patrick.net

Many people believe that Mormonism is a cult. News flash: some Baptist agrees.

BFD

Yes, lots of people think Mormonism is weird because the lore behind it happened so recently. It's not any more weird than any other sect of Christianity in its lore.

However, Mormonism is also easier to attack because of how secretive it can be (e.g. family members cannot go to sealings if they are not members of the church). That makes it seem more cult-like.

$cientology also seems very cult-like because they are far more secretive, and in fact go out of their way to sue people who reveal $cientology documents. This is strange, because if the $cientology docs are the word of god or the word of an alien, they probably aren't protected by copyright. :) Also, most religions want to encourage distribution of their sacred materials, not discourage distribution through frivolous lawsuits.

if by "lore" you mean prophecy coming true, then the Hebrew Bible stands alone, and the Fairy tale by Smith and also by mohamad, are flawed.

The "reason" for trusting the message in the Bible is enhanced by the correct prophecy. So far, Bible Prophets are batting 1.000, and that is the required standard to be a prophet. The mormans use the term "prophet" to guard against other Chirst based groups pointing out their short comings ... but, there have been no Prophets in the morman cult thus far. I like their morality, and they did the most when given the least due to a great work ethic. I'd like to have morman neighbors, and I have some great morman friends ... but, I trust the Bible's red words of Christ and use them to cause mormans great strain in their beliefes! lol.

First, and easiest, is their reason for getting married in "the temple". Ask one. They do it so they can be married in Heaven ... it's all bullcrap. Jesus said that it aint like that in Heaven, nobody is given or taken in marriage (you know, the question he was asked about the widow marring the brother of her dead husband, over and over, through a few brothers, and then who does she belong to in heaven ... ). Joe Smith wrote a copy-cat Bible story with an influx of Cowboys and Indians, and it was finished off by the aunt and uncle ... and it's all poop. Sorry mormans, but your book is on par with mohamads ... only less dead innocent people from yours!!

Bap33 says

if by "lore" you mean prophecy coming true, then the Hebrew Bible stands alone, and the Fairy tale by Smith and also by mohamad, are flawed.

I see a lot of these TV "Prophets" making a number of statements. If a recall the Bible states that if a Prophet makes a prophecy that does not come true, then they are to be stoned to death.

Bap33 says

The "reason" for trusting the message in the Bible is enhanced by the correct prophecy. So far, Bible Prophets are batting 1.000, and that is the required standard to be a prophet.

Even though this is non-sense since the bible isn't even internally consistent, what prophetic statements are you talking about where it's 100% accurate?

In any case you missed my point. Other sects of Christianity suggest certain fantastical events happened between approximately 2000 and 6000 years ago and were written many centuries ago. Mormonism suggests certain fantastical events happened too, only the suggestion happened less than 200 years ago. I don't see them as particularly different in this regard, except for the timing of the suggestions. Hell, evangelical Christians are still making suggestions now.

jvolstad says

then they are to be stoned

I imagine being stoned makes it easier to make prophetic statements.

Bap33 says

Joe Smith wrote a copy-cat Bible story

Some of it is actually directly, almost word for word, plagiarized from the bible.

So, Bab what do you think, are mormons christians? Would you vote for one? How about over a christian?

corntrollio says

Other sects of Christianity suggest certain fantastical events happened between approximately 2000 and 6000 years ago and were written many centuries ago. Mormonism suggests certain fantastical events happened too, only the suggestion happened less than 200 years ago. I don't see them as particularly different in this regard, except for the timing of the suggestions.

Yeah, the fantastical claims of religions are not too different in their levels of fantasticalness. I think that mormons are the only judeo-christian religion that believe it's members will one day become gods themselves with their very own planets to rule. I guess Romney just wants to practice a bit as the pres of the US before ruling over an entire planet as a literal god.

