Book of Mormon and honey bees

[napoleon9710]

F.A.R.M.S was created so that the first presidency will not be caught off-guard by non-mormon scholars. It is a place to go for mormons who want to reinforce what they believe even if the information there is not believed by scholars outside of BYU. But FARMS gives intellectual sounding answers so it makes a mormon at least think their position is not as crazy as everyone tells them it is. The Book of Mormon plays little part in a mormons life. We read only some of the major stories out of it but otherwise we just memorized various verses to reinforce our beliefs. The more I read it the whole book the less credible it become. As christians we don’t ask people to pray to see if the bible is true. What appealed to me most about mormonism was that there was no thinking. It’s true because I feel the spirit telling me so. We are right and everyone else is wrong. It was black and white compared to the years of agonizing over denominations and complex theologies.

 

[dosdog]

F.A.R.M.S was created so that the first presidency will not be caught off-guard by non-mormon scholars. It is a place to go for mormons who want to reinforce what they believe even if the information there is not believed by scholars outside of BYU. But FARMS gives intellectual sounding answers so it makes a mormon at least think their position is not as crazy as everyone tells them it is. The Book of Mormon plays little part in a mormons life. We read only some of the major stories out of it but otherwise we just memorized various verses to reinforce our beliefs. The more I read it the whole book the less credible it become. As christians we don’t ask people to pray to see if the bible is true. What appealed to me most about mormonism was that there was no thinking. It’s true because I feel the spirit telling me so. We are right and everyone else is wrong. It was black and white compared to the years of agonizing over denominations and complex theologies.

Breaking the Mormon Code: A Critique of Mormon Scholarship (Paperback)

In Provo, Utah, there exists the Foundation for Ancient Research and Mormon Studies (FARMS) renowned as a Mormon think-tank, FARMS is owned and operated by Brigham Young University (BYU) and the Mormon Church. Their mission seeks to repudiate the opposition, applaud its supporters, and justify many peculiar Mormon doctrines. This book demonstrates that FARMS often twists the truths to justify Mormon doctrines. To justify their position they often will utilize inane accusations, misquotes and equivocation. This collection of deceit from Mormon scholarship is what Matt Paulson has identified as the ¿breaking of the Mormon Code.¿

Customer Reviews
This book is unlike other apologetics in that Paulson does not set out to prove that Mormonism is theologically incorrect. Instead, he reveals the ways in which Mormon scholars deceive their readers by misquoting, taking out of context, and misapplying the teachings of the Early Christian Church Fathers. Paulson also touches on a few of the many scriptures the Mormon Church twists into aberrant meanings through eisegesis and exegesis. Through the use of fallacious arguments these same scholars attempt to seduce Mormons and Christians alike into believing that there is little difference between what Christian Church Fathers taught and what the LDS Church teaches today.

Paulson’s book performs two very valuable services in the academic arena. First of all, he demonstrates conclusively that many LDS scholars have been less than professional in the way that they have selectively quoted-- and sometimes, misquoted – early Christian Fathers and heretic writers of the last 2000 years, with the aim of making it seem that Mormonism restores the original, doctrinally pure Gospel of the first century AD. Paulson’s second contributions are his helpful charts and lists. Especially useful is the comparison of classic Christian creeds with the LDS Articles of Faith–which is, as Paulson shows, indeed itself a creed.

amazon.com/Breaking-Mormon-Code-Critique-Scholarship/dp/1595940677

 

[majick275]

I am far from being TBM. I am inactive in the lds church. However, I do attend Mass and have a good relationship with sisters and priests.

But I can not allow attacks against the lds church. I will defend the lds church. I have daughters who are lds and they are doing fine in the faith. I can respect the mormons a lot.

My journey to catholicism again has been a pleasant and great experience. And I have appreciated all the help and support that I have received from the catholic community. But I will not tolerate any attacks against the mormons.

