Well, I'll probably be banned now from the MADboard

[_Enuma Elish]

In case anyone is interested, I had to go back and add the final section to that last post.

Happiness to All.

[_ozemc]

This is really soo much fun. Sincere thanks, Ozemc, for coming back.

I'm glad you're having so much fun. I do enjoy debate, though I usually comment on political items in the news

You know, we could go back and forth on this all day. There is no consensus.

Again, well done in providing a source that refutes your claim—I have no doubt that this example was also intentional on your behalf.

Indeed, even reading your Internet sources, you should be able to discover the truth regarding the scholarly view. Note the comment in the introductory paragraph from your on-line source:

“Outside of the more conservative seminaries and churches, it is commonly held that Moses did not write these books, that they are a compilation of works by numerous writers over an extended period of time."

Now what do you suppose the author means by the phrase “commonly held”?

Yes, the most conservative seminaries and churches cling to your outdated view that Moses wrote Deuteronomy, but this was not your claim, was it?! The truth is that biblical scholars do not.

Contrary to your suggestion, this is the commonly held consensus.

But check it out for yourself; perhaps you should forget your Internet sources for a moment and actually sit in a Hebrew Bible course taught in any university in the country.

In so doing, you will quickly discover that “despite…the text’s own self presentation, Deuteronomy is likely not Mosaic in origin. More probably, the core of the book was written sometime during the 7th century BCE by educated scribes associated with Jerusalem’s court” Bernard M. Levinson in The Jewish Study Bible (Oxford University Press, 2004): 357.

Why do you insist on embarrassing yourself? Do a bit of research so that you can come to grips with the fact that you, my friend, are clearly wrong.

No, I'm not. I quite understand what is refered to as the "documentary theory", which is, as you say, generally held in some academic circles. However, there are many scholars that hold the opposing view. Particularly, as stated, in a great many conservative universities and seminaries, as well as some religious writers and theorists that are not in academia. My claim was "many scholars". Would you consider those people not as "many scholars"? At what point does a group become "many" anyway? 50, 100, 500?

As far as the more dominating theory, I'm sure you can appreciate the close-mindedness of those in some universities, especially the more liberal-minded, that will not allow opposing viewpoints. For instance, denial of tenure, publication, etc.

Quite a bit different, eh?

Nope, your list illustrates the same point. Let’s just apply your list to the cult of 1st century Christianity:

1. Throws mainstream tradition out the window for completely new, radical views such as "God can become a man"… So far out of the "main stream" as to be out of the river.

2. Led by one who calls himself a "prophet" of God, who receives new and continuing revelation, that can change past revelations (God changed his mind?).

“And the multitude said, This is Jesus the prophet of Nazareth of Galilee” (Matt 21:11)

“And they were offended in him. But Jesus said unto them, A prophet is not without honor save in his own country, and in his own house” (Matt 13:57)

“Ye have heard that it was said by them of old time… But I say unto you” (Matt 5:27-28)

3. Requires a complete life change, including an apparently endless "mission" in which the converts must give up everything they own. Including giving up all finances, etc.

“Then Jesus beholding him loved him, and said unto him, One thing thou lackest: go thy way, sell whatsoever thou hast, and give to the poor, and thou shalt have treasure in heaven: and come, take up the cross, and follow me.” (Mark 10:21)

4. Details new "revelations" from God in which He has changed His mind about previous "revelations" and denying Gentiles church membership.

Just a side note, Jesus was a Jew. I don't recall any previous revelations from the Old Testament about Gentiles being under Jewish laws.

“These twelve Jesus sent forth, and commanded them, saying, Go not into the way of the Gentiles, and into any city of the Samaritans enter ye not” (Matt 10:5)

5. Founded by a known convict who died as a result of causing civil disturbances.

Nope, your list works just fine. Clearly 1st century Christianity, like Mormonism, was truly a cult. Nicely done.

