Why don't all missionaries just fucking die?

[SirNitram]

I am afraid I have difficulty with the idea of a man deluding himself into thinking he knows a language and writing an entire book, based solely on internal delusions in this way. You can't, as it were, write a drama entirely from the contents of an acid trip.

[Perinquus]

I am afraid I have difficulty with the idea of a man deluding himself into thinking he knows a language and writing an entire book, based solely on internal delusions in this way. You can't, as it were, write a drama entirely from the contents of an acid trip.

Oh it's possible that he did. He would have to be literally crazy for that to be the case, however. In my job I have had to deal with enough truly insane people to know that this level of self delusion is possible. However, the people who are that far into their own worlds are usually so nutty as to be both obviously crazy to anyone, and too disfunctional to live without some care and supervision by others. So again, I think it very unlikely that Smith was one of this sort, and very likely that he was laughing up his sleeve the whole time at how much power he'd acquired over these fools he had gulled into following him.

[Petrosjko]

The one I wonder about is L. Ron Hubbard. From reading Bare-Faced Messiah, it seems somewhat evident that his grasp on reality was always a fairly tenuous affair.

[Lord Zentei]

Hubbard: there is another goddamn manipulator.

There are a number of similarities between Smith, Hubbard et. al. on the one hand and pseudoscientists on the other, in that both groups are charismatic, manipulative, and dishonest in their dealings to the point of being pathological liars. Deep down they probably know that what they are doing is bullshit but they do not wish to admit it even to themselves. Thus it is not neccesarily that they are laughing into their sleeves as knowingly and painstaikingly constructing a labyrinth of lies and then refusing to confront the truth.

[Coyote]

Have her contemplate this brief rundown on how Mormonism got started, reprinted from a post I made in N&P:

Theoretically, a Hebrew family, headed by a scribe named Nephi settled in America, fleeing from the Romans, IIRC. They colonized the US and their descendants split into two groups-- those that stayed faithful to the teachings of God (Nephites) and those that turned away from God and refuted his church.

The ones that turned from God were "cursed with dark skin" and became the Lamanites ("Indians"). Eventually there was a war between the Nephites and Lamanites, and the Lamanites won. There were two Nephite survivors: Mormon and his son, Moroni. Mormon was killed and Moroni went into hiding where he told the story of his father's people in the Book of Mormon, which he inscribed on gold tablets.

Hundreds of years later, a fellow named Joseph Smith in New York State was dabbling in the Occult. He was into witches and soothsaying, etc, and met up with a girl who had a "seeing stone". She taught him to put the stone in a hat, and bury his face in it so that no light came in, and he could see whatever mystical truths he was seeking.

Okay, so picture a grown man with his face in a hat, stumbling around looking for ghosts. Whatever.

So in a dream, Moroni (now an angel of God) comes to Smith and tells him of the gold tablets, where to find them, etc. Smith finds the tablets and "magic spectacles" that enable him to read the sorta-Egyptian-like writing on them. Moroni won't let him take the tablets with him until he is "pure" enough, part of it means getting married.

Smith convinces a girl to marry him (I think it was his chick with the seeing-stones but I don't remember) and they get the tablets and show them to 11 other people who become Smith's disciples. Smith partially translates the tablets and give sthe translation to one of his disciples to study.

It gets better.

The disciples wife is infuriated that her husbands is wasting his time and destroyes the manuscript. Moroni starts taking the tablets away because he thinks Smith is being irresponsible with them. Smith begs Moroni to let him copy more of the tablets. Moroni lets Smith have the tablets but-- minus the ones that were already copied (of which the copies were destroyed) and without the magic spectacles that allowed him to read the inscriptions.

So Smith uses his stone-in-the-hat-trick to translate the rest, while his friend dictates. (So now you have a grown man with his face in a hat leaning over some tablets, "reading" them while his friend very seriously writes down whatever the dude mumbles).

Thus is the Book of Mormon born.

The polygamy angle came much later, with Smith as the Mormon Church's "Revelator, Seer, and Prophet". Smith had some 135 "Revealtions" from God, which were recorded in "Doctrines and Covenant", the second-most important book of the Church. Revelation 132 said that no man could get into heaven without a plurality of wives, and it started a polygamy custom that horrified other US citizens to the point of lynching Smith shortly afterwards.

The polygamy Revelation was revoked in the 1880's, IIRC, so as to avert a war with the US government over it. Still, several fundamentalist Mormon breakaway groups insist that it is the "will of God" and practice polygamy, frequently in little enclaves and among their stepdaughters, nieces, half-sisters, and so on.

