Also on the mention of unmarried woman not being able to enter, untrue. Unmarried woman can recieve the ordinances of the temple just as unmarried men can.
I was informed of this by a girl who was not allowed to attend her brother's wedding because it took place in a temple and she was unmarried. I was told about this when I was crashing on her couch while attending the reception following her best friend's marriage, which neither one of us were allowed to attend because we weren't LDS. So while I can't claim firsthand knowledge of refusal, I do know a person who was - at the very least - raised LDS from birth, was the daughter of a bishop, and one of the primary reasons that she left the religion was because she wasn't allowed to see her brother get married because she herself wasn't married. And yes, she was over 18 at the time.
Now, whether this is one of those things which is more strict in Utah and more lax elsewhere, I don't know.
Ok let me explain, generally, no one enters the temple, male or female, untill either they are leaving on a mission, getting married, or if they are exceptionally older and single. If she wasn't leaving on a mission anytime soon or getting married, then no, she wouldn't have been able to attend the sealing, just as I couldn't attend my brother's since I hadn't yet gone through the temple for myself.
Just because she was raised from birth in the church, doesn't mean she understands the doctrine, if she had, then we wouldn't be having this conversation.
Also on the mention of unmarried woman not being able to enter, untrue. Unmarried woman can recieve the ordinances of the temple just as unmarried men can.
I was informed of this by a girl who was not allowed to attend her brother's wedding because it took place in a temple and she was unmarried. I was told about this when I was crashing on her couch while attending the reception following her best friend's marriage, which neither one of us were allowed to attend because we weren't LDS. So while I can't claim firsthand knowledge of refusal, I do know a person who was - at the very least - raised LDS from birth, was the daughter of a bishop, and one of the primary reasons that she left the religion was because she wasn't allowed to see her brother get married because she herself wasn't married. And yes, she was over 18 at the time.
Now, whether this is one of those things which is more strict in Utah and more lax elsewhere, I don't know.
Ok let me explain, generally, no one enters the temple, male or female, untill either they are leaving on a mission, getting married, or if they are exceptionally older and single. If she wasn't leaving on a mission anytime soon or getting married, then no, she wouldn't have been able to attend the sealing, just as I couldn't attend my brother's since I hadn't yet gone through the temple for myself.
Just because she was raised from birth in the church, doesn't mean she understands the doctrine, if she had, then we wouldn't be having this conversation.
would she have been allowed to attend her funeral?
Sentry on
[SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
wrote:
When I was a little kid, I always pretended I was the hero,' Skip said.
'Fuck yeah, me too. What little kid ever pretended to be part of the lynch-mob?'
0
Options
Element BrianPeanut Butter ShillRegistered Userregular
Also on the mention of unmarried woman not being able to enter, untrue. Unmarried woman can recieve the ordinances of the temple just as unmarried men can.
I was informed of this by a girl who was not allowed to attend her brother's wedding because it took place in a temple and she was unmarried. I was told about this when I was crashing on her couch while attending the reception following her best friend's marriage, which neither one of us were allowed to attend because we weren't LDS. So while I can't claim firsthand knowledge of refusal, I do know a person who was - at the very least - raised LDS from birth, was the daughter of a bishop, and one of the primary reasons that she left the religion was because she wasn't allowed to see her brother get married because she herself wasn't married. And yes, she was over 18 at the time.
Now, whether this is one of those things which is more strict in Utah and more lax elsewhere, I don't know.
Ok let me explain, generally, no one enters the temple, male or female, untill either they are leaving on a mission, getting married, or if they are exceptionally older and single. If she wasn't leaving on a mission anytime soon or getting married, then no, she wouldn't have been able to attend the sealing, just as I couldn't attend my brother's since I hadn't yet gone through the temple for myself.
Just because she was raised from birth in the church, doesn't mean she understands the doctrine, if she had, then we wouldn't be having this conversation.
would she have been allowed to attend her funeral?
Yeah, it's not like God is handing out merit badges or prizes for the most converted souls here.
THat's one thing about the Mormon faith that really bothers me, the Bastism of the Dead. The thought that they feel that they are so superior to other religious beliefs that they will baptise dead people, who obviously have no say in the matter, and who may have been completely comfortable in their non-Mormon religious ideals, or having no religious ideals at all.
That practice is so incredibly self righteous to me. I don't know what happens when people die, and I doubt that if there is a God he's gonna give a shit about someone baptising you forty years after you died, but based solely on princible I think it's disgusting.
It's another part of the Mormon "We are correct, every other church is false" mentality.
Any and all claims of, or ever existing nudity or sexual acts in the temple are false and need to be dropped. Honestly, what some people purport are so against what the church teaches, I wonder how they can actually buy that?
Addressing this now that I'm home. If you read what I wrote, I was arguing against something more ludicrous, and was saying that the nudity aspect wasn't practiced anymore. I've found an official description of what occurs at lds-temple.org.
