Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

---

At 10/10/11 10:10 AM, djack wrote: The larger community? The vast majority of the population of Utah is Mormon, and relatively few Mormons live in other parts of the country because they practice polygamy and very few states allow it (I don't know the marriage laws of every state so Utah may be the only one).

polygamy is illegal in Utah and banned by the modern LDS church (for now).

maybe a thread on polygamy would be fun.

---

At 10/10/11 12:13 PM, SolInvictus wrote:

At 10/10/11 10:10 AM, djack wrote: The larger community? The vast majority of the population of Utah is Mormon, and relatively few Mormons live in other parts of the country because they practice polygamy and very few states allow it (I don't know the marriage laws of every state so Utah may be the only one).

polygamy is illegal in Utah and banned by the modern LDS church (for now).

maybe a thread on polygamy would be fun.

That, I did not know. But it's still practiced and is a core part of their beliefs to the point that it is a requirement to reach the highest degree of heaven.

---

At 10/10/11 07:17 AM, Famas wrote:

At 10/10/11 02:20 AM, Hybridization wrote: The Bible. What world of inconsistency have you been living in?

Which one of the many versions of the bible are you reading?

See what I did there

I did see what you did. What you did was refer to the many translations - not equivalent to different "versions" in terms of teachings. (This does not apply to the Catholic and Protestant scriptures although the Catholics did not alter the NT).

The religion is defined by the teachings regardless. I fail to see how this is silly.

Because religious text is not stone cold logical parameters with zero room for interpretation, so what you call "The Bible" (let's just say King James' version because it probably is) could be called "Heretical Garbage Book" by other people of the same religious background.

Could you explain this further? I think I see where this is going, but I don't want to put words in your mouth.

Text is but a small part of religious systems. An incredibly small part at that. The past two-thousand eleven years of human history has shown that pretty well, don't you think?

I'm not arguing for the systems, I'm arguing for the religion. Simply turning on the news will tell you that the systems are corrupt.

Then tell me, what could POSSIBLY be used to define Christianity?

Not the text alone because as I have already pointed out, your bible is not THE bible but A bible. One of several. And unless you want to play Knights Templar and start a campaign throughout the holy land, good luck getting anybody to give a shit what version of the book you think is the right one.

"A translation." Already explained this.

Complete nonsense.

"Here is my lame retort to your valid point."

That's your sentence translated into the holy tongue.

Lol, that was funny.

The cult part comes in when people claim it is the same religion as Christianity.

They're both Judeo-Christian monotheistic religions aimed towards praising Jesus that both result in the lamest media this planet has ever bore witness to.

Am I missing something here or are you trying to distinguish between the DNA of identical twins because one has a birthmark on it's left asscheek?

You must have ignored my original post, unless you're just the poster child for the stupid. 13 critical fundamental differences between the two must be a hell of a "DNA similarity".

---

At 10/10/11 02:20 AM, Hybridization wrote: The Bible. What world of inconsistency have you been living in?

I know you're reading the Bible. That's the text of inconsistency I meant. That work by committee that can't even follow basic story telling logic and posits events that never happened.

The religion is defined by the teachings regardless. I fail to see how this is silly.

The part I think is silly is that you seem to completely discount church and adherent contributions. To act like the followers bring nothing to the table and add to and help to shape the religion is ridiculous and it ignores demonstrable fact. That's what I found to be silly.

Then tell me, what could POSSIBLY be used to define Christianity?

I gave you a dictionary definition in my first reply to you. The reply you either missed, or willfully ignored. I'd like to think it's the former though and not the latter. You were replying to a lot of people at the time. :)

Complete nonsense.

Or, ya know, you could actually bother to offer a real rebuttal. But I get it, you can't really rebut the truth, so I can see where outright dismissal seems a safer bet.

No. The origins are consistent. Anyone today can follow the very roots of Christianity.

They can, but if they don't, isn't that an evolution? The fact that Christianity has moved beyond it's roots and splintered as much as it has shows an evolution. You're not really denying the fact that it's actually evolved. You just seem to personally not agree with the fact that it did. Which is fine, totally you're perogative, just don't let your opinions get in the way of demonstrable fact.

If you admit that the LDS is a different religion, we are not arguing.

I clarified with Camarouhoskey that despite what my understanding of the Book of Mormon is, and my understanding of the most basic qualifiers to Christianity to be...I cannot consider the LDS, or even fundamentalist Mormons to be a different religion. Just a different branch of Christianity. A branch that may be very far from it's parent trunk (if that analogy makes sense) but connected nonetheless.

The cult part comes in when people claim it is the same religion as Christianity.

That's not what would make it a cult though. This notice how those definitions also apply to Christianity, and every other religion on the planet? Pot, meet kettle.

Do you understand what the discussion is about?

I do, it's really ridiculous actually. It's even more ridiculous how you keep insisting words don't seem to mean what they actually mean because golly gee you've got a belief and therefore you must be ever so correct.