Did I say Christianity was not a cult?

Polygamy of Joseph Smith with young girls, blacks denied the priesthood (and, of course, the racism of the Book of Mormon itself), the mountain meadows massacre, the kinderhook plates.

No, no, no. You’re suppose to provide evidence to support your claim that the Church “white washes” its history. Obviously this list fall short.

I'm sure you've seen the documentation for all the items I listed. All these took place in the church's history. Do you deny they took place?

Or Joseph Smith, whose megalomaniacal complex made him utter things like this:

But of course if Joseph’s religious claims are correct, then he deserves his “megalomaniacal complex.” I happen to believe that they were.

Yeah, I know. <sigh>

Not really. If you showed me the plates, then I would know the Book of Mormon is true.

You just acknowledged that if I could show you the plates that Mormonism would not be a cult. I must admit that once again, the logic you employ to provide definitions of "cult" vs. "non-cult" is simply ridiculous. Then again, first century Christianity could not supply the physical body of Jesus, nor can modern Jews provide a physical Arc of the Covenant today, so I suppose the lack of physical plates in Mormonism makes it just like every cult I can think of.

Bingo! Give this one a cigar!

But I see where you're going with this line of reasoning (even if you do not). A cult is any religion that you believe is false. If it is true--and you claim that you would know Mormonism was true if we had physical plates--then Mormonism would not in your view qualify as a cult.

Just curious, why in the world should the definition of Mormonism as cult depend upon what you do or do not believe?

Talk about a "megalomaniacal complex." Who do you think you are!!!

Pretty funny, actually. You obviously haven't read some of my other posts. Why should you, of course, but they would probably give you greater insight into my line of thinking. in my opinion, all religions have aspects of cults within them. It doesn't matter whether I think them true or false. If you get right down to it, I think there's some truth and some falsehoods to be found in most things. I'm much more gray in my thinking than black and white.

Especially when it comes to religion, which depends on books written by men, for men (or mankind), that believe they were "inspired" to write them. Maybe, maybe not. But, it's still all just words, and no one can prove it one way or another. That's what I meant when I said "show me the plates". (Or show me the Ark of the Covenant, where Eden is, or where the Ark landed after the flood, etc.)

To be quite honest, I think most religions are insulting to whoever, or whatever, God is. They try to fit Him into a box that they themselves design. in my opinion, He's much more magnificient and awesome than any of us can begin to imagine. Try to picture an amoeba thinking about humans, and then you get my idea.

As far as what I believe a cult is? I use definitions as I find them.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/cult
cult–noun
1. a particular system of religious worship, esp. with reference to its rites and ceremonies.
2. an instance of great veneration of a person, ideal, or thing, esp. as manifested by a body of admirers: the physical fitness cult.
3. the object of such devotion.
4. a group or sect bound together by veneration of the same thing, person, ideal, etc.
5. Sociology. a group having a sacred ideology and a set of rites centering around their sacred symbols.
6. a religion or sect considered to be false, unorthodox, or extremist, with members often living outside of conventional society under the direction of a charismatic leader.
7. the members of such a religion or sect.
8. any system for treating human sickness that originated by a person usually claiming to have sole insight into the nature of disease, and that employs methods regarded as unorthodox or unscientific.
–adjective 9. of or pertaining to a cult.
10. of, for, or attracting a small group of devotees: a cult movie.

Indeed.

By all means, please keep going. I really have enjoyed this.

I hope so. That is the intent of being here, isn't it? It is for me.

[_Enuma Elish]

No, I'm not. I quite understand what is referred to as the "documentary theory"

But apparently not well enough to know that it is called the “Documentary Hypotheses,” not the “Documentary Theory.”

However, there are many scholars that hold the opposing view.

By all means, please explain the opposite view to the “Documentary Hypothesis” that “many” scholars hold.

Particularly, as stated, in a great many conservative universities and seminaries.