On January 18th 2005 I received an email from a gentleman that received reports from someone that had been through the temple earlier that day, that some revisions had been made in the washings and anointing done in the temple just prior to the endowment. There was a wording change, but the change that seems to be the most important is in the actual touching that goes on during the anointing. The garment or shield worn during the anointing used to have slits in the side where the one performing the anointing could reach in and touch certain body parts as he or she pronounced an anointing (including breasts and loins). It appears these slits are gone, and the endowee is just briefly touched on the shield in the appropriate spot now.
Back in 1990, the Five points of Fellowship were removed from the endowment. It is rumored that many women felt like they were being groped or felt up during this part of the ceremony. I've actually been told such by one mormon woman who has been through the endowment. Many of us critics suspect the same is at the root of this most recent change. The anointings are done by men for the men, and women for women. I cant speak for women, but as a man, I don't relish the though of being touched in the loins by another man, and I'm pretty sure most other men don't, and the few who do I suspect are not very welcome in the LDS temples.
From the ceremony itself:
The temple patron, leaving all of his clothing in the locker, covers himself in a "Shield". the Shield is a white, poncho-like linen covering which is open on both sides, which the initiate must hold shut while walking. Covered with the Shield, he carries one pair of Temple Garments (one-piece style) to the Washing and Anointing area, and waits on a bench until directed by a temple worker to enter one of the Washing and Anointing booths, through a veiled partition. The booths are simply small cubicles made up of suspended linen veils. The initiate hands his Garments to a Temple worker who waits inside.
As the initiate stands upright in his Shield, the temple worker wets his fingers under a small faucet of running water in the booth, and touches each area of the initiate's body, through the slits in the sides of the Shield, as body parts are mentioned in the purification ritual.
Brother ______, having authority, I wash you preparatory to you receiving your anointings [for and in behalf of _______, who is dead], that you may become clean from the blood and sins of this generation. I wash your head, that your brain and your intellect may be clear and active; your ears, that you may hear the word of the Lord; your eyes, that you may see clearly and discern between truth and error; your nose, that you may smell; your lips, that you may never speak guile; your neck, that it may bear up your head properly; your shoulders, that they may bare the burdens that shall be placed thereon; your back, that there may be marrow in the bones and in the spine; your breast, that it may be the receptacle of pure and virtuous principles; your vitals and bowels, that they may be healthy and strong and perform their proper functions; your arms and hands, that they may be strong and wield the sword of justice in defense of truth and virtue; your loins, that you may be fruitful and multiply and replenish the earth, that you may have joy and rejoicing in your posterity; your legs and feet, that you may run and not be weary, and walk and not faint.
Two temple workers then place their hands upon the patron's head, and one of them recites the Confirmation of the Washing.
Brother ____, having authority, we lay our hands upon your head [for and in behalf of ________, who is dead], and seal upon you this washing, that you may become clean from the blood and sins of this generation through your faithfulness, in the name of Jesus Christ, Amen.
The patron then steps through a veiled partition into another part of the booth where he sits upon a chair. He is anointed with olive oil from a glass anointing horn, which is shaped like a bull's horn. During this anointing, the parts are touched as they are mentioned, as was done in the washing.
As noted in the original paragraph, very recently it seems that it has been changed from having touching/blessing of the lower areas to doing it just to the shield, and that the shield is no longer open on the sides like it used to be, so you can say that there is nothing resembling it now. However, the fact remains that the marriage ceremony used to involve an open-sided garment being the only thing worn while people complained of being fondled while their body was "blessed," and if you go back to olderaccounts, it used to be done naked.
We are taken from this into another room: In this room is a temporary bath of water on the floor. We are nor ordered by the conductor to divest our selves of the remaining part of our clothing. They now put us in this bath and wash us all over, from heat to foot, accompanied with the following ceremony
One of the women, an officiating high priestess, told me to come behind the curtain (which I have indicated by a waving line), where I could hear a great deal of splashing and subdued conversation. I went, and after I was undressed I had to step into a long bath, about half full of water, when another woman proceeded to wash me.
I find it hard to agree with your statement of "any claims of ever existing nudity in the church to be false." It may not be the case now, but it only recently crossed the threshold from being damn close to it, and it used to be done from multiple accounts. The whole "conception room" thing is a load of bull, and I was saying it was likely a perversion of understanding of the above ceremony.
It's another part of the Mormon "We are correct, every other church is false" mentality.
This was something i found a little odd about it all, in the program for the Mormon pageant I saw it pretty much said that word for word. It was a tad off-putting, even from an atheist's perspective
and I agree this thread is super-entertaining
Fleck0 on
0
Options
HachfaceNot the Minister Farrakhan you're thinking ofDammit, Shepard!Registered Userregular
Element Brian, how is the LDS Church dealing with the fact that it's been decisively demonstrated that all the talk of the Thirteenth Tribe of Israel being in the US is utterly, uncontroversially, unambiguously false?
Element Brian, how is the LDS Church dealing with the fact that it's been decisively demonstrated that all the talk of the Thirteenth Tribe of Israel being in the US is utterly, uncontroversially, unambiguously false?
