• Hi Guest, want to participate in the discussions, keep track of read/unread posts and more? Create your free account and increase the benefits of your WyoNation.com experience today!

Mormons taking over?

C

CalvinWYO

Member
I heard that now 43% of us Wyomingites are LDS. Maybe those guys wearing short sleeve white shirts, black ties and name tags riding around on bicycles are gettin' er done?!
 
According to the LDS church itself, there are 67,000 Mormons in Wyoming, and considering that they keep very close track, I'd say that's probably legitimate.

You might want to look for better sources.
 
Eeesh! This isn't good. I have nothing against Mormons other than they are unknowingly a part of a cult that is probably more dangerous than any other given that it carries an air of being legitimate in many places. The difference between Jim Jones and Brigham Young is about 100 years.
 
Just because someone is different than you doesn't make them part of a cult. Tread lightly. Remember, "Let he who is without sin cast the first stone."
 
"Oh noes! People not like us are having kids! The horror!"

Seriously, who cares? Not their fault that fundamentalists aren't popping out kids as fast.
 
It is no where near 40%. It is at 11% by most accurate counts about the same as Catholics. Wyoming is the most Protestant of the western states and aslo a huge chunk of unaffiliated and non religious which is a point of pride ( 30% or more).
 
WYO1016 said:
Just because someone is different than you doesn't make them part of a cult. Tread lightly. Remember, "Let he who is without sin cast the first stone."
Click to expand...

All religions are cults, and they all belong in the dustbin of history. There is nothing behind any of them but irrational nonsense and fairy tales. Nothing in history or science validates any of it. At the top of every cult is a con artist who knows it's all horse crap, the only difference with a 'religion' is that the one who got it started is dead. It's the 21st century now. Leave your delusions behind.
 
FarEastPoke said:
WYO1016 said:
Just because someone is different than you doesn't make them part of a cult. Tread lightly. Remember, "Let he who is without sin cast the first stone."
Click to expand...

All religions are cults, and they all belong in the dustbin of history. There is nothing behind any of them but irrational nonsense and fairy tales. Nothing in history or science validates any of it. At the top of every cult is a con artist who knows it's all horse crap, the only difference with a 'religion' is that the one who got it started is dead. It's the 21st century now. Leave your delusions behind.
Click to expand...

Hence part of why I'm atheist!!!
 
Wyokie said:
FarEastPoke said:
WYO1016 said:
Just because someone is different than you doesn't make them part of a cult. Tread lightly. Remember, "Let he who is without sin cast the first stone."
Click to expand...

All religions are cults, and they all belong in the dustbin of history. There is nothing behind any of them but irrational nonsense and fairy tales. Nothing in history or science validates any of it. At the top of every cult is a con artist who knows it's all horse crap, the only difference with a 'religion' is that the one who got it started is dead. It's the 21st century now. Leave your delusions behind.
Click to expand...

Hence part of why I'm atheist!!!
Click to expand...

:thumb: No doubt more than a little difficult in a place like Oklahoma. Do you ever listen to the (Laramie based) Waiting 4 Wrath podcast? https://waiting4wrath.com/ :party:
 
FarEastPoke said:
Wyokie said:
FarEastPoke said:
WYO1016 said:
Just because someone is different than you doesn't make them part of a cult. Tread lightly. Remember, "Let he who is without sin cast the first stone."
Click to expand...

All religions are cults, and they all belong in the dustbin of history. There is nothing behind any of them but irrational nonsense and fairy tales. Nothing in history or science validates any of it. At the top of every cult is a con artist who knows it's all horse crap, the only difference with a 'religion' is that the one who got it started is dead. It's the 21st century now. Leave your delusions behind.
Click to expand...

Hence part of why I'm atheist!!!
Click to expand...

:thumb: No doubt more than a little difficult in a place like Oklahoma. Do you ever listen to the (Laramie based) Waiting 4 Wrath podcast? https://waiting4wrath.com/ :party:
Click to expand...

LOL You have NO idea. Plus a buddy of mine here is a pastor :roll: His older brother played at UW in the early-to-mid 90s.
 
FarEastPoke said:
WYO1016 said:
Just because someone is different than you doesn't make them part of a cult. Tread lightly. Remember, "Let he who is without sin cast the first stone."
Click to expand...

All religions are cults, and they all belong in the dustbin of history. There is nothing behind any of them but irrational nonsense and fairy tales. Nothing in history or science validates any of it. At the top of every cult is a con artist who knows it's all horse crap, the only difference with a 'religion' is that the one who got it started is dead. It's the 21st century now. Leave your delusions behind.
Click to expand...

