No need to refute Mormonism when you can easily take down Christianity. Here is a site that acts as a CES letter for Christians. My boyfriend is reading 10 of these per day and has gotten half way through. It is an exhaustive list, but has some interesting debating points:

http://www.kyroot.com/?page_id=1340

Yeah.

Once I began critically thinking my way out of mormonism, I couldn't help but use the same processes on other religions. With the same results.

I frankly don't understand how some folks can say, "Oh, angels bringing gold plates and magic rocks are totally made-up, but talking donkeys and walking on water and rising from the dead are all real!"

A word to the wise.

I found that my faith in God and Christ actually helped me leave the Mormon cult. Some of the Mormon teaching, scriptures, and examples for life are definitely anti-Christ. Some of it is even blasphemous. The lack of Christ-like love, and the lack of real charity drives people away from the cult, so the leaving can be "spiritual", to some apostates.

I made a purposeful decision to not challenge the concepts of God or Christ found in the Bible, until I was fully resolved in my disbelief of the Mormon church. I knew that losing all of my beliefs at once would be too traumatic. I also wanted to keep a semblance of "righteousness" in my life, and be a stable example to my children, even though my world was being turned upside-down. One of my children was already Atheist, and, eventually, one of the others is Atheist, also. The others are Lutheran and Methodist. It doesn't matter to me. This happened on their own, and in their own time.

The Mormon cult intertwines its beliefs with Christianity, in order to keep members from figuring it out and leaving. I believe that the learning process of de-tangling the Mormon lies is very helpful making distinctions between JS's specific lies and other beliefs.

I am now agnostic, and might end up not believing in Christianity at all, except for some of its basic good advice for living in a society with other human beings.

My faith is still a work in progress, and it's personal.

I would never push a new ex-Mormon or "inactive" Mormon to stop believing in anything other than the Mormon cult. I feel it is not my place. The falseness of the Mormon cult is just too-too obvious and well-proven, and its influence is too-too negative and harmful to people's lives. People are being robbed of 10% of their income, and not just a few "donations" here and there. My children were being physically abused in our ward. I had real, compelling reasons to break from the cult, and save my children from it.

Mother Who Knows Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> A word to the wise.
>
> I found that my faith in God and Christ actually
> helped me leave the Mormon cult. Some of the
> Mormon teaching, scriptures, and examples for life
> are definitely anti-Christ. Some of it is even
> blasphemous. The lack of Christ-like love, and
> the lack of real charity drives people away from
> the cult, so the leaving can be "spiritual", to
> some apostates.
>
> I made a purposeful decision to not challenge the
> concepts of God or Christ found in the Bible,
> until I was fully resolved in my disbelief of the
> Mormon church. I knew that losing all of my
> beliefs at once would be too traumatic. I also
> wanted to keep a semblance of "righteousness" in
> my life, and be a stable example to my children,
> even though my world was being turned upside-down.
> One of my children was already Atheist, and,
> eventually, one of the others is Atheist, also.
> The others are Lutheran and Methodist. It doesn't
> matter to me. This happened on their own, and in
> their own time.
>
> The Mormon cult intertwines its beliefs with
> Christianity, in order to keep members from
> figuring it out and leaving. I believe that the
> learning process of de-tangling the Mormon lies is
> very helpful making distinctions between JS's
> specific lies and other beliefs.
>
> I am now agnostic, and might end up not believing
> in Christianity at all, except for some of its
> basic good advice for living in a society with
> other human beings.
>
> My faith is still a work in progress, and it's
> personal.
>
> I would never push a new ex-Mormon or "inactive"
> Mormon to stop believing in anything other than
> the Mormon cult. I feel it is not my place. The
> falseness of the Mormon cult is just too-too
> obvious and well-proven, and its influence is
> too-too negative and harmful to people's lives.
> People are being robbed of 10% of their income,
> and not just a few "donations" here and there. My
> children were being physically abused in our ward.
> I had real, compelling reasons to break from the
> cult, and save my children from it.


You sound like a very thoughtful woman, and know the value of taking your time.

Leaving Mormonism can not only cause a crisis of faith, it can also cause of crisis of identity, that is why it's so important for people to take their own path out, and not be pushed out, or have ex-mo's pull the rug from under them.

We all have known, and see in others, how traumatic it can be and is.

Human beings are very diverse, and it's in that spirit we should be supportive, not abusive, in helping them make the transition out, at the very least, and recover, at the very most.

angela Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Human beings are very diverse, and it's in that
> spirit we should be supportive, not abusive, in
> helping them make the transition out, at the very
> least, and recover, at the very most.

