The Authenticity of Your Religion

[Ellen Brown]

I feel very sorry for you. I am obviously ignorant of the details, and have no wish to inquire further, as you have clearly suffered greatly.

One response to the 9/11 attack was to accuse the US authorities of being completely blind to the reality of Islam as a self-promoting political system dedicated to evangelism by the sword, by deceit and by whatever other means comes to hand. They are still blind, as are the authorities in many other countries. They are creating huge problems for the future in allowing Islamic immigration at all. There is no single authentic interpretation of Islam. There are as many variants of Islam as there are of Christianity but with Christianity it is always possible to go back to the apostles and ask, "what did the founders of Christianity believe?"

With Islam it is quite impossible where Mahomet went through various stages of his religious activity. Although he commenced his pontifications in a relatively modest and quasi-spiritual and reflective sense, he ended up with a different and vastly more militant attitude, where it became quite permissible and even advisory to put "unbelievers" to the sword, and treat them with all kinds of contempt and deceit, especially where they would not submit to the Islamic yoke.

There is no single authentic version of Islam where it all depends on which emphasis the reader of the Quran chooses for himself or herself. Is it a matter of choice anyway? Islam is largely propagated by indoctrination of children and apostasy mandates the death penalty in many countries and Islamic societies. External repression of the unbeliever, which is clearly manifest in places like Pakistan and Saudi Arabia, is fully matched if not exceeded by internal political repression against Islam's existing adherents.

So the West in allowing immigrant adherents of Islam untrammelled access to its benefits is placing itself in an inherently dangerous position. War may not have been justfified by 9/11, and it was difficult to make a coherent case, I fully agree, but one can excuse any deep-seated hatred of Islam post 9/11. Islam is no tame tiger and the casualities of its battles run into millions - 270million according to some calculations.

I've been doing some reading and have watched some Youtube videos on Eastern Orthodox Christianity. Maybe what I still search for is the devout, and quiet devotion to God that I experienced in Islam. I had previously thought of becoming active in Islam again, but their views on Jesus the Christ is not acceptable to me. I was deeply immersed in Middle Eastern Islamic culture for years. It has become clear to me that much of the pain in Islam is that the Sunni and Shia have murderous hatred for each other. However, a blanket statement about Islam can not be credible because it is just as fragmented as Christianity. I started out in a very radical group of Islamics but when I understood what they were about I left. The truth is that when I tried to argue that some of their points were not supportable, they threw me out. There are lots of Muslim groups that are peaceful.

Not sure I agree with your assessment of Muhammad PBUH because of some of the things he did. I believe that the murdering and invasions occurred after his death. He authored The Constitution of Medina in which he put into print rights and privileges for women. He is known to have studied with early Christians, and Jews. In many ways, Islamic practice is a carbon copy of Judaism. It is the later Wahhabists that took it into the darkness.

It has been helpful to me to go over my feelings about this matter. Islam is no longer suitable for me, but I miss the quietness, and devout prayer. I feel the same about the Christian denominations I have experienced. There are some appealing aspects for me in Eastern Orthodoxy, but it is unlikely that I will join that. They are fascinating to me from an Anthropological point of view, however.

 

[outlawState]

INot sure I agree with your assessment of Muhammad PBUH because of some of the things he did. I believe that the murdering and invasions occurred after his death. He authored The Constitution of Medina in which he put into print rights and privileges for women. He is known to have studied with early Christians, and Jews. In many ways, Islamic practice is a carbon copy of Judaism. It is the later Wahhabists that took it into the darkness.

Privileges for women over and above those given to Christian wives are a recurring feature of Islam and one of the principal issues in which Islam departs from the morality of Christianity. In fact Allah is not even masculine but hermaphrodite betraying both male and female qualities. It is another reason he is not the same God as YHWH, which is identified with the male.

Islam venerates some women idolatrously, such as Mary and Fatima, and grants them rights of divorce, unheard of in Christianity. Thus the very order of God in 1 Cor 11 that you have quoted in another place is subverted by Islam. In fact the whole of the OT is subverted by Islam, which is truly an imposter religion.

