Ex-Mormon Missionaries

[rod_of_iron]

cestusdei:

I can take you to Rome. You can’t take me to Zarhamela or anywhere mentioned in the bom.

Sure I can. I can take you to any part of Central America and claim that it is Zarahemla, and you wouldn’t be able to prove me wrong. If you think I am wrong, what proof would you provide? Showing that there is no evidence to support the place I would take you would not prove anything, because lack of evidence does not prove anything. Only the presence of evidence proves something.

cestusdei:

Not one iota of evidence. None, zip, nada, zilch, nothing.

What type of evidence would you expect to find if Zarahemla existed? If you don’t know what to look for, how would you know if you found that evidence?

cestusdei:

Just show me one coin validated as being from a bom civilization. Just one.

What coins? The Book of Mormon never mentions anything about coins. The Book of Mormon does speak of different weights of gold and silver being used in a monetary way, but the Book of Mormon never claims that these pieces of gold and silver were pressed or imprinted into coins. You will not find a coin to validate the Nephite civilization, because they did not have coins.

 

[flameburns623]

Rod, I’m sorry but you’re being thoroughly disingenuous. You understand perfectly well, I think, that virtually ALL of the places mentioned in the Bible have been long established as real places. A real Athens. A Real Corinth. Babylon. Philistia. Goshen. And so forth. Maps–even maps in your own Quadruple Combination or LDS Bible–show where these places are. A great many of the people mentioned in the Bible are verified as really exisiting: Pontius Pilate. Herod. Ceasar Augustus. Etcetera. NONE of these things can be shown for the Book of Mormon.

HOWEVER, it is not hard to show very close parallels between “View of the Hebrews” and the BofM. One can find Shakespearean quotes. One can clearly show direct quotes from the New Testament replicated in the BofM hundreds of years prior to the composition of the NT. Jesus is repeatedly named as “Jesus Christ” lng before His birth in Bethlehem–as if these were His first- and last-names. Even Talmage knew better than that–his LDS biography of our Saviour is entitled “Jesus THE Christ”. (This book is comparable in subject matterto Fulton Sheen’s “Life of Christ”, for Catholic readers who may be unfamiliar with Talmage; of course, it presents the Mormon beliefs about Christ). My point is, the twenty-something Joseph Smith was not educated enough to know differently, and nowhere that I can recollect does the BofM acknowledge that the word ‘Christ’ is actually a Greek equivalent to the Hebrew title ‘Messiah’.

 

[rod_of_iron]

flameburns623:

Rod, I’m sorry but you’re being thoroughly disingenuous.

I haven’t been straightforward? How so?

flameburns623:

You understand perfectly well, I think, that virtually ALL of the places mentioned in the Bible have been long established as real places. A real Athens. A Real Corinth. Babylon. Philistia. Goshen. And so forth.

Really? Where is the Garden of Eden located? Have you found a place somewhere in the world where cherubim are posted with a flaming sword that protects the tree of life?

As for Athens, Corinth, Babylon, Philistia, and Goshen, I do not believe that these places were ever lost from the the knowledge of the people that have lived in that part of the world. On the other hand, if you were trying to find a city where knowledge of its location is not known by anyone now living on the Earth, how would you proceed in your attempt to locate it? It has been no big accomplishment to locate Jerusalem, or Rome, or Athens, or Constantinople, because knowledge of their locations have never been lost.

flameburns623:

Maps–even maps in your own Quadruple Combination or LDS Bible–show where these places are.

I do not have this Quadruple Combination or LDS Bible that you speak of? Do you know why? Perhaps, it is because I am not LDS. I guess I will have to repeat this over and over, because no one on this forum really listens to me anyway, do they?

flameburns623:

A great many of the people mentioned in the Bible are verified as really exisiting: Pontius Pilate. Herod. Ceasar Augustus. Etcetera. NONE of these things can be shown for the Book of Mormon.

And how were these Biblical figures verified? How would someone verify the existence of Enoch or Elijah, when both of them were translated to heaven, and their bodies are not found on the Earth?

