20 Truths about Mormons

[isaac.madsen]

By penmanship, I meant grammar and very poor writing style. You will need to give me a theory as to who helped him write it. And reliable witnesses to further your cause. As I said, this is old stuff. The new stuff is from mormon critic Dan Vogel and his ‘automatic’ writing theory. He gets into a good debate with the Spauldingists on Mormondiscussion.com in the celestial forum. No one ever saw a manuscript of the book of mormon if Joseph was helped in writing the book. Nor did they hear paper crumpling nor were rough drafts discovered. Think of how many pages of paper it would take to write that book, with rough drafts etc.

Okay. Good points. I’ll have to go read through those things. Sounds enlightening. I like it when the light bulb up there turns on.

My point is simple: nothing is clear cut. We choose to believe what we want to believe. I have been to the antisites and yes, I was affected by them. But now, after seeing both sides, the critics do not have any proof for their claims. You gave me a quotation from David Whitmer, and I gave you his lifelong testimony. You mentioned polygamy and I gave you the testimony of the some of the women. I can also mention Helen Mar Kimball and her testimony of plural marriage.

I guess I’m having a hard time seeing whether you are for or against Mormonism. Most members will tell you it is impossible to be neutral. I don’t think that’s the case though. You provide the most neutral ground I’ve ever seen. I would definitely agree though. Most people take either the “black” or the “white” side of Mormonism, when really I think it’s all really just a big gray blob.

Nothing is black and white. But the lds side can be pretty convincing too. And this is what makes the lds faith so difficult to navigate through. Richard Bushman covers much of lds history and Joseph Smith in his book Rough Stone Rolling. It is a good read from Knopf.

I’ll keep that in mind. It’s been a good conversation and helpful for the purposes of the thread. Thanks for your insight. I’ll try and get out of the “anti” mindset. It’s easy to get into when you lose faith in a religion, but really I’m not for or against it. Though I’ve stated that I do not believe in it is not really evidence that it is wrong. It is only evidence that I had a negative experience with it.

 

[isaac.madsen]

And that is all that we all must do, my friend. And yet, after all the posts I have made, I am still an ‘new member’ on this forum and you are a ‘regular member’. Why? Because people are still sitting in judgement of me from the posts I made to you. And perhaps you are more accepted.

No. I think it has more to do with how long we’ve been members. You’ve been on a couple of days. I’ve been on a couple of years, but I’ve been absent for a long time so we’ve really been on about the same amount.

We constantly make judgements, don’t we?

Haha. Yeah. Such is definitely the case. I’d like to appoligize if I may have seemed offensive in my writing. I don’t think I fully realized exactly what you were trying to do, but the light kind of just came on. I’ve been in the “gotta defend myself” mindset all of my life as a Mormon and it’s hard to realize sometimes that the world isn’t really out to get me.

 

[why_me]

And Isaac, you can come over to www.mormonapologetics.org and join the fun. There are critics and lds there debating it out. You can join the fun. That being said Isaac, I cannot be a hypocrite. I am inactive lds who attends Mass. But those anti sites kill me with their onesideness and attempts to lead people away. The catholic anti sites I am sure are no different.

And I cannot deny that witness I received of the book of mormon and like david whitmer I just cannot deny it regardless of where I end up. Such is life.

 

[isaac.madsen]

And Isaac, you can come over to www.mormonapologetics.org and join the fun. There are critics and lds there debating it out. You can join the fun. That being said Isaac, I cannot be a hypocrite. I am inactive lds who attends Mass. But those anti sites kill me with their onesideness and attempts to lead people away. The catholic anti sites I am sure are no different.

Thanks. I’ll definitely make sure and take a look.

And I cannot deny that witness I received of the book of mormon and like david whitmer I just cannot deny it regardless of where I end up. Such is life.

Honestly, I’d say you are lucky. I’ve never received that witness about the Book of Mormon, but I definitely did receive a witness about Joseph Smith and Brigham Young as prophets, so I can’t really deny that I received that witness though I can believe that they faltered. I can also say that I felt very strongly on seeing him in person, that Gordon B. Hinckley was not a prophet, which is what started my questioning of the church.