It has been helpful to me to go over my feelings about this matter. Islam is no longer suitable for me, but I miss the quietness, and devout prayer.

In a charismatic church you have the very opposite end of the spectrum. I have found such issues in charismatic churches too. In fact I could discourse at some length on the problems of charismatic churches but I will refrain.

I feel the same about the Christian denominations I have experienced. There are some appealing aspects for me in Eastern Orthodoxy, but it is unlikely that I will join that. They are fascinating to me from an Anthropological point of view, however.

One cannot choose one's denomination unless one is prepared to move house, or unless one lives in a sizeable town or city. The individual in Christianity is more important than the denomination cf. Lot in Sodom. My own gripe with denominations is that so many don't follow the New Testament pattern for worship and have turned themselves in quasi-priestly hierarchies rather than assemblies of brothers and sisters.

 

[Ellen Brown]

Privileges for women over and above those given to Christian wives are a recurring feature of Islam and one of the principal issues in which Islam departs from the morality of Christianity. In fact Allah is not even masculine but hermaphrodite betraying both male and female qualities. It is another reason he is not the same God as YHWH, which is identified with the male.

Islam venerates some women idolatrously, such as Mary and Fatima, and grants them rights of divorce, unheard of in Christianity. Thus the very order of God in 1 Cor 11 that you have quoted in another place is subverted by Islam. In fact the whole of the OT is subverted by Islam, which is truly an imposter religion.



In a charismatic church you have the very opposite end of the spectrum. I have found such issues in charismatic churches too. In fact I could discourse at some length on the problems of charismatic churches but I will refrain.


One cannot choose one's denomination unless one is prepared to move house, or unless one lives in a sizeable town or city. The individual in Christianity is more important than the denomination cf. Lot in Sodom. My own gripe with denominations is that so many don't follow the New Testament pattern for worship and have turned themselves in quasi-priestly hierarchies rather than assemblies of brothers and sisters.

It is interesting that in early Judaism, Yahweh had a wife named Asherah, though I have no idea what they practice nowadays. I've been meaning to query someone at a Jewish place of worship about that.

As to the Muslims, this is the first time I have heard someone say that they practice idolatry. The prophecy given in the Old Testament regarding the descendants of Ishmael seems to be working though. As for me, I am sure that the Creator will work out who worships what God, though I feel like in the Abrahamic beliefs it is the same God.

Yes, I am uneasy about the way that women's rights have played out in American culture, and much of the New Testament is ignored in that respect. I will argue that men did and do have the choice of being much more benign so as not to arouse such frustration and rebellion in women. My own experiences with my stepfather, and later men make it difficult, if not impossible, to follow the role that is laid out for me. Gen 3:16 is very clear.

 

[outlawState]

It is interesting that in early Judaism, Yahweh had a wife named Asherah, though I have no idea what they practice nowadays. I've been meaning to query someone at a Jewish place of worship about that.

The generic name of the supreme God El, was borrowed or rather inherited by the Hebrews from the Canaanites and El did have a wife named Asherah. However it is clear that YHWH as a further revelation of the divine in the Moses era did not have any wife. It seems that this did not stop the idolatrous Jews from continuing to associate YHWH with Asherah until the various captivities put a stop to it.

I would see it as a heresy and not as any normative party of OT belief. In fact the bible tells us that there were continuing idolatrous heresies amonst the Jews throughout the era of the kings, including as archaelogy discloses, extensive use of household Asherah figurines.
Judean Pillar Figurines - Biblical Archaeology Society

As to the Muslims, this is the first time I have heard someone say that they practice idolatry. The prophecy given in the Old Testament regarding the descendants of Ishmael seems to be working though. As for me, I am sure that the Creator will work out who worships what God, though I feel like in the Abrahamic beliefs it is the same God.

The Qur’an's mentions "Mary's purification “from the touch of men” implying perpetual virginity in the minds of many of the most prominent Islamic fathers." (Wiki). The Islamic Mary is nearly synonymnous with the Catholic Mary, but I concur that the idolatry of Mary (as practiced by Catholics) is curtailed by Islam's sharp distinction between men and God.