I will defend the lds church. :knight2:

either the BoM is true or it isn’t. you seemed to be stating that it is. I believe it is not. That would make Joseph Smith a false prophet. I’m not sure exactly what you are defending if that is the case.

 

[why_me]

either the BoM is true or it isn’t. you seemed to be stating that it is. I believe it is not. That would make Joseph Smith a false prophet. I’m not sure exactly what you are defending if that is the case.

However, the Book of Mormon has not been proven false. And it is here that the problem exists. Oh it has been tried to be proven false by many people but they have not succeeded. The two current trends are either JS used a process called ‘automatic writing’ to write the book (Dan Vogel) or Sidney Ridgon was the main author of the book (Dale Broadhurst). Both however, could not prove their case, but both are good a speculating and both tend to cancel the other out. (Go to www.mormondiscussions.com) to see their lenghy debate on the issue. It is located in the celestial forum.

Hence, the JS story still stands. I tend to be careful before I dismiss something. But I do find a better home in the catholic faith at this moment in my life.

 

[napoleon9710]

either joseph was a prophet or a liar. I know alot of good muslims but that doesn’t make their beliefs true.The book of mormon says that the catholic church is the church of satan. Read some of the quotes from the past presidents of the lds church concerning other churches.The mormons claim the true church fell away, the catholic church says it didn’t. One is right and one is wrong. Read the early church fathers. How did Joseph translate the plates? He had a curtain up between him and oliver, then he put his face in the hat with the seer stone. we were never taught that as mormons, all the paintings we saw show joesph and oliver sitting across from each other while joseph looked at the plates. In reality, the plates were hid outside the house. he didn’t even have to look at them to translate them! Mormonism is not true. If that is attacking them then what can we do? I’m not a relativist.

 

[napoleon9710]

you can’t prove a negative. Has the koran been proven false? the satanic bible? I know the book of mormon isn’t from God. who wrote it is irrelevant. I don’t know who wrote the buddhist texts, I don’t know who wrote the tao te ching, that doesn’t mean that they are from God. I think you are confused. I hope you aren’t here to convert people to mormonism. That would be wrong to lie about who you are. but if you are honest about who you are I will help you the best I can. I know all the FARMS arguments, I have Bushman’s books, and Nibley’s. I knew something felt wrong about that church, I think you feel it too

 

[why_me]

you can’t prove a negative. Has the koran been proven false? the satanic bible? I know the book of mormon isn’t from God. who wrote it is irrelevant. I don’t know who wrote the buddhist texts, I don’t know who wrote the tao te ching, that doesn’t mean that they are from God. I think you are confused. I hope you aren’t here to convert people to mormonism. That would be wrong to lie about who you are. but if you are honest about who you are I will help you the best I can. I know all the FARMS arguments, I have Bushman’s books, and Nibley’s. I knew something felt wrong about that church, I think you feel it too

And yet, a buddhist can say the same about the bible. And a Muslim can also say the same about the bible. And a tao teist too. But I think that they are just a little more charitable toward the bible than you are about their sacred texts.

 

[majick275]

However, the Book of Mormon has not been proven false. And it is here that the problem exists. Oh it has been tried to be proven false by many people but they have not succeeded. The two current trends are either JS used a process called ‘automatic writing’ to write the book (Dan Vogel) or Sidney Ridgon was the main author of the book (Dale Broadhurst). Both however, could not prove their case, but both are good a speculating and both tend to cancel the other out. (Go to www.mormondiscussions.com) to see their lenghy debate on the issue. It is located in the celestial forum.

Hence, the JS story still stands. I tend to be careful before I dismiss something. But I do find a better home in the catholic faith at this moment in my life.

I think we have to take a stand. I see no problem in denouncing the Koran as the fabrication of a false prophet. Hindu writings, budhist, etc. are in my opinion the fabrications of men at best and in some cases the result of satanic influence.

