Thread: Mormons Versus Seventh Day Adventurers!

I dispise the mormons the most. Not perse because they are more nutcase (I don't know that much about the super-adventure-club), but mormons are pretty big and influential in America. And that is a bad thing.

Originally Posted by Neruo

I dispise the mormons the most. Not perse because they are more nutcase (I don't know that much about the super-adventure-club), but mormons are pretty big and influential in America. And that is a bad thing.[/b]

So are the adventists, actually. You'd be surprised how much influence their religious views have on politics and people in general. Neruo, you should read up on Adventists, you'd be interested.

I like to think of myself as a tolerant person and for the most part I am either accepting of other peoples religious beliefs or am apathetic with regards to them.

However when a certain religious denomination decides that it would be a good idea to knock on my door at five in the morning (with studies I normally get to bed by one)consecutively for two weeks, even after I informed them nicely that I am not interested in coming to any meetings. My tolerance soon begins to wane.

I dislike being force fed faith in any form, I dont care what their agenda is as long as they leave me to my own devices, I could care less.

Well, I've actually never encountered an Adventist before, despite living next door to one of their churches. I did talk to the Mormons once when they came to my house. They offered to rake my leaves. I found that quite lulz-worthy.

Originally Posted by Neruo

...(I don't know that much about the super-adventure-club)...
[/b]

HAHAHAHAHA, the Super-Duper-Adventure-Club?! That sounds like fun!

mormons are funny...

Originally Posted by The

So are the adventists, actually. You'd be surprised how much influence their religious views have on politics and people in general. Neruo, you should read up on Adventists, you'd be interested.
[/b]

Hmm, they do sound intresting on Wikipedia (yes, wiki ).

First off all:

The Seventh-day Adventist Church (...) is best known for its teaching (..) that the second advent of Jesus Christ is imminent. (...) officially established in 1863...

lol! Christ is imminent, well the dead people from 1863 disagree I think

However

* State of the dead - Adventists believe that death is an unconscious sleep, commonly known as "soul sleep", and reject the idea of an immortal soul.

That is pretty intresting. No soul. Only that means that if you get shredded up, you Really die, period. lol.

* Hell - Adventists teach that the wicked will not endure eternal torment, but instead will be permanently annihilated.

Pretty humane. Actually less cruel then 'vanilla Christianity'.

* Heavenly sanctuary - Adventists teach that Christ ascended to heaven to minister in the heavenly sanctuary. In 1844, he began the cleansing of the heavenly sanctuary in fulfillment of the Day of Atonement.

lol he is taking a Loooong time to clean up that mess in heaven

-

Only that Wiki article is a little to positive about Adventurist (Adventists). Are they as bad as the mormons? I mean the mormons are total nutcases. I heard the mormons have a database of just about every person's name on earth... for apocalipse-usefull reasons (because god can't do that himself?).

Anyhow, is that true, of just an urban legend? =)

There's nothing like a whole religion founded on a 13-year-old boy's fantasy!

"Faithful Mormon males expect to become gods themselves and fashion and populate worlds of their own, with the cooperation of their wives."

I have no idea how mainstream that idea is in Mormonism, but stuff like that cracks me up. Even if this is a lesser-held view, there's plenty in mainstream Mormonism to make us laugh.

Erm. I think Wiki has the wrong end of the stick here. AGAIN.

F%&$ING WIKI-F%&$NG-PEDIA!!!!

Why do people put so much blind faith in a disporganised open source encyclopedia in which most of the contributors are lifeless anal-retentive losers ewith nothing better to do?

Originally Posted by The

Erm. I think Wiki has the wrong end of the stick here. AGAIN.

F%&$ING WIKI-F%&$NG-PEDIA!!!!

Why do people put so much blind faith in a disporganised open source encyclopedia in which most of the contributors are lifeless anal-retentive losers ewith nothing better to do?
[/b]

Because google told me.

Seriously, if you can find me a Huge, easy-readable, nicely connected, online encyclopedia that is better then wiki, please Do give the link

I mean not that wiki is good, but often it is sufficient.

Originally Posted by JaphyR

"Faithful Mormon males expect to become gods themselves and fashion and populate worlds of their own, with the cooperation of their wives."

I have no idea how mainstream that idea is in Mormonism, but stuff like that cracks me up. Even if this is a lesser-held view, there's plenty in mainstream Mormonism to make us laugh.[/b]

It's very mainstream--in fact, its official church doctrine.
That's one thing that the Mo's are good at--their church is very organized. There is very little room for opinion if you're Mormon--the church's leadership sends out monthly magazines (Four of them, actually, the Friend (for kids), the New Era (for teens), and the Liahona (the name is a reference to a Mormon myth) and Ensign for adults.). Inside the magazines are articles outlining "inspiring" stories, as well as extensive articles by the church's leadership on what is and is not acceptable according to their doctrine.

For instance, a relatively well-known point of Mormon doctrine is the Word of Wisdom. Many people don't know the name, but know what it entails. Basically, the Word of Wisdom is what says that Mo's aren't allowed to drink alcohol, coffee, tea, "hot drinks" (though hot chocolate is an exception) or alcohol, aren't allowed to smoke or chew tobacco, etc. This bit of doctrine is NOT open to interpretation, and no matter where you walk into a Mormon church, if you ask, they'll give you the same answer everywhere.