My guess is that they're simply ignoring it or turning the evidence around the way creationist attack evolution. But that's just a guess.
What ever happened to the good old Gnostic tradition that held that the world was not only created by God, but that God is actually evil and cruel and the only way to escape and get to the afterlife (or escape Hell, or whatever it's supposed to be) is through knowledge?
Yeah, it's not like God is handing out merit badges or prizes for the most converted souls here.
THat's one thing about the Mormon faith that really bothers me, the Bastism of the Dead. The thought that they feel that they are so superior to other religious beliefs that they will baptise dead people, who obviously have no say in the matter, and who may have been completely comfortable in their non-Mormon religious ideals, or having no religious ideals at all.
That practice is so incredibly self righteous to me. I don't know what happens when people die, and I doubt that if there is a God he's gonna give a shit about someone baptising you forty years after you died, but based solely on princible I think it's disgusting.
It's another part of the Mormon "We are correct, every other church is false" mentality.
This is kind of an ass-backwards way to look at it. Given that the Mormons believe the following is true:
A. The Mormon Church has the true gospel handed down from God himself and is, thus, the one true church. (You can't fault them on this, most other Christian faiths do the same damn thing.)
B. Some ordinances can only be performed "in the flesh" on Earth, not in the spirit Afterlife.
Then they would be much more callous and superior to say "Welp, you had your chance to accept it when you were alive. I guess it's eternal damnation for you." (Some other denominations believe exactly this.)
I mean, there are plenty of areas that the Mormon church fails in, but Baptism for the Dead is probably one of the less selfish things they do.
Now, if you want to talk about them trying to baptize people who died in the Holocaust, we might have some common ground for disgust.
On the subjct of the word of wisdom it includes, tobaco, alcohol, drugs, coffee and tea, and when i say tea i mean black, green nd iced tea. The main reason for tea is that it is a stimulant, as far as coffee, its not specificaly the caffine,point in case for me is that i know the comandment is true, so im willing to obey it. there are also lots of new studies showing the danger of coffee,(tanic acid).
I agree that caffeine is to be considered a drug. I also think that drugs are just fine (certainly a potential health risk, but beneficial in non-physical ways).
I was raised in a Mormon family, did the whole Mormon thing until I was 15 or 16. In my experience, most Mormon's beef with caffeine isn't that it's a drug, it's that you can become addicted to it (though I guess there's some controversy on whether or not that's a physical addiction or not? I dunno, never cared enough to research it myself). I don't really remember the exact idea behind it, but it involved something along the lines of your body being a "temple of the Lord" so you should keep it as pure as possible, and having a dependency of some sort on something like caffeine is bad. I was told there were some Mormons that actually followed the whole no "hot drinks" thing, but I have never ever met a single Mormon who actually follows that (and very few who won't eat chocolate because it contains a tiny amount of caffeine).
That's all well and good, but I know the REAL reason Mormons don't drink caffeine: they don't need it. They've got better things to keep them awake and jittery.
Glorph on
Everything I Need to Know, I Learned from the Unbroken Circle of Zerthimon:
- Endure. In enduring, grow strong.
- Balance, in all things.
- There cannot be two skies.
Yeah, it's not like God is handing out merit badges or prizes for the most converted souls here.
THat's one thing about the Mormon faith that really bothers me, the Bastism of the Dead. The thought that they feel that they are so superior to other religious beliefs that they will baptise dead people, who obviously have no say in the matter, and who may have been completely comfortable in their non-Mormon religious ideals, or having no religious ideals at all.
That practice is so incredibly self righteous to me. I don't know what happens when people die, and I doubt that if there is a God he's gonna give a shit about someone baptising you forty years after you died, but based solely on princible I think it's disgusting.
It's another part of the Mormon "We are correct, every other church is false" mentality.
This is kind of an ass-backwards way to look at it. Given that the Mormons believe the following is true:
A. The Mormon Church has the true gospel handed down from God himself and is, thus, the one true church. (You can't fault them on this, most other Christian faiths do the same damn thing.)
B. Some ordinances can only be performed "in the flesh" on Earth, not in the spirit Afterlife.
Then they would be much more callous and superior to say "Welp, you had your chance to accept it when you were alive. I guess it's eternal damnation for you." (Some other denominations believe exactly this.)
I mean, there are plenty of areas that the Mormon church fails in, but Baptism for the Dead is probably one of the less selfish things they do.
Now, if you want to talk about them trying to baptize people who died in the Holocaust, we might have some common ground for disgust.
Also, those for whom baptisms are performed don't suddenly become "Mormon" in heaven. They, in spirit form, have the choice to accept or reject said baptism.
Christ proclaimed in John 3:5 that all must be baptized to enter heaven.
RE: Temple ordinances.
I know back in the day, 1800s, the ceremony wasn't as modest as it is today. However, there was no sex then and there is no sex performed in the temples now.
