Good book on Mormonism?

[Richard_Abanes]

In many ways it is often useless to argue with a Mormon because of the view they have of themselves as Latter-day Saints. They often see themselves as superior in many ways to just about everyone else, most especially when it comes to their knowledge of religious truth. This is what they are taught when it comes to those who criticize or challenge their faith:

“As Latter-day Saints, you already know more about God, and Christ, and the plan of salvation, than anyone who will attack you. Take my word for that. You already know more than you’re attackers will ever know.” (BYU professor, Robert Millet, “Overcoming Objections”).

That kind of says it all. Weight it when trying to determine how much time to devote to debating/discussing.

RA

 

[Brennan_Doherty]

Maybe the reason why I am so confident is because I have more of it than you do. I know something that you don’t. Modern LDS scripture has something to say about that. When Jesus visited the Book of Mormon people after His resurrection, he ordained twelve ministers to minister among those people (like the Twelve whom He chose in Palestine); and the Book of Mormon tells us that they will judge that branch of the house of Israel; and they in turn will be judged by the Twelve whom Jesus chose in Palestine:

1 Nephi 12:

9 And he said unto me: Thou rememberest the Twelve Apostles of the Lamb? Behold they are they who shall judge the twelve tribes of Israel; wherefore, the twelve ministers of thy seed shall be judged of them; for ye are of the house of Israel.

10 And these twelve ministers whom thou beholdest shall judge thy seed. And, behold, they are righteous forever; for because of their faith in the Lamb of God their garments are made white in his blood.

And the judgment with which they will judge will be the Lord’s judgment; therefore no one needs fear that their judgments will be unjust:

3 Nephi 27:

27 And know ye that ye shall be judges of this people, according to the judgment which I shall give unto you, which shall be just. Therefore, what manner of men ought ye to be? Verily I say unto you, even as I am.

And in the Doctrine and Covenants the Lord has revealed that the Twelve Apostles whom He called during His ministry will indeed judge the twelve tribes of Israel—but only the righteous among them! We all have to be judged, the righteous and the wicked. The original Twelve Apostles will only judge the righteous, and they in turn will be appointed to judge the rest:

D&C 29:

12 And again, verily, verily, I say unto you, and it hath gone forth in a firm decree, by the will of the Father, that mine apostles, the Twelve which were with me in my ministry at Jerusalem, shall stand at my right hand at the day of my coming in a pillar of fire, being clothed with robes of righteousness, with crowns upon their heads, in glory even as I am, to judge the whole house of Israel, even as many as have loved me and kept my commandments, and none else.

And furthermore, the Lord has revealed that the faithful Latter-day Saints will be appointed to judge the wicked of this generation—just as Paul, Daniel, and other biblical prophets and Apostles testified that they should:

D&C 75:

19 And in whatsoever house ye enter, and they receive you, leave your blessing upon that house.

20 And in whatsoever house ye enter, and they receive you not, ye shall depart speedily from that house, and shake off the dust of your feet as a testimony against them.

21 And you shall be filled with joy and gladness; and know this, that in the day of judgment you shall be judges of that house, and condemn them;

22 And it shall be more tolerable for the heathen in the day of judgment, than for that house; therefore, gird up your loins and be faithful, and ye shall overcome all things, and be lifted up at the last day. Even so. Amen.

So it does help, when you know something that somebody else doesn’t know!

zerinus

Well, if you’re going to be judging me then maybe I should put more smiley faces in my responses .

Thanks for the effort you put into your response. I can’t say that it is partcularly pertinent to me, however, since I don’t accept the Book of Mormon as authoritative.

God bless.

 

[zerinus]

Well, if you’re going to be judging me then maybe I should put more smiley faces in my responses .

Thanks for the effort you put into your response. I can’t say that it is partcularly pertinent to me, however, since I don’t accept the Book of Mormon as authoritative.

That is entirely your choice. But if you want to know how I can be so cnfident in my interpretation of scripture, that is because I know something that you don’t. We have a lot more of it than you do.

And by the way, here is one more verse for you, from the Bible this time, showing how the Saints will judge not only men but angels in the next life:

1 Corinthians 6:

3 Know ye not that we shall judge angels? how much more things that pertain to this life?

As you see, the evidence keeps piling up. Brigham was right. Joseph Smith, along with all the prophets, Apostles, and Saints before or after him, will judge the world; and potentially decide whether they go to heaven or to hell. You don’t need to believe in the Book of Mormon. Just believe in the Bible–which if you did, you can’t help believing in the Book of Mormon too.

zerinus

 

[majick275]

That is entirely your choice. But if you want to know how I can be so cnfident in my interpretation of scripture, that is because I know something that you don’t. We have a lot more of it than you do.