If you will tell me how I would go about verifying the people mentioned in the Book of Mormon, I might have a chance to do so. What does it take to verify a person who existed in ancient times?

 

[rod_of_iron]

flameburns623:

HOWEVER, it is not hard to show very close parallels between “View of the Hebrews” and the BofM.

Oh, really? I have read the View of the Hebrews and I did not find any conclusive similarities between it and the Book of Mormon. Of course, the View of the Hebrews might have some distant similarities, since both books are speaking of people of the House of Israel. But for anyone to claim that any part of the Book of Mormon was plagiarized from the View of the Hebrews shows that that person is not familiar with both books in order to come to such a conclusion.

flameburns623:

One can find Shakespearean quotes.

Shakespearean quotes? Really? Where?

flameburns623:

One can clearly show direct quotes from the New Testament replicated in the BofM hundreds of years prior to the composition of the NT.

And the problem is what?

flameburns623:

Jesus is repeatedly named as “Jesus Christ” long before His birth in Bethlehem–as if these were His first- and last-names.

Really? Was Jesus not Jesus before He was physically born? Mary did not decide the name for her baby. She was told what to name Him by the angel Gabriel. This is because this was His name. It has always been His name. What does it matter if His name is revealed to a people long before He was born physically? In the Book of Mormon, the name was prophesied and guess what? Jesus was actually called by that name. Imagine that!

flameburns623:

Even Talmage knew better than that–his LDS biography of our Saviour is entitled “Jesus THE Christ”.

In the New Testament, there are several places where Jesus is referred to as “Christ”, not “the Christ”. And yet in other places, Jesus is referred to as “the Christ”. Should we reject all the verses that do not insert the word “the” before the word “Christ”? Also, in the New Testament, there are 189 verses that speaks of “Jesus Christ” as if this is His full name. In 13 of these verses, the phrase “the name of Jesus Christ” is found, as if “Christ” is part of His name. Your argument here does not seem to hold water.

flameburns623:

My point is, the twenty-something Joseph Smith was not educated enough to know differently, and nowhere that I can recollect does the BofM acknowledge that the word ‘Christ’ is actually a Greek equivalent to the Hebrew title ‘Messiah’.

Why would the Book of Mormon acknowledge this? The Book of Mormon was translated into English, not Greek. The word “Christ” was borrowed into the English language centuries before the Book of Mormon was published. So, when the word “Christ” is used in the translation, it is obviously the best English word to match the word that was being translated from.

 

[flameburns623]

Rod of Iron:

Really? Where is the Garden of Eden located? Have you found a place somewhere in the world where cherubim are posted with a flaming sword that protects the tree of life?

Destroyed in the Flood. The Book of Mormon, however, takes place entirely post-Deluge.
Rod of Iron:

Oh, really? I have read the View of the Hebrews and I did not find any conclusive similarities between it and the Book of Mormon. Of course, the View of the Hebrews might have some distant similarities, since both books are speaking of people of the House of Israel. But for anyone to claim that any part of the Book of Mormon was plagiarized from the View of the Hebrews shows that that person is not familiar with both books in order to come to such a conclusion.

Funny how you overlooked the parallels. BH Roberts (LDS scholar and apologist of the early 20th century) didn’t and he reported in his private papers that he was terribly troubled by them. See these links:

irr.org/mit/bhrobert.html

irr.org/mit/marquardt-bom1a.html

irr.org/mit/Book-of-Mormon-Today.html

irr.org/mit/ho-bom1.html

irr.org/mit/bomodern.html

These links also underscore the parallels between the NT and Book of Mormon.
Rod of Iron:

As for Athens, Corinth, Babylon, Philistia, and Goshen, I do not believe that these places were ever lost from the the knowledge of the people that have lived in that part of the world.

Various Biblical peoples–the Philistines and Cannanites among them, I believe–were indeed lost to history and ‘rediscovered’ by archaeologists. Whole cities once thought to be mythical have been uncovered–Jericho comes to mind.
Rod of Iron:

Shakespearean quotes? Really? Where?