There have been many things stated in this thread that are almost right, not quite right or totally wrong. I'll try to answer as many questions as possible
PS- LDS people can drink caffeine. Personally, I have made the choice not to. I have hard enough time sleeping anyway. In the mission I served we were told black tea, green tea, tea leaves were no-no. Celestial Seasonings was okay, however. Probably because of the name
It's another part of the Mormon "We are correct, every other church is false" mentality.
This was something i found a little odd about it all, in the program for the Mormon pageant I saw it pretty much said that word for word. It was a tad off-putting, even from an atheist's perspective
and I agree this thread is super-entertaining
You say 'even from an Atheist's perspective' as though that perspective is somehow more valid. It's just as ignorant to say "THERE IS CERTAINLY NO GOD" as it is to say "THERE IS CERTAINLY A GOD AND WE WORSHIP HIM PROPERLY." If you can't see a distinction between those two then you're really no better, as an 'atheist' than any other religious zealot.
Side note: I took a tour of a temple before it was blessed. The carpets were covered with plastic and I had to take off my shoes.
It's ridiculous in there.
That is just for open houses where people are allowed to wear their street shoes inside. Once dedicated, the plastic is removed and partrons change shoes once inside.
Once or twice a year temples are closed for a few weeks to be cleaned. Carpets and such.
It's another part of the Mormon "We are correct, every other church is false" mentality.
This was something i found a little odd about it all, in the program for the Mormon pageant I saw it pretty much said that word for word. It was a tad off-putting, even from an atheist's perspective
and I agree this thread is super-entertaining
You say 'even from an Atheist's perspective' as though that perspective is somehow more valid. It's just as ignorant to say "THERE IS CERTAINLY NO GOD" as it is to say "THERE IS CERTAINLY A GOD AND WE WORSHIP HIM PROPERLY." If you can't see a distinction between those two then you're really no better, as an 'atheist' than any other religious zealot.
I think you may be reading a little too much into that comment.
It's another part of the Mormon "We are correct, every other church is false" mentality.
This was something i found a little odd about it all, in the program for the Mormon pageant I saw it pretty much said that word for word. It was a tad off-putting, even from an atheist's perspective
and I agree this thread is super-entertaining
You say 'even from an Atheist's perspective' as though that perspective is somehow more valid. It's just as ignorant to say "THERE IS CERTAINLY NO GOD" as it is to say "THERE IS CERTAINLY A GOD AND WE WORSHIP HIM PROPERLY." If you can't see a distinction between those two then you're really no better, as an 'atheist' than any other religious zealot.
I think you may be reading way too much into that comment.
It's another part of the Mormon "We are correct, every other church is false" mentality.
This was something i found a little odd about it all, in the program for the Mormon pageant I saw it pretty much said that word for word. It was a tad off-putting, even from an atheist's perspective
and I agree this thread is super-entertaining
You say 'even from an Atheist's perspective' as though that perspective is somehow more valid. It's just as ignorant to say "THERE IS CERTAINLY NO GOD" as it is to say "THERE IS CERTAINLY A GOD AND WE WORSHIP HIM PROPERLY." If you can't see a distinction between those two then you're really no better, as an 'atheist' than any other religious zealot.
I think you may be reading way too much into that comment.
It's another part of the Mormon "We are correct, every other church is false" mentality.
This was something i found a little odd about it all, in the program for the Mormon pageant I saw it pretty much said that word for word. It was a tad off-putting, even from an atheist's perspective
and I agree this thread is super-entertaining
You say 'even from an Atheist's perspective' as though that perspective is somehow more valid. It's just as ignorant to say "THERE IS CERTAINLY NO GOD" as it is to say "THERE IS CERTAINLY A GOD AND WE WORSHIP HIM PROPERLY." If you can't see a distinction between those two then you're really no better, as an 'atheist' than any other religious zealot.
As far as I know, all of the atheists on this forum (including me) feel the same exact way about religion as Carl Sagan, except for semantic quibbling about what exactly we should call our skepticism/lack of belief in gods.
It's another part of the Mormon "We are correct, every other church is false" mentality.
This was something i found a little odd about it all, in the program for the Mormon pageant I saw it pretty much said that word for word. It was a tad off-putting, even from an atheist's perspective
and I agree this thread is super-entertaining
You say 'even from an Atheist's perspective' as though that perspective is somehow more valid. It's just as ignorant to say "THERE IS CERTAINLY NO GOD" as it is to say "THERE IS CERTAINLY A GOD AND WE WORSHIP HIM PROPERLY." If you can't see a distinction between those two then you're really no better, as an 'atheist' than any other religious zealot.
As far as I know, all of the atheists on this forum (including me) feel the same exact way about religion as Carl Sagan, except for semantic quibbling about what exactly we should call our skepticism/lack of belief in gods.
You guys are totally harshing on his apatheist buzz. How is he supposed to sneer at you if you don't dogmatically cling to the beliefs of no-god and exhort the religious fools to recant and follow the Logic Jesus?
The more I see threads like this, the more I realize that Mormons are just sweeping their ridiculous history under the rug in the interests of maintaining membership. Yeah, crazy shit was said and done quite frequently, but that's not what happens anymore, right? The origins of Mormonism are a joke, but now they're trying so hard to be so nice so nobody will judge them for that.
