We are approaching 200 years since the beginnings of Mormonism.

Think about the similarities between Christianity and Mormonism.

Both founded by two charismatic leaders.

Both traditions espouse faith and obedience as their highest virtues.

Mormonism - no evidence of God and Jesus appearing, no evidence of the Golden Plates.

Christianity - no geographical evidence of Noah's Flood or the Parting of the Red Sea.

No one would believe the OT and NT miracles if they allegedly occurred only 200 years ago. They would be too easily debunked and held up to skepticism and ridicule.

Christianity had a nearly 2000 years head start to perpetuate its myths.

People love the quaintness of biblical times - the cities exist today so the stories must be true.

Hmmm - Palmyra is a real town, and so is Sharon, Vermont, even Carthage, Illinois - therefore, the events that unfolded there must be true.

Put on your thinking caps RFMers - the stories are simply myths that have been successfully perpetuated over hundreds and thousands of years.

Accept it and cleanse your mind. You can then begin living the authentic life.

Any smart folks want to weigh in?

Well, at one time Christianity actually was only 200 years old and some people at that time were believing it.

That is because they lived during a time when they had no scientific explanations for natural events.

The ancient Greeks and Romans werenfamiliar with science. They knew what planets were, that the earth was round and and they even measured the circumference. Of course they didnt have the knowledge we have, but they were hardly stupid or unfamiliar with science.

bona dea Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> The ancient Greeks and Romans werenfamiliar with
> science. They knew what planets were, that the
> earth was round and and they even measured the
> circumference. Of course they didnt have the
> knowledge we have, but they were hardly stupid or
> unfamiliar with science.


...You mean like Americans' history will show evidence that "they were hardly unfamiliar with science" in 2017?

I'm American, and would argue that the vast majority are unfamiliar with science, geography and history. They may know how to use the products of science, but cannot explain what Darwin discovered in birds and turtles (even as they argue against primate evolution), or what a quantum leap -really- is. Worse yet, the vast majority are comfortable in their ignorance; they want only to flip the switch, and [whatever] works.

The majority cannot adequately name or describe the major historical events of only the last century, not even if we contain the question to N. America. They cannot point to most countries on a globe, not even those like England or France, don't know the difference between "Asia" and "China," and a term "Fertile Crescent" would utterly baffle them. They are more free to learn these things than ever has been in human history, but have no desire to do so. That, more than anything, speaks to their "intelligence." They haven't exactly burned the library of Alexandria to the ground, but they walk right past it, and argue against its contents with little comprehension of that they ignore.

Ancient people likewise had their "scientific class" and the unwashed masses who were happy just to enjoy the show.

https://explorable.com/heron-inventions

Sacrificing to the gods was not optional. I wouldn't say that they were "stupid," but even the ignorant can drive a car or post online. I think that -most- ancients would easily grasp those concepts, even while making their sacrifices.

The religious masses in the US are willfully ignorant, and choose - truly, freely choose - to remain so. Those among them who are educated, giving a wink and a nod to the ignorance even while benefitting from the comforts of that mentally impoverished community, are a shameful lot.

People believe in Mormonism and other young religions

How would Mormonism do today if the Book of Mormon was revealed today?

Imagine JS on CNN being questioned by leading scholars.

People believed Jim Jones, David Koresh,Warren Jeffs etc



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 05/29/2017 07:22PM by bona dea.

How well did those religions fare?

Fundie Mormon polyganists and scientologists are surviving nicely. The others not so much since they essentially committed suicide.

I wouldn't say that FLDS and Scientology are doing well. The abuses of both groups are being widely disseminated.

There are still many believers. They are far from dead although they
will probably need to adapt to survive. Religions do that a lot.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 05/29/2017 09:58PM by bona dea.

Mormonism is a real estate empire, built on free labor and tax exemptions, founded by Brigham Young. The cult aspect is how it recruits and retains its subjects.

You do know there are many varieties of Christians and many know perfectly well that Noah et al are myths. There could be even more if it were a newer religion. Who knows. I just wish that posters would get it through their heads that you do not have to be a Biblical literalist to be Christian



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 05/29/2017 07:59PM by bona dea.

He would be laughed out of existence today. Almost no one would believe the nonsense.

What exactly are the minimums that one can believe to be Christian?

Divinity, son of God, virgin birth, resurrection?

DumbLawyer Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Divinity, son of God, virgin birth, resurrection?

A scholar like Bart Ehrman would argue that the earliest followers of Jesus, during his lifetime, believed in none of those things. They may have believed Jesus was a "son of God," but that appellation was also applied to prominent Old Testament figures.