II Nephi 1:14, as first seen in Hamlet. See the following link:

lds-mormon.com/shake.shtml

I’m aware you profess not to be a Utah-based Mormon Rod. Though you defend Momonism with no inconsiderable zeal. You profess to belong to one of ths schisms though I can’t tell from which you derive your ideas. I note that you rather vigorously defend the Pearl of Great Price, although the RLDS rejects it, and that you reject polygamy, unlike most of the schismatic groups. I’m not certain what to make of you. I half wonder if Karl Keating isn’t having a bit of fun with us under an assumed name. Or one of the other Catholic Answers personalities

 

[Lion_of_Narnia]

flameburns623:

…I half wonder if Karl Keating isn’t having a bit of fun with us under an assumed name. Or one of the other Catholic Answers personalities

I’ve sort of been wondering something like that myself.

Come on Rod, we don’t expect you to give us your real name & address, but how about the name and location of your particular BoM-derived denomination?

 

[Lion_of_Narnia]

rod of iron:

It’s buried in the earth. It has not been uncovered yet, but it will be. When the excavators dig in the right place, they will find the evidence. If they don’t, there is no chance that they will ever find the evidence

174 years from the BoM publication and we’re still waiting–though not with much anticipation. Forget the archeological digs, just look at all the construction and excavations that have been done for the better part of almost two centuries on both continents! We find plenty of pre-columbus artifacts, some many thousands of years old–and it’s all Indian stuff–late paleolithic to early neolithic complex. (With the exception of Meso America and Peru who had developed a soft metal technology–but not one scintilla of evidence they came from a tranplanted semitic culture)
rod of iron:

The Book of Mormon did not come forth for the purpose of showing us where certain events occurred in the American continents. Nor . Rather, it came forth to restore the knowledge of the covenant to the descendents of the House of Israel, beginning in the Americas first.

The BoM makes definitive, extraordinary claims about the pre-contact inhabinents of the Americas. Definitive claims require defintive evidence, extraordinary claims, extrordinary evidence. If those claims not only cannot be supported by positive evidence but run against a wealth of countering evidence, then such claims can be discounted as false–and any associated claims are either false or irrelevant.
rod of iron:

How is it badly written? Since the Book of Mormon is a literal translation, it would not be written down using English syntax, but rather, it would be written using the syntax that the Book of Mormon was originally written in.

Check out the link I posted earlier, regards to the BoM syntax and style–Twain/Clemens KNEW the American language and idioms as few others did, and he wasn’t alone in spotiing it as the work of a ill-educated but pretentious writer.
rod of iron:

If the Book of Mormon seems to be written in poor English syntax, it is because the Book of Mormon was written in Hebrew using reformed Egyptian characters.

No such thing as “reformed egyptian”
rod of iron:

What corruptions? How do you know that these corruptions were not corrections instead?

How about the revision commitee for the RKJV? Or numerous, prominent Jewish Scholars? Or the Dead Sea Scoll Translators? Many others…

 

[flameburns623]

Hi, folks. I established that the ‘Restorationist sect’ established in 1860–to which Rod of Iron professes to belong–was the Reorganized Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints, now renamed the Community of Christ. The CofC is generally a quite-liberal denomination, but those who cal themselves ‘Restorationists’, as Rod does, tend to be the conservative minority. I went to a CofC board and asked some questions, to which I received the following responses, edited for space:

*Am interacting with a person who professes to believe in the Book of Mormon but does NOT believe certain aspects of the ‘Utahn-based LDS’ doctrine. We have quoted to this individual from the Salt Lake version of the Doctrine and Covenants and he seems conversant with it–but is not the RLDS/ Community of Christ version of the D&C versified differently, with numerous sections numbered and/or ordered differently? I think this is true also of the RLDS/Community of Christ Book of Mormon, is it not?
*
The Book of Mormon contains the same text for both denominations. The primary difference is in the paragraphing.

However, the Doctrine and Covenants is quite different between the two denominations. Some of the sections are the same (sorry, I’m not sure how many), but I would say that there is quite a bit of difference between the two.