Nothing? Strong word there. Thing is there is historical evidence that there was a Jesus of Nazareth, he was crucified, and his disciples claimed he rose from the dead and proceeded to spread that message across the Roman Empire. In addition to non Christian historians referring to Jesus of Nazareth you have other forms of evidence. While the Roman Empire was trying to squash early Christendom there would have been a very easy way to squash it if Jesus of Nazareth did not exist. Thing is early Christians reference census records and other official documents while defending their religion. While their writings survived the sacking of Rome, the census records and other official records did not, but why would you reference a non-existent record as a defense of your religion? One can argue how strong the evidence is, but to suggest there is nothing that is quite the stretch.

With Christianity it comes down to one thing. Did Jesus of Nazareth rise from the dead. If the disciples were really just a bunch of con-men why keep up the ruse for so long? All of the apostles died horrific deaths save for John (and even he had several attempts made against his life). That is history, you look at the actions of Peter, James, John, the rest of the apostles, Paul, Stephen. Their behavior doesn't mesh with that of con-men. They willingly went to places they knew were going to get them imprisoned or killed. When imprisoned they didn't attempt violent escapes. They weren't spreading their message via power or the sword and receiving riches. Those early Christians were true believers, and if anyone pulled a con about Jesus rising from the dead the only sensible ones to do that would not be the Romans or the Sanhedrin, no it would have to be the disciples. You think they would keep it up after watching one of their own get beheaded, stoned, crucified, skinned alive?
 
Expat_Poke said:
FarEastPoke said:
WYO1016 said:
Just because someone is different than you doesn't make them part of a cult. Tread lightly. Remember, "Let he who is without sin cast the first stone."
Click to expand...

All religions are cults, and they all belong in the dustbin of history. There is nothing behind any of them but irrational nonsense and fairy tales. Nothing in history or science validates any of it. At the top of every cult is a con artist who knows it's all horse crap, the only difference with a 'religion' is that the one who got it started is dead. It's the 21st century now. Leave your delusions behind.
Click to expand...

Nothing? Strong word there. Thing is there is historical evidence that there was a Jesus of Nazareth, he was crucified, and his disciples claimed he rose from the dead and proceeded to spread that message across the Roman Empire. In addition to non Christian historians referring to Jesus of Nazareth you have other forms of evidence. While the Roman Empire was trying to squash early Christendom there would have been a very easy way to squash it if Jesus of Nazareth did not exist. Thing is early Christians reference census records and other official documents while defending their religion. While their writings survived the sacking of Rome, the census records and other official records did not, but why would you reference a non-existent record as a defense of your religion? One can argue how strong the evidence is, but to suggest there is nothing that is quite the stretch.

With Christianity it comes down to one thing. Did Jesus of Nazareth rise from the dead. If the disciples were really just a bunch of con-men why keep up the ruse for so long? All of the apostles died horrific deaths save for John (and even he had several attempts made against his life). That is history, you look at the actions of Peter, James, John, the rest of the apostles, Paul, Stephen. Their behavior doesn't mesh with that of con-men. They willingly went to places they knew were going to get them imprisoned or killed. When imprisoned they didn't attempt violent escapes. They weren't spreading their message via power or the sword and receiving riches. Those early Christians were true believers, and if anyone pulled a con about Jesus rising from the dead the only sensible ones to do that would not be the Romans or the Sanhedrin, no it would have to be the disciples. You think they would keep it up after watching one of their own get beheaded, stoned, crucified, skinned alive?
Click to expand...

You need to read more books on the subject-- skeptical ones, not church propaganda. I suggest you start with Bart Ehrman.(http://www.bartdehrman.com/ ) Gospels were written between 40 to 100 years after those events by people who were neither from nor knew the country it was written about, didn't speak or write the language of the area, and as evident by the blatant contradictions found in them were clearly making much of it up, if not all of it. There was never a slaughter of the innocents, places mentioned in them didn't exist at the time, Romans never allowed the crucified to be taken down for burial, no census was ever taken at the time, (And even if there were, no one would ever be required to return to their birthplace, that would be absolutely silly) and there are NO extra-biblical accounts of any miracle, event, or sermon given. Zip. Zero references. You may believe it happened, but the onus would be on YOU to prove it. Otherwise, it just didn't happen. As for the OT, there was no world wide flood, no exodus, (It takes a week to cross the Sanai on foot, not 40 years, and it has been scoured for evidence of such a trek with nothing found) and the creation myth holds no water, so there was no need for a sacrifice in the first place. It's nothing but a myth that puts a small group of people in control of a large populace up until that populace becomes better educated. The only reason anyone can believe it is if they are indoctrinated with it at an age when they cannot yet reason for themselves- which is the same MO of every other religion on Earth. They all have martyrs, so yours are no more special that theirs. As Carl Sagan said, 'Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence', and a few deluded followers willing to undergo torture is nowhere near the evidence needed to prove the claim true. In other words, 'citation needed'.
 