(Jon Krakauer, "Under the Banner of Heaven", Anchor Books, 2003.)

[Lord Zentei]

True story: my dad was once arguing with a mormon about some of their doctrines. One of these is a moratorium on the consumption of alcohol. My dad then said:

"But Jesus drank wine. He made wine."

The response?

"Yeah... well, that's the only thing we don't like about him."

[Perinquus]

True story: my dad was once arguing with a mormon about some of their doctrines. One of these is a moratorium on the consumption of alcohol. My dad then said:

"But Jesus drank wine. He made wine."

The response?

"Yeah... well, that's the only thing we don't like about him."

Well, at least in this respect the Mormons are being more honest than my grandmother's Free Will Baptist church. They maintain that what Jesus actually drank, and what the Bible refers to as wine was merely unfermented grape juice. This is complete nonsense, of course, and one can tell that from simply reading the Bible itself, even if one had no outside knowledge of the ancient Middle East. But they persuade themselves that wine wasn't really wine in order to justify being teetotallers and make it seem righteous.

[Lord Zentei]

Well, at least in this respect the Mormons are being more honest than my grandmother's Free Will Baptist church. They maintain that what Jesus actually drank, and what the Bible refers to as wine was merely unfermented grape juice. This is complete nonsense, of course, and one can tell that from simply reading the Bible itself, even if one had no outside knowledge of the ancient Middle East. But they persuade themselves that wine wasn't really wine in order to justify being teetotallers and make it seem righteous.

It seems that verifiable facts and even their own religious texts are not something that will get in the way of these people no matter what bizzare nonsense they have to come up with in order to maintain their position.

Grape juice...

[Junghalli]

As I was talking to her yesterday, she mentioned that she has to go to church tomorrow. I asked her which church she attends. She answered LDS. I talked to her a little about it, and told her what I know about them. Anyway, when I asked her why she wants to be a Mormon, she said "because it feels right." I told her that I'm no fan of church, but that probably just about any other church would be better than those fucking nut jobs.
Anyway, I just told her what I thought. I guess there's nothing I can do. Fucking Mormons are like cancer, they have to spread and they're hard to stop.

Why bother? It's her life, surely she's qualified to make decisions about what religion she does and does not want to follow.

[Perinquus]

As I was talking to her yesterday, she mentioned that she has to go to church tomorrow. I asked her which church she attends. She answered LDS. I talked to her a little about it, and told her what I know about them. Anyway, when I asked her why she wants to be a Mormon, she said "because it feels right." I told her that I'm no fan of church, but that probably just about any other church would be better than those fucking nut jobs.
Anyway, I just told her what I thought. I guess there's nothing I can do. Fucking Mormons are like cancer, they have to spread and they're hard to stop.

Why bother? It's her life, surely she's qualified to make decisions about what religion she does and does not want to follow.

Why bother? If you see a friend doing a foolish thing, do you not wish to stop him or her out of sincere concern? Yes, ultimately her life is her own, and she may make foolish choices about it if she wishes, but that does not mean it isn't tragic to see someone do this.

[Coyote]

"Hey, buddy, long time no see. How are you?"

"Fine. I've joined a great new spiritual group. They really make me feel good."

"Oh, really? What might that be?"

"Oh, it's a sort of fusion of the Moonies, Scientology, and David Koresh's teachings."

...... could anyone just walk away?

[Terr Fangbite]

Various points:

Theoretically, a Hebrew family, headed by a scribe named Nephi settled in America, fleeing from the Romans, IIRC. They colonized the US and their descendants split into two groups-- those that stayed faithful to the teachings of God (Nephites) and those that turned away from God and refuted his church.

They ran from the Babylonians I think it was not the Romans. Since it was c. 600bc that they did this, the Romans were a threat to no one in Israel at the time. Also, they went to the Americas, not neccesarily the US. Where they landed, to what scope we frankly don't know. It frankly doesn't matter since the Book of Mormon is a book specifically for Religious not Historical relevance.

True story: my dad was once arguing with a mormon about some of their doctrines. One of these is a moratorium on the consumption of alcohol. My dad then said:

"But Jesus drank wine. He made wine."

The response?

"Yeah... well, that's the only thing we don't like about him."