Shias especially idolize Fatimah. "Shias hold that Fatimah will play a redemptive role as the mistress of the day of judgment in the hereafter, as a reward for her suffering in this world." (Wiki) . After the death of Fatima, Mohammed wrote: Thou shalt be the most blessed of women in Paradise, after Mary. In a variant of the text Fatima is made to say; I surpass all the women, except Mary.

That's not to say that there cannot be pure women, but constrast what Christ said with Mahomet's pretence at knowing who will sit where in heaven. He said "To sit at my right or left is not for me to grant. These places belong to those for whom they have been prepared.” Matt 10;40 .

Yes, I am uneasy about the way that women's rights have played out in American culture, and much of the New Testament is ignored in that respect. I will argue that men did and do have the choice of being much more benign so as not to arouse such frustration and rebellion in women. My own experiences with my stepfather, and later men make it difficult, if not impossible, to follow the role that is laid out for me. Gen 3:16 is very clear.

I concur that secular American society does not adopt biblical morality. It is a consequence of having "no established religion" (a deist endeavour). Of course there is an established religion, the religion of the judges and the supreme Court which suppresses the true religion of the bible. Yet just because American society is objectionable and secular in this respect does not infer that Islam is better where it might appear to offer a "better" politics. Religion is not politics, but politics should be according to one's religion.

 

[Ellen Brown]

The generic name of the supreme God El, was borrowed or rather inherited by the Hebrews from the Canaanites and El did have a wife named Asherah. However it is clear that YHWH as a further revelation of the divine in the Moses era did not have any wife. It seems that this did not stop the idolatrous Jews from continuing to associate YHWH with Asherah until the various captivities put a stop to it.

I would see it as a heresy and not as any normative party of OT belief. In fact the bible tells us that there were continuing idolatrous heresies amonst the Jews throughout the era of the kings, including as archaelogy discloses, extensive use of household Asherah figurines.
Judean Pillar Figurines - Biblical Archaeology Society


The Qur’an's mentions "Mary's purification “from the touch of men” implying perpetual virginity in the minds of many of the most prominent Islamic fathers." (Wiki). The Islamic Mary is nearly synonymnous with the Catholic Mary, but I concur that the idolatry of Mary (as practiced by Catholics) is curtailed by Islam's sharp distinction between men and God.

Shias especially idolize Fatimah. "Shias hold that Fatimah will play a redemptive role as the mistress of the day of judgment in the hereafter, as a reward for her suffering in this world." (Wiki) . After the death of Fatima, Mohammed wrote: Thou shalt be the most blessed of women in Paradise, after Mary. In a variant of the text Fatima is made to say; I surpass all the women, except Mary.

That's not to say that there cannot be pure women, but constrast what Christ said with Mahomet's pretence at knowing who will sit where in heaven. He said "To sit at my right or left is not for me to grant. These places belong to those for whom they have been prepared.” Matt 10;40 .


I concur that secular American society does not adopt biblical morality. It is a consequence of having "no established religion" (a deist endeavour). Of course there is an established religion, the religion of the judges and the supreme Court which suppresses the true religion of the bible. Yet just because American society is objectionable and secular in this respect does not infer that Islam is better where it might appear to offer a "better" politics. Religion is not politics, but politics should be according to one's religion.

My own feeling about the feminine manifestation of God is we don't actually know. I am puzzled by the resemblance these Pillar Figurines have to things found elsewhere in the world, though can not actually draw draw conclusions save to say that we don't seem to know how little we know. Rather than go off on some tangent, I am content to wait. There are numerous accounts of God, or an Angel manifesting themselves to various civilizations. To me, the more pressing question is why is it not happening now, or is it? To my knowledge, the Mormons are the only ones to make that sort of claim.

Is the lack of feminine representation in the "Godhead" some error in our observations or is it misogyny? I don't challenge the general idea that women are not Priestly leaders, but nurturers. Though Paul did call one woman an Apostle. Perhaps I shall know in the next life?