And by the way, here is one more verse for you, from the Bible this time, showing how the Saints will judge not only men but angels in the next life:

1 Corinthians 6:

3 Know ye not that we shall judge angels? how much more things that pertain to this life?

As you see, the evidence keeps piling up. Brigham was right. Joseph Smith, along with all the prophets, Apostles, and Saints before or after him, will judge the world; and potentially decide whether they go to heaven or to hell. You don’t need to believe in the Book of Mormon. Just believe in the Bible–which if you did, you can’t help believing in the Book of Mormon too.

zerinus

you are right about one thing. the evidence is piling up. however it’s the evidence that JS made up mormonism and that BY perpetuated the fraud. that is why the incoming converts to mormonism are so few and tend to be unstable. that is why so many LDS are leaving that church. you don’t know anything that we don’t and you don’t have more of the truth. you have been deceived. come join us and partake of the real presence of God in the eucharist. THAT is something that you are missing and God is inviting you partake because he loves you.

 

[Rbt_Southwell]

Not only piling up but beginning to stink.

The best evidence that mormonism is a fraud and not-christian based is the Book of Mormon.

Get the oldest copies you can (many “Antique” stores have pre-1970 copies) and compare passages to the latest (free from any of their missionaries) edition.

You will see how malleable those “Golden Tablets” are, and how amorphous those “revelations” from their Profits (sic) are.

An easier and cheaper method is to read ANY of Zerinus’ posts and compare his private, bizarre interpretation of Christian Scripture with his mormon indoctrination.

Robert

 

[Richard_Abanes]

Not only piling up but beginning to stink. The best evidence that mormonism is a fraud and not-christian based is the Book of Mormon. Get the oldest copies you can (many “Antique” stores have pre-1970 copies) and compare passages to the latest (free from any of their missionaries) edition.

Go back to the original 1830 version – not THAT is really something to compare!!

ONLINE VERSION - 1830

Online Comparison Machine – REALLY COOL.

RA

 

[Rbt_Southwell]

Richard:

Thanks for the links.

I miss the ol’ wholesale ripping of KJV’s Book of Isaiah in the original “transcribing” from dem golden plates!

The source documents are always the t*** in the punchbowl for NEW AND IMPROVED “Revelatory” RELIGIONS.

Thank God for the Church!

Robert

 

[Brennan_Doherty]

That is entirely your choice. But if you want to know how I can be so cnfident in my interpretation of scripture, that is because I know something that you don’t. We have a lot more of it than you do.

And by the way, here is one more verse for you, from the Bible this time, showing how the Saints will judge not only men but angels in the next life:

1 Corinthians 6:

3 Know ye not that we shall judge angels? how much more things that pertain to this life?

As you see, the evidence keeps piling up. Brigham was right. Joseph Smith, along with all the prophets, Apostles, and Saints before or after him, will judge the world; and potentially decide whether they go to heaven or to hell. You don’t need to believe in the Book of Mormon. Just believe in the Bible–which if you did, you can’t help believing in the Book of Mormon too.

zerinus

It would be a lot easier to believe the Book of Mormon was scripture if there was any evidence that the peoples and cities the Book of Mormon talks about actually existed.

 

[zerinus]

It would be a lot easier to believe the Book of Mormon was scripture if there was any evidence that the peoples and cities the Book of Mormon talks about actually existed.

When you read it, sincerely wanting to know if it is true, you will know that they existed.

zerinus

 

[truthsilence]

When you read it, sincerely wanting to know if it is true, you will know that they existed.

zerinus

click
whirl
click
whirl
click

God love you, Zerinus.

 

[Richard_Abanes]

When you read it, sincerely wanting to know if it is true, you will know that they existed.

FROM THE UNARIUS ACADEMY OF SCIENCE
According to Unarian millenarian prophecy, the Space Brothers, as the extraterrestrials are called, would usher in a new age of logic, reason, love, and peace for all the beings in the universe. They would solve all social and ecological problems by ending privation and want with their spiritual science. The large spaceships (usually depicted in Unarian art as flying saucers) would land on top of one another in order to form a towering university that would serve humankind.

The planets of the Interplanetary Confederation that would supposedly send spaceships are called: El, Rey, Basis, Yessu, Luminus (once called Severus), Valneza, Osnus, Idonus, Vixall, Earth II, Vidus, Anzea, Po, Deva, Endinite, Dollium, Ballium, Dal, Shunan, Brundage, Kallium, Delna, Farris, Serena, Vulna, Emil, Sixtus, Eneshia, Glenus, Din, Zeton, Jena, and Myton. Each ship would contain one thousand Space Brother scientists, who could teach the people of earth how to use their advanced technology.