Also, a difference is that claims that are 2000+ years old are hard to verify or cross reference. While only 150ish years ago, when the mormons started, there is a lot of objective counts and evidence that would suggest fraud, not unlike $cientology. The mormon church has spent an unknown amount of money buying old documents that might reflect poorly on their story. There was one guy that made a lot of money selling the church forgeries.

I do not think mormon teachings are Christian teaching, but there are lots of mormons that will get into heaven because they had the right heart and the wrong head. The whole thing is based of bs, just like mohamads fable.

I would vote for any conservative mormon, Jew, Arab, Russian, Asian, over any liberal (fill in blank).

Do you remember the discussion we all had about how it is impossible to know a person's true beliefs? That holds true about any spirituality also. We really can't judge stuff like that. We should limit our judgments to actions first, words second, thoughts never.

I wonder if this is what JFK had to go through as the first Catholic President?

There's some animosity towards them mostly because Mormons are an organized religion and are growing.

The religious right frankly is not needed in American politics let alone the republican party.

The era of big preachers is over...heck even Dr. Gene Scott passed away..if you remember the 80's you remember guys like Jimmy Swaggart, Jim Bakker, Oral Roberts (900 ft Jesus? seriously) etc. Mega churches I'd say are over.

Truthplease says

I wonder if this is what JFK had to go through as the first Catholic President?

Probably not exactly, there are a lot more catholics than mormons.

Bap33 says

I would vote for any conservative mormon, Jew, Arab, Russian, Asian, over any liberal (fill in blank).

So, then you think that conservatives are inherently more moral, ethical, and better people in general than liberals?

What about a conservative atheist over a liberal christian?

mdovell says

There's some animosity towards them mostly because Mormons are an organized religion and are growing.

No, the animosity against the mormons has a lot more to do with their dogma, and their amendment to the bible "the book of mormon". People tend to get pretty pissed off when you start editing their religious documents.

I don't think they are growing anymore. The mormon population actually has stayed a pretty constant 1.4% of the US population for the past 20ish years. While their numbers are increasing they are just keeping up with population growth. So, they are not "growing" relative to US population.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_the_United_States#Religions_of_American_adults

mdovell says

The era of big preachers is over...heck even Dr. Gene Scott passed away..if you remember the 80's you remember guys like Jimmy Swaggart, Jim Bakker, Oral Roberts (900 ft Jesus? seriously) etc. Mega churches I'd say are over.

Yeah, perhaps it does seem like there are not as many big names out there, but there are a few. I don't know if it is quite over for them yet, but in the link above you can see that christians overall in the US are a shrinking percentage.

leoj707 says

No, the animosity against the mormons has a lot more to do with their dogma, and their amendment to the bible "the book of mormon". People tend to get pretty pissed off when you start editing their religious documents.

Except that there are already many versions of the bible, and several of them are probably poor translations from the Greek anyway.

I think one thing that freaks people out is the Mormon's genealogy stuff where they effectively baptize dead people into the church -- maybe your relatives.

corntrollio says

Except that there are already many versions of the bible, and several of them are probably poor translations from the Greek anyway.

Yeah, but they are still the "bible". They are not "The bible II: now with all new prophets".

Mormon and islam are similar in this regard. Both believe in the bible, both believe in Jesus, both have a new book written by prophets, both believe that their new "truth" (where it may conflict) overrides what is in the bible. In this regard Romney is more similar to a muslim than Obama is.

leoj707 says

Yeah, but they are still the "bible". They are not "The bible II: now with all new prophets".

So the New Testament vs. the Old Testament thing... Shouldn't Jews have the beef then? The Christian bible is basically Bible II already.

corntrollio says

leoj707 says

Yeah, but they are still the "bible". They are not "The bible II: now with all new prophets".

So the New Testament vs. the Old Testament thing... Shouldn't Jews have the beef then? The Christian bible is basically Bible II already.

Well, the jews don't consider the new testament to be true, and they don't consider christians to be jews. One of the big differences between the jews and their "child" religions is that the jews are not trying to convert the world to judaism, so they are not competing for the same members.