 

[outlawState]

My own feeling about the feminine manifestation of God is we don't actually know. I am puzzled by the resemblance these Pillar Figurines have to things found elsewhere in the world, though can not actually draw draw conclusions save to say that we don't seem to know how little we know. Rather than go off on some tangent, I am content to wait. There are numerous accounts of God, or an Angel manifesting themselves to various civilizations. To me, the more pressing question is why is it not happening now, or is it? To my knowledge, the Mormons are the only ones to make that sort of claim.

What have we need of angels where we have the son of God? However angels usually appear only in times of stress or persecution, for wrath or for deliverance. Angels of wrath appear in Revelation. I don't think these Pillar Figurines are angels.

For the mormons, their angels were as fabricated as their golden plates.

Is the lack of feminine representation in the "Godhead" some error in our observations or is it misogyny? I don't challenge the general idea that women are not Priestly leaders, but nurturers. Though Paul did call one woman an Apostle. Perhaps I shall know in the next life?

Misogyny would be a pagan term. There is nothing mysogynistic about Christianity. By 1 Cor 11 God is the head of Christ is the head of man is the head of woman. Why would the actual male sex figure in the godhead any more than the female sex? As Christ said the resurrected will be like angels and will neither marry nor be given in marriage. Contrast with Islam where the converse applies.

However by the applications of type theory to 1 Cor 11, it may be said that woman is a type or glory of man, man is a type or glory of Christ, and Christ is a type or glory of God. It is a specific blasphemy to call Allah "male" or "female." However Christ has preserved the notion of God as Father. A father is imbued with authority and role as provider. The authority of a Father over his children continues all the days of his life. Possibly this is not so with a mother over her sons. I think that these are the principal reasons why God is called Father and not mother.

 

[Ellen Brown]

What have we need of angels where we have the son of God? However angels usually appear only in times of stress or persecution, for wrath or for deliverance. Angels of wrath appear in Revelation. I don't think these Pillar Figurines are angels.

For the mormons, their angels were as fabricated as their golden plates.


Misogyny would be a pagan term. There is nothing mysogynistic about Christianity. By 1 Cor 11 God is the head of Christ is the head of man is the head of woman. Why would the actual male sex figure in the godhead any more than the female sex? As Christ said the resurrected will be like angels and will neither marry nor be given in marriage. Contrast with Islam where the converse applies.

However by the applications of type theory to 1 Cor 11, it may be said that woman is a type or glory of man, man is a type or glory of Christ, and Christ is a type or glory of God. It is a specific blasphemy to call Allah "male" or "female." However Christ has preserved the notion of God as Father. A father is imbued with authority and role as provider. The authority of a Father over his children continues all the days of his life. Possibly this is not so with a mother over her sons. I think that these are the principal reasons why God is called Father and not mother.

You are one of the few that have not tried to abrogate 1Cor 11. The Christians I speak to about it, just smile at me.

Not to be a doomsayer, but we need this to be the end times, I think. And when I get upset about the sad spiritual state of others, all I have to do is look at myself.

There is substantial documentation of God, or his Angels talking with men, but sadly most people try to make it something metaphysical or mysterious. Some people I have known say that the King of Salem, or Melchizedek was Jesus, or to just be weird about it a "type" of Jesus. What does that even mean? It feels like Priests have done their best to conceal the simple meaning in piles of tradition and gobbledegook.

Being a Vietnam Era Veteran, I am just sure that what appeared in Ezekiel was in simple terms a flying vehicle. Keep in mind that the people that saw it all happen had no technology beyond an Olive Oil Lamp. Among many other incidents there is the explaining of Jesus movement to avoid the crowd and elsewhere.

"Enoch walked with God, and was not."

 

[outlawState]

Some people I have known say that the King of Salem, or Melchizedek was Jesus, or to just be weird about it a "type" of Jesus. What does that even mean? It feels like Priests have done their best to conceal the simple meaning in piles of tradition and gobbledegook.

A "type" is roughly analogous to a pattern or a copy or shadow of heavenly things (Hebrews 8:5), when used in a prophetical context, specifically of the OT, and denotes a forerunner of a more profound or higher spiritual fulfilment.

So Melchizedek was a type of Christ, in that he was appointed priest, not due to the office of his father or mother, but by God himself.

The OT tabernacle was a type of what is in heaven.

The OT law of Moses is a type of the law of Christ.

