the Kebra Negast.

As for the Mormons viewing the Bible as incomplete, I don't see what else is really necessary to be added to the actual text following the New Testament. If you will the general problem of mankind is fulfilled through Jesus' first coming. We expect His second coming to be the final judgement, not His presence in the Americas.

Iwasfrozen

Dictionary.com defines Christianity as:

1. the Christian religion, including the Catholic, Protestant, and Eastern Orthodox churches.
2. Christian beliefs or practices; Christian quality or character: Christianity mixed with pagan elements; the Christianity of Augustine's thought.
3. a particular Christian religious system: She followed fundamentalist Christianity.
4. the state of being a Christian.
5. Christendom.
6. conformity to the Christian religion or to its beliefs or practices.

1.They are Protestant.
2.They worship Jesus Christ as the son of the Jewish God. Rastafarians worship Haile Selassie I of Ethiopia as the former incarnation of God, the Kebra Negast adds weight to this claim.
3.They are Mormonist Christian.
4.See above.
5.See above.
6.They conform to Christian belifes.
Thus they are Christian.

As for the Mormons viewing the Bible as incomplete, I don't see what else is really necessary to be added to the actual text following the New Testament. If you will the general problem of mankind is fulfilled through Jesus' first coming. We expect His second coming to be the final judgement, not His presence in the Americas.

They are your own personal belifes, the Mormons believe that God delivered his message to Joeseph Smith on a set of Golden Plates.

philologos

All of those claims could be contested on different grounds. I won't go to the lengths to do it though. I personally do not consider Mormonism to be a Christian denomination.

crotalus667

Jakkass wrote: »

All of those claims could be contested on different grounds.

Jakkass wrote: »

I personally do not consider Mormonism to be a Christian denomination.

They believe in the bible , use and study it , therefore they are a Christian denomination

Mickeroo

I thoroughly recommend the south park episode from Season 7 called "All about the mormons" unless you are mormon and have no sense of humour of course

philologos

crotalus667: By your reasoning the Jews should also see Christians as Jews because they use all of their Scriptures. However, since the Christians have extra Scripture this is what causes them to differ from the Jews. This is also the case with the Mormons.

Iwasfrozen

crotalus667: By your reasoning the Jews should also see Christians as Jews because they use all of their Scriptures. However, since the Christians have extra Scripture this is what causes them to differ from the Jews. This is also the case with the Mormons.

Not so, Jews believe in only one God and still await the coming of the messiah. Christians believe that the messiah has already come and are awaiting his return. Mormons believe that the messiah has already come and are awaiting his return.
Do you see the difference ?

PDN

crotalus667 wrote: »

They believe in the bible , use and study it , therefore they are a Christian denomination

Christianity is a monotheistic faith. Mormons believe in a multitude of gods - therefore they are not a Christian denomination.

crotalus667

Jakkass wrote: »

crotalus667: By your reasoning the Jews should also see Christians as Jews because they use all of their Scriptures..

Christian = Jew that believes Jesus was the messiah

Mormon = Christian that believes Joseph Smith brought more scriptures

PDN wrote: »

Christianity is a monotheistic faith. Mormons believe in a multitude of gods - therefore they are not a Christian denomination.

Like it or not they are a christian denomination , they believe in and fallow the bible plus have extra scriptures = non orthodox christian , as for the many god’s thing well if you going to try and dismiss them on that note then your going to have to dismiss the catholics as they develop saints in a similar manner to the way mormans develop gods

Iwasfrozen

PDN wrote:

multitude of gods

?
One could also say Mary is worshiped by Catholics as a God.

PDN

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

?
One could also say Mary is worshiped by Catholics as a God.

One could say that, but only if one was speaking through one's backside.

(As a non-Catholic I view Catholicism's veneration of Mary as verging on the blasphemous, but they do not, and never have, taught that Mary is a goddess).

JimiTime

TBH, I think 'Christian' can be a pretty meaningless word these days anyway. People use it so loosely. 'Hi, yeah I'm a Mafioso, I kill for a living. I also wear rosary beads and go to confession, so I'm a Christian.'
Its what you do that truly defines you. There is one person that will decide who has followed Christ, and thats the man himself.

kelly1

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

Is there a church of Jesus Christ of the Latter Day Saints in Ireland ? I was looking through their belifes which strike me and I was hoping to attend one of their services out of curiosity.