Oh, I agree.
But will add a reminder that some of those diverse humans (like me) won't find any "recovery" in leaving one set of outrageous religious claims only to take up another set. In fact, I would suggest that to such people, encouraging them to look for another religion would be abusive, and not at all supportive.

:)

What Hie said.... the critical thinking skills works on all religions, It's why I'm a Happy Athiest now. Use it for every thing...

Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 04/05/2018 01:48PM by saucie.

If God appeared to you last night, showed you sufficient identification and confirming miracles, and you shared these facts with another, be it a spouse, employer, neighbor or fellow church member, you would soon find yourself sharing the experience with professionals in the Mental Health field.

Now, do you atheists understand why God gave up restoring churches and seeking a new spokesperson?

He spoke to Joseph. Joseph was a perverted, covetous gentleman. So is every other church founder throughout history. This consistency should provide you with sufficient evidence that the church is true.

Other than status, power, wealth and fame, why in the world would actual, called and ordained Apostles sustain a fraud?

Governments serve, and people don't thank them. Churches save, and no one appreciates them. Businesses enable financial humility, yet most are scorned.

As for me, if or when God appears, I will explain to Him that I am fine, and won't volunteer to save an ungrateful planet, thank you very much. If He thrusts me down to hell for this choice, I will do the best I can there, through a positive mental attitude, networking with fellow-victims of intolerance and, sooner or later, establish an escape, if it is ever possible.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J07CWEYupn4

Mahonri Moriancumer, III Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Joseph was a perverted, covetous gentleman.

Perverted? Absolutely.
Covetous? Yep.
Gentleman? Hardly.

There is nothing gentlemanly about banging 14-year old girls and other men's wives. That's the "shelf breaker."

edzachery Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Mahonri Moriancumer, III Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Joseph was a perverted, covetous gentleman.
>
> Perverted? Absolutely.
> Covetous? Yep.
> Gentleman? Hardly.
>
> There is nothing gentlemanly about banging 14-year
> old girls and other men's wives. That's the
> "shelf breaker."

Dear edzachery,

No man knows whether Joseph went to his knees immediately after each of his imperfections, so we shouldn't judge him.

Just my opinion.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p2JXAgZybOE

Consider this:

"I came from an environment where, if you see a snake, you kill it."

- Ross Perot

Joseph may have saved men from sinning when he kept certain girls off the street. He may have done as Jesus did, taking upon him the sins of others, by his noble sacrifices. This, in my view, is the legacy of a true gentleman.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uzHuobOnn1I

We mustn't focus on the fetish and penis. It's the heart of a man that matters most.

Well Mahonri Moriancumer, III, you take Mormon apologetics to a new level. Are you suggesting that Josephs womanizing was an act of benevolence to keep other men from sinning. I will assume that you are being satirical.

Also you said "We mustn't focus on the fetish and penis. It's the heart of a man that matters most." My observation is that almost every cult movement past and present involves a sexual predatory charismatic leader who finds opportunity to exploit his followers in numerous ways.

Problem with most of this list is that English speaking people don't have a working knowledge of Aramaic, Hebrew, and Greek so the arguments are based on not understanding meaning.

Case in point. The topic called hell.

I see the date on the website is April 3, 2018. Is this your site?



Edited 3 time(s). Last edit at 04/04/2018 11:11AM by angela.

angela Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Problem with most of this list is that English
> speaking people don't have a working knowledge of
> Aramaic, Hebrew, and Greek so the arguments are
> based on not understanding meaning.
>
> Case in point. The topic called hell.

You proceed from a false premise. A great many English-speaking people do understand the terms used from those languages, how they vary in the bible, what they meant at the time, and how various christian sects have "interpreted" them. The arguments take that into account.

Case in point:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gehenna

ificouldhietokolob Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> angela Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Problem with most of this list is that English
> > speaking people don't have a working knowledge
> of
> > Aramaic, Hebrew, and Greek so the arguments are
> > based on not understanding meaning.
> >
> > Case in point. The topic called hell.
>
> You proceed from a false premise. A great many
> English-speaking people do understand the terms
> used from those languages, how they vary in the
> bible, what they meant at the time, and how
> various christian sects have "interpreted" them.
> The arguments take that into account.
>
> Case in point:
>
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gehenna

Do you see that KyRoot, author of the webpage, has a working knowledge and therefor, can make their argument?

Taking a common translation problem that Mormons and Christians make of this verse as an example.

King James Bible
"And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it."

Mormons use this verse when it comes to proving revelation.

Non-Catholic and Catholic fall over it when it comes to the primacy, or lack there of, of Peter.

What is the problem?
It was written in Greek. SO what does the Greek mean. But WAIT, if Jesus was real, he didn't speak Greek, he spoke Aramaic. So what would have been his meaning in the his tongue?



