Conversion to Mormonism?

[zaffiroborant]

I find that the LDS view of the Fall makes no sense. God putting them in a situation where they were doomed to fail,

That’s like taking 3 year old to a college lecture and expecting him to sit attentively through the whole thing. What parent would expect a 3 year old to sit quietly and pay attention to something they are not capable of? If we as parents wouldn’t set our children up to fail why would anyone think God would set us up to fail.

 

[debbie_h]

After Jesus’ supposed visit to the Nephites in the New World, he ordained 12 “disciples”. He couldn’t call the apostles because the real apostles were in the Old World. If the 12 apostles and the 12 disciples knew about each other, the disciples would be subordinate to the apostles.

There was a great apostasy in the New World which led to the last great battle where the Nephites were wiped out.

I don’t know how Mormons can claim the priesthood authority was removed from the earth when they also believe the apostle John, as well as three of the Nephite disciples, were "translated " and never died. Apparently they are still wandering around doing who knows what.

So that’s a total apostasy of the church/ ‘old’ world that Jesus set up before his crucifixion, & another total apostasy of the gospel that he preached & set up with the ‘nephites’… So then that would mean Jesus failed twice to set up his church on earth? that’s 2 (two) total apostatises or two failed attempts by Jesus???
I’m totally confused by this

 

[twopekinguys]

There is no false prophets or false prophecies in the Mormon Church. Many critics of the Mormon Church just have shallow knowledge of it…they do not go deeper or try to really understand it. If you use the same standards to judge the Mormon prophets or prophecies you will then discover false prophets and false prophecies in the Bible. Just read the following link and see if that makes sense to you.

fairmormon.org/perspectives/publications/the-nature-of-prophets-and-prophecy-2

Seems I have to agree with others who have stated you don’t know your church or it’s history very well.

Try this one on for size. It is from your own church history.

“I prophecy in the name of the Lord God of Israel, unless the United States redress the wrongs committed upon the Saints in the state of Missouri and punish the crimes committed by her officers that in a few years the government will be utterly overthrown and wasted, and there will not be so much as a potsherd left for their wickedness in permitting the murder of men, women and children, and the wholesale plunder and extermination of thousands of her citizens to go unpunished (History of the Church, Vol. 5, page 394).”

Did you notice the first two words of the quote? “I prophecy”

Would you like me to help you find more?

 

[TexanKnight]

It is you who do not have enough knowledge of Mormon history! This theory was not taught as doctrine. Brigham Young never introduced this as a revelation or commandment from the Lord to the quorum of the twelve or body of the church. You probably do not even have enough knowledge of Mormon doctrine. That is why Mormonism did not make sense to you. You did not go far enough.

Again, either you do not know, or you are trying to mislead. I have posted the quotes. You have yet to address them and tell me how they are wrong.

This is what President Harold B. Lee said regarding doctrines in the church.

If anyone, regardless of his position in the Church, were to advance a doctrine that is not substantiated by the standard Church works, meaning the Bible, the Book of Mormon, the Doctrine and Covenants, and the Pearl of Great Price, you may know that his statement is merely his private opinion. The only one authorized to bring forth any new doctrine is the President of the Church, who, when he does, will declare it as revelation from God, and it will be so accepted by the Council of the Twelve and sustained by the body of the Church. And if any man speak a doctrine which contradicts what is in the standard Church works, you may know by that same token that it is false and you are not bound to accept it as truth.

You are proving my point about how later “prophets” discount the teachings of past "prophets. Thank you. That only proves you have no true prophets at all.

Read this quote about Brigham Young’s Adam-God theory:

President Woodruff . . . partially outlined what I should say. . . . I am happy to know that he and I are in accord on the subject. . . . [In his April 1852 discourse] President Young no doubt expressed his personal opinion or views up on the subject. What he said was not given as a revelation or commandment from the Lord. The doctrine was never submitted to the councils of the Priesthood nor to the Church for approval or ratification and was never formally or otherwise accepted by the Church. It is therefore in no sense binding upon the Church nor upon the consciences of any of the members thereof.

Yet you ignore all the quotes I posted. Why? are you afraid to adress them because they prove you wrong?

