A 51 hour working week and then going through a member’s meeting on church finances (oh my days). “I give a paper tithe, isn’t that enough?!” Anyway, blessings to everyone reading, I hope your week’s been a good one. Mine was okay, got into a nasty exchange with two witnesses on the streets of London, I was lovely by the way, 😛 but they called my returning to see them two weeks in a row “harassment!” I had no idea it was so easy to harass a person. However your week in faith has gone, here’s a little internet exchange to get you geared up for another week of war in the world and loving on your enemy.
You Mormons need to become Christians.
You christians need to wrap your head around the fact that the Jesus you believe in is a myth that developed decades and centuries after he supposedly did.
Yeah, doesn’t feel good when people are dismissive of your cherished beliefs.
I will pray for you.
Carlos W. Mercado
Mormons are Christians, sir. You’re misinformed.
May God have mercy on your soul…Bless.
Carlos W. Mercado
Sir, Jesus is mention in the Book of Mormon as much as 3,925 times. Some form of Christ’s name is mentioned in every 1.7 verses of the Book of Mormon. And the Bible is as important as the Book of Mormon for us (and as other canonical scripture we have). Jesus is the center of our life and happiness, and a lot of things we do and what we are is because of Him. This is just a super condensed summary of years and a life of following the Savior for millions of Mormons (Mormons from now and from the past). Then, why do you say that Mormons need to become Christians?
Howard Stern [the shock jock]
A Mormon once told me that Smith is there true God…And that he will come back to reign supreme on Earth…I always thought it was our Lord Jesus…Not some figure from 170 years ago.
Carlos W. Mercado
The man who told you that was any fooling you, joking or crazy. Anyways, if he was a sane Mormon, he wasn’t a good one (as in any other religion or group in the world, there’s some mean people among us, sadly). What we believe is that Jesus Christ, who lived on Earth 2,000 years ago, is going to come back in the Second Coming. And we worship Him as God following His teachings as master, and all the things that the Bible says about Him.
Actually, Joseph (fine biblical name it is too), even leading atheistic scholars like Gerd Ludemann date certain traditions about Jesus’ return from death as the resurrected king of Israel to within years (even months) of Jesus’ death by crucifixion. Decades would be impressive in and of itself, yet, in the case for Christ, the time’s even shorter. Ludemann’s verdict on 1 Corinthians 15, for example, was to insist “the elements in the tradition are to be dated to the first two years after the crucifixion of Jesus… not later than three years.” This, historically speaking, is pure dynamite!
P52, just as another example, really punts the belief in Jesus’ divinity right back into the mid first century (at the latest). Although it goes without writing that to outright dismiss somebody’s cherished beliefs is bad form, nonetheless, that doesn’t mean it’s fair to casually equate every cherished belief as being equal, or even equally vulnerable to criticism. Mormonism, as I’m certain you already know, has more holes than a Swiss cheese after having been Tommy gunned to death by the mob. Religious relativism, if we’re educated on comparative religions, is completely bankrupt. We can’t write, “Oh, so you believers in Hinduism want to mock Muhammad for marrying a child? Well, that’s just as true for your gods and goddesses!”
Well there is a tradition now that celebrates fake news and says that Obama tapped Donald Trump’s phone. I’m not sure I know the point you are making. The evidence that people have and hold onto (the bible) was written decades after the fact. Unless there is some other holy book you want to point to, maybe the BOM, or Book of Abraham? Quran? Do we just want to speculate about things or do we want to cold hard truth?
Societal EX [Keep your eyes peeled for an argument against Islam in the portion below, I’ve mentioned it to Muslims all around the world and they simply can’t handle it]
That wouldn’t be a tradition in the classical sense, my friend. We have to be careful not to conflate categories like that. The really exciting question though would be the question which Pilate asked, namely “What is truth?” If we wanted to know the truth about lies, about fakes, you and I wouldn’t simply want to know statements which in reality aren’t true. Rather we’d want to know the untruth for that which it truly is, rather than believing it to be what it’s not.
Truth isn’t by necessity hard and cold, nor fast and loose, ordinarily, it’s the cynic who describes truth as being cold, and the con who believes truth to be loose, simply because he’s loose with the truth (in our honest estimation). It’s not easy to dismiss the facts surrounding the New Testament documents as speculative when those same conclusions are based upon evidence and historic principles, for example it’s speculative for you and I to debate the average fillings in a sandwich eaten by moon men, it’s speculative because it’s guesswork, it’s not really built upon anything, whereas dating 1 Corinthians 15, that’s evidence, evidence which historians need to understand based upon proven historic principles.