In anticipation of this prophesied landing, Unarius purchased acreage for the ships in nearby Jamul, California, during the 1970s. Despite the fact that no ships landed in 2001 as predicted, Unarians believe that the landing will take place “when earth people are ready.”

RA

 

[BDawg]

It would be a lot easier to believe the Book of Mormon was scripture if there was any evidence that the peoples and cities the Book of Mormon talks about actually existed.

This is just what I referred to earlier. Some people think in such black-and-white terms that they have to believe that there “is no evidence” for conclusions they disagree with, and the conclusions they agree with are all but proven.

Brennan, why don’t you go to this page, and peruse the evidence that this LDS webmaster has collected for the Book of Mormon. You may still think this evidence isn’t of sufficient quality and/or quantity to make you want to look into it further, but let’s not go back and forth with these kinds of claims about “no evidence.”

Incidentally, this is what flameburns was complaining about Abanes–he doesn’t do well with ambiguity. Let’s all grow up and quit acting like fundamentalists, here.

 

[Richard_Abanes]

Incidentally, this is what flameburns was complaining about Abanes–he doesn’t do well with ambiguity. Let’s all grow up and quit acting like fundamentalists, here.

I do fine with ambiguity, what I don’t do well with is fantasy.

RA

 

[BDawg]

Well, my question remains. I guess I am unaware of this changed scripture. Anything to point me to?

Check out the 1835 edition of the Doctrine and Covenants. I can’t remember which section it was.

 

[BDawg]

30 For if I will, saith the Lord of Hosts, raise up seed unto me, I will command my people; otherwise they shall hearken unto these things.

I’m sorry, Majick. I just can’t understand how you are interpreting this the way you are.

not exactly and why then wouldn’t scriptures be “updated”? there is a big difference (even taking your stance on Jacob 2) between the original BoM teaching and the subsequent teachings of BY, John Taylor, etc. they didn’t teach polygamy as a temporary exception, they taught it as essential. current section 132 seems to back them up.
so JS claimed.

It may have been essential, at least for those who were commanded to do it, and couldn’t. I remember that BY said that some teenage boys who died after going to rescue a handcart company would go to the Celestial Kingdom. They weren’t married. So even if BY thought polygamy was “essential” in the sense that there will be more women than men in the CK, and so everyone will be polygamists, that doesn’t have any bearing on what people are commanded to do in this life.

i still disagree with you on that. and if they thought it necessary to remove that section then why leave in 132 today? we are back to my original contention that mormon canonized scripture changes in doctrinally significant ways.
because BY taught the opposite of that. see above for my comments on jacob 2

Because D&C 132 is easily reinterpreted for different circumstances.

And in any case, I never said that Mormon scripture doesn’t change in doctrinally significant ways. If you are some kind of fundamentalist who thinks that “scripture” is God’s verbatim word, instead of filtered through fallible humans, then this is a big problem. If you aren’t a fundamentalist, then it isn’t, necessarily. In this case, since our scriptures already said that sometimes God commands polygamy, I don’t see the changes (and I admit there were real changes in how this was presented at different times) as that significant.

i think the change significant. if you don’t believe in prophetic/scriptural infallibility then why “living prophets”? you are telling us that even when these “prophets” have their “revelations” CANONIZED that those scriptures can be wrong! Yet you want to claim that as the advantage of living prophets? (that they can later correct those mistakes) how do we know that what they have added or removed isn’t the mistake? you apper to be on very unstable ground there.

 

[zerinus]

FROM THE UNARIUS ACADEMY OF SCIENCE
According to Unarian millenarian prophecy, the Space Brothers, as the extraterrestrials are called, would usher in a new age of logic, reason, love, and peace for all the beings in the universe. They would solve all social and ecological problems by ending privation and want with their spiritual science. The large spaceships (usually depicted in Unarian art as flying saucers) would land on top of one another in order to form a towering university that would serve humankind.

The planets of the Interplanetary Confederation that would supposedly send spaceships are called: El, Rey, Basis, Yessu, Luminus (once called Severus), Valneza, Osnus, Idonus, Vixall, Earth II, Vidus, Anzea, Po, Deva, Endinite, Dollium, Ballium, Dal, Shunan, Brundage, Kallium, Delna, Farris, Serena, Vulna, Emil, Sixtus, Eneshia, Glenus, Din, Zeton, Jena, and Myton. Each ship would contain one thousand Space Brother scientists, who could teach the people of earth how to use their advanced technology.