Either the BoM is true or it isn’t. I compare it and Joseph Smith to sacred scripture and sacred tradition that is already revealed and understood and assert that it is false. I look at it’s own internal conflicts, Joseph Smiths teachings that resulted from it and see even more evidence that it cannot be true. Finally, the Holy Spirit witnesses to me that it is false. Therefore I must dismiss it and cannot revere it nor even respect it anymore than the writings of David Koresh, Jim Jones, the shakers or the SDA’s. (all American churches alleged to have been led by direct revelation)

 

[Rbt_Southwell]

Actually, they are your words from post 129 in which you force your erroneous implication of LDS thought on the Bible in reference to the Book of Mormon.

From post 129. “Again we can see from this small sample of quotes how the conviction that the bible is corrupt and untrustworthy starts with The Book of Mormon (“the most correct book on earth” and “the keystone of our religion”) and continues to pervade Mormon thinking and writing throughout their history.”

Paul.

Sorry, Paul G, but those words which you attribute to me (post 129) are not mine.

A little more careful in your reading, friend.

Robert

 

[Rbt_Southwell]

The Apostle Peter appeared to have not doubts about what was going on as he was able to see it himself even before he joined our Lord. For example:

Paul,

Your translation of 2 Peter is a bit confusing.

The NAB has this passage as:

“And consider the patience of our Lord as salvation, as our beloved brother Paul, according tothe wisdom given to him, also wrote to you, speaking of these things as he does in all his letters. In them there are some things hard to understand that the ignorant and unstable distort to their own destruction, just as they do the other scriptures.”

There is NOTHING, I repeat, NOTHING in this excerpt from the end of 2 Peter which supports your assertion that changes were made in Scripture.

In fact, it argues against personal interpretation or too strict an interpretation (like the Judaizers in Corinthians and Colassians who wanted the gentile converts to follow Jewish OT Law).

2 Peter supports St Paul’s development of Catholic teaching on salvation, God’s will to save and preparedness for the judgment.

Of course, to understand this one must read the whole letter (and the other letters) in context.

Robert

 

[Rbt_Southwell]

From D&C 130:22 we read “The Father has a body of flesh and bones, as tangible as man’s; the Son also…”

Paul,

To my question about whether mormons believe God to have a human body,

you replied, “No.”

To Paul Dupre’s question do mormons believe God to have a body of flesh and blood (quoting D&C)

your reply is “So I’d say we do.”

These kinds of answers, along the lines of Clinton’s infamous “That depends on what the definition of '“is” is” are sophomoric at best and hypocritical at worst.

Which is it, Paul?

It is apparent that you carve as thin an answer as you can from a direct question. To you a body does not necessarily have “flesh and blood” until Paul Dupre specifically asks you that.

Tsk tsk, such intellectual dishonesty, such sharp practice.

Robert

 

[Paul_G]

Paul,

To my question about whether mormons believe God to have a human body,

you replied, “No.”

To Paul Dupre’s question do mormons believe God to have a body of flesh and blood (quoting D&C)

your reply is “So I’d say we do.”

These kinds of answers, along the lines of Clinton’s infamous “That depends on what the definition of '“is” is” are sophomoric at best and hypocritical at worst.

Which is it, Paul?

It is apparent that you carve as thin an answer as you can from a direct question. To you a body does not necessarily have “flesh and blood” until Paul Dupre specifically asks you that.

You asked does “God have a human body?”, the answer is no, Paul Correctly knows that LDS believe that our Father in Heaven has a glorified body of flesh and blood - that is quite different that a human body, so I can agree with him.

It appears you want a more thoughtful answer, than the amount of thought you’re willing to invest in the question. It also appears that you are not so much interested in an answer as you are for and opportunity to debase and demean my character.

Tsk tsk, such intellectual dishonesty, such sharp practice.

Wow… ok then… I shall not take any more of your goodly time with it any longer. If it does appear in the future that you are interested in a legitimate exchange of ideas I will be more than happy to respond. May God be with you.