By the way, the second part of your post seems very much like you simply wanted to use the phrase "Critical thinking" to sound educated.

I just wanted to try to define what it was I was doing. But I do consider myself pretty educated. Is that something that's a mark of dishonor in your circle? If so, I won't apologize for being smart and trying to improve my mind. If it's because you thought I was trying to pull some arrogant intellectual dick measuring, then I do apologize. That was not my intent and I hate people who feel the need to take whatever intelligence they have and try to embarrass and humiliate those that are less intelligent. If somebody is wrong, point it out, but point it out in a fair way that they can understand what you're saying.

Sorry, I meant to say a different sect of the same religion - which would make it a cult. We are on the same page.

Um, yeah, they did. That's why they aren't Jews. They started as Jews, as a small separate sect within it (a cult, as we already defined with the dictionary) then broke away, became a very persecuted cult, until Constantine the Great converts and elevates them and founds the Roman Catholic Church. This has been early Christianity in a nutshell, with aviewaskewed :)

Show me where Protestant (even Catholic) Christianity has altered verses of the Old Testament, and you will have an argument.

Well, there is the first paragraph of this.

It did not claim to be a religion within Judaism etc etc etc (every previous post I've made).

Except that they did, and were. Seriously, five minutes, if even, of searching will stop you from ramming your foot in your mouth so much.

People obviously cannot understand the difference between the connotation of "cult" and the actual definition.

I actually agree. You're one of them after all! :)

Christianity was a hated and heretical minority -

True sir.

but it was not a cult because it did not change and expand upon the Old Testament (it only added to it, but the addition was completely in line with the prophets).

According to the Christians. Not according to non-believers. You're right that they weren't hated because they were seen as a "cult" in the way we think of, and usually apply the term today. They were hated for being heretics. Something Christians and Islamics and many other faiths have done as well. Nobody likes the guy who stands up and says "hey, I know better then the established authority".

Explain to me how Christianity was a cult.

I already did earlier when I showed you the definition of the word, and the early history of the faith that you seem to be very ignorant of...yet you want to make pronouncements about the ignorance of others. Best check the glass content of your home before you chuck those rocks sirrah.

---

At 10/10/11 10:10 AM, djack wrote: The larger community?

Righty roo.

The vast majority of the population of Utah is Mormon,

To this I say so what?

and relatively few Mormons live in other parts of the country because they practice polygamy and very few states allow it (I don't know the marriage laws of every state so Utah may be the only one).

Polygamy is outlawed everywhere so far as I know. Not all Mormons practice polygamy, fundamentalists do. The mainstream church outlawed polygamy before or just after the turn of the 20th century. Know you're history and you wont make these errors.

You can't claim that other LDS Churches are different simply because I didn't mention them in my post.

I claim it because you make dumb ass, untrue statements like "all Mormons are polygamists" it's demonstrably false. I mean, are you watching something like Big Love, or Sister Wives and thinking it's a documentary on Mormonism?

Besides, the founder of a group and his motives for doing so are a big part of what makes a cult what it is.

Not really, I defined cult earlier. Nothing in the definition about that. This is personal opinions masquerading as fact. But if I play alone with this, how's come Jesus of Nazareth can be considered to be telling the truth, but Joseph Smith is a liar? We have just as much evidence that Jesus was telling the truth, as we do for John Smith telling the truth.

You didn't point out contrasting properties,

I'm pretty sure I've done that in each post actually.

you said that because I could understand why someone would call Mormonism a cult I didn't understand the differences between Mormons and other branches of the LDS Church.

Oh, I was unclear somehow I guess. My bad. No, my point is, and has been, YOU don't understand the differences between fundamentalist Mormons and the LDS church. You see them as one and the same, and because you think their founder a charlatan, his beliefs to be wacky, self serving, and against society, you paint everyone with the same brush and scream cult. Yet as I'm saying, you can clearly see where there are different branches of Mormonism, as there are different branches of protestant christians, or any other religion. I also have to question why Mormonism can be a cult, and other Christians jump all over their shit...but then get haughty and don't want to debate if someone says "but you're belief was a cult once, you've got some kind of kooky ideas...by what right do you judge?" Especially when you consider if you're really a Christian, you aren't supposed to be judging others.

Immediately attacking me for being able to see something from someone else's perspective and understand why they said what they did (can you say irony).

I can indeed! It's a very easy word to say. Often misused though, kind of like cult. Also that's not what I "attacked" you about. I'll "attack" anybody who presents ignorance as truth, and opinion as fact. Know what you're talking about, or don't talk. Simple philosophy.

Of course the different subgroups and even different members of those subgroups will have some differences but that isn't the group as a whole.

So finally you admit it.

When you think of Mormonism you probably think of the same thing as everyone else which is the large communities of Mormons in Utah and the story of Joseph Smith.