I think I'm converting to Preacher. God is dead because he was shot by a cowboy.
Oh, and christ almighty. Atheism is not the angry opposite of bible-thumping. I just don't particularly find the idea of a god or gods convincing. I don't have to be a douche to not really buy that. I feel the same way about god as I do about my body becoming a black hole spontaneously. Not likely, but anything can happen.
Element Brian, how is the LDS Church dealing with the fact that it's been decisively demonstrated that all the talk of the Thirteenth Tribe of Israel being in the US is utterly, uncontroversially, unambiguously false?
My guess is that they're simply ignoring it or turning the evidence around the way creationist attack evolution. But that's just a guess.
What ever happened to the good old Gnostic tradition that held that the world was not only created by God, but that God is actually evil and cruel and the only way to escape and get to the afterlife (or escape Hell, or whatever it's supposed to be) is through knowledge?
There was a court case here in Utah recently, and part of the prosecution's evidence was a DNA test. The defense argued that DNA tests don’t work and tried to have it thrown out. Their argument? That DNA tests have proven that the Native Americans are not descended from Israelites. Since they are descendants, obviously DNA tests are unreliable.
The more I see threads like this, the more I realize that Mormons are just sweeping their ridiculous history under the rug in the interests of maintaining membership. Yeah, crazy shit was said and done quite frequently, but that's not what happens anymore, right? The origins of Mormonism are a joke, but now they're trying so hard to be so nice so nobody will judge them for that.
Kind of like the Catholics "sweeping the Inquisition" under the rug?
Maybe the Protestants burning witches and stoning Jews? They're "sweeping that under the rug?"
The simple fact is that all religions are equally spurious in history. Mormons just haven't had the benefit of multiple centuries between their religion's genesis and now to shroud the spurious things in ignorance, apathy, and mystery.
Painting clearly non-white people as white was understandable back when, say, Italian Renaissance painters were doing it. You couldn't exactly hop on the Internet and see what the Middle East probably looked like back in the day, so you painted what you knew. This, however, is ridiculous.
It's another part of the Mormon "We are correct, every other church is false" mentality.
This was something i found a little odd about it all, in the program for the Mormon pageant I saw it pretty much said that word for word. It was a tad off-putting, even from an atheist's perspective
and I agree this thread is super-entertaining
You say 'even from an Atheist's perspective' as though that perspective is somehow more valid. It's just as ignorant to say "THERE IS CERTAINLY NO GOD" as it is to say "THERE IS CERTAINLY A GOD AND WE WORSHIP HIM PROPERLY." If you can't see a distinction between those two then you're really no better, as an 'atheist' than any other religious zealot.
As far as I know, all of the atheists on this forum (including me) feel the same exact way about religion as Carl Sagan, except for semantic quibbling about what exactly we should call our skepticism/lack of belief in gods.
You guys are totally harshing on his apatheist buzz. How is he supposed to sneer at you if you don't dogmatically cling to the beliefs of no-god and exhort the religious fools to recant and follow the Logic Jesus?
Still on that? Geez... I know it probably stung when I pointed out the fact that you were talking out of your ass... but a day later you're still trying to snipe? Wow. Just look at the picture of mexi-Jesus and all will be ok... I promise.
It's another part of the Mormon "We are correct, every other church is false" mentality.
This was something i found a little odd about it all, in the program for the Mormon pageant I saw it pretty much said that word for word. It was a tad off-putting, even from an atheist's perspective
and I agree this thread is super-entertaining
You say 'even from an Atheist's perspective' as though that perspective is somehow more valid. It's just as ignorant to say "THERE IS CERTAINLY NO GOD" as it is to say "THERE IS CERTAINLY A GOD AND WE WORSHIP HIM PROPERLY." If you can't see a distinction between those two then you're really no better, as an 'atheist' than any other religious zealot.
As far as I know, all of the atheists on this forum (including me) feel the same exact way about religion as Carl Sagan, except for semantic quibbling about what exactly we should call our skepticism/lack of belief in gods.
You guys are totally harshing on his apatheist buzz. How is he supposed to sneer at you if you don't dogmatically cling to the beliefs of no-god and exhort the religious fools to recant and follow the Logic Jesus?
Still on that? Geez... I know it probably stung when I pointed out the fact that you were talking out of your ass... but a day later you're still trying to snipe? Wow. Just look at the picture of mexi-Jesus and all will be ok... I promise.
Look, I'm not going to turn this into an atheist vs. whatever thread, but you really need to shut the fuck up. Your apatheist bullshit is just an apologist movement from people too chicken shit to stand up to the majority and say hey, there's no evidence of a god, and Occam's Razor tells us that with all probability there isn't one. You are just too chicken shit to fucking admit it. So quit acting like your fucking bet hedging is somehow significant and not what it actually is, cowardly.
Edit... perhaps I have overreacted. Sorry. My foot hurts.
Sentry on
[SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
wrote:
When I was a little kid, I always pretended I was the hero,' Skip said.