You need to go back and reread your quote. It states that the Mosaic authorship of Deuteronomy is still held in “the more conservative seminaries and churches,” not in a “great many conservative universities and seminaries.” The view of Mosaic authorship is inconsistent with the scholarly consensus presented in universities. I couldn't care less what is taught in conservative seminaries and churches. What in the world would that have to do with scholarship?

My claim was "many scholars". Would you consider those people not as "many scholars"? At what point does a group become "many" anyway? 50, 100, 500?

But your own source states, “outside of the more conservative seminaries and churches, it is commonly held that Moses did not write these books.” The reason it is commonly held that Moses did not write Deuteronomy is because that is the scholarly consensus. I'm sorry, but conservative ministers and evangelical Sunday School teachers who profess Mosaic authorship are not “scholars.”

You need to face the fact that you were wrong to tell Beowulf that “many scholars” believe that Moses himself wrote Deuteronomy. End of story.

Just a side note, Jesus was a Jew.

I’m afraid I fail to see your point. The fact that Jesus was a Jew does not negate my observation that according to the Gospel writers, Jesus, at least initially, excluded certain racial groups from participating in his kingdom. Then again, he did establish a cult.

I don't recall any previous revelations from the Old Testament about Gentiles being under Jewish laws.

Alas, apparently, you failed to grasp the significance of my reference to Matthew 5:27-28, which illustrates that Jesus, as a perfect example of your definition of a charismatic cultic figure, professed, “new and continuing revelation, that [could] change past revelations.”

Just to clarify for you, this was the reference I provided that addressed the issue of Jesus changing “previous revelations from the Old Testament.”

Hope that helps.

Did I say Christianity was not a cult?

And there we have it. An admission that your argument against Mormonism on the grounds that it is a cult is really, very, very, weak.

I'm sure you've seen the documentation for all the items I listed. All these took place in the church's history. Do you deny they took place?

Again, the issue is not whether or not these events took place. The issue is that you claimed that LDS historians “whitewash” their history. Obviously, simply listing these events does not prove your argument in any way, shape, or form.

But by all means, try again.

Yeah, I know. <sigh>

Why “sigh” at my religious convictions? Clearly I’ve invested quite a bit more effort than you have towards studying these issues. I’m quite comfortable with my beliefs. Thanks, though, for your sincere concern.

Bingo! Give this one a cigar!

I really cannot believe that anyone would apply the pejorative term “cult” to any religion that cannot provide physical evidence for its spiritual claims. I really hoped that by reading my summary of the implications of your ridiculous argument, you would change your mind, not offer me a cigar.

Pretty funny, actually. You obviously haven't read some of my other posts. Why should you, of course, but they would probably give you greater insight into my line of thinking.

I’m afraid this thread has illustrated that you really need to start thinking, my friend, before any of us can begin to hope at gaining any insight, great or small, from anything that you post.

in my opinion, all religions have aspects of cults within them. It doesn't matter whether I think them true or false. If you get right down to it, I think there's some truth and some falsehoods to be found in most things. I'm much more gray in my thinking than black and white.

I must say that I’m really quite glad that you have come to this conclusion. This is why, if you really wish to argue against Mormonism, you’re going to have come up with a stronger argument. The fact is that the term “cult” is simply a pejorative term that describes the religion practiced by the “other.”

Every religion on the face of the planet can qualify as a “cult” based upon the issues that you have raised against Mormonism.

As far as what I believe a cult is? I use definitions as I find them.

No, you don’t. Your online dictionary says nothing about a cult not being able to provide physical evidence of spiritual beliefs. Several times now, you have made this silly assertion.

Again, I can define any religion on the face of the planet as a “cult” based upon the points articulated in your online dictionary.

I hope so. That is the intent of being here, isn't it? It is for me.

Yes, but dissecting your posts has been especially fun. Though I do sincerely hope that you have learned a few things that may serve you in your quest to refute Mormonism on this or any other board, especially MAAD.