But that's personal opinion, and perhaps personal bias. If I'm going to slap a big, and potentially inflammatory label like "cult" onto them, then I need to look at the overall and figure out what the majority of them practice and believe, and whether or not the definitions of the label fit.

If you're going to play with semantics then get out of the argument.

The fuck is semantical about pointing out something that's factual?

Of course other religions have "cult" traits because cult is a broad term with multiple definitions (obviously the term cult classic isn't referring to the use of poisoned Kool-Aid for mass suicides) and there are individuals who will use the power of a religion to form a cult but that isn't the majority.

Oh really? Because the definitions I've found for "cult" actually apply, in total or piecemeal, to every religion ever. This sounds like your personal opinions and bias's about what constitutes a "cult" masquerading as some kind of educated opinion. A little step or two towards an Argumentum Ad Populum as well me thinks. Maybe more then a little.

The majority of Mormons on the other hand can be found in their compounds in Utah and at one time went to war with the government they lived under.

Source? Proof? Evidence? Lols? Something that'll make me think this didn't just fly out of your ass for convenience?

If you can point to a time when Islam, Christianity, Judaism, Buddhism, and Hinduism had the majority of it's members isolated from society based on the words of someone whose story is so inconsistent that anyone can see that he's lying (don't just say there are inconsistencies in the Bible either, you have to actually show verses that indicate that the person who wrote that book of the Bible was lying)

Then I say the same thing to you. Prove John Smith is lying, that he didn't actually believe the things he said. Just because it sounds like horse shit doesn't necessarily mean it was horse shit to Smith. Don't set impossible proof parameters for one and then not hold the thing your ridiculing up to those same impossible parameters.

and then went to war with their own government because of it then I will admit that you're right.

Prove ALL Mormons have gone to war with their government and not just an individual sect or two, then I'll admit you're right. Because right now you sound like a biased, ignorant little man that thinks I'm too stupid to see through his very very thin arguments.

---

I've noticed that the word "cult" is really just a pejorative word for "religion". It's what you call a religion you don't like. For example, Mormonism and Scientology are every bit a religion as Christianity or Hinduism, but they get called "cult" far more often. Why are they called a cult and not the others? Factors such as them being newer, less popular, or scamming people seem to be popular reasons. But none of those reasons take away from religion status.

---

At 10/22/11 10:28 PM, tpm wrote: I've noticed that the word "cult" is really just a pejorative word for "religion". It's what you call a religion you don't like. For example, Mormonism and Scientology are every bit a religion as Christianity or Hinduism, but they get called "cult" far more often. Why are they called a cult and not the others? Factors such as them being newer, less popular, or scamming people seem to be popular reasons. But none of those reasons take away from religion status.

The thing though is that with cults you get indoctrinated and eventually they control you, they can use you to do whatever they want. Usually for very bad things. That's the kind of connotation people are seeking to put on groups like the Scientologists, while to an extent it's true for them (i.e. making their followers pay for classes and if say their personal life is hurt like say a death of a family member, not reporting it to the follower). That's the kind of connotation people seek to put on these groups since they want to give themselves a reason for hating them.

---

I'm just going to throw my opinion out there.

I AM a member of the LDS church.

I do not believe we are Christians, because the fundamental values of the Mormon church are completely different than the established values of well... ALL Christian churches out there.

However, I also don't believe it can be classified as a 'cult'.

It's just kind of... there.

---

The other day I saw a whole bunch of stuff about Mormon mythology. Some of it is more science fictiony than Scientology. They apparently believe that God is actually a being from another planet that was given Earth by his own God, and that people who are good and obedient to God are rewarded with a planet of their own where they can be Gods over all of their children. Weird stuff. And of course Mormons deny all of this up and down either because they are not at a level where the church shares this information or because they know it makes them look silly to theists and atheists alike.

---

At 10/23/11 12:12 AM, Morph94 wrote: I do not believe we are Christians, because the fundamental values of the Mormon church are completely different than the established values of well... ALL Christian churches out there.

Please share. Because my understanding is you guys meet the most basic definition of Christianity, since you believe in the divinity of Jesus Christ. Yes, you've got a whole other story and what not that differs from pretty much everybody else sharing that belief...but as long as you still have that belief in his divinity in common, you're all at your core Christians. But again, if I've got it wrong, please do enlighten.

---

At 10/7/11 07:19 PM, SadisticMonkey wrote: Yeah, mormonism is a cult. Just like Islam.

There may be mormonistic cults, but mormonism as a whole is a religion, not a cult. Christians have there fair share of cults, too. Like the Potters House. As much as I think that they're beliefs are basically insane (as do I most religions), I think people need to get over ripping on them as a whole. I hate overbearing religious nuts, but someone who believes something differently and doesn't need to shove it in my face is just another person. Anyway, I should also state I'm not a mormon, I don't even believe in organized religion.