 

[TexanKnight]

There is no false prophets or false prophecies in the Mormon Church. Many critics of the Mormon Church just have shallow knowledge of it…they do not go deeper or try to really understand it. If you use the same standards to judge the Mormon prophets or prophecies you will then discover false prophets and false prophecies in the Bible. Just read the following link and see if that makes sense to you.

fairmormon.org/perspectives/publications/the-nature-of-prophets-and-prophecy-2

Seriously? You are truly oblivious to your church’s history. I guess I will need to start a thread of all the false prophesies and comments made by lds “prophets” and leaders.

 

[MommaduckofMany]

There is a difference between being wrong (doctrinally) and falsely prophesying. Do the LDS not recognise the difference?

 

[evanfaust]

Perhaps critically thinking, instead of merely copying/pasting from Fairmormon, would be helpful.

First, I like to research and second if possible I prefer to support somehow what I believe to be true. I know that many here like to dismiss FARMS and FAIR scholarly work. But, I want to point out that many non mormon scholars do recognize the quality of apologetic work done by the LDS scholars. To support what I am saying I will quote what some evangelical scholars think are myth and their conclusions.

“There are many evangelical myths concerning Mormon scholarship. The first is that there are few, if any, traditional Mormon scholars with training in fields pertinent to evangelical Mormon debates. This is simply false. It is a myth that when Mormons receive training in historiography, biblical languages, theology and philosophy they invariably abandon traditional LDS believes in the historicity of the Book of Mormon and the prophethood of Joseph Smith. It Is a myth that liberal Mormons have so shaken the foundations of LDS believe that Mormonism is crumbling apart. It is a myth that neo-orthodox Mormons have influenced the theology of their Church to such a degree that it will soon abandon traditional emphasis and follow a path similar to the RLDS or the World-Wide Church of God.(1) These are myths based upon ignorance and selective reading. These myths must be abandoned by responsible evangelicals.”

*The title of this paper reflects five conclusions we have come to concerning Mormon-evangelical debates. The first is that there are, contrary to popular evangelical perceptions, legitimate Mormon scholars. We use the term scholar in its formal sense of “intellectual, erudite; skilled in intellectual investigation; trained in ancient languages.”(2) Broadly, Mormon scholarship can be divided in to four categories: traditional, neo-orthodox, liberal and cultural. We are referring to the largest and most influential of the four categories-traditional Mormon scholars. It is a point of fact that the Latter-day Saints are not an anti-intellectual group like Jehovah’s Witnesses. Mormon, in distinction to groups like JWs, produce work that has more than the mere appearance of scholarship.

The second conclusion we have come to is that Mormon scholars and apologists (not all apologists are scholars) have, with varying degrees of success, answered most of the usual evangelical criticisms. Often these answers adequately diffuse particular (minor) criticisms. When the criticism has not been diffused the issue has usually been made much more complex.

A third conclusion we have come to is that currently there are, as far as we are aware, no books from an evangelical perspective that responsibly interact with contemporary LDS scholarly and apologetic writing.(3) In a survey of twenty recent evangelical books criticizing Mormonism we found that none interact with this growing body of literature. Only a handful demonstrate any awareness of pertinent works. Many of the authors promote criticisms that have long been refuted; some are sensationalistic while others are simply ridiculous. A number of these books claim to be “the definitive” book on the matter. That they make no attempt to interact with contemporary LDS scholarship is a stain upon the authors’ integrity and causes one to wonder about their credibility.

Our fourth conclusion is that at the academic level evangelicals are losing the debate with the Mormons. We are losing the battle and do not know it. In recent years the sophistication and erudition of LDS apologetics has risen considerably while evangelical responses have not.(4) Those who have the skills necessary for this task rarely demonstrate an interest in the issues. Often they do not even know that there is a need. In large part this is due entirely to ignorance of the relevant literature.

Finally, our fifth conclusion is that most involved in the counter-cult movement lack the skills and training necessary to answer Mormon scholarly apologetic. The need is great for trained evangelical biblical scholars, theologians, philosophers and historians to examine and answer the growing body of literature produced by traditional LDS scholars and apologists.
*

cometozarahemla.org/others/mosser-owen.html#_1_3

 

[TexanKnight]

First, I like to research and second if possible I prefer to support somehow what I believe to be true. I know that many here like to dismiss FARMS and FAIR scholarly work.