FarEastPoke said:
Expat_Poke said:
FarEastPoke said:
WYO1016 said:
Just because someone is different than you doesn't make them part of a cult. Tread lightly. Remember, "Let he who is without sin cast the first stone."
Click to expand...

All religions are cults, and they all belong in the dustbin of history. There is nothing behind any of them but irrational nonsense and fairy tales. Nothing in history or science validates any of it. At the top of every cult is a con artist who knows it's all horse crap, the only difference with a 'religion' is that the one who got it started is dead. It's the 21st century now. Leave your delusions behind.
Click to expand...

Nothing? Strong word there. Thing is there is historical evidence that there was a Jesus of Nazareth, he was crucified, and his disciples claimed he rose from the dead and proceeded to spread that message across the Roman Empire. In addition to non Christian historians referring to Jesus of Nazareth you have other forms of evidence. While the Roman Empire was trying to squash early Christendom there would have been a very easy way to squash it if Jesus of Nazareth did not exist. Thing is early Christians reference census records and other official documents while defending their religion. While their writings survived the sacking of Rome, the census records and other official records did not, but why would you reference a non-existent record as a defense of your religion? One can argue how strong the evidence is, but to suggest there is nothing that is quite the stretch.

With Christianity it comes down to one thing. Did Jesus of Nazareth rise from the dead. If the disciples were really just a bunch of con-men why keep up the ruse for so long? All of the apostles died horrific deaths save for John (and even he had several attempts made against his life). That is history, you look at the actions of Peter, James, John, the rest of the apostles, Paul, Stephen. Their behavior doesn't mesh with that of con-men. They willingly went to places they knew were going to get them imprisoned or killed. When imprisoned they didn't attempt violent escapes. They weren't spreading their message via power or the sword and receiving riches. Those early Christians were true believers, and if anyone pulled a con about Jesus rising from the dead the only sensible ones to do that would not be the Romans or the Sanhedrin, no it would have to be the disciples. You think they would keep it up after watching one of their own get beheaded, stoned, crucified, skinned alive?
Click to expand...

You need to read more books on the subject-- skeptical ones, not church propaganda. I suggest you start with Bart Ehrman.(http://www.bartdehrman.com/ ) Gospels were written between 40 to 100 years after those events by people who were neither from nor knew the country it was written about, didn't speak or write the language of the area, and as evident by the blatant contradictions found in them were clearly making much of it up, if not all of it. There was never a slaughter of the innocents, places mentioned in them didn't exist at the time, Romans never allowed the crucified to be taken down for burial, no census was ever taken at the time, (And even if there were, no one would ever be required to return to their birthplace, that would be absolutely silly) and there are NO extra-biblical accounts of any miracle, event, or sermon given. Zip. Zero references. You may believe it happened, but the onus would be on YOU to prove it. Otherwise, it just didn't happen. As for the OT, there was no world wide flood, no exodus, (It takes a week to cross the Sanai on foot, not 40 years, and it has been scoured for evidence of such a trek with nothing found) and the creation myth holds no water, so there was no need for a sacrifice in the first place. It's nothing but a myth that puts a small group of people in control of a large populace up until that populace becomes better educated. The only reason anyone can believe it is if they are indoctrinated with it at an age when they cannot yet reason for themselves- which is the same MO of every other religion on Earth. They all have martyrs, so yours are no more special that theirs. As Carl Sagan said, 'Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence', and a few deluded followers willing to undergo torture is nowhere near the evidence needed to prove the claim true. In other words, 'citation needed'.
Click to expand...

I have read many of Ehrman's books, including most recently "Jesus Interrupted." As a practicing Christian I am not afraid of looking at both sides of the argument. However Ehrman is not arguing against the existence of Jesus or that the Gospels were made up. In fact he argues that there is overwhelming evidence for Jesus existence. He quotes "You can’t explain the crucified messiah as something that was made up. If it is hard to imagine Jews inventing the idea of a crucified messiah, where did the idea come from? It came from historical realities. There really was a man Jesus …. no Jew would have invented him." The reason Ehrman is agnostic has actually nothing to do with Jesus, he cannot accept the concept of suffering in a Christian world, is the real reason.

I don't think anyone would argue that the NT books were written between 40 and 100 AD. We also realize that most people in that time could not read or write. So much of the history we take as fact today was orally passed down until it was written down, even hundreds of years later! However nowhere in the Bible is Jesus quoted as saying I want you to write a book about me.

I don't think of myself as uneducated. I was agnostic a good part of my life and no one indoctrinated me. I came to my own conclusions through study and theology. I believe we are hard wired for a creator. I would direct you to C.S Lewis Mere Christianity which I wouldn't call propaganda. Lewis was a former atheist also. Ill leave it with a quote from Lewis “I didn’t go to religion to make me happy. I always knew a bottle of Port would do that. If you want a religion to make you feel really comfortable, I certainly don’t recommend Christianity.”
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Latest posts

Back
Top