'Fuck yeah, me too. What little kid ever pretended to be part of the lynch-mob?'
It's another part of the Mormon "We are correct, every other church is false" mentality.
This was something i found a little odd about it all, in the program for the Mormon pageant I saw it pretty much said that word for word. It was a tad off-putting, even from an atheist's perspective
and I agree this thread is super-entertaining
You say 'even from an Atheist's perspective' as though that perspective is somehow more valid. It's just as ignorant to say "THERE IS CERTAINLY NO GOD" as it is to say "THERE IS CERTAINLY A GOD AND WE WORSHIP HIM PROPERLY." If you can't see a distinction between those two then you're really no better, as an 'atheist' than any other religious zealot.
As far as I know, all of the atheists on this forum (including me) feel the same exact way about religion as Carl Sagan, except for semantic quibbling about what exactly we should call our skepticism/lack of belief in gods.
You guys are totally harshing on his apatheist buzz. How is he supposed to sneer at you if you don't dogmatically cling to the beliefs of no-god and exhort the religious fools to recant and follow the Logic Jesus?
Still on that? Geez... I know it probably stung when I pointed out the fact that you were talking out of your ass... but a day later you're still trying to snipe? Wow. Just look at the picture of mexi-Jesus and all will be ok... I promise.
Look, I'm not going to turn this into an atheist vs. whatever thread, but you really need to shut the fuck up. Your apatheist bullshit is just an apologist movement from people too chicken shit to stand up to the majority and say hey, there's no evidence of a god, and Occam's Razor tells us that with all probability there isn't one. You are just too chicken shit to fucking admit it. So quit acting like your fucking bet hedging is somehow significant and not what it actually is, cowardly.
Since I mentioned nothing about apatheism today and merely wanted clarification on what I saw as some morally superior standpoint I'm left wondering what the fuck you're so angry about?
I like Mormons, and considered becoming one. Indeed, I was proselytized for six months by two Mormon missionaries. For a number of reasons, I wish Mormonism was true. Unfortunately, Joseph Smith was a religious charlatan. That will become obvious to anyone who makes a dispassionate study of his claims.
The Book of Mormon claims to be a detailed history of pre-Columbian history from roughly 600 B.C. to 421 A.D. Since The Book of Mormon was first published in 1830 a great deal has been learned about what was really happening in the Americas back then. There is no independent evidence that anything in The Book of Mormon actually happened, and a great deal of evidence that nothing in it happened. For example, The Book of Mormon claims that when Israelites came to the new world, no humans lived here. Archaeological evidence clearly proves that the Indians have been here for at least 10,000 years, and that they are closely related to people who still live in north eastern Siberia.
From 600 B.C. to 421 A.D. Indians in Indian civilizations in the Americas were polytheistic and practiced human sacrifice. There is no mention of this in The Book of Mormon. Pre-Columbian Indian writing has been deciphered. There is no mention in it of any events recorded in The Book of Mormon. I could go on and on, but you get the idea.
Also, Joseph Smith bought an ancient Egyptian manuscript, and claimed that it was written by Abraham. He claimed to translate this manuscript into The Book of Abraham. For nearly 100 years the manuscript was lost. It was discovered in 1967. It has been translated by scholars who can really read ancient Egyptian writing. There is no similarity between the real translation of the manuscript, and Joseph Smith’s presumed “translation.”
Joseph Smith was not delusional. He was a fraud. The Church of Latter Day Saints is built on a foundation of lies.
It's another part of the Mormon "We are correct, every other church is false" mentality.
This was something i found a little odd about it all, in the program for the Mormon pageant I saw it pretty much said that word for word. It was a tad off-putting, even from an atheist's perspective
and I agree this thread is super-entertaining
You say 'even from an Atheist's perspective' as though that perspective is somehow more valid. It's just as ignorant to say "THERE IS CERTAINLY NO GOD" as it is to say "THERE IS CERTAINLY A GOD AND WE WORSHIP HIM PROPERLY." If you can't see a distinction between those two then you're really no better, as an 'atheist' than any other religious zealot.
As far as I know, all of the atheists on this forum (including me) feel the same exact way about religion as Carl Sagan, except for semantic quibbling about what exactly we should call our skepticism/lack of belief in gods.
You guys are totally harshing on his apatheist buzz. How is he supposed to sneer at you if you don't dogmatically cling to the beliefs of no-god and exhort the religious fools to recant and follow the Logic Jesus?
Still on that? Geez... I know it probably stung when I pointed out the fact that you were talking out of your ass... but a day later you're still trying to snipe? Wow. Just look at the picture of mexi-Jesus and all will be ok... I promise.
Look, I'm not going to turn this into an atheist vs. whatever thread, but you really need to shut the fuck up. Your apatheist bullshit is just an apologist movement from people too chicken shit to stand up to the majority and say hey, there's no evidence of a god, and Occam's Razor tells us that with all probability there isn't one. You are just too chicken shit to fucking admit it. So quit acting like your fucking bet hedging is somehow significant and not what it actually is, cowardly.