No prophecies from the bible have come true - they're batting a big fat zero. On the other hand, all of my prophecy has come to pass - and yet still no one listens.

Don't bother me with your questions about 'proof' regarding my prophecy - if you choose not to believe the words of an obvious deity then you will have to wait until you go hell to learn the truth.

I will, however, give you a new prophecy - one I have never revealed. It shall be useful to those who know when to use it:
Those who today live for riches and power will soon be laid low.
Use this knowledge as you will.

Matt.BayArea says

No prophecies from the bible have come true - they're batting a big fat zero.

Yeah, still waiting for Bap to come to defense of this.

leoj707 says

Well, the jews don't consider the new testament to be true, and they don't consider christians to be jews. One of the big differences between the jews and their "child" religions is that the jews are not trying to convert the world to judaism, so they are not competing for the same members.

Maybe that's an important distinction. Jews aren't particularly known for proselytizing. Just to make sure I understand, you're saying it's offensive to other Christians that Mormons consider themselves Christians too? Couldn't they just treat it like the Jews and say "yeah, those dudes aren't really Christians, so what do we care"?

leoj707 says

Bap33 says

I would vote for any conservative mormon, Jew, Arab, Russian, Asian, over any liberal (fill in blank).

So, then you think that conservatives are inherently more moral, ethical, and better people in general than liberals?

What about a conservative atheist over a liberal christian?

Conservative. Because I would be voting based on historical political ACTION taken by the person, and not what they SAY or are supposed to BELIEVE. We need to vote and judge based on ACTIONS ... (both sides, to be fair). No more voting based on what they say they will do, or say the believe ... vote based on what they DO. So, if a person who SAYS they are athiest has the history of taking conservative ACTIONS,,, then they get my vote over a person taking liberal actions and talking about Jesus. Honest answer. You?

Bap33 says

then they get my vote over a person taking liberal actions and talking about Jesus.

But wasn't jesus a liberal, certainly a lot of his actions would indicate that he was.

Bap33 says

You?

Yep, as far as I can I base my voting on actions, but I don't lump those actions as necessarily "liberal" or "conservative". Obama a "liberal" for instance has acted, in a lot of ways, like George W. a "conservative". Depending on the issues, and candidate I have voted republican, democrat, and from other parties as well.

I think that you and I just share a different view on what "actions" are better for our country.

corntrollio says

Just to make sure I understand, you're saying it's offensive to other Christians that Mormons consider themselves Christians too? Couldn't they just treat it like the Jews and say "yeah, those dudes aren't really Christians, so what do we care"?

Well, I think that the big difference is that jews are not going around calling themselves christians, but the mormons are. The jews also have not amended christian dogma, they just don't accept it. The mormons are trying to tell the christians that they are wrong about jesus, and that only the mormons hold the truth. I think that makes mormons more heretical in the eyes of christians than jews.

leo,
Jesus was no liberal, in the way liberal is used in America today. Jesus was conservative, in so much as he said the rules are the rules and don't change to fit the day.

Actions: Teached and preached the absolute word of God, for food and shelter, after leaving home where he swung a hammer for a living. One never knows, but he may have saved a few bucks before leaving home at 30 to allow him to survive unemployed. Or, the temples may have paid him teacher wages when he was there teaching?? I dunno.

Liberal believe in taking from one to give to another who will not work. Jesus was against this style of public support. Jesus wanted folks to give to the needy on their own. But, lazy folks were to be left in the gutter. I would say we have pleanty of Conservative Christians that give to the needy without being forced or even asked to (since many researchers say so). I would support letting lazy drunks and druggies go hungery, and having forced birth control for teen mothers while on support, with mandatory tube cutting if they get prego again and want aid.

G.W.B was not a conservative by any stretch of the imagination.

I voted for Ron Paul last time, and once long ago I voted for Perot. Conservative, not repub. GWB was a Repub with some great national defense actions, but pretty poor fiscal stuff. And he let Dems write the school laws and that was not smart.