Moses himself as the saviour of the Israelites was a type of Christ.

The blood and water that flowed from the side of Christ on the cross were types of Baptism and the Eucharist.

The passover lamb is a type of Christ.

The annual sacrifice of the High Priest is a type of Christ's sacrifice for sin.

The way I used "type" was not however in the OT-NT prophetic context, but in a more mundane sense, as a "pattern." Woman is a pattern of man, etc, but a glorious pattern.

Being a Vietnam Era Veteran, I am just sure that what appeared in Ezekiel was in simple terms a flying vehicle. Keep in mind that the people that saw it all happen had no technology beyond an Olive Oil Lamp. Among many other incidents there is the explaining of Jesus movement to avoid the crowd and elsewhere.

"Enoch walked with God, and was not."

"Wheels" denote the omniscience, omnipotence and omnidirectional disposals of the providence of God (or some such thing). Perhaps they are not ultimately intelligible to mere mortals. They denote a sophistication of God far surpassing anything conceived by man. Not a flying vehicle, anyway.

"Enoch walked with God, and was not" is a type of the second coming of Christ, when "we who are still alive and remain on the earth will be caught up in the clouds to meet the Lord in the air." 1 Thess 4;17.

 

[Ellen Brown]

How do you know your religion is authentic?

There are many other religions out there. What information has convinced you of your beliefs?

It is interesting that I don't see anything about the Mormons here. What do members here think of it?

 

[Katzpur]

It is interesting that I don't see anything about the Mormons here. What do members here think of it?

Mormonism is not listed separately because it's part of Christianity. You don't have to believe that to be the case, but the staff of RF does, so you won't get anywhere on this website by saying otherwise.

 

[Truthseeker]

How do you know your religion is authentic?

There are many other religions out there. What information has convinced you of your beliefs?

I know from my spiritual experiences. I also am inspired by the Writings and stories of Baha'u'llah and Abdu'l-Baha and other early believers.

 

[Samantha Rinne]

Uhhhh, mind if fix this poll? It should be...

1. Agnosticism/Atheism
2. Buddhism
3. Christianity
4. Paganism
5. Hinduism
6. Islam
7. Mormonism/Christian Scientists
8. Judaism
9. Sikhism
10. Other

Deism is a subset belief, not a religion. Atheism and agnosticism are a by degrees difference (as in, the agnostic is skeptical of belief stuff, while atheists disbelieve, lump these together). That there wasn't Paganism or Other meant I had to say Christianity, which is only mildly true.

Mormonism is not listed separately because it's part of Christianity. You don't have to believe that to be the case, but the staff of RF does, so you won't get anywhere on this website by saying otherwise.

Mormons and Christian Scientists are far more deserving of separate category than Jehovah's Witnesses. They each have a separate book. Mary Baker Eddy (Christian Science) wrote Science and Health with Key to Scripture to be read alongside the Bible, Mormons of course have the Book of Mormon.

 

[Katzpur]

Uhhhh, mind if fix this poll? It should be...

1. Agnosticism/Atheism
2. Buddhism
3. Christianity
4. Paganism
5. Hinduism
6. Islam
7. Mormonism/Christian Scientists
8. Judaism
9. Sikhism
10. Other

Deism is a subset belief, not a religion. Atheism and agnosticism are a by degrees difference (as in, the agnostic is skeptical of belief stuff, while atheists disbelieve, lump these together). That there wasn't Paganism or Other meant I had to say Christianity, which is only mildly true.

So why do you get to decide that Mormonism and Christian Science should be lumped together outside of Christianity and the Jehovah's Witnesses should be included within Christianity? Do you have some kind of rights and privileges the rest of us don't know about? The Bible itself is comprised of 66 separate books, and the Catholic Bible has even more books than that, that the rest of Christianity doesn't accept as legit. Most, but not all, Christians accept various and sundry creeds and confessions of faith in addition to the Bible, but they can't seem to decide which ones are essential and which ones aren't. Jehovah's Witnesses rely heavily on what their leaders publish in the Watchtower. So what if each one is published individually and they aren't all bound together in a single volume? Trying to define who is and who isn't Christian is hardly cut and dried. That's probably why, for the purposes of this forum, if a religion professes to be a Christian one, it ought to be considered as such.