Paul

 

[Rbt_Southwell]

Paul,

Your translation of 2 Peter is a bit confusing.

Paul,

You pester and want a comment on your offhand quote of 2 Peter.

And when it arrives, you ignore it.

Speaks volumes when you are silent, friend.

Go in peace

Robert

 

[RebeccaJ]

Again, Since we don’t believe in it, I guess that’s why we are studying it this entire year in Gospel Doctrine Class.

You are studying an incorrect and corrupt version of it.

Sorry, I don’t understand what you are saying here.

Quote:
 	 		 			 				 					Originally Posted by **Rbt Southwell** 					[forums.catholic-questions.org/images/buttons_cab/viewpost.gif](http://forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?p=2697968#post2697968) 				
			*I have yet to come across 'official' or 'unofficial' mormon documents which add anything new or change anything from the Bible and Tradition in the Early Church.*

You replied: That’s good to hear; that’s the point. When you know that the mormons use a Bible that has additions and changes from The Bible.

Do I believe these people were being malicious in these actions? No I don’t. I believe they were people of just conscience doing what they believed was in the best interest of their brand of faith. In retrospect do I think it was a good idea, No I don’t

Brand of faith? There would be no Bible, you wouldn’t be having this discussion, Joseph Smith would have had nothing to modify were it not for this so-called “brand of faith”. Catholicism is not a brand, it is how Christ’s teachings have survived for so many centuries. And that survival relies very much on the Bible, as the Catholic church put together. It IS Christianity.

I agree it was a similar act, but for different reasons.

What reasons?

 

[Rbt_Southwell]

RebeccaJ:
Don’t hold your breath with this Paul G guy, Rebecca.

He avoids answering direct questions.

Robert

 

[RebeccaJ]

Don’t hold your breath with this Paul G guy, Rebecca.

He avoids answering direct questions.

Robert

Eh, I wouldn’t injure myself over anything he doesn’t have to say.

 

[napoleon9710]

Why Me, I’m not a relativist, just because someone says something or beliefs something that doesn’t mean it’s true. Since you are a mormon, you accept the bible as God’s Word so you need to answer your own question. How did we get the new testament? Why are these 66 books in the bible? You are in no better shape than the protestants I go to school with on that. The church council gathered the inspired books together and formed the canon. Your gold bible says that the catholic church is the church of satan, who took out precious things in the bible.Do you believe in the trinity? why do you believe matthew, mark, luke and john wrote the gospels? there was no “the gospel according to…” in the copies we have of the original texts, it was church tradition that associated these gospels with these men. Why do you think the KJV is inspired? If you learn greek you will see that no translation is perfect. the same goes for the OT if you learn hebrew.Samson wasn’t killed by david’s stone, he was hit in the shi, knee area and fell. The KJV translates the hebrew word as forehead, it’s not correct.

 

[Eliza10]

Re: quote from majick275 forums.catholic-questions.org/images/buttons_cad/viewpost.gif
*I have thought all along that you were a TBM trying to use a Catholic background to lead the unwary here to your missionaries… *

I am far from being TBM…
But I can not allow attacks against the lds church. I will defend the lds church. I have daughters who are lds and they are doing fine in the faith. I can respect the mormons a lot.

My journey to catholicism again has been a pleasant and great experience… But I will not tolerate any attacks against the mormons.

I will defend the lds church. :knight2:

I’m with Majick275 on this.

Now why is it that I independantly come to the same conclusion as Majick275? Its a conclusion that rings true. There is an air of something not beleiveable in your posts.

Most people don’t describe their road to Catholicsim as pleasant. I know because I journeyed to Castholicsim, and I never once said it was “pleasant”! I never heard any other use that word to describe their journey either. For me it would certainly not have been worth it to be Catholic if it were just pleasant. You become Catholic because you have a heart for truth, and more often than not it involves sacrifice.