 

[deb1024]

Honestly, I’d say you are lucky. I’ve never received that witness about the Book of Mormon, but I definitely did receive a witness about Joseph Smith and Brigham Young as prophets, so I can’t really deny that I received that witness though I can believe that they faltered. I can also say that I felt very strongly on seeing him in person, that Gordon B. Hinckley was not a prophet, which is what started my questioning of the church.

How exactly did you receive a witness about Joseph Smith and Brigham Young?

Thanks,
Deb

 

[Allweather]

Whew. Quite the tempest in a teapot. Think of all that wasted energy.

 

[isaac.madsen]

Whew. Quite the tempest in a teapot. Think of all that wasted energy.

I don’t think it’s wasted if it eventually brings us to truth. I’m certainly not saying that I have the truth or that anyone else does. That’s why I call myself an earnest seeker after truth: because I do not have absolute truth yet.

 

[isaac.madsen]

How exactly did you receive a witness about Joseph Smith and Brigham Young?

Thanks,
Deb

It was in reading Our Heritage from the missionary library things suddenly came together and I felt in my heart and in my mind (it other words, it made sense) that it was true. However, perhaps the definition of prophet that I use is different from the one another seeker might use and therefore has different connotations for me than what they get from that word. Therefore, it is impossible for me to truly convince someone that Joseph or Brigham were prophets without first giving my definition of what I mean in the use of that word.

I use the word prophet quite liberally in that anyone who can receive revelation from God, be it in the form of visions or other means, can be called a prophet if such revelation is applicable to all mankind. This, of course, does not mean that every revelation such a person might receive would then be true. It merely means that they have the ability to provide God’s message directly from the source. The problem with this is just what Joseph said according to the record of one of his apostles: “Some revelations are of God: some revelations are of men: and some revelations are of the devil.” (David Whitmer, An Address to all Believers in Christ, 1887)

If such is the case, I cannot then be absolutely sure that my own “witness” is true, but I follow it as I believe that God gives me the benefit of the doubt if my heart is honest.

 

[PaulDupre]

Isaac and why me, if you want to read the writings of real latter-day prophets, read the papal encyclicals of Pope Paul VI (pope from 1963 to 1978) and Pope John Paul II (1978 - 2006).

Start with Humanae Vitae. Pope Paul VI, in this encyclical (written in 1968) that condemns and explains the source of evil behind artificial birth control and abortion, foretells with uncanny accuracy what would happen if civil governments and Christian churches began to permit abortion and artificial birth control. Everything he foretold has come true.

Then, if you’re ready for something really heavy that will blow your mind, read Pope John Paul II’s The Theology of the Body: Human Love in the Divine Plan. It is the deepest and most amazing thing I have ever read and explains, in the most perfect way I have ever seen, the Christian view of- and appreciation for human sexuality.
God bless you,
Paul

 

[isaac.madsen]

Isaac and why me, if you want to read the writings of real latter-day prophets, read the papal encyclicals of Pope Paul VI (pope from 1963 to 1978) and Pope John Paul II (1978 - 2006).

Start with Humanae Vitae. Pope Paul VI, in this encyclical (written in 1968) that condemns and explains the source of evil behind artificial birth control and abortion, foretells with uncanny accuracy what would happen if civil governments and Christian churches began to permit abortion and artificial birth control. Everything he foretold has come true.

Then, if you’re ready for something really heavy that will blow your mind, read Pope John Paul II’s The Theology of the Body: Human Love in the Divine Plan. It is the deepest and most amazing thing I have ever read and explains, in the most perfect way I have ever seen, the Christian view of- and appreciation for human sexuality.
God bless you,
Paul

So much stuff to read! I can hardly keep up with all the things I need to read. I’ll have to make a list. I have a great deal of respect for Pope John Paul II. He was an incredible man - a true latter-day saint for those who like using terms like that.

 

[why_me]

I don’t think it’s wasted if it eventually brings us to truth. I’m certainly not saying that I have the truth or that anyone else does. That’s why I call myself an earnest seeker after truth: because I do not have absolute truth yet.