Exactly, many of those things were much later.Jesus never claimed to be the literal son of God or that he was born of a virgin. As for miracles, it was a very superstitious time and faith healers were common.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 05/29/2017 07:07PM by bona dea.

Then it has morphed into something quite different, hasn't it?

We dont know what the earliest Christians believed, but the virgin birth doesnt show up until almost a hundred years later.

you are correct there - after the early catholic church (a minority of christians in the beginning) declared every other sect - even bigger, more widespread sects - heretical they systematically wiped them off the face of the earth and tried to expunge them from history.

Leaving us today with what the roman church morphed into, and the protesting catholics who reject papal infallibility, confession & absolution, and transubstansiation of eucharist, amongst other things. Plus, of course, the varying shyster sects with 'new' and 'revealed' truths, aka lies.

Bible literalism is a fairly new phenomenon in the history of christianity. Groups who continue with the older, more mystical interpretations of the bible are generally labelled 'occult' and associated with magick and 'evil forces' by established christendom, ie roman and protesting catholic hierarchies.

There are Christians who dont believe in any of those things. Spong and Crossan for instance. There are many Christians who understand that the virgin birth is myth and think the resurrection was more likely a vision rather than an actual rising of the dead

Really?? Then explain why people believe in Mormonism and scientology which are less than 200 years old. Besides Jesus was a product of his time and if he had lived 200 years ago it would probably be a different religion. Besides, the gospels were written much later and are the source of the miracles which might be lacking from a more modern version of the religion.

It's kind of a moot point with me. I don't believe in it anyway. Not then or now, no matter what country, etc. Kind of like Green Eggs and Ham. (Not in a chair, not anywhere)

Maybe that is what this Board has come down to.

Some people prefer to read Dr. Suess and some people National Geographic.

Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 05/29/2017 07:14PM by Amyjo.

Excuse me. Who is claiming to believe in either Dr Seuss or the Bible? You asked a question and I answered it. You are being rude and may want to do some research on non literal Chrisianity. You seem to be looking at the subject through a fundie / Mormon lens. FYI, I am not particularly religious, have a supscription to Nat Geo and have a university degree, thank you very much.I dont care for Dr Seuss and couldnt get through it even as a child.

To get back to the original question, a certain group would probably believe because there is no shortage of new religions which have claims just as far fetched if not more so.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 05/29/2017 07:23PM by bona dea.

He's more familiar with Dr. Seuss apparently, bona dea, than he is National Geographic.

Nat Geo has devoted many issues and many books to Christianity. Perhaps dumb lawyer should check it out.

The chief difference between the bible, Christianity, and BoM is the bible places and names have been authenticated. They actually existed. The people really lived there 2000 years ago and more, when Jesus lived upon the earth.

There's archaeological evidence to support the Jewish people's existence and history.

Whereas the BoM was completely madeup. The bible is a historical account and genealogy kept by the Jews, for the Jews.

My ancestors were book printers and publishers of the Talmud and Hebrew prayer books, 1400s-1500's and beyond in Old Germany (Alsace/Lorraine & Prussia at one time.) It's a Jewish custom to preserve its history by passing it on from one generation to the next. That's the intent of the Torah and Talmud. That it was added to by virtue of Christ's existence gave us the New Testament.

He borrowed heavily from the OT to write the NT. Christ learned from rabbis of his youth, and torah teachings. His Sermon on the Mount and Beatitudes are taken directly from Psalms and Proverbs.

Roman catholicism was concocted by Dr. Seuss.

You do understand that teachers widely regard Dr. Seuss as a genius, right? There is no author that has done more to advance the reading ability of young children than he has. When I have a struggling young reader, his books are absolutely my first choice. The books are engaging and easily decodable. They are marvelous teaching tools.

It doesn't have to be an either/or situation.

True. I just preferred children's novels to Dr Seuss, but your point is well made. There is nothing wrong with fanatasy. I love mythology myself

A few years ago I bought a mormon friend of mine a subscription to National Geographic.

The firs edition that came out had a cover story about how horses came to populate North America.

F.Y.I. I picked up a National Geographic tonight at the supermarket devoted to Jesus and the Apostles. "Christianity's Early Rise."

Your argument fails right there.

It's focus is on 'The Rise of Christianity, with corresponding art and artifacts for his life and times.

From the editor,

"A Matter of Faith

Faith, my dictionary says, is a "firm belief in something for which there is no proof." A leap of faith is a step adcross the space of mere sentiment onto the terra firma of personal conviction.