Quite frankly a bad answer if nothing else. Alcohol was consumed in Christ's time because it was neccesary for the survival of the people. Alcohol allowed drinks to be sterile of many bacteria etc which would screw up people. In recent times, with better methods of sanitizing our drinks, Alcohol is no longer needed. The benefits no longer outweigh the problems with alcohol.

long list of things which say J. Smith was a kid on mystic drugs

Ok whatever. I don't see how this helps your case or destroys mine.

am afraid I have difficulty with the idea of a man deluding himself into thinking he knows a language and writing an entire book, based solely on internal delusions in this way. You can't, as it were, write a drama entirely from the contents of an acid trip.

Which is why it is odd that an entire book came out of this with several personalities being put into it. Linguists can determine that the book was written by several people. Since it is accepted that J. Smith dictated the book, he either had some truth to the matter or was skitzophrenic (need spell check...).

Excuse me, but what is fact is that the "history" of the peoples of North and South America given in the Book of Mormon is utter and complete balderdash. It's phony. There is no historical or archaeological evidence of any kind to support it. And it is utterly inconceivable that an entire Old World-type civilization could occupy these two continents and leave behind no artifacts of any kind. No buildings. No weapons. No tools. No potsherds. No written records. No coins. Nothing. Zilch. What's more, the historical and archaeological evidence that we do have for pre-columbian America utterly contradicts the "history" laid out in the Book of Mormon. That's a fact pal. The Book of Mormon is full of proven nonsense.

Actually there is lots of facts to support it. Since the BoM is vague on specifics about the culture, architecture etc you cannot claim anything to that this can't be found in any methods. Also a few things that were found:

1)Several proper names in the BoM were used by natives not known to the US at the time the BoM was written.
2)There is evidence (can't remember study) that verified the possibility of the use of boats to get to America. BoM has stated this since its creation.
3)Native legends state that their anscestors came from the sea.
4)Many native cities were just deserted about the time the BoM states that the Nephites left their cities to give one last fight before their extinction.
5)Indians and Jews share many similar characteristics including similar celebrations, division of seasons, broad, elevated forehead, Acquiline noes, high cheekbone...
6)Similarities exist between Jewish and Mayan art styles.
7)Great cities and roads are described in BoM. These have been found in South and Central America with cement holding them together stronger then our own and a highway system with the stone going to the bedrock.
Tools of hardened copper have been found (as stated in the BoM)
9)Wheels have been found on a toy in Mexico City dated to the Toltec people.
10)On the shore of Lake Titicaca, 4 giant wheels also found
11)Horses, Elephants etc have been found in America predating the European invasion.
12)BoM talks of great riches in Silver, gold etc. What do you think the Spanish were doing in the Americas? It sure wasn't about tourism.
13)Cataclysmic events have been described in the BoM with such events parralled by science.

You are also forgetting the pure fact that something not being found is not evidence that it is not there. There is too much area still not excavated or explored. Just until recently hobbits were just a story. Now they are fact. The problem with Archeology is that things are found everyday adding pieces to the puzzle. A lack of a smoking gun is hardly reason to claim absolutely nothing has been found correlating to the BoM.

Did you actually look at the web site before putting up your Wall of Ignorance?

Yes as well as others. Sorry, but unlike you I base my faith in the church on other things than what some guy says to tear down a person's religion.

And don't give me that equivocation about them only being "one part of the native Americans;" Smith clearly believed that they were THE ancestors of the Indians.

So Smith was wrong. He took something and ran with it. Doesn't mean that the LDS church is somehow destroyed by this petty detail.

I suggest that you read a non-Church biography about Joseph Smith

Listened to one on audio tape. Quite interesting. But again, hardly enough to make me walk away from something I believe in.

Red Herring. He's making a point that it serves in the brainwashing process.

Misread that part.


Seriously, I don't see whats so bad about the Mormons. You don't like religion, fine whatever. Last I checked I could believe in something which didn't conform to every single detail to popular science. From what I am seeing, you guys are taking every possible flaw in a church and using that to destroy everything. Silver bullet or something like that. Here is what I see and why I stick with it.

1)A drug addict that had no reason to live. After being converted he's been clean for several years, has a good wife and daughter, is near to graduating from college and frequently helps others.
2)People giving their time and effort to help others. I often work on various relief efforts by the church to people in need. I see others doing the same.
3)A body of people united in helping each other. When someone has a trouble, the problem is never that there is no one to go to for help, its that there are too many people offering help.
4)A place for people to gather and socialize. Youth doing something more than just thinking about their hair or what boyfriend/girlfriend they will get next. There are so many programs the church sponsers it isn't funny.
5)A church of people who freely give their time to run and sponser workshops for financial planning, debt relief etc which isn't one of those loans or get rich quick schemes.