Bap33 says

Conservative. Because I would be voting based on historical political ACTION taken by the person, and not what they SAY or are supposed to BELIEVE. We need to vote and judge based on ACTIONS ... (both sides, to be fair). No more voting based on what they say they will do, or say the believe ... vote based on what they DO. So, if a person who SAYS they are athiest has the history of taking conservative ACTIONS,,, then they get my vote over a person taking liberal actions and talking about Jesus.

I suppose this is under Bap's flawed definition of liberal vs. conservative. Although the irony is that now Bap has described religious people as people who merely give lip service to things, but don't take actions. How awesome is that?

Bap33 says

Actions: Teached and preached the absolute word of God, for food and shelter, after leaving home where he swung a hammer for a living. One never knows, but he may have saved a few bucks before leaving home at 30 to allow him to survive unemployed. Or, the temples may have paid him teacher wages when he was there teaching?? I dunno.

None of this has anything to do with liberal vs. conservative. The logic being used here is illogical: "Things I like are conservative. Jesus did things I like. Therefore Jesus was conservative."

Bap33 says

having forced birth control for teen mothers while on support, with mandatory tube cutting if they get prego again and want aid.

This is not conservative. Only people who don't understand what conservative means would say that it was.

leoj707 says

The mormons are trying to tell the christians that they are wrong about jesus, and that only the mormons hold the truth. I think that makes mormons more heretical in the eyes of christians than jews.

I could see that I guess. Still, Christians have had far bigger fights among themselves well before Mormons were around. There is relative peace now among most denominations, but it was a bloody past to get there.

While we're exposing our ignorance with statements like "Liberal believe in taking from one to give to another who will not work," let me express one of my own ignorant beliefs:

{sarcasm}

Conservatives believe in taking from those who work (the working class) the majority of their earnings and keeping it nice and cozy at the top of the pyramid scheme - in the hands of the super wealthy who have monopolies on various industries & by collusion keep the working class paycheck smaller than it deserves to be so they can support their own aristocratic do-nothing lifestyle (earned through birthright).

{/sarc... actually, let's leave the sarcasm tag in place. We may need it!

Also, I have heard that conservatives like to eat babies. I did not hear what type of babies but I assume it to be poor human babies.

Matt.BayArea says

While we're exposing our ignorance with statements like "Liberal believe in taking from one to give to another who will not work," let me express one of my own ignorant beliefs:

\

Conservatives believe in taking from those who work (the working class) the majority of their earnings and keeping it nice and cozy at the top of the pyramid scheme - in the hands of the super wealthy who have monopolies on various industries & by collusion keep the working class paycheck smaller than it deserves to be so they can support their own aristocratic do-nothing lifestyle (earned through birthright).

The two are one and the same. Read up the origins of Bismarck's social welfare programs. It was designed to entrench the birthright powers of the German Junkers (conservative aristocrats), in the face of rising free market competition chipping away at aristocratic provileges. That's the origin of the modern social welfare state.

corn,
you missed most of the points due to my poor writing habits. Please re-read my answer to leo in context. Or, sit there in your bitter stew and call me poopypants. HAve a great day, either way.

Regarding the book of Mormon:

"The Book of Mormon is considered by the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints to be a divinely inspired book of equal value to the Bible. Joseph Smith, founder of the Mormon religion, claimed that he was directed by an Angel to a hill near his home in which he found golden tablets containing the full text of the book. With the books he found two objects called the Urim and Thummim which he described as a pair of crystals joined in the form of a large pair of spectacles. Unfortunately, after Smith finished his translation, he had to return the tablets to the Angel, so there is no physical evidence that they ever existed.