Scholarly? Hardly.

But, I want to point out that many non mormon scholars do recognize the quality of apologetic work done by the LDS scholars.

Prove it

]

anything else I ignored because it was more cut and paste from a non-reputable source that has been found wrong on almost everything.

 

[PaulDupre1]

Hi Evan,

Thanks for posting this.

First, all readers should be aware that this article is ancient in scholarly terms. It seems to have been published in 1997 before modern genome analysis that has most thoroughly debunked the BOM and forced believers to construct a “limited geography theory” which makes the text virtually meaningless.

The article sings the praises of Hugh Nibley, perhaps the foremost LDS scholar of all time. Nibley died in 2005, eight years after this article was published, but not before renouncing his belief in the Book of Mormon and the Book of Abraham as ancient texts.

The author of this article does make a good point though. Virtually zero non-LDS take Mormonism or Joseph Smith seriously. As a result, the LDS can publish their “scholarly” work without peer review, because no credible Evangelical scholar would ever consider a Mormon her peer and therefore will not risk her reputation by engaging in peer review of anything so ridiculous as Mormonism.

Without peer review, Mormons can foist their research, like the Joseph Smith papers or the recent paper addressing the MMM, on their members (for it is calculated to mollify doubting members) and go virtually unchallenged by anyone who could mount a cogent refutation of the literature they publish. Those who do challenge Mormon scholarly research are usually those who do not move in the same circles as professional scholars and are therefore ill-equipped to use the same tools and language that researchers, scientists and historians use.

The author, and the entire website so far as I can tell, considers Mormonism a threat and is urging those Evangelical professionals, who think it beneath them to bother with Mormonism, to begin to bother.

Paul (formerly LDS, now happily Catholic)

 

[evanfaust]

The reality is that the LDS view of the Fall is very odd. It makes God out to be a sort of trickster. He quite clearly gave Adam and Eve a commandment not to eat from the Tree. LDS then go on to claim that Adam and Eve were not able to have children prior to the Fall (a view not shared by orthodox Christianity), therefore they were in a conundrum: God gave the commandment to be fruitful and multiply, yet they couldn’t in their current state, and therefore had to eat from the Tree, which God said not to eat from, to be able to fulfill the command to be fruitful and multiply. Such a view is found nowhere in ancient Judaism nor Christianity.

I did some some analysis on Genesis, which I summarize below. Genesis is there to support this odd view as you call it. Mormons also believe that God knew man would fall…that was even discussed in the pre-mortal existence in heaven. Jesus Christ volunteered to redeem the sins of mankind after the fall in the meridian of times. The plan existed even before the earth was formed.

First of all we don’t know much time has passed between the creation of Adam and Eve and the fall. It might have been days, months or maybe years. They were innocent before the fall. They never noticed that they were naked, which implies they could not have desire for each other and consequently children. After eating of the fruit, their eyes opened and they noticed they were naked…something they never noticed before.

*Then the eyes of both of them were opened, and they realized they were naked; so they sewed fig leaves together and made coverings for themselves. Gen 3:7 *

Second, Genesis implies clearly that Adam and Even would only get knowledge and wisdom if they ate of the fruit.

Satan usually mixed lies with truths, the truth part of what he said is this:

"“For God knows that when you eat from it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing good and evil.” Gen 3:5

Compare that with what the Lord said in Gen 3:22

*Then the LORD God said, "Behold, the man has become like one of Us, knowing good and evil. Gen 3:22 *

The Lord is confirming that eating of the fruit caused Adam and Even go become like God and knowing good and evil.

Third, Adam and Even realized that eating of the fruit was the way to gain knowledge and wisdom.

When the woman saw that the fruit of the tree was good for food and pleasing to the eye, and also desirable for gaining wisdom, she took some and ate it. She also gave some to her husband, who was with her, and he ate it. Gen 3:6

How did she know it was desirable for gaining wisdom? I think they reflected on the matter over and over before they partook of the fruit. I don’t really think it was just the persuasive words from Satan. The evidence is that after they ate it they noticed it was true and the Lord confirmed it to be true.