 

[Ellen Brown]

Uhhhh, mind if fix this poll? It should be...

1. Agnosticism/Atheism
2. Buddhism
3. Christianity
4. Paganism
5. Hinduism
6. Islam
7. Mormonism/Christian Scientists
8. Judaism
9. Sikhism
10. Other

Deism is a subset belief, not a religion. Atheism and agnosticism are a by degrees difference (as in, the agnostic is skeptical of belief stuff, while atheists disbelieve, lump these together). That there wasn't Paganism or Other meant I had to say Christianity, which is only mildly true.



Mormons and Christian Scientists are far more deserving of separate category than Jehovah's Witnesses. They each have a separate book. Mary Baker Eddy (Christian Science) wrote Science and Health with Key to Scripture to be read alongside the Bible, Mormons of course have the Book of Mormon.

It is amazing to me how many denominations there are in Christianity, and how hateful some are to each other. My leaving Christianity was largely owing to that quarreling. It is frustrating to me that one can not simply read the KJV, after all it is simple enough. There are hotly contested areas in the KJV but for me it is easier to study the various arguments and let it go.

I had about 6 years experience with the Mormons, who are by in large very nice folk, though I do not support their leadership even a little bit, especially their "Deep Doctrines".

To my knowledge, Islam, Sunni Islam that is, is said to be made up of 4 schools of thought. However, from what I have seen, Sunni Islam is much more divided than that. Shia Islam, I think is two different schools. There is a sect of Muslims in India that is totally rejected by both Sunni and Shia.

Even the Jews seem to have dozens of different denominations.

 

[Samantha Rinne]

So why do you get to decide that Mormonism and Christian Science should be lumped together outside of Christianity and the Jehovah's Witnesses should be included within Christianity? Do you have some kind of rights and privileges the rest of us don't know about? The Bible itself is comprised of 66 separate books, and the Catholic Bible has even more books than that, that the rest of Christianity doesn't accept as legit. Most, but not all, Christians accept various and sundry creeds and confessions of faith in addition to the Bible, but they can't seem to decide which ones are essential and which ones aren't. Jehovah's Witnesses rely heavily on what their leaders publish in the Watchtower. So what if each one is published individually and they aren't all bound together in a single volume? Trying to define who is and who isn't Christian is hardly cut and dried. That's probably why, for the purposes of this forum, if a religion professes to be a Christian one, it ought to be considered as such.

Because they have their own Bible?

People who make their own book are effectively declaring themselves as following a different law than other Christian believers. I have one too, and I am basically a Jewush/Christian/Buddhist/Taoist syncretist.

I know for certain, however, that my book cannot be included in the Bible canon, so I share it with nobody.

There are different Bible canons, but declaring that "you must also believe that Jesus came to Utah" or "you must accept this weird science book I came up with." The point is not a few added books, it's having a strange scripture that wasn't part of any canon.

Suppose over a 8 month period, I wrote a book that asserted "Human beings are actually balls of energy trapped in physical bodies, and we must release them from their bodies by burning people alive." I declare that this is a companion to be read alongside the Bible, and I use passages that sound similar to the Bible text way out of context (skipping verses, reading midverse, etc) with the companion book nearby. Wouldn't it be sensible to say that this is not in fact a Christian work, but my own original ideas?

Now Christian Science may be able to follow Christ just fine, same for Mormons, but it doesn't make their book Christian canon.

And why are Jehovah's Witnesses kept separate? As far as I know, they are simply fundie Christians. They have a few unique beliefs but so do calvinist Christians.

 

[osgart]

My religion is fueled by agnosticism, you can never know reality intrinsically as it is. Human knowledge is good at manipulating reality for its uses. I dont consider any knowledge absolute.

If there is more to existence then the physical there is certainly no way to prove that.

I practice spirituality as the aspect of one's self that is the essence of one's self that has nothing to do with the physical, and everything to do with who you choose to be. In short ideas, meanings, concepts, and relationships form a person as to who they are.