Hello, just curious, what is it about their beliefs that "strikes" you?

kelly1

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

?
One could also say Mary is worshiped by Catholics as a God.

Is that what Mormons teach?

crotalus667

PDN wrote: »

One could say that, but only if one was speaking through one's backside.

No one would not be speaking through one's backside. Catholics clearly worship and pray to her expecting supernatural intervention

Iwasfrozen

One could say that, but only if one was speaking through one's backside.

You still haven't told me what other Gods Mormons believe in.
Nevertheless I shall give you examples of prayers offered up to Mary by Catholics to prove my point:

Hail Mary full of grace.
The Lord is with thee,
Blessed art thou amongst women
and blessed is the fruit of thy womb, jesus.
Holy Mary, Mother of God
Pray for we sinners now and at the hour of our death.
Amen.

or, how about this one:

Hail, holy Queen, Mother of Mercy,
hail our life, our sweetness and our hope.
To thee do we cry, poor banished children of Eve;
to thee do we send up our sighs,
mourning and weeping in this valley of tears.

Turn then, most gracious advocate,
thine eyes of mercy toward us;
and after this our exile,
show unto us the blessed fruit of thy womb, Jesus.
O clement, O loving, O sweet Virgin Mary.

V./ Pray for us O holy Mother of God,
R./ that we may be made worthy of the promises of Christ.

Or how about the Late Pope John Paul having the letter M carved into his coffin.
Or how about the offical name for Mary, i.e Blessed Virgin Mary.
If all that doesn't prove my point I don't know what will.
She may not be a Godess in name but is definetly worshiped like one.
Sources: 17 years as a Catholic.

PDN

crotalus667 wrote: »

No one would not be speaking through one's backside. Catholics clearly worship and pray to her expecting supernatural intervention

They also pray to saints and angels - but that it a very different thing from saying that they are gods.

kelly1

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

Or how about the offical name for Mary, i.e Blessed Virgin Mary.
If all that doesn't prove my point I don't know what will.

Luke 1:46 And Mary said: My soul doth magnify the Lord. 47 And my spirit hath rejoiced in God my Saviour. 48 Because he hath regarded the humility of his handmaid; for behold from henceforth all generations shall call me blessed. 49 Because he that is mighty, hath done great things to me; and holy is his name.

Straight out of the Gospel!

crotalus667

PDN wrote: »

They also pray to saints and angels - but that it a very different thing from saying that they are gods.

Not really , lesser god's they may be but god's none the less

kelly1

crotalus667 wrote: »

Not really , lesser god's they may be but god's none the less

What??? There is only ONE God.

Iwasfrozen

Luke 1:46 And Mary said: My soul doth magnify the Lord. 47 And my spirit hath rejoiced in God my Saviour. 48 Because he hath regarded the humility of his handmaid; for behold from henceforth all generations shall call me blessed. 49 Because he that is mighty, hath done great things to me; and holy is his name.

Ah yes, the bible. The same bible that was wrote over a span of circa 3000 years by humans, edited to fit in with Catholic teachings translated countless times in an unnumerable number of languages from anicent Hebrew [a very reliable language.:rolleyes:].
The Gosples of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John where wrote about 65-100 AD by anonymous people.
Yes, you're right we should take everything thats said in the bible as Gods true word. :rolleyes:

PDN

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

You still haven't told me what other Gods Mormons believe in.

That's probably because you haven't asked me what gods they believe in.

But, since I try to be a helpful kind of chap:

in all congregations when I have preached on the subject of the Deity, it has been the plurality of Gods (Joseph Smith, History of the Church 6:474)

How many Gods there are, I do not know. But there never was a time when there were not Gods .... (Brigham Young, Journal of Discourses 7:333)


"If the President makes a statement it is not our prerogative to dispute it ... when I first heard the doctrine of Adam being our Father and God, I was favorably impressed — enjoyed and hailed it as a new Revelation" (Mormon A.F. McDonald, Minutes of the School of Prophets, Provo, UT, 1868-1871, p.38-39).

"The Lord created you and me for the purpose of becoming Gods like Himself" (Journal of Discourses 3:93).

"Here then is eternal life; to know the only wise and true God; and you have got to learn how to be Gods yourselves, and to be kings and priests to God the same as all Gods have done before you" (Journal of Discourses 6:4; Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, page 346, compiled by Joseph Fielding Smith).