One thing about the MAD board at www.mormonapologetics.org is that we have had catholics there posting quite regularly. And no one mocked their faith or religion. All were respectful. It is not a place to down other faiths. But the critics of the lds can be quite hostile at times. We had a purge of critics because it was getting too much. But if a person posts respectfully, there is no problem. But the catholics who posted have been very respectful. and I do defend the lds faith over at MAD.

On this board, the lds and some other faiths can be just a little mocked at times.

When one receives a witness it is difficult to reconcile that witness. Many exmos call it a warm fuzzy but it is more than that. It can be quite powerful.

 

[isaac.madsen]

When one receives a witness it is difficult to reconcile that witness. Many exmos call it a warm fuzzy but it is more than that. It can be quite powerful.

Yeah. I guess calling it a “warm fuzzy” is pretty vague. I guess I was just looking for a term that everyone would understand and relate to in a sense, but I actually meant something more powerful that just that. Thanks for clarifying that issue.

 

[zerinus]

Yeah. I guess calling it a “warm fuzzy” is pretty vague. I guess I was just looking for a term that everyone would understand and relate to in a sense, . . .

Oh no you were not. “Warm fuzzy” is a derogatory term invented by the Evangelical enemies of the LDS Church to refer to what LDS call the “testimony of the Holy Ghost”. You didn’t just use that terminology by accident. Well, if you have never experienced the testimony of the Holy Ghost (which apparently you haven’t), and can’t tell the difference between that and “warm fuzzy,” then I would say that the fault is on that end of the line, not on the LDS side.

zerinus

 

[why_me]

Oh no you were not. “Warm fuzzy” is a derogatory term invented by the Evangelical enemies of the LDS Church to refer to what LDS call the “testimony of the Holy Ghost”. You didn’t just use that terminology by accident. Well, if you have never experienced the testimony of the Holy Ghost (which apparently you haven’t), and can’t tell the difference between that and “warm fuzzy,” then I would say that the fault is on that end of the line, not on the LDS side.

zerinus

Isaac said that he received a testimony of Brigham and Joseph but not of the book of mormon. The problem, however, with reading critic sites where the warm fuzzy is used is when a person begins to delegate the holy ghost experience to a warm fuzzy, something that one can also feel at any other sweetened event. And this is what lds critics want lds members to believe and many do.

 

[Allweather]

I don’t think it’s wasted if it eventually brings us to truth. I’m certainly not saying that I have the truth or that anyone else does. That’s why I call myself an earnest seeker after truth: because I do not have absolute truth yet.

Brother, none of us has a lock on absolute truth, though some of us are closer to it than others.

Think how much more could be accomplished if all that study energy you Mormons spend trying to “prove” your religion to be “true” were spent instead on building the Body of Christ though the Church that Jesus founded…

I say the same for everyone in every cult or sect. The separated brethren are wasting valuable resources. Time, energy. And also scandalizing Christianity before a world that badly needs a solid witness of Jesus. You guys are mainly interested in stealing people from other religions. What a waste of time!

 

[why_me]

Brother, none of us has a lock on absolute truth, though some of us are closer to it than others.

Think how much more could be accomplished if all that study energy you Mormons spend trying to “prove” your religion to be “true” were spent instead on building the Body of Christ though the Church that Jesus founded…

I say the same for everyone in every cult or sect. The separated brethren are wasting valuable resources. Time, energy. And also scandalizing Christianity before a world that badly needs a solid witness of Jesus. You guys are mainly interested in stealing people from other religions. What a waste of time!

Mormons do not try to prove that their church is true. The holy ghost does. You see, it goes this way. Eventually, the missionaries ask the investigator to pray over what they have been taught. The scripture is right in the book of mormon: ****Moroni 10: 4. And when ye shall receive these things, I would exhort you that ye would ask God, the Eternal Father, in the name of Christ, if these things are not true; and if ye shall ask with a sincere heart, with real intent, having faith in Christ, he will manifest the truth of it unto you, by the power of the Holy Ghost.
5. And by the power of the Holy Ghost ye may know the truth of all things. ****

This is where the problem comes. When a person prays about it and receives a witness. It is difficult not to join. And all our given that verse to ponder and pray over. Thus, the enemies of the lds church want members to believe that it was just a ‘warm fuzzy’ and no big deal. But at that time, it was a big deal. The human mind just forgets and begins to rationalize the experience away. I am sure that it happened during Saint Paul’s time too.