*Also: this person is adamant that Joseph Smith ‘never practiced’ polygamy. Would this represent the official position of the CofC? Is it the usual position of the membership?
*
As a policy, Community of Christ does not take positions on issues of history. We do however place great confidence in sound historical methodology as it relates to our church story. We believe that historians and other researchers should be free to come to whatever conclusions they feel are appropriate after careful consideration of documents and artifacts to which they have access. We then allow the results of that inquiry to inform us about our corporate identity today, where we have been in the past, and our future direction. We benefit greatly from the significant contributions of the historical discipline.

The issue of Joseph Smith Jr.'s connection to polygamy has its roots in the early days of our movement . . . Church members, wanting to protect Joseph Jr.'s good name, embraced Emma Smith’s 1879 testimony given in the last weeks of her life that disavowed any connection between her husband and the aberrant marital practice. Joseph III agreed with his mother but held out the possibility of his father’s involvement. He determined that his father would have been wrong if he had advanced such a belief.

Today, Community of Christ acknowledges that there is no “smoking gun” evidence that unquestionably links Joseph Jr. to polygamy. But the church acknowledges that there is a body of circumstantial evidence from sermons, diaries, newspaper articles, personal testimonies, and even specific historical events that could be interpreted as pointing directly to Smith as the author and practitioner of polygamy.

*Finally: this person has gone to great lengths to defend the Pearl of Great Price, specifically the Book of Abraham. I was under the impression that the RLDS has not received the PofGP as Scripture. Am I misinformed?
*
Community of Christ does not accept the Pearl of Great Price as scripture, although the book contains some pieces that are found individually in our scriptures. But the Book of Abraham is not one of those.

**One note: I believe the text of the RLDS Book of Mormon differs considerably from the Salt Lake version, not just in paragraphing but also because the RLDS versifies the text differently and has deleted some of the repetious phrases such as ‘And it came to pass’ and ‘Behold!’. By the way, one common LDS explanation for these tiresome reptions of certain phrases is that they substituted for punctuation. **

 

[flameburns623]

Lion of Narnia:

How about the revision commitee for the RKJV? Or numerous, prominent Jewish Scholars? Or the Dead Sea Scoll Translators? Many others…

A quibble for which we need not spend much time here: the Textus Receptus, upon which the KJV is based, is the text which represents the MAJORITY of manuscripts. I believe the TR is the basis for the Latin Vulgate of Jerome. I think it is also the preferred redaction employed by many Orthodox Christians. Were we to lose all extant manuscripts, we could recreate the Biblical text from the citations of scripture in patristic sources–but we would produce a text which would be, substantially, the Textus Receptus.

It is an unprovable presupposition of modern translators that ‘older is better’ and ‘less is more’ with regards to determining which manuscripts are the closest to the autographa. Talmage is one of the early defenders (from a Mormon perspective) of the KJV as more reliable than other translations, though he doesn’t do so from the point-of-view of textual criticism. Mormons of course believe the translators of the KJV to have been divinely guided, though not infallibly inspired–hence the Joseph Smith Translation. Which most contemporary editions of the LDS Scriptures reference in marginal notes, although the actual text of an LDS bible is the exact same KJV text one can find anywhere. (Mormons believe, with respect to the US Declaration of Independence and Constitution, something quite similar: these documents are also deemed to have been Divinely guided. In fact I am sometimes surprised that these documents are not included in LDS Standard Works).

There is a fairly comprehensive literature on this debate, which Catholics and liberal Evangelicals generally get wrong. Very few conservative Evangelicals believe that the KJV is itself ‘inspired’ though it is sometimes argued that the KJV shows hallmarks of a special benediction by God, having likely converted more people to Christ than all other English translations thorughout Christian history combined. The issue concerns the TEXT being used and not the translation of the KJV itself–in fact I for one would like to see a new, conservative, devout, word-for-word translation of Scripture using ONLY the Textus Receptus. (The NKJV freely employed non-TR sources and severely undermines confidence in the plenary inspiration of the text by littering it’s translation with ‘alternative rendition’ notes).

But much of this belongs in a wholly-other thread.

 

[rod_of_iron]

flameburns623:

%between%I’m aware you profess not to be a Utah-based Mormon Rod. Though you defend Momonism with no inconsiderable zeal.