If you think that I am going to be swayed by a bunch of people on the internet who whine and moan about a religion that helps others with no thought to what they get out of, you are dead wrong. Everyone has their faults. Every organization has a skeleton or two in the closet. You can say that a person can do everything I listed about without being Mormon and you're right. However, my church provides so much service and motivation that who cares if its founder was a kid who walked around with his face in a basket.

[mr friendly guy]

Why bother? It's her life, surely she's qualified to make decisions about what religion she does and does not want to follow.

I guess what we need to do is to say our piece, and explain what is so bad about her choice. If we try to do more it would look like we are trying to interfere with her right make decisions.

If she isn't convinced by my reasoning, then there is nothing more I can do but to borrow from Terry Goodkind, "leaving her to the consequences of her own action".

[Galvatron]

True story: my dad was once arguing with a mormon about some of their doctrines. One of these is a moratorium on the consumption of alcohol. My dad then said:

"But Jesus drank wine. He made wine."

The response?

"Yeah... well, that's the only thing we don't like about him."

Q: Why should you always take two Mormons with you whenever you go fishing?

A: Because if only take one he'll drink all of your beer.

[Superman]

True story: my dad was once arguing with a mormon about some of their doctrines. One of these is a moratorium on the consumption of alcohol. My dad then said:

"But Jesus drank wine. He made wine."

The response?

"Yeah... well, that's the only thing we don't like about him."

Q: Why should you always take two Mormons with you whenever you go fishing?

A: Because if only take one he'll drink all of your beer.

I'll believe that when I see it.

[Surlethe]

You are also forgetting the pure fact that something not being found is not evidence that it is not there.

"The invisible and the nonexistent look very similar."

I don't think anything else needs to be said.

[Civil War Man]

You are also forgetting the pure fact that something not being found is not evidence that it is not there.

http://bbs.stardestroyer.net/viewtopic.php?t=67744

I send you to this thread. If you do not find evidence of something happening, it is foolish to believe that it did, a good example being Shroom Man's garage dragons.

12)BoM talks of great riches in Silver, gold etc. What do you think the Spanish were doing in the Americas? It sure wasn't about tourism.

With the exception of the Incas and Aztecs, exactly how much gold did the Spanish find? Not very much.

5)Indians and Jews share many similar characteristics including similar celebrations, division of seasons, broad, elevated forehead, Acquiline noes, high cheekbone...

Indians also share many similar characteristics with Asians. Perhaps it's because archaeological evidence points towards many Indian tribes originating from prehistoric Asia.

11)Horses, Elephants etc have been found in America predating the European invasion.

If horses and elephants were in America prior to the arrival of Europeans, why was the dog the primary beast of burden?

Q: Why should you always take two Mormons with you whenever you go fishing?

A: Because if only take one he'll drink all of your beer.

1) A Mormon walks into a used car dealership and says, "Hey, do you have any convertibles?"

2) An man walks into a bar and orders three beers. The bartender says, "Why do you want three beers now? By the time you get to the third, it will be warm and not very good anymore."

The man replies, "You see, I have two brothers, and the three of us share the same birthday. When we turned 21, we started this tradition where the three of us would go out and have a drink together. Well, recently one of my brothers moved to Canada, and the other to Australia, and so we're no longer able to go out drinking together. Instead, we made a pact that we would each go to a bar on our birthday and have one beer for each of us." The bartender promptly gave the man the three beers.

The next year, the man returned to the bar and ordered two beers. Realizing that something must have happened to one of the brothers, the bartender said, "I'm sorry for your loss."

"What loss?" the man asked.

"Well, you are only ordering two beers, so I'm assuming one of your brothers must have died."

"No, they're perfectly fine. The truth is, my wife and I became Mormons, so I'm not allowed to drink. But that doesn't affect my brothers."

[Rye]

Which is why it is odd that an entire book came out of this with several personalities being put into it. Linguists can determine that the book was written by several people. Since it is accepted that J. Smith dictated the book, he either had some truth to the matter or was skitzophrenic (need spell check...).

Scholarly support for this assertion, please. The assertion being that it's been concluded the BoM has been written by multiple people, not that linguists can discern it.

Speaking of the Book of Mormon, how could Nephi, writing in 590 BC, quote words from the book of Malachi, when it hadn't even been written yet?

It's also peculiar how, if the jews were being persecuted by the Babylonians, the tablets were written in mock/reformed egyptian.