[_dartagnan]

You need to face the fact that you were wrong to tell Beowulf that “many scholars” believe that Moses himself wrote Deuteronomy.

Well it depends on how many is “many” and the fact is most Orthodox Jewish scholars do believe it. It certainly isn’t just the ministers and Sunday school teachers who find the JEDP problematic on many levels. Blenkinsopp (Anglican?) and Cassuto (Jewish) are two non-ministers who come to mind. Whybray is certainly nothing to sneeze at either, and he provided a blistering critique of the JEDP when most scholars were accepting it as the new paradigm because they had nothing better to use.

Here is an interesting article written by a friend of mine: http://www.tektonics.org/jedp/deut.html

[_Enuma Elish]

Hello Dartagnan,

Well it depends on how many is “many” and the fact is most Orthodox Jewish scholars do believe it

Which amounts to how many university scholars? Most Orthodox Jews stay away from biblical scholarship for a reason. However, the only Orthodox Jewish Bible scholars that I know—which includes more than simply a mere handful of professors—remain ardent supporters of at least some form of the Documentary Hypothesis.

It certainly isn’t just the ministers and Sunday school teachers who find the JEDP problematic on many levels.

True enough, debate will no doubt continue to rage for quite sometime regarding how the various strands fit together. This debate should not be confused, however, for the supposition that the scholarly community does not reject the argument for Mosaic authorship of the Pentateuch, including Deuteronomy.

Still looking forward, for example, to David Wright’s forthcoming book from Oxford University Press which will establish the Laws of Hammurabi as a direct source for the Covenant Collection.

Whybray is certainly nothing to sneeze at either, and he provided a blistering critique of the JEDP

Whybray’s views are anything but mainstream. My favorite assessment of his work remains Phillip R. Davies' article, "Ancient Israel and History: A Response to Norman Whybray," Expository Times 108 (1997): 211-212.

Davies' response provides an excellent example illustrating how fundamentally problematic the Whybray approach proves in biblical studies.

In the essay critiquing the Whybray’s approach, Davies argued for the position of mainstream scholarship that the Hebrew Bible cannot be used as a reliable guide to the history of pre-exilic Israel. Though Whybray claims that non-biblical and artifactual evidence proves inadequate for writing a history of Israel, Davies replied that contrary to Whybray’s assertions, this inadequacy does not somehow simply render the Bible into a reliable source—something that Whybray desperately seeks in order to justify his agenda.

Davies notes that unlike Whybray, nearly all-contemporary scholars hold the view that the Hebrew Bible proves extremely problematic as a history of ancient Israel.

In a devastating blow, Davies stated that all scholars have non-scholarly motives, but that the force of their arguments needs to be assessed if the debate is to progress without bringing biblical scholarship into disrepute—something that many fear could very well happen if anyone else adopts the Whybray approach.

Here is an interesting article written by a friend of mine

This article is highly problematic on many, many levels—a full exploration of which would have little to do with the current thread.

Anyone with even a minimum of exposure to critical studies could completely destroy its assertions.

Suffice it to say that in stating that “it is a misperception to suppose that Deuteronomy simply repeats what has already been written elsewhere,” the author's strawman certainly does not represent the critical view.

No one in his or her right mind would ever argue that Deuteronomy “simply repeats what has already been written elsewhere.”

Deuteronomy repeats and then revises the earlier legal collections in the Bible.

The changes are really quite dramatic.

It is kind of you, however, to step in and try to help Ozemc. He clearly needed it.

[Guest]

I am not here to help Ozmec (whoever he is) out. I didn't even read his/her post. I just saw briefly where you asserted that there are not many scholars who reject JEDP. That depends on how many is many, and is a matter of perspective really.

Which amounts to how many university scholars?