The book refers to a group of Jews that moved to and settled in America where Jesus visited them. Some segments of the Book of Mormon contain sections copied directly from the King James version of the Bible – the Bible that was most popular at the time and used by Joseph Smith. One example is Mark 16:15-18 which is quoted nearly word-for-word in Mormon 9:22-24. In addition, the book mimics the literary and linguistic style of the King James Bible. Linguistic experts have stated that the entire book is written by one man, and is not written by a combination of authors (the prophets as claimed by Smith). Additionally, the book refers to animals and crops that did not exist in America until Columbus arrived: ass, bull, calf, cattle, cow, domestic goat, horse, ox, domestic sheep, sow, swine, elephants, wheat, and barley.

The most compelling proof that Joseph Smith was perpetuating a fraud is the Book of Abraham. In 1835 Smith was able to use his Urim and Thummim to translate some Egyptian scrolls that he was given access to (at that time no one could read hieroglyphics). Upon inspection, Smith declared that they contained the Book of Abraham. He promptly translated the lot and it was accepted as scripture by the church. The scrolls vanished and everyone thought the story would end there. But it didn’t – in 1966 the original scrolls were found in the New York Metropolitan Museum of Art. The scrolls turned out to be a standard Egyptian text that was often buried with the dead. To this day the Book of Abraham is a source of discomfort for the Mormon religion."

http://listverse.com/2007/08/30/top-10-famous-hoaxes/

joshuatrio says

http://listverse.com/2007/08/30/top-10-famous-hoaxes/

Funny that the BoM is the only holly book on that list.

Bap33 says

you missed most of the points due to my poor writing habits. Please re-read my answer to leo in context.

That's not really responsive to my points. You haven't really explained how the prophetic stuff in the bible is batting 1.000, and you also continue with your flawed definitions of liberal vs. conservative and are unable to actually portray the two accurately, instead falling back on a flawed Nixonian notion that has nothing to do with the actual meanings.

corntrollio says

You haven't really explained how the prophetic stuff in the bible is batting 1.000

Yeah, I would like to see this explained. I have seen/heard discussed this many times, and have never been presented with a convincing reasoning.

joshuatrio says

With the books he found two objects called the Urim and Thummim which he described as a pair of crystals joined in the form of a large pair of spectacles.

http://www.southparkstudios.com/clips/104253/joseph-smith-part-1

A Classic.

thunderlips11 says

joshuatrio says

With the books he found two objects called the Urim and Thummim which he described as a pair of crystals joined in the form of a large pair of spectacles.

http://www.southparkstudios.com/clips/104253/joseph-smith-part-1

A Classic.

Homo Economicus. Like Bigfoot, reported to exist in fantasy books, but never seen in the wild.

Dum da dum dum...

leoj707 says

corntrollio says

You haven't really explained how the prophetic stuff in the bible is batting 1.000

Yeah, I would like to see this explained. I have seen/heard discussed this many times, and have never been presented with a convincing reasoning.

All the prophesies indeed came true . . . because the prophets were recording the past, not the future as we understand it. The ancient Egyptians believed that which happened in the past must happen again in the future; time/events to them were simply a continuously revolving replication of itself, to every detail. That's why they went to the great length of carving all those gigantic monuments with inscriptions (stellas etc.); they firmly believed the predicative power of "history." Otherwise they wouldn't have spent the effort and we wouldn't have known them (just like we do not know the history of zillions of other tribes; the sampling bias inherent in history study).

Who were "they"? They were the ancient Egyptian Pharaohs ( "the Lord"), especially of the 18th dynasty (New Kingdom), and their princely relatives (prophets). The term "Lord" also applied to whichever royal family member happen to be in charge of real power at the time. Their instructions were the commands of "the Lord."

The most important story arch concerned with how Joseph/Yuya massively expanded Egyptian imperial government power through market manipulation (7yr harvest, 7yr famine, leading to the tightly inbred imperial family enslaving everyone in the known world, as boasted in the Old Testament). The subsequent government bubble allowed Solomon/AmenhotepIII engage in massive monument building programs. Then the bubble burst, leading to Moses/Akhenaten's unpopular draconian rule and overthrow, followed by Joshua/Jesus/Tutankhamun's more relaxed/tolerant rule and subsequent murder by a coup orchestrated by the military and priests.