I defend Mormonism??? What do you consider to be included in your blanket of Mormonism? I have spoken against the unbiblical doctrines of Mormonism, but I believe that Joseph Smith was the servant of God who Jesus restored the church through. I must drive you crazy as you try to figure out who I am and what all I believe.

flameburns623:

You profess to belong to one of the schisms though I can’t tell from which you derive your ideas.

I do not profess to belong to a schismatic group. Rather, I profess that I belong to the group which is the continuation of the church restored in 1830, and that the LDS church based in Salt Lake City is one of the schismatic groups.

flameburns623:

I note that you rather vigorously defend the Pearl of Great Price, although the RLDS rejects it,

Where have I ever defended the “Pearl of Great Price”? I reject the Book of Abraham as being an inspired and sacred document. I also doubt that Joseph Smith was the one who actually produced the translation of this papyrus. Where do you get the idea that I believe the **“Pearl of Great Price” **to be true?

flameburns623:

and that you reject polygamy, unlike most of the schismatic groups.

The only schismatic groups that I understand to accept polygamy are groups that broke away from the LDS church after the church stated that polygamy should not be practiced from that point onward. I believe that statement of the church was made in 1890. The RLDS church has never believed that polygamy is of God. Neither has the Church of Christ (Temple Lot) believed polygamy to be of God. I do not know which schismatic groups you are referring to.

flameburns623:

I’m not certain what to make of you. I half wonder if Karl Keating isn’t having a bit of fun with us under an assumed name. Or one of the other Catholic Answers personalities.

I am not Karl Keating or any of the other Catholic Answers personalities. Everything I have posted on this forum is done in honesty. I am not trying to have a bit of fun with you or deceive you concerning who I am or what I believe. I am telling you just what I believe, even if my beliefs don’t all fit into a neatly designed category.

 

[rod_of_iron]

flameburns623:

Various Biblical peoples–the Philistines and Cannanites among them, I believe–were indeed lost to history and ‘rediscovered’ by archaeologists. Whole cities once thought to be mythical have been uncovered–Jericho comes to mind.

What makes the scholars and archaeologists so positive that they have found Jericho? Was there a road sign that read, “Welcome to Jericho” or “Jericho City Limits”? What evidence was needed to correctly proclaim that Jericho had been found?

As for the Philistines and the Canaanites, when was knowledge of these peoples lost, and when were the evidences of these peoples rediscovered? Can you provide the exact dates?

In your post, you also claimed that the Garden of Eden was destroyed in the Flood. How can you be so certain?

 

[rod_of_iron]

Lion of Narnia:

174 years from the BoM publication and we’re still waiting–though not with much anticipation.

Quite a bit impatient, aren’t you? But what does it matter whether or not the evidence is found? Without positive evidence supporting the Book of Mormon, the best that you can do is doubt its veracity. But you cannot prove it is false with a lack of evidence. Archaeology can only prove that something did happen, not that it didn’t happen. Lack of evidence proves nothing. You seem to be like those who Jesus refers to as needing a sign before they can believe.
Lion of Narnia:

The BoM makes definitive, extraordinary claims about the pre-contact inhabinents of the Americas. Definitive claims require defintive evidence, extraordinary claims, extrordinary evidence. If those claims not only cannot be supported by positive evidence but run against a wealth of countering evidence, then such claims can be discounted as false–and any associated claims are either false or irrelevant.

Countering evidence??? And what evidence would that be? Provide some of this wealth please.
Lion of Narnia:

Check out the link I posted earlier, regards to the BoM syntax and style–Twain/Clemens KNEW the American language and idioms as few others did, and he wasn’t alone in spotiing it as the work of a ill-educated but pretentious writer.