In anticipation of this prophesied landing, Unarius purchased acreage for the ships in nearby Jamul, California, during the 1970s. Despite the fact that no ships landed in 2001 as predicted, Unarians believe that the landing will take place “when earth people are ready.”

RA

"Fools mock, but they shall mourn;" (Ether 12:26.)

zerinus

 

[majick275]

I’m sorry, Majick. I just can’t understand how you are interpreting this the way you are.

there is no explicit indication that the lord will command polygamy. it certainly denounced here. but even if we accept that this is a valid implicit reference to situational polygamy it is restricted solely to procreation. actual practice as well as further teachings on this subject by LDS prophets during the time it was practiced appears contradictory to that. when we add in that the D&C scripture prohibiting it’s practice AT THAT TIME we have to question a church whose prophet leads them to act at odds with their scriptures. at the very least this seems to cast doubt on the claim that “only the standard works” determines binding doctrine.

It may have been essential, at least for those who were commanded to do it, and couldn’t. I remember that BY said that some teenage boys who died after going to rescue a handcart company would go to the Celestial Kingdom. They weren’t married. So even if BY thought polygamy was “essential” in the sense that there will be more women than men in the CK, and so everyone will be polygamists, that doesn’t have any bearing on what people are commanded to do in this life.

that isn’t what BY meant. he said:

*"The only men who become Gods, even the Sons of God, are those who enter into polygamy (Journal of Discourses, Vol. 11, p. 269, August 19, 1866)
*

and
*“Monogamy, or restrictions by law to ONE WIFE, IS NO PART OF THE ECONOMY OF HEAVEN AMONG MEN. Such a system was commenced by the founders of the Roman empire…Rome became the mistress of the world, and introduced this order of monogamy wherever her sway was acknowledged. Thus this MONOGAMIC ORDER OF MARRIAGE, so esteemed by modern Christians as a HOLY SACRAMENT and DIVINE INSTITUTION, is nothing but a system established by a SET OF ROBBERS…
“Why do we believe in and practice polygamy? Because the Lord introduced it to his servants in a revelation given to Joseph Smith, and the Lord’s servants have always practised it. ‘And IS THAT RELIGION POPULAR IN HEAVEN?’ IT IS THE ONLY POPULAR RELIGION THERE,…” (The Deseret News, August 6, 1862)
*
and

THE ONE-WIFE SYSTEM NOT ONLY DEGENERATES THE HUMAN FAMILY, BOTH PHYSICALLY AND INTELLECTUALLY, but it is entirely incompatible with philosophical notions of immortality; IT IS A LURE TO TEMPTATION, AND HAS ALWAYS PROVED A CURSE TO A PEOPLE.” (Millennial Star, Vol. 15, p. 227)

Because D&C 132 is easily reinterpreted for different circumstances.

seems pretty clear. it also covers the exact same ground as jacob 2 yet paints a radically different picture. jacob 2 stands alone (now that the D&C has been changed) in mormon scripture in claiming polygamy the exception to a god imposed rule. all other scripture and teaching seems to indicate a distinct mormon preference for polygamy with monogamy the exception “when commanded”.

And in any case, I never said that Mormon scripture doesn’t change in doctrinally significant ways. If you are some kind of fundamentalist who thinks that “scripture” is God’s verbatim word, instead of filtered through fallible humans, then this is a big problem. If you aren’t a fundamentalist, then it isn’t, necessarily. In this case, since our scriptures already said that sometimes God commands polygamy, I don’t see the changes (and I admit there were real changes in how this was presented at different times) as that significant.

that seems very problematic with a “living prophet” who is shown in the D&C asking specific questions and getting specific answers. one wonders how fundamental things like the nature of God or the preferred family structure could be so confused. I do think scripture is the word of God but I am not a hyper-literalist. I understand the issues with writing it down correctly especially after years of copying and recopying…but isn’t that what JS was supposed to fix? the FPR of his “translation” of the BoM are full of how he would ensure every word was correct. so wouldn’t the D&C be similar? perhaps the OD is incorrect then. i see the need for God’s church to explain what the scriptures mean. i just think that has been happening for 2000 years and thus no need for a “restoration”. (that appears more a new beginning than a restoration)

 

[flameburns623]

This is just what I referred to earlier. Some people think in such black-and-white terms that they have to believe that there “is no evidence” for conclusions they disagree with, and the conclusions they agree with are all but proven.