To enter into the world of sin and mortality required a transgression…and that is why the Lord gave them two commandments, causing a dilemma. The first was to procreate and the second not to eat of the fruit.

 

[evanfaust]

Hi Evan,

Thanks for posting this.

First, all readers should be aware that this article is ancient in scholarly terms. It seems to have been published in 1997 before modern genome analysis that has most thoroughly debunked the BOM and forced believers to construct a “limited geography theory” which makes the text virtually meaningless.

The article sings the praises of Hugh Nibley, perhaps the foremost LDS scholar of all time. Nibley died in 2005, eight years after this article was published, but not before renouncing his belief in the Book of Mormon and the Book of Abraham as ancient texts.

The author of this article does make a good point though. Virtually zero non-LDS take Mormonism or Joseph Smith seriously. As a result, the LDS can publish their “scholarly” work without peer review, because no credible Evangelical scholar would ever consider a Mormon her peer and therefore will not risk her reputation by engaging in peer review of anything so ridiculous as Mormonism.

Without peer review, Mormons can foist their research, like the Joseph Smith papers or the recent paper addressing the MMM, on their members (for it is calculated to mollify doubting members) and go virtually unchallenged by anyone who could mount a cogent refutation of the literature they publish. Those who do challenge Mormon scholarly research are usually those who do not move in the same circles as professional scholars and are therefore ill-equipped to use the same tools and language that researchers, scientists and historians use.

The author, and the entire website so far as I can tell, considers Mormonism a threat and is urging those Evangelical professionals, who think it beneath them to bother with Mormonism, to begin to bother.

Paul (formerly LDS, now happily Catholic)

Paul…thanks for your analysis and opinion…However, Mormons dispute all of your objections here. Don;t have time now, but will try to find the support for this.

1. ancient in scholarly terms…exaggeration! Not so long ago and the basis are still there.
2. modern genome analysis that has most thoroughly debunked the BOM. You give the impression it is a slam dunk! Not so fast! You should look at the other side of the coin. There are scholar and scientific rebuttal for this.
3. Hugh Nibley…renouncing his belief in the Book of Mormon and the Book of Abraham as ancient texts. **I have seen an article disputing this claim. I will see if I can locate it. Can you substantiate in the meantime? **
4. …engaging in peer review of anything so ridiculous as Mormonism. The article I posted proves the contrary. Anyone who researches can find rebuttals from Protestants and counter rebuttal by LDS scholars and so forth. I personally have seen a war of research on both sides as the articles confirms.
5. Virtually zero non-LDS take Mormonism or Joseph Smith seriously. **You do realize that some that engage to discredit him end up becoming LDS…LOL. I still doubt that claim. **

 

[PaulDupre1]

They were innocent before the fall. They never noticed that they were naked, which implies they could not have desire for each other and consequently children.

Wow, did you stop to think about that before you posted it? That may be the most disgusting thing I have ever read on this forum.

Do you mean that God created us in a way that makes it impossible for us to be sexually intimate and to consummate a marriage without sinful lust? No wonder Mormons are so screwed up.

Adam and Eve weren’t ashamed because they desired each other. They were made to desire one another; God commanded them to. They were ashamed because they had severed their relationship with God and now everything felt scary and shameful and wrong, especially themselves. They surely remembered what it was like to be completely intimate and completely open and honest, and completely free to love without domination or restriction. Now they no longer had that, and they felt the shame of losing it. Their shame in their nakedness was a symptom, not a cause, of their misery after losing communion with God. They were ashamed of themselves, and the sacred author captured the perfect metaphor to express that. Sorry it is lost on you.

You should read the Book of Tobit sometime. It is one of the books missing from your Old Testament. It has perhaps the most beautiful example of the purity of the marriage bed.

The twisted Mormon attitude toward the intimacy of a husband and wife is your inheritance from the culture of polygamy that still infests Mormonism and taints your thinking about even the most sacred things.

Catholics do not subscribe to your sick view of the intimacy of marriage.

Man, am I ever glad I left Mormonism!