What’s consistant among all those who have been on an adult journey to Catholicsm is an embrace of truth. We are not realtive on that matter. And its either Catholic or Mormon. It is certainly not both.

You cannot read the life of any one Saint and not see a shocking contrast between a Saint and the self-agrandizing Smith.

He practiced magic and the occult. He had over 30 wives in 3 years, some of them who also had husbands. He was a Mason.

How can the jury be out on Joseph Smith for you still?

This is not an “attack” on Joseph Smith, its just the truth.

If your daughters are involved in Mormonism that doesn’t mean they aren’t nice - only decieved. So likewise Joseph Smith’s many wives were likely fine woman who loved God. Nice people can be decieved.

Here is a website telling the biographies of the wives of Joseph Smith, the beloved star of the Mormon faith:
wivesofjosephsmith.org/home.htm

Smith’s original wife Emma thought she was getting one husband all for her. To get his wife on the same page as himself, Smith presented his wife with a revelation from God, refering to a “new covenant” allowing Smith many wives, as follows:

D&C 132:1 Verily, thus saith the Lord…
D&C 132:4 …no one can reject this covenant and be permitted to enter into my glory.
D&C 132:52 And let mine handmaid, Emma Smith, receive all those [wives] that have been given unto my servant Joseph…
D&C 132:55 But if she will not abide this commandment, then…I will…give unto him an hundred fold in this world, of…wives…”
D&C 132:62 And if he have ten virgins given unto him…he cannot commit adultery…
D&C 132:64 …if any man have a wife…and he teaches unto her [this] law…then shall she believe and administer unto him, or she shall be destroyed…

How convenient for Joseph Smith that “God” had gave him a revelation threateing his wife with His wrath if she did not allow Smith many wives. God changed his Sinai covenant to accomodate Smith’s lifestyle of lust. So now its okay to covet another man’s wife. The author continues:

Emma surrendered to Joseph’s revelation, even allowing several of his wives to live in her home. But her submission soon faltered and Joseph arranged for these wives to live elsewhere. On August 16, 1843 William Clayton wrote in his diary,* “This A.M. Joseph told me that…Emma…had resisted the P[rinciple] in toto, and he had to tell her he would relinquish all for her sake…He however told me he should not relinquish anything.”*

So, really, Whyme. How can you be on the road to the full truth of God, and not wonder how it is that a prophet of God could confide in his friend that he lied to his wife and fully intends to keep on committing adultery. The ilk of Smith can be find everywhere. Aren’t you interested in heros that rise above the filth of the earth? Because the Catholic Chruchis rich with them!

Whyme, you are either not very intelligent, or misled by a cult. And I think its the latter

 

[why_me]

I’m with Majick275 on this.

Now why is it that I independantly come to the same conclusion as Majick275? Its a conclusion that rings true. There is an air of something not beleiveable in your posts.

Most people don’t describe their road to Catholicsim as pleasant. I know because I journeyed to Castholicsim, and I never once said it was “pleasant”! I never heard any other use that word to describe their journey either. For me it would certainly not have been worth it to be Catholic if it were just pleasant. You become Catholic because you have a heart for truth, and more often than not it involves sacrifice.

Whyme, you are either not very intelligent, or misled by a cult. And I think its the latter

I was born Catholic and converted to Mormonism at the age of 18. I am now in my 50’s and so, I can say that my journey back has been pleasant.

 

[why_me]

Here is a website telling the biographies of the wives of Joseph Smith, the beloved star of the Mormon faith:
wivesofjosephsmith.org/home.htm

I have read that site and if you notice something interesting about these women : After rejecting JS at first and then after prayer, they received a powerful witness as to the truthfulness of the principle.

Emma was no fan of polygamy. But after Joseph was murdered she remarried. When her second husband asked her about the book of mormon, she bore her testimony that it was true. She never denied her husband’s divine calling. How to understand it all? I can’t. But she did deny polygamy and hence the RLDS church claimed that Brigham Young started the principle. They were wrong.