Perhaps the only exception to the "no interpretation" is caffeinated sodas. Most Mo's are okay with it, but several Mo's think it is against the WoW, too. This is because some Mo's think that coffee and tea are banned because of their caffeine content (the scripture the WoW comes from doesn't say), so since Coca-Cola and Pepsi contain caffeine, they're against the WoW, too.

In a similar fashion, Mormon leaders outline the "official" and more or less required political standpoints for all their members. Among other things, abortion and gay marriage are things that Mo's aren't allowed to make up their own minds on. The church tells them their opinion, period.
There's several other political issues where Mo's standpoints are standardized, and its led to a HEAVY right-wing slant in the Western US, especially in Utah.
Utah's population is ~70% Mormon. They almost exclusively vote Republican because of the influence of their religion. Bush's popularity polls reflect this nicely--consistently, every month for the last six years, President Bush has received higher popularity poll results in Utah than any other state in the nation.

Anyway, I'm going to stop my little rant for now, but consider me a resident expert on Mo's (seeing as how I used to be one). Got a question, I can answer it.

Originally Posted by Tsen

...Among other things, abortion and gay marriage are things that Mo's aren't allowed to make up their own minds on. The church tells them their opinion, period...
[/b]

Wow, I don't have to think for myself anymore? Where do I sign up?!

Say, what is the deal with the whole no caffeine/alcohol/etc. thing?

It's kind of hard to explain.
Here's the direct passage:

5 That inasmuch as any man drinketh wine or strong drink among you, behold it is not good, neither meet in the sight of your Father, only in assembling yourselves together to offer up your sacraments before him.

6 And, behold, this should be wine, yea, pure wine of the grape of the vine, of your own make.

7 And, again, strong drinks are not for the belly, but for the washing of your bodies.

8 And again, tobacco is not for the body, neither for the belly, and is not good for man, but is an herb for bruises and all sick cattle, to be used with judgment and skill.

9 And again, hot drinks are not for the body or belly.

10 And again, verily I say unto you, all wholesome herbs God hath ordained for the constitution, nature, and use of man--

11 Every herb in the season thereof, and every fruit in the season thereof; all these to be used with prudence and thanksgiving.

12 Yea, flesh also of beasts and of the fowls of the air, I, the Lord, have ordained for the use of man with thanksgiving; nevertheless they are to be used sparingly;

13 And it is pleasing unto me that they should not be used, only in times of winter, or of cold, or famine.

14 All grain is ordained for the use of man and of beasts, to be the staff of life, not only for man but for the beasts of the field, and the fowls of heaven, and all wild animals that run or creep on the earth;

15 And these hath God made for the use of man only in times of famine and excess of hunger.

16 All grain is good for the food of man; as also the fruit of the vine; that which yieldeth fruit, whether in the ground or above the ground--

17 Nevertheless, wheat for man, and corn for the ox, and oats for the horse, and rye for the fowls and for swine, and for all beasts of the field, and barley for all useful animals, and for mild drinks, as also other grain.

18 And all saints who remember to keep and do these sayings, walking in obedience to the commandments, shall receive health in their navel and marrow to their bones;

19 And shall find wisdom and great treasures of knowledge, even hidden treasures;

20 And shall run and not be weary, and shall walk and not faint.[/b]

Originally, it was moreso a suggestion than a commandment, but that was revised several decades ago, so now it is official church commandment to obey all of that junk.

I guess I could understand alcohol and even caffeine... But no hot drinks? Do they mean something other than just a liquid that is warm, or is there some other meaning?

Scripture says you can drink alcahol (Jesus even drank it at the last supper, and turned water into wine) but you shouln't get drunk, as it causes you harm and temporeraly makes you do things you wouldn't normaly.

I dont know were they get that other stuff from, though, because it sure dosn't say that in my Bible

Scripture says you can drink alcahol (Jesus even drank it at the last supper, and turned water into wine) but you shouln't get drunk, as it causes you harm and temporeraly makes you do things you wouldn't normaly.[/b]

The thing about scripture is there are so many interpretations and translations that the entire thing is perhaps one step up from Chinese Whispers. I was one told by a video that "stable" could have actually been translated wrong and meant He (Jesus, folks) was "born upstairs", along with other such strange things. You could probably wriggle out 50 variations on the same teaching if you had the time.

Why do people put so much blind faith in a disporganised open source encyclopedia in which most of the contributors are lifeless anal-retentive losers ewith nothing better to do?[/b]

Once again agreed, signed, sealed and thrown in the face of all wikisuckers.

Originally Posted by Keeper

Scripture says you can drink alcahol (Jesus even drank it at the last supper, and turned water into wine) but you shouln't get drunk, as it causes you harm and temporeraly makes you do things you wouldn't normaly.

I dont know were they get that other stuff from, though, because it sure dosn't say that in my Bible
[/b]

No DUH, Sherlock. I said MORMON doctrine, hence the BOOK OF MORMON. (Actually, the Doctrine and Covenants in this case, but it's all between the same covers.)