Thus, no one tries to prove anything. It is the holy ghost that proves it and not the missionaries.

 

[Allweather]

This is where the problem comes. When a person prays about it and receives a witness. It is difficult not to join. And all our given that verse to ponder and pray over. Thus, the enemies of the lds church want members to believe that it was just a ‘warm fuzzy’ and no big deal. But at that time, it was a big deal. The human mind just forgets and begins to rationalize the experience away. I am sure that it happened during Saint Paul’s time too.

This type of experience is impossible to describe. It is like trying to describe an LSD (not LDS) trip. You start, get about two words out, then realize it can’t be described. Don’t ask how I know about LSD, but suffice to say I am an old hippie. I’ve also been a pentecostal, and have had interior experiences of very deep and lasting effect, which I ascribe to the Holy Ghost. I’ve also prayed about the truth of the BoM without any feeling whatever, though I admit I didn’t read much of it, though I did have a very earnest attitude in seeking the truth of it.

My point is that this BITB experience can’t be described, so it just about any old warming of the cockles can be attributed to it. The other day, I read something someone wrote here about the Rosary video that is often played on EWTN where it starts with a young girl in a field praying the beginning of it, and she is joined gradually by a larger group, and then people are shown around the world praying in their own languages. At the moment I read those words, my heart just leaped for joy and I sat here for a good three or four minutes in ecstatic, grateful praise to Almighty God for this witness of His truth, tears streaming down my face. I call that a true BITB. But the way I describe it only gives a thumbnail of the exteriors. It can’t possibly describe what I felt inside.

Thus, no one tries to prove anything. It is the holy ghost that proves it and not the missionaries.

Then why are you spending so much time and energy haunting internet forums, giving long apologetic discourses designed to “prove” that Joseph Smith was a prophet? Or prove that Christianity went thoroughly apostate around 100 ad and needed to be restored? Or defending polygamy? Or any of the other dozen or so strange teachings of your religion? Wouldn’t all that time an energy be better spent joining with us to bring Christ to dying world? Your energies are focused on convincing people to join YOUR church. That is completely different than the focus of Catholicism, which has as its only missionary activity the Eucharist and prayer.

 

[why_me]

Then why are you spending so much time and energy haunting internet forums, giving long apologetic discourses.

If someone comes on this forum and writes something about Mormon history and I believe that I know better, I will counter their claim. Likewise for other aspects of mormonism gleamed from an antimormon site. I have defended mormonism for quite some time only because of the ill intent of some of these antimormon websites. And I am in a good position to do this because I am a neutral person. Why should I allow an one-sided version go unchallenged?

 

[why_me]

it. The other day, I read something someone wrote here about the Rosary video that is often played on EWTN where it starts with a young girl in a field praying the beginning of it, and she is joined gradually by a larger group, and then people are shown around the world praying in their own languages. At the moment I read those words, my heart just leaped for joy and I sat here for a good three or four minutes in ecstatic, grateful praise to Almighty God for this witness of His truth, tears streaming down my face. I call that a true BITB.

I wrote that on the board. I have watched that episode on EWTN many times and I still like it.

 

[Allweather]

If someone comes on this forum and writes something about Mormon history and I believe that I know better, I will counter their claim. Likewise for other aspects of mormonism gleamed from an antimormon site. I have defended mormonism for quite some time only because of the ill intent of some of these antimormon websites. And I am in a good position to do this because I am a neutral person. Why should I allow an one-sided version go unchallenged?

I meant the collective, plural “you” meaning the entire missionary effort of the Salt Lake City branch of Mormonism. I can’t fault your own personal efforts, which, it seems to me, have been faultness, though not exactly “neutral.”

You characterize some anti-Mormon web sites as having “ill intent.” Do you consider ANY effort to counter Mormon activity in the world to be of “ill intent?” Is it possible in your estimation for people of pure intent to oppose Mormon teachings that accuse Christianity at-large to be an apostate religion, or Mormon teachings that promote polygamy, among other things?