When you shared how belief in Jesus developed “hundreds” of years later, for which “Christians” (so Christian beliefs) must wrap their heads around the fact, you were fighting fire with fire, cruelty with cruelty, however, to write Christians have gotten their opinions from material written centuries later, that’s an untruth. Every book of the Bible, as critics can prove, was written before 100AD. So, if Christ was crucified between 30AD and 33AD (I personally opt for 30), that means our Bible was competed within 70 years of the death of Christ and the discovery of the empty tomb.
That’s not centuries later. Similarly, if some of the greatest atheistic critics can by tried and tested principles date Christian beliefs about Christ to within months and years of the crucifixion event, that’s not myth making or naked speculation, nor would such beliefs, if formulated within months of the event, be how myths are formed. We have to handle the material fairly for our Mormon friends, if for nobody else, which means sharing lies for what they are, myths for myths, and historic fact grounded upon criteria as it truly is. Religious relativism on this topic hurts everybody.
My point would be to write let’s be fair to the evidence. I wouldn’t compare the Qur’an to the material of the New Testament, hopefully you’ll agree with my reasons for not doing so. One reason, just one of many, would be because the Qur’an doesn’t have context, it’s not a contextualized set of events, due to which people need to read the extra Qur’anic traditions. Whereas, in the case of Galatians, for example, we’re not reading a contextless book written by an unknown author, as is often charged against the Bible, rather, we’re reading second-hand testimony from the Apostle Paul himself. Nobody doubts Galatians to be thoroughly Pauline (try searching “Atheist Refuted by Agnostic Historian (Bart Ehrman) on the Existence of Jesus” for more regarding that).
Consider this, my friend, if Islam were true (big if, but suspend your disbelief), then you’ve got a golden tablet in heaven containing the words of Allah, now, if you and I were to read THAT golden tablet ourselves, that would be first-hand testimony. First-hand evidence of the truth value of Islam. Sadly we don’t have that, even Muhammad didn’t have that. He had supposed testimony from the angel Gabriel, like how Smith had a suppose angelic visit, so, that’s second-hand testimony (not bad at all, historically writing). The amazing part is, we don’t get Gabriel either, we don’t even get Muhammad’s words, as Muslims everywhere deny Muhammad wrote the Qur’an, rather they claim the companions of Muhammad wrote down the Qur’an upon bone, animal skins and so on. The next extraordinary fact would be to write we don’t have the writings of Muhammad’s companions, rather, we’ve got the words of the companions in the traditions as gathered by the compilers. That’s fifth-hand testimony!
Now, you’ve also got Paul’s Damascus road experience, where he wrote how he had an encountered with the risen Christ, after which they confirmed their teachings with the Apostles, who themselves lived alongside Jesus during Their earthly ministry. That’s not fifth-hand testimony by the compilers some 200 years later, that’s eyewitness testimony. I’m writing if you were to undermine cherished Islamic beliefs based upon them being put into context by fifth-hand testimony, that’s fair, whereas if you or I dismiss Christian beliefs based upon the exact same grounds, that’s very unfair and very dangerous in terms of people coming to know the truth. Christian documents, every book of the New Testament, was written within 100 years (not centuries) of the events that the Christian is chiefly concerned with, and they’re based upon known people, they’re in the majority comprised of traditions attached to named people.
I’m writing, constructively I hope, that you have to be more fair to the sources.
No practicing Mormon ever told you anything like that. You are full of beans.
I’m also of the opinion that if somebody really did write or tell Howard that they worship Joseph Smith, they’d been having him on. Although, consistently faithful, doctrinally sound Mormons can (or should) be clarifying Carlos’ reply. Carlos wrote with regards to Jesus “And we worship Him as God following His teachings as master, and all the things that the Bible says about Him.” Yet, insofar as my reading from faithful Mormons go, Elohim, meaning God the Father (or heavenly father), would be the only God “with whom we have to do.”
Many Mormon writers have insisted faithful Latter-day saints don’t worship Jesus. The supposed Mormon apostle (so no mean authority) Bruce R. McConkie, explained: “We do not worship the Son, and we do not worship the Holy Ghost. I know perfectly well what the scriptures say about worshiping Christ and Jehovah, but they are speaking in an entirely different sense—the sense of standing in awe and being reverentially grateful to him who has redeemed us. Worship in the true and saving sense is reserved for God the first, the Creator.”
Who would know better than an “apostle”? I’ve read people who although identifying as Mormon simply dismiss Bruce’s very explicit message by playing different Mormon writings against one another. Clarity would be very welcomed.
You need to find a true god…Not a sex addict
Many thanks for reading everyone, hopefully you found something insightful or just plain fun in that exchange. See y’all next time!
― T. C. M