If i consider myself an animal then i will behave as one. If i consider myself as a soul of understanding, then i will become as i understand based on my heart's choosing.

Whether the soul is existing because of the physical, or not, there is still soul.

All of what a person loves is who they truly are.

I enjoy artists moreso than scientists. Science is only one aspect of reality confined to the material. The closest a scientist comes to an artist, is creating technology, so that is fascinating. Science will save the world, if it dont destroy it first. Artists will keep the peace though.

Existence made life, so anything is possible in reality, except an ideal God, i see nothing perfect in reality.

 

[Katzpur]

Because they have their own Bible?

Who has their own Bible? Mormons don't. They use the KJV, like many Protestant denominations -- word for word.

People who make their own book are effectively declaring themselves as following a different law than other Christian believers. I have one too, and I am basically a Jewush/Christian/Buddhist/Taoist syncretist.

Oh yeah? So what part of Christian law do you think I don't follow?

There are different Bible canons, but declaring that "you must also believe that Jesus came to Utah" or "you must accept this weird science book I came up with." The point is not a few added books, it's having a strange scripture that wasn't part of any canon.

So Mormons now believe that Jesus came to Utah? Good grief. I think I've now heard everything! I'd ask "So what's strange about it?" but I can hardly bring myself to even imagine what you might come up with next.

Suppose over a 8 month period, I wrote a book that asserted "Human beings are actually balls of energy trapped in physical bodies, and we must release them from their bodies by burning people alive." I declare that this is a companion to be read alongside the Bible, and I use passages that sound similar to the Bible text way out of context (skipping verses, reading midverse, etc) with the companion book nearby. Wouldn't it be sensible to say that this is not in fact a Christian work, but my own original ideas?

And how much of what you know about The Book of Mormon is from first hand experience actually reading it? Seriously, your ignorance of The Book of Mormon is absolutely mind-blowing. If I were you, I'd stop imparting your knowledge of it before you further embarrass yourself. (I know; you're probably not embarrassed in the slightest, but after that "Jesus came to Utah" remark, you should be.)

Now Christian Science may be able to follow Christ just fine, same for Mormons, but it doesn't make their book Christian canon.

Well, I'm a Christian and The Book of Mormon is definitely part of the canon of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints -- which, in case you didn't notice, is named for none other than Jesus Christ. (And no, we didn't just throw His name in there to mislead people. ) But just for the sake of argument, who gets to decide what qualifies a book as "Christian" and what should their criteria be?

 

[Katzpur]

For the mormons, their angels were as fabricated as their golden plates.

Darn. And I was just starting to think of you as a genuine Christian -- you know, the kind of Christian that Christ would recognize.

By the way, I'm curious as to what you mean when you say you are a "Universal Protestant." How is that different from any other variety of Protestant.

 

[Katzpur]

It is interesting that I don't see anything about the Mormons here. What do members here think of it?

I think quite highly of it, thank you very much. Besides, the OP evidently considered it to be a part of Christianity. And according to the long-standing policy of this forum, he was right in doing so.

 

[Ellen Brown]

Uhhhh, mind if fix this poll? It should be...

1. Agnosticism/Atheism
2. Buddhism
3. Christianity
4. Paganism
5. Hinduism
6. Islam
7. Mormonism/Christian Scientists
8. Judaism
9. Sikhism
10. Other

Deism is a subset belief, not a religion. Atheism and agnosticism are a by degrees difference (as in, the agnostic is skeptical of belief stuff, while atheists disbelieve, lump these together). That there wasn't Paganism or Other meant I had to say Christianity, which is only mildly true.



Mormons and Christian Scientists are far more deserving of separate category than Jehovah's Witnesses. They each have a separate book. Mary Baker Eddy (Christian Science) wrote Science and Health with Key to Scripture to be read alongside the Bible, Mormons of course have the Book of Mormon.

Yes, to me there are some very nutty belief systems out there that I've been exposed to enough to know I'm not interested. It is a mystery to me how some of them got any traction at all. I'm not called to be God's little judge and since his word specifically says I can not judge others, I demure ... except when I fail.

One of them regards the truth about their doctrine to be private, so they get very offended if someone tells the truth about them. Sigh...