So no we’re qualifying from "scholars" to University professors? That sure does make it easy to dismiss a whole slew of Jewish scholars and a bunch of bona fide scholars who don't hold tenured positions at universities. You once talked about how your professor, Brettler, was raised Orthodox Jew, and how this adds credibility to his assessment of the Bible. Now the viewpoint of that entire class is to be dismissed because of bias?

The acceptance of University professors only kinda rigs the game from the start, especially since the academy is a politically knit group that tends to follow trendy concepts/paradigms instead of daring to offer individual, innovative advancements that challenge the status quo. Those who do are usually attacked for threatening the tribal course hence, the response to Whybray.

The American professors in MES for example, have been an embarrassment as they casually dismiss the true Islamic authorities from the east/middle-east. They come up with all sorts of nonsense about what things mean in Islam and then ignore what the orthodox authorities at Al Azhar say (i.e. jihad refers only to defensive battles).

Every side is biased David, including the “liberal” side. So it does no good to dismiss intellectual giants like Whybray as “desperate” and “agenda” driven. This is unfair and reflects unfamiliarity with him. He doesn’t reject the JEDP thesis flat out, he just wasn’t going to have something pushed over on him, and he demonstrated some of its weaknesses which provided a great service to the intellectual community that was somewhat hypnotized into accepting something uncritically.

It does no good to try debating the merits or lack thereof, of the JEDP, on any message forum. It is simply too intricate and abstract to lump it in simple terms. But suffice it to say that its strength has waned over the past few decades, and even P. Kyle McCarter has admitted as much.

In an article written by Jewish scholar David Clines, “Making Waves Gently” is an excellent summary of Whybray’s contributions and impact on Old Testament scholarship: http://www.shef.ac.uk/bibs/DJACcurrres/Whybray.html

FTR, I do not discount the JEDP. In fact, I have written in support of it on my website. But I know there is a capable opposition that doesn't just amount to talented amateurs and Bible-thumpers.

[_Mephitus]

now im probly going to be banned as well. I just made a post about why the WIVES of god are never mentioned. Heres my post, lets see how quick they pounce.

I may get chopped for this as well, but here goes.

Why WOULD she be mentioned? What would be the role of a woman god within Mormonism? She has NO definitive authority to do anything. Everything that needs to be dispensed is the authority of the Male figure. Her only projected role within Mormon theology would be to make spirit children and follow her husband with her many wives.(i might have worded this better, but having just woken up, its about as good as i can get right now)

The issued that this entire thread boils down to, is that women in a sense are secondary citizens. They hold no authority within Mormonism. Sure, they can teach, they can work for the children. But when can a woman say say ANYTHING against a choice of a priesthood holding male in ANY circumstance? If you can name ONE i would be very surprised. Men hold the authority in this life and in the next. (the temple ceremony confirms this as well)

As such, the wives of god are of no consequence. They do nothing aside from making spirit children and following gods will. that's why you hear about that she exists, and nothing more. Ask yourselves (fellow men) would you also want the role of your wife delegated to being seen and not heard? Women, would you want to exist forever as a secondary character in an eternal play with no lines for you?

[_Enuma Elish]

I am not here to help Ozmec (whoever he is) out. I didn't even read his/her post. I just saw briefly where you asserted that there are not many scholars who reject JEDP. That depends on how many is many, and is a matter of perspective really.

And it depends upon how one chooses to use the term “scholar.” For discussion purposes, I have tried to simplify the matter by continually hearkening back to those who participate in the academic community via the university.

I recognize that this would exclude many well-read, knowledgeable individuals who could contribute substantially to the discussion, but with a notoriously ambiguous term such as “scholar,” we have to start somewhere.

So no we’re qualifying from "scholars" to University professors? That sure does make it easy to dismiss a whole slew of Jewish scholars and a bunch of bona fide scholars who don't hold tenured positions at universities.