Brennan, why don’t you go to this page, and peruse the evidence that this LDS webmaster has collected for the Book of Mormon. You may still think this evidence isn’t of sufficient quality and/or quantity to make you want to look into it further, but let’s not go back and forth with these kinds of claims about “no evidence.”

Incidentally, this is what flameburns was complaining about Abanes–he doesn’t do well with ambiguity. Let’s all grow up and quit acting like fundamentalists, here.

Even the owner of the website tempers his claims about the evidence he is pointing to.

Look–150 out from the death of Christ, we had a lot more evidence for Christianity than we have for Mormonism 150 years out. We knew where Jerusalem was, we knew where to find the Jewish people from whom Jesus and the Apostles were descended, we had written testimony from people who had known the Apostles and others who had been alive to see Jesus, we had the grandchildren and great-grandchildren of Christians who had known the grandparents or great-grandparents who had known at least one of those Apostles. We may even have had autografa–original documents, written by the actual hand of an Apostle or at least dictated by him to a scribe.

In general, the evidence is such that very few historians of any repute even now question most of the details of the Christian story–that there was a Jesus of Nazareth; that he taught and died in Jerusalem; that he had followers, including a select group of twelve; which followers promulgated Jesus’ teachings following His crucifixion, proclaiming Jesus to be risen from the dead; and so forth. Many secular historians bring to the subject an out-of-hand rejection of the supernatural, and so they tend to discount the miraculous aspects of Christ: His Virgin Birth; His healings; His literal, historical resurrection; and such. Only a few, however, venture any further, denying that Christ ever existed at all for example.

As things stand right now–we don’t know with any certainty where any of the lands of the BoM might be, we don’t know which native people-groups might be of Semitic descent–thus far, none seems to be–and, we have no indisputable, accepted artifacts clearly identifiable as Nephite or Lamanite in origin. Most of what we do have–using Occam’s Razor as our guide–points to the BoM as being of 19th-century origin probably at the hand of Joseph Smith (I have seen no case for co-authors of the book which convince me personally).

This is not a test of Richard Abanes’ ability to tolerate ambiguity. My point there was in respect to Richard’s depiction of Smith’s own motives and character: I think that Smith was a complex character whose motives and actions were by turns good and nefarious. Richard has defended his interpretation of Smith in this thread, and while he has not convinced me–that tends to be more a question of my personal taste in historical writing. Remember that I am not a professional scholar. Richard is at least an amateur one–he went into dusty archives and such and did the homework. I just read his book, compared it mentally with other books I had read, and decided I don’t think Richard’s book is as good as some others I have read.

Make no mistake though: Richard and I agree that the teachings of the LDS Church are wrong and that those errors represent a grave spiritual danger to those who accept Mormonism as a way of life.

 

[Brennan_Doherty]

This is just what I referred to earlier. Some people think in such black-and-white terms that they have to believe that there “is no evidence” for conclusions they disagree with, and the conclusions they agree with are all but proven.

Brennan, why don’t you go to this page, and peruse the evidence that this LDS webmaster has collected for the Book of Mormon. You may still think this evidence isn’t of sufficient quality and/or quantity to make you want to look into it further, but let’s not go back and forth with these kinds of claims about “no evidence.”

Incidentally, this is what flameburns was complaining about Abanes–he doesn’t do well with ambiguity. Let’s all grow up and quit acting like fundamentalists, here.

I will go to that page. However, when I read quotes from archeologists or institutions like the Smithsonian stating that there is literally no archeological evidence for the cities or peoples in the Book of Mormon it is not “fundamentalist” to believe them; it is rational. Faced with this, it is far more rational to suppose that maybe, just maybe, Joseph Smith made up quite a bit of the Book of Mormon is rational. To call something “fundamentalist” in my mind is equivalent to calling it “anit-intellectual” which is not the stance I am taking.

Now, if I go to this link and discover evidence or arguments that somehow archeologists or institutions which study archeology have missed or overlooked then my conclusion can be revised.

 

[zerinus]

I will go to that page. However, when I read quotes from archeologists or institutions like the Smithsonian stating that there is literally no archeological evidence for the cities or peoples in the Book of Mormon it is not “fundamentalist” to believe them; it is rational. Faced with this, it is far more rational to suppose that maybe, just maybe, Joseph Smith made up quite a bit of the Book of Mormon is rational. To call something “fundamentalist” in my mind is equivalent to calling it “anit-intellectual” which is not the stance I am taking.

Now, if I go to this link and discover evidence or arguments that somehow archeologists or institutions which study archeology have missed or overlooked then my conclusion can be revised.

If you are looking for archaeology, you can try this link too, and tell me what you think.

zerinus