Why do Jehovah's Witnesses falsify the Bible?

[Katzpur]

I would definitely classify the JWs and Mormons as cults.

@JJ50 and @sooda (since I noticed you "liked" JJ50's post), I am curious as to why you believe Mormonism to be a cult, since they do not meet any of the qualifications of a cult, specifically: (1) They do not endorse shunning in any way, shape or form, (2) They do not attempt to keep their members from reading about or learning about other religions or perspectives, (3) They strongly encourage a higher education, (4) They encourage their members to interact socially with people outside of the religion and not just stick to themselves, and (5) They are active participants in inter-faith activities and service projects.

 

[sooda]

@JJ50 and @sooda (since I noticed you "liked" JJ50's post), I am curious as to why you believe Mormonism to be a cult, since they do not meet any of the qualifications of a cult, specifically: (1) They do not endorse shunning in any way, shape or form, (2) They do not attempt to keep their members from reading about or learning about other religions or perspectives, (3) They strongly encourage a higher education, (4) They encourage their members to interact socially with people outside of the religion and not just stick to themselves, and (5) They are active participants in inter-faith activities and service projects.

Perhaps that's not fair.. I find the renegade Mormons with multiple sister wives to be insular and cult like.. and I really don't understand how presumably Christians came up with Moroni.

 

[JJ50]

@JJ50 and @sooda (since I noticed you "liked" JJ50's post), I am curious as to why you believe Mormonism to be a cult, since they do not meet any of the qualifications of a cult, specifically: (1) They do not endorse shunning in any way, shape or form, (2) They do not attempt to keep their members from reading about or learning about other religions or perspectives, (3) They strongly encourage a higher education, (4) They encourage their members to interact socially with people outside of the religion and not just stick to themselves, and (5) They are active participants in inter-faith activities and service projects.

Don't they have multiple wives? I haven't heard of the women having multiple husbands!

 

[Katzpur]

Perhaps that's not fair.. I find the renegade Mormons with multiple sister wives to be insular and cult like..

Okay, then you are apparently not referring to The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints at all, but to one of their offshoot splinter groups (such as Warren Jeffs' group, the FLDS).

and I really don't understand how presumably Christians came up with Moroni.

Well, that's a subject best left for another thread, but I don't really see how the belief in an ancient prophet who is not mentioned in the Bible would make Mormonism a "cult." It mostly just makes them a religion you disagree with.

 

[Katzpur]

Don't they have multiple wives? I haven't heard of the women having multiple husbands!

If you're talking about The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, there is no faster way for a member of the Church to find himself excommunicated is to be found to be involved in a polygamous relationship. I suspect you're getting us confused with somebody else. Lumping us together with some of our offshoot groups is kind of like lumping the American Baptist Church in with the Westboro Baptists -- not really a legitimate comparison, if you know what I mean.

 

[Samael_Khan]

Okay, then you are apparently not referring to The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints at all, but to one of their offshoot splinter groups (such as Warren Jeffs' group, the FLDS).

Well, that's a subject best left for another thread, but I don't really see how the belief in an ancient prophet who is not mentioned in the Bible would make Mormonism a "cult." It mostly just makes them a religion you disagree with.

The term cult isn't actually a negative. For instance Christians started off as a cult of Jesus Christ, especially once they considered him to be a God. Using the term "dangerous cult" would be more appropriate and would use the criteria that i posted. Just because a group is a cult, that does not mean that they display the criteria above.

I could start a strange cult about worshipping my toilet seat, which would include various rituals and strange dogma. But if people can come and go as they please without consequences and can still be on good terms with ex members, are free to read anything with out pressure not to and reading opposing viewpoints is encouraged, then I would still have started a cult, but not a dangerous one, unless the cult has rules about harming others. In fact, all religions are cults.