And what makes a scholar a scholar? Again, in response to Ozmec’s assertion that Beowulf was “way off” in his belief that Moses did not write most of Deuteronomy, and that in contrast to Beowulf’s argument, “many scholars” believe that Moses is the primary author, I have tired to draw Ozmec’s attention to the very really fact that the idea of Mosaic authorship is rejected by scholars teaching Hebrew Bible in the university setting—this really should count for something.

I’m only trying to help Ozmec catch a greater vision, not offend you or any other scholar not linked with a university. As I’ve said many times, I hold a great respect for your knowledge and abilities.

You once talked about how your professor, Brettler, was raised Orthodox Jew, and how this adds credibility to his assessment of the Bible.

Brettler is still an Orthodox Jew who very much believes in the validity of source criticism. If you’ll recall, I used his Orthodox Jewish background to argue for the fact that Brettler was well versed in the nuances of biblical Hebrew—having studied the language since early childhood, which clearly has contributed to Brettler's amazing grasp of the Hebrew Bible.

From what I’ve seen, however, this is the only contribution that Orthodoxy offers an individual interested in biblical scholarship, which is why the vast majority of Orthodox Jews interested in religious studies avoid Bible and the ancient Near East and instead, pursue degrees in Rabbinics.

The acceptance of University professors only kinda rigs the game from the start, especially since the academy is a politically knit group that tends to follow trendy concepts/paradigms instead of daring to offer individual, innovative advancements that challenge the status quo.

I’m well aware of your aversion to the university, I’m afraid it’s a sentiment that I simply do not share.

It does no good to try debating the merits or lack thereof, of the JEDP, on any message forum.

I agree. Which is why I simply dismissed your friend’s article on Deuteronomy as highly “problematic.”

FTR, I do not discount the JEDP. In fact, I have written in support of it on my website.

Of course you don’t. You’re far too intelligent to discount the merits of source criticism.

But I know there is a capable opposition that doesn't just amount to talented amateurs and Bible-thumpers.

And here, we will simply have to disagree.

[_ozemc]

No, I'm not. I quite understand what is referred to as the "documentary theory"

But apparently not well enough to know that it is called the “Documentary Hypotheses,” not the “Documentary Theory.”

Yeah, OK, whatever. I've seen it written both ways. What's the difference between a "Hypothesis" and a "theory", anyway?

However, there are many scholars that hold the opposing view.

By all means, please explain the opposite view to the “Documentary Hypothesis” that “many” scholars hold.

Particularly, as stated, in a great many conservative universities and seminaries.

You need to go back and reread your quote. It states that the Mosaic authorship of Deuteronomy is still held in “the more conservative seminaries and churches,” not in a “great many conservative universities and seminaries.” The view of Mosaic authorship is inconsistent with the scholarly consensus presented in universities. I couldn't care less what is taught in conservative seminaries and churches. What in the world would that have to do with scholarship?

My claim was "many scholars". Would you consider those people not as "many scholars"? At what point does a group become "many" anyway? 50, 100, 500?

But your own source states, “outside of the more conservative seminaries and churches, it is commonly held that Moses did not write these books.” The reason it is commonly held that Moses did not write Deuteronomy is because that is the scholarly consensus. I'm sorry, but conservative ministers and evangelical Sunday School teachers who profess Mosaic authorship are not “scholars.”

You need to face the fact that you were wrong to tell Beowulf that “many scholars” believe that Moses himself wrote Deuteronomy. End of story.

Sorry that you feel the need to disparage those not in academia.

Just a side note, Jesus was a Jew.

I’m afraid I fail to see your point. The fact that Jesus was a Jew does not negate my observation that according to the Gospel writers, Jesus, at least initially, excluded certain racial groups from participating in his kingdom. Then again, he did establish a cult.

I don't recall any previous revelations from the Old Testament about Gentiles being under Jewish laws.

Alas, apparently, you failed to grasp the significance of my reference to Matthew 5:27-28, which illustrates that Jesus, as a perfect example of your definition of a charismatic cultic figure, professed, “new and continuing revelation, that [could] change past revelations.”