Iwasfrozen wrote:

Nevertheless I shall give you examples of prayers offered up to Mary by Catholics to prove my point:

None of which, unfortunately, come close to proving your point.

If all that doesn't prove my point I don't know what will.

It doesn't prove your point, and I doubt if anything else will since your point is invalid. Catholicism does not teach polytheism.

philologos

Iwasfrozen: What is your agenda here? Yes, the Bible was written over 3,000 years, what's your point?

There is no evidence that the New Testament has been edited to fit in with Catholic teaching at all. There are thousands of Greek manuscripts of the New Testament in existence and they are consistent with eachother on that verse. If you are going to make such a claim (a falsifiable one) please substantiate it

Instead of attacking Catholicism, it might be best to continue discussing Mormonism surely?

JimiTime

crotalus667 wrote: »

Not really , lesser god's they may be but god's none the less

I have to agree. If it walks, talks and acts like a duck and all that. IMO, she is a godess in all but name. Even then, she's got some pretty god-like titles. 'Queen of Heaven', 'Mother of God' etc. Add to that all the statues, Grotto's, and trinkets etc. For all intents and purposes she is a godess. I just think that ascribing the word 'godess' to her would be so bleightently wrong, that she's be given all the traits but not the title.

Just a point of note to the person who quoted the 'hail mary'. The first half is directly from the gospel and is what Elizabeth said to Mary when Mary first visited as a pregnant woman. Mary is indeed blessed, she was full of grace, and the Lord was with her. Such things are not in dispute, or at least shouldn't be.

PDN

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

Ah yes, the bible. The same bible that was wrote over a span of circa 3000 years by humans, edited to fit in with Catholic teachings translated countless times in an unnumerable number of languages from anicent Hebrew [a very reliable language.:rolleyes:].
The Gosples of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John where wrote about 65-100 AD by anonymous people.
Yes, you're right we should take everything thats said in the bible as Gods true word. :rolleyes:

A bit of a mishmash of truth, error and urban legends there.

The Bible is a collection of books written over a period of about 1400 years, and there is no evidence of any significant editing to suit Catholic teachings, especially since we have good manuscript evidence of how the text read long before anything emerged that was recognisable as the Roman Catholic Church.

As for being translated many times - 'The God Delusion' has been translated into a number of languages, but that does not affect how we understand the original English text, does it?

And why is Hebrew to be considered less reliable than other languages? A few of my Israeli friends would find that comment to be disturbingly anti-semitic.

JimiTime

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

Ah yes, the bible. The same bible that was wrote over a span of circa 3000 years by humans, edited to fit in with Catholic teachings translated countless times in an unnumerable number of languages from anicent Hebrew [a very reliable language.:rolleyes:].
The Gosples of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John where wrote about 65-100 AD by anonymous people.
Yes, you're right we should take everything thats said in the bible as Gods true word. :rolleyes:

Hang on, but you accept the book of Mormon? I'm with Kelly1 on this, maybe you could explain what it is that 'strikes' you about mormonism? Seeing how you dismiss the bible on the grounds above, what makes the book of mormon reliable?

PDN

JimiTime wrote: »

Hang on, but you accept the book of Mormon? I'm with Kelly1 on this, maybe you could explain what it is that 'strikes' you about mormonism? Seeing how you dismiss the bible on the grounds above, what makes the book of mormon reliable?

Well obviously because a book written in 'Reformed Egyptian' (a non existent language that Joseph Smith was able to translate by wearing magic spectacles) is much more believable than something written in an 'unreliable' language like Hebrew.

crotalus667

kelly1 wrote: »

What??? There is only ONE God.

That’s an old argument that you will only lose :rolleyes:

PDN wrote: »

As for being translated many times - 'The God Delusion' has been translated into a number of languages, but that does not affect how we understand the original English text, does it?

I think we can safely say that a translation of a modern book from one modern language to another is considerably more reliable that the translations of the bible

philologos

crotalus667 wrote: »

That’s an old argument that you will only lose :rolleyes:

How will we lose it?

crotalus667 wrote: »

I think we can safely say that a translation of a modern book from one modern language to another is considerably more reliable that the translations of the bible

No, not really. We base our translations on Biblical Hebrew and Ancient Greek. The translation of the New Testament is probably more accurate than any of the translations we have of the works of Aristotle or Plato given the amount of sources.