How can you defend the racism in it? Dark skin is a curse from God! Interracial babies are likewise cursed. All of it is from a guy reading it out of a hat, something he couldn't do later because the tablets had handily been taken away. It's so fucking silly, I don't see how they've got so many converts.

[Perinquus]

Excuse me, but what is fact is that the "history" of the peoples of North and South America given in the Book of Mormon is utter and complete balderdash. It's phony. There is no historical or archaeological evidence of any kind to support it. And it is utterly inconceivable that an entire Old World-type civilization could occupy these two continents and leave behind no artifacts of any kind. No buildings. No weapons. No tools. No potsherds. No written records. No coins. Nothing. Zilch. What's more, the historical and archaeological evidence that we do have for pre-columbian America utterly contradicts the "history" laid out in the Book of Mormon. That's a fact pal. The Book of Mormon is full of proven nonsense.

Actually there is lots of facts to support it. Since the BoM is vague on specifics about the culture, architecture etc you cannot claim anything to that this can't be found in any methods. Also a few things that were found:

1)Several proper names in the BoM were used by natives not known to the US at the time the BoM was written.

The family name Lee is present in both Chinese and English culture. This does not mean there was any relation between them. Bruce was not a distant relation of Robert E.

And if these names were in use at the time Smith wrote the Book of Mormon then the obvious conclusion is that Smith wrote these names into the book in order to give it a greater aspect of reality.

2)There is evidence (can't remember study) that verified the possibility of the use of boats to get to America. BoM has stated this since its creation.

What evidence? The fact that the Phoenicians could have sailed across the Atlantic, even though there's no evidence that they ever did? So what? There's no evidence that this ever happened. There is abundant evidence that the American Indians are an Asian descended people whose ancestors crossed a prehistoric land bridge across the Bering Strait.

3)Native legends state that their anscestors came from the sea.

Native legends also state that Old Man Coyote made white people and red people out of white and red dirt, respectively; that Great Chiefs made the sun and moon after their people came up from the underworld, and suffered from lack of light; and that the wind was created when a childless couple made a doll out of wood, which came to life and ran off in the night, finding a hole in the sky, covered by a piece of skin, which it cut, thus letting a rush of air in from the sky world.

Do you believe this stuff too? Or are you starting to get the idea that ancient legends of primitive peoples are hardly the best source of facts and evidence?

4)Many native cities were just deserted about the time the BoM states that the Nephites left their cities to give one last fight before their extinction.

And many were not. And many places in North America never had cities to begin with, despite what the Book of Mormon says.

5)Indians and Jews share many similar characteristics including similar celebrations, division of seasons, broad, elevated forehead, Acquiline noes, high cheekbone...

And the Indians have several other characteristics, such as an epicanthic eyefold, sacral blue spot in infants (at the base of the spine, disappears not long after birth), and shovel shaped incisor teeth. Interestingly, Indians share these characteristics with Siberians and other Asian peoples, but NOT with Semites, who are a caucasian people.

6)Similarities exist between Jewish and Mayan art styles.

Which are superficial at best. Indian art also features swastikas. I guess that proves they were proto Nazis.

7)Great cities and roads are described in BoM. These have been found in South and Central America with cement holding them together stronger then our own and a highway system with the stone going to the bedrock.

But no such cities are found in North America. And the central and south American cities are architecturally completely different from the cities of the ancient Middle East. There are mountains of archaeological evidence, in the form of tools, weapons, household goods, etc., that prove more than amply that these civilizations were totally distinct and separate from that of the ancient Middle East.

Tools of hardened copper have been found (as stated in the BoM)

Where are the iron or bronze tools that would have been familiar to the Hebrews? Where are the coins of gold, silver, and copper?

9)Wheels have been found on a toy in Mexico City dated to the Toltec people.

Yet no carts. No wagons. No chariots. We have abundant vehicles of this type throughout ancient Europe and the Middle East. And the Book of Mormon says the people who lived in the Americas had them. So where are they?

10)On the shore of Lake Titicaca, 4 giant wheels also found

See above.

11)Horses, Elephants etc have been found in America predating the European invasion.

No, mastodon and mammoth skeletons, along with those of prehistoric equines have been found, which date to prehistoric times -- tens of thousands of years ago. There is no evidence of any beasts of this type in North or South America in more recent times. Tthe BoM places them there, but there's no evidence for them in the time period indicated in the BoM.

12)BoM talks of great riches in Silver, gold etc. What do you think the Spanish were doing in the Americas? It sure wasn't about tourism.