Yuya/Joseph's grain purchase program to fill the granaries probably caused a massive agro and agro land bubble, the burst of which bankrupted almost all the farmers and grain dealers, and put the Pharaoh (Joseph/Yuya's brother Amenhotep III/Solomon) in a position to buy up everything cheap and essentially enslave everyone in the known world. That centralization of power however was ultimately proven to be disasterous to the Pharaoh's own royal family. Within a few decades, things got so bad Moses/AmenhotepIV/Akhenaten had to be deposed by his own mother Tiye (the "jealous" Lord) in a palace coup and sent on a journey of Exodus. The more relaxed rule of the next Pharaoh Tutankhamun/Joshua/Jesus apparently won the hearts and minds of Egyptians. Not only was his visage revived in Roman time 15 centuries later, but his tomb is the only one not robbed in the Valley of Kings. In a way, the ongoing King Tut exhibit is the second coming.

I can't help wondering whether Yuya/Joseph came up with fiat credit money to buy up grains. Did they get a new supply of gold from Nubia, or did they monetize silver to expand money supply (as seem to be implied by the Bible), or did Yuya/Joseph come up with the world's first fiat credit/representation money pretending to be having the gold/silver, in order to blow the bubble to massive proportions. The last proposition also seems to be implied by the Bible, as Joseph/Yuya managed to let Jacob/AmenhotepII and his sons/princes buy grains and yet keep the silver coins at the same time; i.e. some kind of money multiplier or fractional reserve banking was invented.

Anyone who wants to read about mormonism from a different point of view should check out this site:

http://www.utlm.org/

The Utah Lighthouse Ministry was started by Jerald & Sandra Tanner - she is a great (etc) grand daughter of Brigham Young (I believe he is now deceased) She & her husband have a book that shows the Book of Mormon and the changes that have been made to it over time. For example, Joseph Smith predicted that men lived on the moon - as soon as we made it to the moon (and found no men or green cheese), the BoM was changed.

It's a great book - Mormonism, Shadow or Reality. Check on the books on the book list. It's awesome - I had a Mormon friend who excommunicated me from her life (& cast me out!) because I had a copy of the book.

corntrollio says

Bap33 says

you missed most of the points due to my poor writing habits. Please re-read my answer to leo in context.

That's not really responsive to my points. You haven't really explained how the prophetic stuff in the bible is batting 1.000, and you also continue with your flawed definitions of liberal vs. conservative and are unable to actually portray the two accurately, instead falling back on a flawed Nixonian notion that has nothing to do with the actual meanings.

The stuff that was predicted to happen, has, but you can ignore that if you wish. The Jews ignored it too.

As for my flawed view of blah blah blah, that is the part where your line of attack left the tracks. Site your concern again, and READ THE ENTIRE EXCHANGE. Then, if that issue is still bugging you, post my point that you disagree with, and I'll do my best.

If you are the one who decides what is conservative and what is liberal, you should wear a special hat so we all know. It can match the hat worn by the guy that decides what is rich.

Reality says

I can't help wondering whether Yuya/Joseph came up with fiat credit money to buy up grains.

Why would he need fiat money? Joseph was made an official of Egypt. Grain ended up in central granaries because the Egyptian Government built them all, it was the only place to store it in bulk. It wasn't a coin-dominated economy; taxes were paid in grain. Throughout most of history taxes have been payable in foodstuffs. Most ancient river-civilizations in the M/E worked the same way.

I think you're viewing Ancient Egypt through the prism of a modern commercialized society.

Interesting read about agriculture in Egypt:
http://www.reshafim.org.il/ad/egypt/timelines/topics/agriculture.htm

thunderlips11 says

Why would he need fiat money? Joseph was made an official of Egypt. Grain ended up in central granaries because the Egyptian Government built them all, it was the only place to store it in bulk. It wasn't a coin-dominated economy; taxes were paid in grain. Throughout most of history taxes have been payable in foodstuffs. Most ancient river-civilizations in the M/E worked the same way.