Nodin

PDN wrote: »

Well obviously because a book written in 'Reformed Egyptian' (a non existent language that Joseph Smith was able to translate by wearing magic spectacles) is much more believable than something written in an 'unreliable' language like Hebrew.

Aye, and he had them Golden Tablets to go on, which had to go back to heaven- a far more convincing tale than this 'inspired by God' lark.

Iwasfrozen

PDN wrote:

The Bible is a collection of books written over a period of about 1400 years, and there is no evidence of any significant editing to suit Catholic teachings, especially since we have good manuscript evidence of how the text read long before anything emerged that was recognisable as the Roman Catholic Church.

So you admit the Bible was wrote over 600 years after the assention of Christ ?

PDN wrote:

As for being translated many times - 'The God Delusion' has been translated into a number of languages, but that does not affect how we understand the original English text, does it?

lol, somehow I think it's easier to translate a contempary book than an anicent.

PDN wrote:

And why is Hebrew to be considered less reliable than other languages? A few of my Israeli friends would find that comment to be disturbingly anti-semitic.

Do these friends of yours speak Biblical Hebrew ? Archaic Hewbrew was a language that was lost then rediscovered. It is thought as a foreign language in Israel public schoold and is compleatly different then Hewbrew.

JimiTime wrote:

Hang on, but you accept the book of Mormon? I'm with Kelly1 on this, maybe you could explain what it is that 'strikes' you about mormonism? Seeing how you dismiss the bible on the grounds above, what makes the book of mormon reliable?

No, I'm an atheist.

Jakkass wrote:

No, not really. We base our translations on Biblical Hebrew and Ancient Greek. The translation of the New Testament is probably more accurate than any of the translations we have of the works of Aristotle or Plato given the amount of sources.

I must admit your living up to your name.
What does that have to do with a modern book ? Did Aristotle or Plato write The God Delusion ?

philologos

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

So you admit the Bible was wrote over 600 years after the assention of Christ ?

No, nobody does because that's a false claim.

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

Do these friends of yours speak Biblical Hebrew ? Archaic Hewbrew was a language that was lost then rediscovered. It is thought as a foreign language in Israel public schoold and is compleatly different then Hewbrew.

It isn't completely different from Modern Hebrew. The languages share much in common in terms of verbs, sentence structure and vocabulary. I don't know where you got that from.

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

I must admit your living up to your name.
What does that have to do with a modern book ? Did Aristotle or Plato write The God Delusion ?

Aristotle and Plato are accepted to be authentic. Yet you hold a different standard for a book which has far far more sources than any of Plato or Aristotles works. One could assume that many people have double standards if they are to consider Plato or Aristotles work to be authentic and the New Testament not to be so.

JimiTime

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

No, I'm an atheist.

Oh right, so you were looking at mormonism as more of a social study type thing. Well, as much as your ignorance of biblical history is (and alot of us have been there), at least you are consistant.

PDN

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

So you admit the Bible was wrote over 600 years after the assention of Christ ?

No. Nothing I said indicated that and no reputable historian would ever countenance such a nonsensical idea.

lol, somehow I think it's easier to translate a contempary book than an anicent.

That's not the point, though, is it? The point is that something being translated into many languages is irrelevant if we still have the text in the original language.

Do these friends of yours speak Biblical Hebrew ? Archaic Hewbrew was a language that was lost then rediscovered. It is thought as a foreign language in Israel public schoold and is compleatly different then Hewbrew.

Hardly 'lost' since Jews have been reading the Old Testament in Hebrew for the last 3000 years or more.

Iwasfrozen

PDN wrote:

The Bible is a collection of books written over a period of about 1400 years, and there is no evidence of any significant editing to suit Catholic teachings, especially since we have good manuscript evidence of how the text read long before anything emerged that was recognisable as the Roman Catholic Church.

PDN wrote:

No. Nothing I said indicated that and no reputable historian would ever countenance such a nonsensical idea.

It is now the year 2009.
2009-1400=609

Jakkas wrote:

Aristotle and Plato are accepted to be authentic. Yet you hold a different standard for a book which has far far more sources than any of Plato or Aristotles works. One could assume that many people have double standards if they are to consider Plato or Aristotles work to be authentic and the New Testament not to be so.