Paul (formerly LDS, now happily Catholic)

 

[zaffiroborant]

I did some some analysis on Genesis, which I summarize below. Genesis is there to support this odd view as you call it. Mormons also believe that God knew man would fall…that was even discussed in the pre-mortal existence in heaven. Jesus Christ volunteered to redeem the sins of mankind after the fall in the meridian of times. The plan existed even before the earth was formed.

First of all we don’t know much time has passed between the creation of Adam and Eve and the fall. It might have been days, months or maybe years. They were innocent before the fall. They never noticed that they were naked, which implies they could not have desire for each other and consequently children. After eating of the fruit, their eyes opened and they noticed they were naked…something they never noticed before.

Then the eyes of both of them were opened, and they realized they were naked; so they sewed fig leaves together and made coverings for themselves. Gen 3:7

Your bubble is showing here, just because you get all atwitter over a woman’s bare shoulder or upper thigh it doesn’t follow that nakedness leads to desire. All around the world you see human being who can manage to see people naked on the beach or in everyday life without desiring them. Just because you can’t manage it doesn’t mean everyone else can’t.

Second, Genesis implies clearly that Adam and Even would only get knowledge and wisdom if they ate of the fruit.

No it does not clearly imply that, Adam and Eve could talk to God and gain knowledge and wisdom. LDS are the only people I’ve encountered that don’t think talking directly to God is a way to get wisdom and knowledge.

Satan usually mixed lies with truths, the truth part of what he said is this:

"“For God knows that when you eat from it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing good and evil.” Gen 3:5

Compare that with what the Lord said in Gen 3:22

Then the LORD God said, "Behold, the man has become like one of Us, knowing good and evil. Gen 3:22

The Lord is confirming that eating of the fruit caused Adam and Even go become like God and knowing good and evil.

It’s interesting to note that both God and Satan said “knowing good and evil” neither of them mentioned wisdom. It was Eve who decided that defying God was wisdom.

Third, Adam and Even realized that eating of the fruit was the way to gain knowledge and wisdom.

When the woman saw that the fruit of the tree was good for food and pleasing to the eye, and also desirable for gaining wisdom, she took some and ate it. She also gave some to her husband, who was with her, and he ate it. Gen 3:6

Again this was the way Eve saw it , not the way God saw it or the way Satan presented it. It reminds me of that woman in TX who killed all her kids, she saw that as saving them.

How did she know it was desirable for gaining wisdom? I think they reflected on the matter over and over before they partook of the fruit. I don’t really think it was just the persuasive words from Satan. The evidence is that after they ate it they noticed it was true and the Lord confirmed it to be true.

I see you’re just making stuff up now, and there is no evidence for your last fabrication here.

To enter into the world of sin and mortality required a transgression…and that is why the Lord gave them two commandments, causing a dilemma. The first was to procreate and the second not to eat of the fruit.

And again Mormons are the only people I know that think that sinful world is a good thing, that all the torture hatred and degradation of our fellow human beings is a positive.

 

[PaulDupre1]

It’s interesting to note that both God and Satan said “knowing good and evil” neither of them mentioned wisdom. It was Eve who decided that defying God was wisdom.

Wow, thank you for that! I had never seen that. It just shows you - I have probably read Genesis 200 times and I never saw that. The bible is something you can study for a lifetime and barely scratch its surface. It is such a travesty that the Mormons equate the BOM (which is so superficial and sounds like a 19th century camp-meeting sermon) with the Bible, which has depths that no man can fully explore in one lifetime.

I could spend a lifetime just reading the first 9 chapters of Genesis and never completely plumb its depths.

I am a lector at my parish. For the last 13 years I have been blessed to read the bible account of creation each year at the Easter Vigil mass. It is one of my greatest delights, close behind when my dear wife of so many years says “I love you, sweetie”.

Thank you, Zaff. I will treasure what you have taught me.

Paul (formerly LDS, now happily Catholic)

 

[twopekinguys]

There is no false prophets or false prophecies in the Mormon Church. Many critics of the Mormon Church just have shallow knowledge of it…they do not go deeper or try to really understand it. If you use the same standards to judge the Mormon prophets or prophecies you will then discover false prophets and false prophecies in the Bible. Just read the following link and see if that makes sense to you.

fairmormon.org/perspectives/publications/the-nature-of-prophets-and-prophecy-2

Please prove your statement of false prophecies in the Bible.