Religion is part of the history and culture of civilization, and thus an appropriate topic for journalistic examination. For more than a century 'National Geographic' has covered religious personalities and subjects, like Moses, Jesus, the pilgrimage to Mecca--and, recently, the Virgin Mary. That we do so by sifting through archaeological and historical evidence to find a reality anchored in fact does nothing to diminish the wonder of what our writers and photographers find and report.

These are pieces of the wide world that we seek to explore. All religions wrestle with the same questions: How can we understand the nature of the universe? How do we fit into the scheme of things? How should we lead our lives? Our striving to comprehend the infiniteness of the world in the here and now--and to consider what might lie beyond--is one of the most profound traits that mark us as human.

signed,
Chris Johns, Chief Content Officer, National Geographic Society."

This guy is failing on more than one level Lol

And here I thought I was going to have a quiet evening reading my National Geographic to myself, when I read this post. LOLOLOL.

:)

New York City actually exists therefore spiderman is real.

I have come to the conclusion that no matter how absurd an idea you can come up with, you can find someone to believe it.

Isn't THAT the truth.

When Christianity was 200 years old, there were believers who were willing to be killed for their beliefs. Today, we have the the FLDS and other polygamist cults that are doing well, as well as the Scientology cult.

Thank you, Dave!

The "Apostolic Fathers" believed it.

The author of the Didache, Clement of Rome, Ignatius of Antioch, Polycarp of Smyrna, the author of the Shepherd of Hermas: all wrote about Christianity within its first 200 years.

What's your point?

Press Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> The "Apostolic Fathers" believed it.
>
> The author of the Didache, Clement of Rome,
> Ignatius of Antioch, Polycarp of Smyrna, the
> author of the Shepherd of Hermas: all wrote about
> Christianity within its first 200 years.

That's nice.
Lots of mormons believed in and wrote about mormonism in its first 200 years (which is still NOW).
Which, of course, has nothing to do with whether or not it's "true."

It's evidence (or lack thereof) that determines if claims are "true" or not. Not how many people believe the claims, not how supposedly smart or honest or whatever the believers are, not how much of an "authority" they are. The "belief" of others is irrelevant when it comes to the truth of claims.

And the core claims of christianity lack sufficient evidence to determine they're "true." So I don't believe them.

No matter how old the claims are.

The subject isnt whether it is true, but whether anyone would believe it after only 200 years.

bona dea Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> The subject isnt whether it is true, but whether
> anyone would believe it after only 200 years.

People believed in mormonism only a few years after it began...so why not?

And the subject does have to do with whether or not it's true. Many (most?) people don't make "belief" decisions based on whether it's true or not, or through rational assessment. They decide based on emotion or other reasons. Which is why people believed mormonism so shortly after it began. And why people probably would believe christianity if it only began 200 years ago.

Of course, without making it the state religion of the mightiest empire of the time, it might not have lasted...

I agree - I am pointing out that many people who believe in the NT, would be less likely to believe if the events described happened more recently.

I don't understand how someone could claim to be Christian if they don't believe Jesus was the son of God, or was resurrected, or died for our sins.

Those are the cardinal beliefs and part of the very.

My remark about the point of the thread was for Kolob



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 05/30/2017 07:50PM by bona dea.

I would. I would believe Jesus. When I left Mormonism, the only thing that would not leave me was my belief in Jesus. I still have it decades later.

Why do you believe in Jesus?

I believe in Jesus too, but as an archetype rather than a real guy. He may have lived when they say he did, but he lives on in everyone who believes in his name. Even a conjured Jesus is more real than a dead guy. From the evidence, I'm leaning toward the latter.

I also revised some song lyrics: "Families can be together forever, cuz they already are...".

Interesting question. If one ascribes to P.T. Barnum's assessment that there is "a sucker born every minute", then yes, because there are exponentially more 'suckers' on the planet now than certainly there were in Jesus' time. And, as bona dea pointed out, there are many believers in, for example, Scientology and FLDS groups.

I don't know that there are "minimums" that one needs to believe to be a Christian. I think that the only 'minimum' would be is that if one calls themselves Christian, then I believe them, regardless of the extent of their belief in bible stories.

I am curious to know why you asked this question.

Not I. Someone perhaps?

If emperor Constantine told you to you better believe you'd believe it.

perhaps a legit question, but just as much, why does any one still believe in Christianity as it is 2000 years old and Jesus is still AWOL on his promised return. And as other previously asked, when it is finally 2 or 3 or 4 or 5 or 10 or 20 times that much.

Even if the origins of Christianity were historically documented there would still be some believers.

And don't forget the social conditions in the Roman Empire that aided the spread of the religion.