Who said I view Plato or Aristotle to be authentic ?

PDN wrote:

That's not the point, though, is it? The point is that something being translated into many languages is irrelevant if we still have the text in the original language.

Really ? We have the origional manuscript ?

kelly1

This thread is farsical! :rolleyes:

PDN

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

The Bible is a collection of books written over a period of about 1400 years, and there is no evidence of any significant editing to suit Catholic teachings, especially since we have good manuscript evidence of how the text read long before anything emerged that was recognisable as the Roman Catholic Church.
No. Nothing I said indicated that and no reputable historian would ever countenance such a nonsensical idea.

As, I said, nothing I have said would support the idea that the Bible was written 600 years after the ascension of Christ. In response to your assertion that it was written over 3000 years (!) I worked from one of the earliest suggested dates for the Pentateuch (1300 BC) until the completion of the New Testament (about 100 AD). Therefore i said it was written over a period of about 1400 years. I could have gone for a much later starting date, but wanted to be scrupulously fair.

Have you actually any purpose in posting here or are you just trying to be a pest?

robindch

PDN wrote: »

The point is that something being translated into many languages is irrelevant if we still have the text in the original language.

The (unmade) point about reliability is perhaps relevant, if you bear in mind that nobody knows who wrote the original texts, nor where they were written, nor when. Nor do you have the original texts anyway...

Tim Robbins

robindch wrote: »

The (unmade) point about reliability is perhaps relevant, if you bear in mind that nobody knows who wrote the original texts, nor where they were written, nor when. Nor do you have the original texts anyway...

nor the fact they weren't peer reviewed...

PDN

robindch wrote: »

The (unmade) point about reliability is perhaps relevant, if you bear in mind that nobody knows who wrote the original texts, nor where they were written, nor when. Nor do you have the original texts anyway...

And all of those points would be relevant in a discussion about how the text has been copied and transmitted (already done in several threads) - but, as Robin well knows, have nothing to do with the issue of translation from one language to another.

PDN

Tim Robbins wrote: »

nor the fact they weren't peer reviewed...

While the concept of peer review is applicable more to the academic arena, I think there is a fair case for arguing that the books of the Bible were indeed peer reviewed, if we define peer review as 'The process of subjecting an author's scholarly work, research, or ideas to the scrutiny of others who are experts in the same field.'

The books of the Old Testament are in the Bible primarily because they have been scrutinised and accepted by the experts in their field (Jewish religion) over 2400 years or more. The books of the New Testament are accepted because they were scrutinised and accepted by the experts in their field (the life, teachings, and worship of Jesus Christ) in the earliest years of the Church.

Tim Robbins

PDN wrote: »

While the concept of peer review is applicable more to the academic arena, I think there is a fair case for arguing that the books of the Bible were indeed peer reviewed, if we define peer review as 'The process of subjecting an author's scholarly work, research, or ideas to the scrutiny of others who are experts in the same field.'

I don't there's any evidence to suggest any of them were peer reviewed by anything close to what is regarded as peer review by today's standards.

Literacy rates, educational standards and intellectual development were pretty poor back then compared to today's standards.

It was the perfect environment for all sort of man made myths to manifest.

robindch

PDN wrote: »

And all of those points would be relevant in a discussion about how the text has been copied and transmitted (already done in several threads) - but, as Robin well knows, have nothing to do with the issue of translation from one language to another.

As, indeed, is the topic of translation largely irrelevant in a thread on mormoness, mormonosity, mormonivity. Uh, whatever it is.

BTW, Hitchens's screed "God is not great" has quite a funny bit about the reliability of mormon "scripture" and the carry-on of god's man on earth, one Joseph Smith who is viewed as a blessed conveyor of the inerrant message of god by some, and by many more, as a rather randy conman who got himself shot while being sprung from jail.

A Primal Nut

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

It is now the year 2009.
2009-1400=609

That made me laugh!! Yes, the bible was written in the period from 609 - 2009 AD.

PDN

robindch wrote: »

As, indeed, is the topic of translation largely irrelevant in a thread on mormoness, mormonosity, mormonivity. Uh, whatever it is.

Yes, which does tend to make me wonder what the OP's motive was in starting the thread in the first place since they seemed so willing to pick a fight over something else rather than discussing Mormonism.