You two need to calm down.
You're not actually disagreeing over anything. Headspace, judging from your sig, is a fan of Carl Sagan. Sentry, I'm sure your views on religion mirror what Sagan says. You don't actually disagree with each other, you just disagree about what to call your views (and maybe how vocal to be about them ... though Sagan was quite vocal).
Painting clearly non-white people as white was understandable back when, say, Italian Renaissance painters were doing it. You couldn't exactly hop on the Internet and see what the Middle East probably looked like back in the day, so you painted what you knew. This, however, is ridiculous.
I doubt you could hop on the Internet in the 50s and 60s either, which was when the bulk of that guy's crap was painted.
Painting clearly non-white people as white was understandable back when, say, Italian Renaissance painters were doing it. You couldn't exactly hop on the Internet and see what the Middle East probably looked like back in the day, so you painted what you knew. This, however, is ridiculous.
I doubt you could hop on the Internet in the 50s and 60s either, which was when the bulk of that guy's crap was painted.
No, but you could go to the local library and do about half an hour's research to determine otherwise.
There was a court case here in Utah recently, and part of the prosecution's evidence was a DNA test. The defense argued that DNA tests don’t work and tried to have it thrown out. Their argument? That DNA tests have proven that the Native Americans are not descended from Israelites. Since they are descendants, obviously DNA tests are unreliable.
Posts
Ok let me explain, generally, no one enters the temple, male or female, untill either they are leaving on a mission, getting married, or if they are exceptionally older and single. If she wasn't leaving on a mission anytime soon or getting married, then no, she wouldn't have been able to attend the sealing, just as I couldn't attend my brother's since I hadn't yet gone through the temple for myself.
Just because she was raised from birth in the church, doesn't mean she understands the doctrine, if she had, then we wouldn't be having this conversation.
Arch,
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t_goGR39m2k
would she have been allowed to attend her funeral?
Funerals do not take place in the temple, so yes.
Arch,
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t_goGR39m2k
THat's one thing about the Mormon faith that really bothers me, the Bastism of the Dead. The thought that they feel that they are so superior to other religious beliefs that they will baptise dead people, who obviously have no say in the matter, and who may have been completely comfortable in their non-Mormon religious ideals, or having no religious ideals at all.
That practice is so incredibly self righteous to me. I don't know what happens when people die, and I doubt that if there is a God he's gonna give a shit about someone baptising you forty years after you died, but based solely on princible I think it's disgusting.
It's another part of the Mormon "We are correct, every other church is false" mentality.
Steam / Bus Blog / Goozex Referral
It's ridiculous in there.
Steam / Bus Blog / Goozex Referral
Addressing this now that I'm home. If you read what I wrote, I was arguing against something more ludicrous, and was saying that the nudity aspect wasn't practiced anymore. I've found an official description of what occurs at lds-temple.org.
From the ceremony itself:
As noted in the original paragraph, very recently it seems that it has been changed from having touching/blessing of the lower areas to doing it just to the shield, and that the shield is no longer open on the sides like it used to be, so you can say that there is nothing resembling it now. However, the fact remains that the marriage ceremony used to involve an open-sided garment being the only thing worn while people complained of being fondled while their body was "blessed," and if you go back to older accounts, it used to be done naked.
I find it hard to agree with your statement of "any claims of ever existing nudity in the church to be false." It may not be the case now, but it only recently crossed the threshold from being damn close to it, and it used to be done from multiple accounts. The whole "conception room" thing is a load of bull, and I was saying it was likely a perversion of understanding of the above ceremony.
This was something i found a little odd about it all, in the program for the Mormon pageant I saw it pretty much said that word for word. It was a tad off-putting, even from an atheist's perspective
and I agree this thread is super-entertaining
My guess is that they're simply ignoring it or turning the evidence around the way creationist attack evolution. But that's just a guess.
What ever happened to the good old Gnostic tradition that held that the world was not only created by God, but that God is actually evil and cruel and the only way to escape and get to the afterlife (or escape Hell, or whatever it's supposed to be) is through knowledge?
This is kind of an ass-backwards way to look at it. Given that the Mormons believe the following is true:
A. The Mormon Church has the true gospel handed down from God himself and is, thus, the one true church. (You can't fault them on this, most other Christian faiths do the same damn thing.)
B. Some ordinances can only be performed "in the flesh" on Earth, not in the spirit Afterlife.
Then they would be much more callous and superior to say "Welp, you had your chance to accept it when you were alive. I guess it's eternal damnation for you." (Some other denominations believe exactly this.)
I mean, there are plenty of areas that the Mormon church fails in, but Baptism for the Dead is probably one of the less selfish things they do.
Now, if you want to talk about them trying to baptize people who died in the Holocaust, we might have some common ground for disgust.
That's all well and good, but I know the REAL reason Mormons don't drink caffeine: they don't need it. They've got better things to keep them awake and jittery.
- Endure. In enduring, grow strong.
- Balance, in all things.
- There cannot be two skies.