See definition below:

cult
/kʌlt/

noun
noun: cult; plural noun: cults

1. 1.
   a system of religious veneration and devotion directed towards a particular figure or object.
   "the cult of St Olaf"
   • a relatively small group of people having religious beliefs or practices regarded by others as strange or as imposing excessive control over members.
     "a network of Satan-worshipping cults"
     synonyms: sect, religious group, denomination, religious order, church, faith, faith community, belief, persuasion, affiliation, movement; More
     
     
   • a misplaced or excessive admiration for a particular thing.
     "the cult of the pursuit of money as an end in itself"
     synonyms: obsession with, fixation on, mania for, passion for; More
     
2. 2.
   a person or thing that is popular or fashionable among a particular group or section of society.
   "the series has become a bit of a cult in the UK"
   synonyms: craze, fashion, fad, vogue;
   informalthing
   "the series has become a bit of a cult in the UK"

 

[Samael_Khan]

If you're talking about The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, there is no faster way for a member of the Church to find himself excommunicated is to be found to be involved in a polygamous relationship. I suspect you're getting us confused with somebody else. Lumping us together with some of our offshoot groups is kind of like lumping the American Baptist Church in with the Westboro Baptists -- not really a legitimate comparison, if you know what I mean.

Didn't Mormons originally allow polygamy and then stopped it?

One does get confused with the offshoot groups of Mormonism and the official LDS group.

 

[Katzpur]

The term cult isn't actually a negative.

I would agree that the dictionary definition of the word isn't specifically negative, but you know as well as I do that when it is used today by people to describe a religion they don't like, it is very much a negative label. It is seldom, if ever, used nowadays as a neutral term.

 

[Samael_Khan]

@JJ50 and @sooda (since I noticed you "liked" JJ50's post), I am curious as to why you believe Mormonism to be a cult, since they do not meet any of the qualifications of a cult, specifically: (1) They do not endorse shunning in any way, shape or form, (2) They do not attempt to keep their members from reading about or learning about other religions or perspectives, (3) They strongly encourage a higher education, (4) They encourage their members to interact socially with people outside of the religion and not just stick to themselves, and (5) They are active participants in inter-faith activities and service projects.

I am gonna share links that I looked up below for you to respond to, as I don't know much about the LDS myself. The BITE model is understood best once a person has studied detailed explanations and examples of various points.

Read this link first:
Steven Hassan's BITE Model - Freedom of Mind Resource Center

Then read the below link:

The BITE Model & Mormonism: An Exploration with Ex-Mormon John Dehlin - Freedom of Mind Resource Center

I haven't looked into the BITE model with regards to Mormonism so I will look at that. Also, a group member or former member would be better equipped to interpret the model since what is officially said by a group isn't necessarily what they practice behind the scenes.

In the second point notice the highlights of the points:

Green = Not practiced
Orange = Sometimes practiced
Red = It is a rule, whether in writing or part of the culture.

It would be cool if you could provide us links as to what the actual LDS rules and culture are like.

 

[Samael_Khan]

I would agree that the dictionary definition of the word isn't specifically negative, but you know as well as I do that when it is used today by people to describe a religion they don't like, it is very much a negative label. It is seldom, if ever, used nowadays as a neutral term.

True. And those people would be wrong in their use of it. I wrote what I wrote so that people don't get confused over what I mean by the explanations that I am giving. The criteria I am using for dangerous cults does not automatically apply to a group just because they do not agree with popular beliefs. As you are implying, people tend to jump on the bandwagon to fast when the word "cult" is thrown around.

 

[Katzpur]

Didn't Mormons originally allow polygamy and then stopped it?

Yes, it was stopped over 125 years ago.

One does get confused with the offshoot groups of Mormonism and the official LDS group.

Well, maybe this will help:

Estimation of Membership in the Latter Day Saint Movement by Denomination: (Source)

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (LDS)16,313,700 -- 98.0110% of the total LDS Movement
Community of Christ 250,300 -- 1.5038% of the total LDS Movement
Ten other splinter groups combined (including such polygamist groups such as the FLDS) 80,000 -- 3% of the total LDS Movement

 

[Samael_Khan]

Yes, it was stopped over 125 years ago.

Well, maybe this will help:

Estimation of Membership in the Latter Day Saint Movement by Denomination: (Source)

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (LDS)16,313,700 -- 98.0110% of the total LDS Movement
Community of Christ 250,300 -- 1.5038% of the total LDS Movement
Ten other splinter groups combined (including such polygamist groups such as the FLDS) 80,000 -- 3% of the total LDS Movement

Cool. Thanks for this.

 

[Katzpur]

It would be cool if you could provide us links as to what the actual LDS rules and culture are like.

Will do so later today. Right now I'm off to teach Sunday School at the Salt Lake Metropolitan Jail, which is generally the best 3 hours I spend all week.

 

[Samael_Khan]

Will do so later today. Right now I'm off to teach Sunday School at the Salt Lake Metropolitan Jail, which is generally the best 3 hours I spend all week.