Please prove how the failed prophecy I provided is not false.

As Paul has stated, fair is hardly trustworthy. After all, you have done all of this research, and have all of this knowledge, please share it without the lame cut/paste.

 

[TexanKnight]

Please prove your statement of false prophecies in the Bible.

Please prove how the failed prophecy I provided is not false.

As Paul has stated, fair is hardly trustworthy. After all, you have done all of this research, and have all of this knowledge, please share it without the lame cut/paste.

Remember, to make his point, Evan MUST compare the Bible, written thousands of years ago in a different culture, country and language and translated many times with the b of m and failed prophesies of lds "prophets, all written within last 180 years in THIS country and in English.

And he does this with a straight face

 

[Stephen168]

There is no false prophets or false prophecies in the Mormon Church.

Paul…thanks for your analysis and opinion…However, Mormons dispute all of your objections here.

There are many non-Christian religions filled with very nice people and Mormonism is another one. They are free to pick and choose verses from Catholic and Jewish scripture and invent beliefs and practices from them, but that doesn’t make them Christian any more than quoting the Old Testament make Christians Jewish. It is knowing who God is.

Joseph Smith, as a prophecy and recorded in Mormon scripture, said the Book of Mormon was a historical book about ALL the American Indians. Science has proven that to be false. Along with ALL the other unique Mormon beliefs and practices, Joseph Smith made it up. Mormonism is not a restoration of a Former-Day-Saint Church. It is a 19th century American invention. Once you free yourself from believing from faith along, and study Christian and Mormon history, and apply reason, you will realize that fact.

 

[twopekinguys]

Remember, to make his point, Evan MUST compare the Bible, written thousands of years ago in a different culture, country and language and translated many times with the b of m and failed prophesies of lds "prophets, all written within last 180 years in THIS country and in English.

And he does this with a straight face

“Better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to speak and to remove all doubt.”
— ABRAHAM LINCOLN.

and

Proverbs 17:28

“Even a fool is thought wise if he keeps silent, and discerning if he holds his tongue.”

 

[FabiusMaximus]

Hi Evan,

Thanks for posting this.

First, all readers should be aware that this article is ancient in scholarly terms. It seems to have been published in 1997 before modern genome analysis that has most thoroughly debunked the BOM and forced believers to construct a “limited geography theory” which makes the text virtually meaningless.

The article sings the praises of Hugh Nibley, perhaps the foremost LDS scholar of all time. Nibley died in 2005, eight years after this article was published, but not before renouncing his belief in the Book of Mormon and the Book of Abraham as ancient texts.

The author of this article does make a good point though. Virtually zero non-LDS take Mormonism or Joseph Smith seriously. As a result, the LDS can publish their “scholarly” work without peer review, because no credible Evangelical scholar would ever consider a Mormon her peer and therefore will not risk her reputation by engaging in peer review of anything so ridiculous as Mormonism.

Without peer review, Mormons can foist their research, like the Joseph Smith papers or the recent paper addressing the MMM, on their members (for it is calculated to mollify doubting members) and go virtually unchallenged by anyone who could mount a cogent refutation of the literature they publish. Those who do challenge Mormon scholarly research are usually those who do not move in the same circles as professional scholars and are therefore ill-equipped to use the same tools and language that researchers, scientists and historians use.

The author, and the entire website so far as I can tell, considers Mormonism a threat and is urging those Evangelical professionals, who think it beneath them to bother with Mormonism, to begin to bother.

Paul (formerly LDS, now happily Catholic)

I think as Christians we should always be ready to respond to claims of even organizations such as FARMS, instead of just dismissing them as anti-scholarly. Far too often Evangelical scholars are dismissed as “apologists” by secular or atheist critics, even though their work is as valuable and respectable as their own. Any defense of one of the more “unbelievable” accounts in the Bible, such as that of Noah’s Ark, is often immediately rejected even before the author can get a word in on its possibility.

 

[TexanKnight]

Ever notice how Evan never really responds to the tough points?