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 04/04/2018 11:34AM by angela.

angela Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Do you see that KyRoot, author of the webpage, has
> a working knowledge and therefor, can make their
> argument?

Do you see that KyRoot *doesn't*?

Frankly, neither position can be ascertained solely from that page. So take the arguments as given, and research whether the claims made stand up to linguistic research on the terms.
They mostly do. The concept for "place of the dead" in the bible is put forth using various words from various languages, and the concept differs in the bible by place and time, and is self-contradictory. And open to all kinds of "interpretations" (as is demonstrated in the varying beliefs about the concept among the various religious sects). None of which can actually be shown to be "right." In that page, I see KyRoot addressing the concept believed in by a majority of christians today, which is perfectly reasonable -- and which doesn't need to include a detailed linguistic analysis.

Yes, I'm aware of the extensive christian apologetic excuses that play games with the ancient linguistics. And that some of those contradict KyRoot. I just don't find the apologetics useful -- they're mostly disingenuous (and often dishonest) excuses to continue to "believe" rather than honest analysis.

You are, of course, free to have a different opinion :)



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 04/04/2018 11:46AM by ificouldhietokolob.

ificouldhietokolob Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> angela Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Do you see that KyRoot, author of the webpage,
> has
> > a working knowledge and therefor, can make
> their
> > argument?
>
> Do you see that KyRoot *doesn't*?
>
> Frankly, neither position can be ascertained
> solely from that page. So take the arguments as
> given, and research whether the claims made stand
> up to linguistic research on the terms.
> They mostly do.
>
> Yes, I'm aware of the extensive christian
> apologetic excuses that play games with the
> ancient linguistics. And that some of those
> contradict KyRoot. I just don't find the
> apologetics useful -- they're mostly disingenuous
> (and often dishonest) excuses to continue to
> "believe" rather than honest analysis.
>
> You are, of course, free to have a different
> opinion :)

:) My thoughts were specific to KyRoot's page and their arguments, specifically, as they were comparing it to the CES Letter, which I found was better prepared and researched. KyRoot's page seems more tossed together/knee jerk :)

It's nice to have a well-thought out and researched points, that upon closer, look, don't stumble over human language, translations etc.

It's why I tend tune out when people start using scripture as a tool. Most don't have a working knowledge of that languages used

I have to consider myself an anti-Science person. All this crap of making hypotheses, making alternative hypotheses, doing experimentation/tests, rejecting hypotheses (or upholding them), drawing conclusions, and testing ad nauseum upon building blocks is just such a foreign concept to how I have been taught to think. Thanks to the beloved Correlation program I have learned and well-indoctrinated that the key to learning is to obey unquestioningly whatever the leaders tell us to think :) But the Scientific Method is very much the opposite of this as it causes people to commit very grievous sins, such as having doubts, so for the sake of being able to have a strong testimony of Mormonism its so important to carefully limit how much exposure I have to that anti-testimony way of thinking and when I am exposed to scientific thinking its important to keep my boundaries up strong so I cannot be tempted to ever put myself in a position where a Doubt could possibly form.


So where can I find a copy of this CES Letter for Anti-Science people?

Of course there is. Just Google Ken Ham.

I find you lack of non-honesty disturbing.

;)

Yup - lets bash those damn Christians! Bunch of idiots....

I don't do that. I like Christians. They taste good.

...as long as you have enough BBQ saucie :)

ificouldhietokolob Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> ...as long as you have enough BBQ saucie :)


Because I make everything better. Ask the Dawg.

The problems with a CES letter for Christians.Much of the stuff on that list depends on believing the Bible is the literal and inerrant word of God. Many Christians do nnot believe that.

1. Christianity is very diverse. Many Christians are not Biblical literalists. Whatever you manage to disprove, there are Christians who dont believe it.This even includes a literal resurrection.

2.Many Christians are well aware of past problems with the the Bible and Christian history and dont find those things are problems for overall belief.Their faith doesnt depend on such things the way Mormonism depends on Joseph Smith or the book of Mormon.They never expected the Bible to be literally true or that Christians, even leaders, are always going to be good people

3. Christianity is much older than Mormonism so it is much harder to find a smoking gun.We dont know the motives or history of Jesus or the apostles in the way we know Joseph Smith.

4.Belief in God and Jesus is not something that can absolutely be proved or disproved. You may think it is highly unlikely, but proving there is no God or that Jesus wasnt divine is pretty much impossible. If someone believe in an all powerful God,then he believes miracles are possible. Good luck proving otherwise.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 04/06/2018 06:55AM by bona dea.