Also, those for whom baptisms are performed don't suddenly become "Mormon" in heaven. They, in spirit form, have the choice to accept or reject said baptism.
Christ proclaimed in John 3:5 that all must be baptized to enter heaven.
RE: Temple ordinances.
I know back in the day, 1800s, the ceremony wasn't as modest as it is today. However, there was no sex then and there is no sex performed in the temples now.
There have been many things stated in this thread that are almost right, not quite right or totally wrong. I'll try to answer as many questions as possible
You say 'even from an Atheist's perspective' as though that perspective is somehow more valid. It's just as ignorant to say "THERE IS CERTAINLY NO GOD" as it is to say "THERE IS CERTAINLY A GOD AND WE WORSHIP HIM PROPERLY." If you can't see a distinction between those two then you're really no better, as an 'atheist' than any other religious zealot.
That is just for open houses where people are allowed to wear their street shoes inside. Once dedicated, the plastic is removed and partrons change shoes once inside.
Once or twice a year temples are closed for a few weeks to be cleaned. Carpets and such.
I think you may be reading a little too much into that comment.
Then feel free to clarify what was meant by it.
You guys are totally harshing on his apatheist buzz. How is he supposed to sneer at you if you don't dogmatically cling to the beliefs of no-god and exhort the religious fools to recant and follow the Logic Jesus?
Cracks me up every time.
Oh, and christ almighty. Atheism is not the angry opposite of bible-thumping. I just don't particularly find the idea of a god or gods convincing. I don't have to be a douche to not really buy that. I feel the same way about god as I do about my body becoming a black hole spontaneously. Not likely, but anything can happen.
There was a court case here in Utah recently, and part of the prosecution's evidence was a DNA test. The defense argued that DNA tests don’t work and tried to have it thrown out. Their argument? That DNA tests have proven that the Native Americans are not descended from Israelites. Since they are descendants, obviously DNA tests are unreliable.
Those are the whitest looking Mesoamericans I've ever seen. Keeee-rist.
Kind of like the Catholics "sweeping the Inquisition" under the rug?
Maybe the Protestants burning witches and stoning Jews? They're "sweeping that under the rug?"
The simple fact is that all religions are equally spurious in history. Mormons just haven't had the benefit of multiple centuries between their religion's genesis and now to shroud the spurious things in ignorance, apathy, and mystery.
That's the same artist that draws all the prophets as ripped.
Still on that? Geez... I know it probably stung when I pointed out the fact that you were talking out of your ass... but a day later you're still trying to snipe? Wow. Just look at the picture of mexi-Jesus and all will be ok... I promise.
Look, I'm not going to turn this into an atheist vs. whatever thread, but you really need to shut the fuck up. Your apatheist bullshit is just an apologist movement from people too chicken shit to stand up to the majority and say hey, there's no evidence of a god, and Occam's Razor tells us that with all probability there isn't one. You are just too chicken shit to fucking admit it. So quit acting like your fucking bet hedging is somehow significant and not what it actually is, cowardly.
Edit... perhaps I have overreacted. Sorry. My foot hurts.
Since I mentioned nothing about apatheism today and merely wanted clarification on what I saw as some morally superior standpoint I'm left wondering what the fuck you're so angry about?
The Book of Mormon claims to be a detailed history of pre-Columbian history from roughly 600 B.C. to 421 A.D. Since The Book of Mormon was first published in 1830 a great deal has been learned about what was really happening in the Americas back then. There is no independent evidence that anything in The Book of Mormon actually happened, and a great deal of evidence that nothing in it happened. For example, The Book of Mormon claims that when Israelites came to the new world, no humans lived here. Archaeological evidence clearly proves that the Indians have been here for at least 10,000 years, and that they are closely related to people who still live in north eastern Siberia.
From 600 B.C. to 421 A.D. Indians in Indian civilizations in the Americas were polytheistic and practiced human sacrifice. There is no mention of this in The Book of Mormon. Pre-Columbian Indian writing has been deciphered. There is no mention in it of any events recorded in The Book of Mormon. I could go on and on, but you get the idea.
Also, Joseph Smith bought an ancient Egyptian manuscript, and claimed that it was written by Abraham. He claimed to translate this manuscript into The Book of Abraham. For nearly 100 years the manuscript was lost. It was discovered in 1967. It has been translated by scholars who can really read ancient Egyptian writing. There is no similarity between the real translation of the manuscript, and Joseph Smith’s presumed “translation.”
Joseph Smith was not delusional. He was a fraud. The Church of Latter Day Saints is built on a foundation of lies.
You're not actually disagreeing over anything. Headspace, judging from your sig, is a fan of Carl Sagan. Sentry, I'm sure your views on religion mirror what Sagan says. You don't actually disagree with each other, you just disagree about what to call your views (and maybe how vocal to be about them ... though Sagan was quite vocal).
I doubt you could hop on the Internet in the 50s and 60s either, which was when the bulk of that guy's crap was painted.
No, but you could go to the local library and do about half an hour's research to determine otherwise.
That sounds really out there. Got a source?