Just to clarify for you, this was the reference I provided that addressed the issue of Jesus changing “previous revelations from the Old Testament.”

Hope that helps.

Did I say Christianity was not a cult?

And there we have it. An admission that your argument against Mormonism on the grounds that it is a cult is really, very, very, weak.

No, not really. It is the idea that pretty much all of it is cultlike. Christianity, Judaism, Mormonism, Islam, etc. all have aspects of cults within them.

I'm sure you've seen the documentation for all the items I listed. All these took place in the church's history. Do you deny they took place?

Again, the issue is not whether or not these events took place. The issue is that you claimed that LDS historians “whitewash” their history. Obviously, simply listing these events does not prove your argument in any way, shape, or form.

But by all means, try again.

Again, you're sidestepping the issue. All the events that were listed have been well-documented that they have been downplayed by the church. Do I really need to go find every piece of evidence for you?

Yeah, I know. <sigh>

Why “sigh” at my religious convictions? Clearly I’ve invested quite a bit more effort than you have towards studying these issues. I’m quite comfortable with my beliefs. Thanks, though, for your sincere concern.

That's funny. As if you know what effort I've made toward studying religious issues. I'm glad you're comfortable.

Bingo! Give this one a cigar!

I really cannot believe that anyone would apply the pejorative term “cult” to any religion that cannot provide physical evidence for its spiritual claims. I really hoped that by reading my summary of the implications of your ridiculous argument, you would change your mind, not offer me a cigar.

Pretty funny, actually. You obviously haven't read some of my other posts. Why should you, of course, but they would probably give you greater insight into my line of thinking.

I’m afraid this thread has illustrated that you really need to start thinking, my friend, before any of us can begin to hope at gaining any insight, great or small, from anything that you post.

in my opinion, all religions have aspects of cults within them. It doesn't matter whether I think them true or false. If you get right down to it, I think there's some truth and some falsehoods to be found in most things. I'm much more gray in my thinking than black and white.

I must say that I’m really quite glad that you have come to this conclusion. This is why, if you really wish to argue against Mormonism, you’re going to have come up with a stronger argument. The fact is that the term “cult” is simply a pejorative term that describes the religion practiced by the “other.”

Every religion on the face of the planet can qualify as a “cult” based upon the issues that you have raised against Mormonism.

And that was my point.

As far as what I believe a cult is? I use definitions as I find them.

No, you don’t. Your online dictionary says nothing about a cult not being able to provide physical evidence of spiritual beliefs. Several times now, you have made this silly assertion.

Again, I can define any religion on the face of the planet as a “cult” based upon the points articulated in your online dictionary.

Again, that's my point.

I hope so. That is the intent of being here, isn't it? It is for me.

Yes, but dissecting your posts has been especially fun. Though I do sincerely hope that you have learned a few things that may serve you in your quest to refute Mormonism on this or any other board, especially MAAD.

Oh, I have definitely learned more about the Mormon mindset that I once knew, that's true.

[_Enuma Elish]

Why WOULD she be mentioned? What would be the role of a woman god within Mormonism? She has NO definitive authority to do anything. Everything that needs to be dispensed is the authority of the Male figure. Her only projected role within Mormon theology would be to make spirit children and follow her husband with her many wives.(i might have worded this better, but having just woken up, its about as good as i can get right now)

What a silly assertion!! You should really do at least a little bit of reading into LDS theology before posting such comments. Even within the conservative realm of Joseph Fielding Smith’s theology, faithful women would be given divine authority as queens and priestesses in the kingdom of God:

“There is nothing in the teachings of the gospel which declares that men are superior to women… Women do not hold the priesthood, but if they are faithful and true, they will become priestesses and queens in the kingdom of God, and that implies that they will be given authority” in Doctrines of Salvation 3:178.