Idioms? What American English idioms can you find in the Book of Mormon? If the Book of Mormon is indeed what it is claimed to be, namely a word for word translation of an ancient record, that translation should not contain any American English idioms unless the language on the plates were indeed English or the Book of Mormon did not come from an ancient record.
Lion of Narnia:

No such thing as “reformed egyptian”

How can you be so sure? Anytime any language is written down using Egyptian characters, the result could be called “reformed Egyptian”, because the words from the other language that is written using Egyptian characters are not really Egyptian words. The Book of Mormon never says that the Nephites used a definite language called “Reformed Egyptian”. Instead, the Nephites claimed that they were writing Hebrew words using Egyptian characters, so that the Nephites referred to it as a “reformed Egyptian”, because the Egyptian characters had to be altered to convey the Hebrew words that were intended by the writer.

 

[darcee]

SO ROI… why don’t you tell us what your church is. How many members does it have? Does it have a web site you could share with us?

-D

 

[cestusdei]

He is probably a Reorganite. They vehemently deny Smith’s proven infidelity and polygamy. Emma Smith lived in such denial. Like many women who just won’t believe their husband strayed. Perhaps he is a Temple Lot mormon. They cling to their piece of ground where Jesus is supposed to set foot. It is all they have. Mormonism has many denominations.

 

[rod_of_iron]

cestusdei:

They vehemently deny Smith’s proven infidelity and polygamy.

Proven infidelity and polygamy??? What proves this?

 

[cestusdei]

Ole’ Joe himself admits it. Or do you say he is a liar?

I find that when someone won’t name their church affiliation that indicates deception. It means they are ashamed of their religion or know that it has major problems. Usually it is a cult of some kind. No one who belongs to a legitimate faith has any problem stating they are a member. So rod, why are you so afraid and ashamed of your religion?

 

[rod_of_iron]

cestusdei:

Ole’ Joe himself admits it. Or do you say he is a liar?

How can I decide whether or not he admitted to practicing polygamy when you have not presented any evidence that he did so?

cestusdei:

I find that when someone won’t name their church affiliation that indicates deception. It means they are ashamed of their religion or know that it has major problems. Usually it is a cult of some kind. No one who belongs to a legitimate faith has any problem stating they are a member. So rod, why are you so afraid and ashamed of your religion?

I am not afraid or ashamed of my religion. I did not think it had any bearing on the topics we were discussing. But if you must know, I was baptized into the RLDS church in 1977. I worshipped in that church until 1985, when the questionable revelation on women being called and ordained to the priesthood was introduced and accepted as true doctrine. With the coming forth of this revelation, it was clear to me and many others that the RLDS church had fallen into apostasy. I then joined up with others who had separated themselves from the now apostate church. I began attending the Church of Christ, Restored, which taught and believed the original RLDS doctrines, and I have been a part of that church until recently, when the direction of that church seemed in question. I currently find myself a Restoration Saint without a current congregation to worship at. But I’m sure that this is just a temporary condition, for I will likely begin attending one of the independent Restoration branches that still hold true to the original doctrines that Jesus restored in His church in 1830, through His servant Joseph Smith. No matter in what building or with what restoration congregation I worship with, I am still a part of the “Church of the Firstborn”, which it the spiritual church of Jesus Christ.

 

[Sophie]

Rod of Iron,

Why don’t you just become a member of the Body of Christ, God’s holy Catholic Church, the only church Jesus ever built and end your state of eternal confusion.

 

[cestusdei]

Rod,

Thanks for finally answering. So you reject the church that gave you the bom. Then you reject the restored restored church. Now you are a restored restored restored church of yourself? Even if you do find a restored restored restored restored church if it disagrees with you then you will leave. No doubt to join the restored restored restored restored restored church. Yep that is what God intended, right?

Maybe you should reconsider Smith’s claims completely. You reject his own words about polygamy anyway. Why not look at the only church that goes back to the actual time of Jesus. The Catholic Church.

 

[rod_of_iron]

Sophie:

Rod of Iron,

Why don’t you just become a member of the Body of Christ, God’s holy Catholic Church, the only church Jesus ever built and end your state of eternal confusion.

Because the Roman Catholic church is a substitute church for the true church that was driven into the wilderness for 1260 years. I would rather be a member of the true church of Christ, namely the Church of the Firstborn, rather than a substitute. The Catholic church even claims that the pope is a substitute for Christ by the name it gives him – Vicarius Filii Dei. Why would I want a substitute when I can have the real thing?