Smith wrote the BoM centuries after the Spanish made their treasure hauls in Aztec and Inca lands. So it's hardly surprising that Smith, in fabricating this phony history, would have added such a detail to lend it a greater aspect of reality.

13)Cataclysmic events have been described in the BoM with such events parralled by science.

Which ones?

You are also forgetting the pure fact that something not being found is not evidence that it is not there. There is too much area still not excavated or explored. Just until recently hobbits were just a story. Now they are fact. The problem with Archeology is that things are found everyday adding pieces to the puzzle. A lack of a smoking gun is hardly reason to claim absolutely nothing has been found correlating to the BoM.

Hobbits are fact? Really? Hole dwelling little people with hairy feet are a fact? Where, praytell?

You're deluding yourself guy. The Vikings visited North America about a thousand years ago. Only a very few of them ever came here, and they stayed less than a generation. And yet we have definite hard evidence that they were here. The site of L'Anse aux Meadows, in Newfoundland, yielded archaeological evidence which proves it beyond any doubt. Artifacts of verifiably Norse manufacture were found. This, from a single, brief and temporary settlement, occupied by a handful of people a thousand years ago.

And on the other hand, the Book of Mormon populates North and South America with an entire civilization, comprised of thousands, if not millions of individuals, and existing for centuries. And yet the archaeological evidence to support something so huge and conspicous as this is glaringly absent.

It's time to take the blinders off guy.

[Darth Wong]

Terr Fangbite has long been known to be an imbecile when the subject of religion comes up. The fact that he defends the Book of Moron should not come as a surprise.

This is a fucking book where white people turn black when they sin against God, and then they turn white again when they please God. Anyone who thinks it wasn't invented whole cloth by the racist snake-oil selling asshole who founded the Mormon church is either an idiot or an apologist with incentive, or perhaps both.

[Superman]

Holy freggin crap, Terr Fangbite is a fucking moron. Perinquus did a good job shooting his stupid shit down... You beat me to it, Per.

Terr, why do you talk before you actually do some research into this? I actually had a Mormon professor ADMIT to me that all that crap in BoM about pre colonial America is a bunch of shit. He then said that being a Mormon doesn't depend on that being true(?!).

[Darth Servo]

I suggest that you read a non-Church biography about Joseph Smith (why am I interested? Because I am an Ex-Mormon, Terr, and I used this stuff to free myself). Did you know that he changed the First Vision account 3 or 4 times, with the last account appearing in 1838?

As I recall, there are a total of nine different accounts and none are actually contradictory.

Or that, according to the actual statements of the so-called "Witnesses," none actually saw the Golden Plates with their eyes, only in "visions" or "dreams," as Martin Harris said?

The three witnesses said they saw the angel. That usually requires a vision of some kind. The eight witnesses had an ordinary experience, holding the plates in their own hands. No vision required.

And NONE of these people ever retracted their testimony, even when they had left the church and were severly peeved at Smith.

If you are refering to baptism this is hardly a new concept in christianity.

Red Herring. He's making a point that it serves in the brainwashing process.

How does dunking someone under water for no more than two seconds constitute brainwashing?

[Executor32]

Well, obviously they can't easily wash your brain since the skull is inconveniently in the way, so they symbolize it by dunking your head underwater for a couple of seconds.

[Lord Zentei]

True story: my dad was once arguing with a mormon about some of their doctrines. One of these is a moratorium on the consumption of alcohol. My dad then said:

"But Jesus drank wine. He made wine."

The response?

"Yeah... well, that's the only thing we don't like about him."

Quite frankly a bad answer if nothing else. Alcohol was consumed in Christ's time because it was neccesary for the survival of the people. Alcohol allowed drinks to be sterile of many bacteria etc which would screw up people. In recent times, with better methods of sanitizing our drinks, Alcohol is no longer needed. The benefits no longer outweigh the problems with alcohol.

Alchol was needed "for the survival of the people"? You do realize that not all ancient societies and people consumed alcohol, don't you?

In any case, Jesus allegedly instructed his diciples to drink wine in his memory.

[Admiral Valdemar]

Alchol was needed "for the survival of the people"? You do realize that not all ancient societies and people consumed alcohol, don't you?

In any case, Jesus allegedly instructed his diciples to drink wine in his memory.

The healthier societies (I can't say I know of any that never consumed some alcoholic beverage) would be those that got their water from brewery products more than anything, or at least fermented fruit juices. Even up to the mid-1800s there were mysteries over how people caught cholera and no one made the connection to the water they drank.