Sounds awesome. I look forward to your response. Enjoy!

 

[Trailblazer]

I am talking apart from what you or I personally believe. So, for instance, you saying that Hinduism is an outdated belief system is indeed your viewpoint but isn't objectively true.

I would argue that no religious belief system can ever be proven to be 'objectively true.'
Hinduism is definitely dated but whether it is outdated or not is a matter of belief. I believe it is outdated but of course Hindus do agree with me. That is because the theological underpinnings of our religions are very different.

I am talking about theoretical and objective possibilities. Logic dictates that a God can express himself however he/she/it wishes whether they don't need to do it that way. It is the same reason why humans express themselves through various art forms without actually needing to do it. Humans prove that sentient beings of a certain intellect will probably end up doing stuff for their own pleasure which is being doing what is just necessary. God creating creation, even though he didn't need to, would provide a good basis for God expressing himself in ways beyond necessity. The diversity in creation especially would also prove the point. So if God represents his different attributes through various Gods he creates, then that is plausible. Objective evidence doesn't point one way or the other.

Any belief about God is plausible, but if two beliefs contradict each other then they cannot both be true.
There is no objective evidence we can use to verify what God does, so it is a matter of what we consider more rational, reasonable, or plausible.

Yes, logic dictates that God can express Himself any way He wants to but I do not believe there can be various Gods because I believe there is only One True God.

And yes it does matter what scriptures say, since all religions viewpoint of God is defined by those scriptures, or at least are defined by the way God is claimed to communicate his nature to humans, whether it be prophets or experiences. Apart from them, we don't know objectively the truth about God, which is why there are so many different religions and atheists exist. And then the scriptures themselves are subjective.

Yes, I agree it matters what the scriptures say, because that is the only way to know anything about God, Imo.

 

[Trailblazer]

I actually am leaning towards the idea that the Bible speaks of manifestations of God from independent research before I understood the Bahai'i's viewpoint of it. It actually has historical backing in terms of what the original Israelites believed. Apparently some Jewish writers before Maimonides also had a similar concept.

You are a fascinating and very knowledgeable person. It is hard to believe that someone your age knows as much as you do about religion, but of course you already told me you have a passion for religion. I never had that kind of passion for religion but I am starting to change now, since I came to RF about a year and a half ago.

I will be very interested in anything you have discovered in the Bible that indicates or refers to Manifestations of God.

Jehovahs Witnesses believe that Jesus is the Firstborn of God's creation and that God created everything else in existence through him.

I think I recall the verses that they might use to back up this belief, I think they were in the Epistles of Paul.
I am not sure what you mean by 'through him.'

As I recall, Baha'u'llah wrote something about the world being recreated through the Manifestations of God every time they appear, but I do not have time to find that passage right now.

He isn't a manifestation of God in their view but a separate entity. Therefore he did preexist his human form as the Archangel Michael and he was a Master worker of creation besides God. Its is like he was the machine and God was the electricity operating through him if that is the correct analogy.

A Manifestation of God is a separate entity from God. I do not believe that Jesus preexisted in human form but rather Jesus existed as a soul in the spiritual world before He was born into this world. I do not believe that Jesus created anything, but I would be willing to look at any Bible verses that say this.

 

[sooda]

Okay, then you are apparently not referring to The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints at all, but to one of their offshoot splinter groups (such as Warren Jeffs' group, the FLDS).

Well, that's a subject best left for another thread, but I don't really see how the belief in an ancient prophet who is not mentioned in the Bible would make Mormonism a "cult." It mostly just makes them a religion you disagree with.

Hold on.. I have no authority to "disagree".

 

[Trailblazer]

Jehovahs Witnesses believe that Jesus is the Firstborn of God's creation and that God created everything else in existence through him. He isn't a manifestation of God in their view but a separate entity. Therefore he did preexist his human form as the Archangel Michael and he was a Master worker of creation besides God. Its is like he was the machine and God was the electricity operating through him if that is the correct analogy.

Well, I decided to look and see if I could find what Baha’u’llah said about the Manifestations of God recreating the world, and I found it instantly by searching on the word ‘recreated' so the passage is below. It goes on to describe how the Essence of God is a fathomless mystery and how even the Manifestations of God cannot ever apprehend the Essence of God. I love this passage because it really drives the point home that we cannot ever know the Essence of God.