I think you're viewing Ancient Egypt through the prism of a modern commercialized society.

Ancient economies were much more sophisticated than what most have been taught in schools. There wouldn't be the concept of "jubilee" (debt forgiveness every 60 years, necessitated by generational debt bubble like we are having now) or ban against usury in the Bible if not for a thriving monetary economy involving sophisticated lending practices. There were even laws regarding interest in Sumerian codes. Periodically the economies probably fell back to grain-in-kind but at other times, ancients were smart and advanced enough to have commercial centers that necessitated indoor plumbing (e.g. Harapa of 1500-2000BC, not long before Yuya/Joseph). Heck, the Bible's own account told the story as Jacob (Amenhotep II) sending his sons (princes) to buy grain from Egypt with silver coins, and Joseph (Yuya) enabled them to come back with grain and the silver coins unspent! That ability to give the seller illusion of money in exchange for his goods and still being able to keep the money at the same time is indicative of fractional reserve banking

It would be silly to think Joseph/Yuya invented the granary itself. Granaries are found in achaelogical digs dating back to 10,000 years ago. It's doubtful the Egyptian government could just have forcibly collected all grain. Buying them at a bid above market rate in some form would have been a much less costly way of convincing the people to transfer grain from private granaries to the government granaries.

Reality says

It would be silly to think Joseph/Yuya invented the granary itself. Granaries are found in achaelogical digs dating back to 10,000 years ago. It's doubtful the Egyptian government could just have forcibly collected all grain.

They did, from the above link:

Egyptian officials were not noted for sparing the rod (nor have peasants ever shown an alacrity to part with the fruit of their labour):

Now the scribe lands on the shore. He surveys the harvest. Attendants are behind him with staffs, Nubians with clubs. One says (to the peasant): "Give grain."
"There is none."
He is beaten savagely. He is bound, thrown in the well, submerged head down.
The Instruction of Amenemope
M. Lichtheim, Ancient Egyptian Literature, Volume II, p.

If you check the link above, you'll see that Ancient Egypt was a centrally planned economy. Peasants didn't generally own their plots, it was granted to them by the state, on a life-long lease. The irrigation system was centrally controlled, as well.

Priests were more administrators than Clerics. Yes, they performed public rituals, but they spent much of their time estimating the harvest, calculating the dates the Nile would flood, planning canals and estimating the potential harvest.

Reality says

Ancient economies were much more sophisticated than what most have been taught in schools. There wouldn't be the concept of "jubilee" or ban against usury in the Bible if not for a thriving monetary economy. There were even laws regarding interest in Sumerian codes.

Not arguing that there was "no Money". My argument is that is was nowhere near as commercialized as today's economies. In Sumer things were a little different, but even there the system was more about borrowing seed after a failed crop, rather than cash money. If you had many failed crops in succession, you and your family would have to become sharecroppers and lose your land. Most records from the Fertile Crescent deal in loans of grain and grain seed, not in coin.

But Sumer isn't Egypt, which was centrally planned.

The idea of a Jubilee is very interesting, and there are many theories about why they had to forgive debt. One I find compelling is that there eventually got to be so many powerful families, that the nobility felt threatened, and ordered periodic jubilees in order to break the power of competitors who had the wealth and influence to overthrow them. Another one is that the sharecroppers produced less than free peasants. There's also the idea that sharecroppers/debt slaves couldn't be used as soldiers or for corvee labor, as their first duty was to their Master; so periodically the Nobles would declare jubilees so they had people to fight and use as laborers. This was important since the canals were generally public works, and required extensive manual labor to build and maintain.

And finally, it's proposed that once the numbers of sharecroppers got to high, there would be a lot of civil unrest. In those days there wasn't much of a police force and no tear gas, so a teeming mass of disenfranchised humanity had nothing to lose and couldn't really be stopped if they got mad enough.