“In every age and cycle He hath, through the splendorous light shed by the Manifestations of His wondrous Essence, recreated all things, so that whatsoever reflecteth in the heavens and on the earth the signs of His glory may not be deprived of the outpourings of His mercy, nor despair of the showers of His favors. How all-encompassing are the wonders of His boundless grace! Behold how they have pervaded the whole of creation. Such is their virtue that not a single atom in the entire universe can be found which doth not declare the evidences of His might, which doth not glorify His holy Name, or is not expressive of the effulgent light of His unity. So perfect and comprehensive is His creation that no mind nor heart, however keen or pure, can ever grasp the nature of the most insignificant of His creatures; much less fathom the mystery of Him Who is the Day Star of Truth, Who is the invisible and unknowable Essence. The conceptions of the devoutest of mystics, the attainments of the most accomplished amongst men, the highest praise which human tongue or pen can render are all the product of man’s finite mind and are conditioned by its limitations. Ten thousand Prophets, each a Moses, are thunderstruck upon the Sinai of their search at His forbidding voice, “Thou shalt never behold Me!”; whilst a myriad Messengers, each as great as Jesus, stand dismayed upon their heavenly thrones by the interdiction, “Mine Essence thou shalt never apprehend!” From time immemorial He hath been veiled in the ineffable sanctity of His exalted Self, and will everlastingly continue to be wrapt in the impenetrable mystery of His unknowable Essence. Every attempt to attain to an understanding of His inaccessible Reality hath ended in complete bewilderment, and every effort to approach His exalted Self and envisage His Essence hath resulted in hopelessness and failure.” Gleanings From the Writings of Bahá’u’lláh, pp. 62-63

 

[Katzpur]

I am gonna share links that I looked up below for you to respond to, as I don't know much about the LDS myself. The BITE model is understood best once a person has studied detailed explanations and examples of various points.

Read this link first:
Steven Hassan's BITE Model - Freedom of Mind Resource Center

Then read the below link:

The BITE Model & Mormonism: An Exploration with Ex-Mormon John Dehlin - Freedom of Mind Resource Center

I haven't looked into the BITE model with regards to Mormonism so I will look at that. Also, a group member or former member would be better equipped to interpret the model since what is officially said by a group isn't necessarily what they practice behind the scenes.

In the second point notice the highlights of the points:

Green = Not practiced
Orange = Sometimes practiced
Red = It is a rule, whether in writing or part of the culture.

It would be cool if you could provide us links as to what the actual LDS rules and culture are like.

Hi, Israel. First off, thanks for the links. I found the BITE Model information to be fascinating and to provide some excellent food for thought. I only wish I had the time right now to discuss the second link in depth. Unfortunately (Well, fortunately in most ways), my husband and I are leaving for an 18-day overseas trip in 9 days and still have a lot to do to get ready for it. I feel that it would take me two or three hours to fully explain why I disagree with John Dehlin on the points he and I don't see eye to eye on. (I actually do agree with him on some points.) I really hesitate to get into a detailed response to your questions on this particular thread, since it has virtually nothing to do with the OP. But, if you would be willing to start a new thread on this subject specifically, I would be more than happy to comment in as much depth as I can, a little at a time, over the coming week.

 

[Samael_Khan]

I would argue that no religious belief system can ever be proven to be 'objectively true.'
Hinduism is definitely dated but whether it is outdated or not is a matter of belief. I believe it is outdated but of course Hindus do agree with me. That is because the theological underpinnings of our religions are very different.

Any belief about God is plausible, but if two beliefs contradict each other then they cannot both be true.
There is no objective evidence we can use to verify what God does, so it is a matter of what we consider more rational, reasonable, or plausible.

Yes, logic dictates that God can express Himself any way He wants to but I do not believe there can be various Gods because I believe there is only One True God.

Yes, I agree it matters what the scriptures say, because that is the only way to know anything about God, Imo.

Ahh... so then when we chat we are actually talking from different perspectives. Since you are speaking from the point of belief, recognising that it isn't objective, then I will refrain from speaking from an objective viewpoint. Having been a believer I can understand where you are coming from.

What I do try to point out, is that to understand someone elses belief, we cannot impose our own viewpoint resulting from our belief on it. We actually need to put our beliefs to the side. We have to see things from their perspective and that religions theoretical framework of the world. As a rule, if I am not able to do this, then I cast my own viewpoint in doubt.