LDS and ancient record...

[blueadept]

Anyone else noticing a theme developing here?

It would help their cause IMO if they could produce some type of physical evidence at least to ponder. Their best evidence for the BoM is their speculation of some stuff on the Arabian peninsula. I never gave it much credence since the remarkable part of their story is that Lehi could even build and make ships back then to make it the Americas. That’s a leap of faith the size of the Grand Canyon IMHO. I don’t believe God would make it that difficult for us to develop that faith. I prefer the physical evidence of the RCC in the form of the incorruptible saints. Faith of this nature is much easier to accept IMHO.

Since LDS members consider themselves as saints, I’'m waiting for them to show some incorruptible saints like the RCC has shown over the centuries.

How long do you think I’ll have to wait?..

 

[Z_Ninja]

Anyone else noticing a theme developing here?

this seems to follow along when I’m told I didn’t pray sincerely or I was already holding MY answer in my heart when I say I prayed if the Book of Mormon is true and I don’t believe it is.

 

[Telstar]

The bottom line I guess is people believe what they want. Sometimes Mormons when confronted by the evidence start digging more and discover the great inconsistencies of the church and it’s repeated efforts to whitewash and hide the truth. That leads to a crisis of faith and leaving the church. Others dismiss it as “anti” literature and stick their head back in the sand. The church and it’s leaders encourage this approach by constantly talking about how Satan likes to attack your testimony, etc.

I think the part I highlighted is the key to all LDS hanging onto their faith, against all odds. If they don’t put their fingers in their ears and yell, “lalalalalalalalala” when someone gives them solid evidence that it’s a total sham, they’re afraid they might lose their ‘testimony’. To them, that would be the end of the world that they’ve grown up believing, like when people refused to believe that the world was actually round because they had always believed it was flat. They’ve been so programmed (for lack of a better term) to believe that anyone that would challenge their faith must be a demon, that they won’t even allow themselves to consider any other alternatives. It’s the fear factor that kicks in and keeps them in their ‘comfort zone’.

It would help their cause IMO if they could produce some type of physical evidence at least to ponder. Their best evidence for the BoM is their speculation of some stuff on the Arabian peninsula. I never gave it much credence since the remarkable part of their story is that Lehi could even build and make ships back then to make it the Americas. That’s a leap of faith the size of the Grand Canyon IMHO. I don’t believe God would make it that difficult for us to develop that faith. I prefer the physical evidence of the RCC in the form of the incorruptible saints. Faith of this nature is much easier to accept IMHO.

Since LDS members consider themselves as saints, I’'m waiting for them to show some incorruptible saints like the RCC has shown over the centuries.

How long do you think I’ll have to wait?..

That’s the biggest problem when your whole belief system is built on ‘faith alone’. You can’t let a little thing like physical evidence deter you, or you’re seen as being ‘unfaithful’.

 

[blueadept]

I think the part I highlighted is the key to all LDS hanging onto their faith, against all odds. If they don’t put their fingers in their ears and yell, “lalalalalalalalala” when someone gives them solid evidence that it’s a total sham, they’re afraid they might lose their ‘testimony’. To them, that would be the end of the world that they’ve grown up believing, like when people refused to believe that the world was actually round because they had always believed it was flat. They’ve been so programmed (for lack of a better term) to believe that anyone that would challenge their faith must be a demon, that they won’t even allow themselves to consider any other alternatives. It’s the fear factor that kicks in and keeps them in their ‘comfort zone’.
.

After living in a Catholic/LDS household for 7 years, overall I’ll disagree with your observations. There are times that I would prefer not to explain the mystery of the Trinity versus the humanized LDS version of the nature of God. It’s not that I buy their concept but it’s easier to understand. Then, they add the ‘good fruits’ of their faith, it shouldn’t be surprising they would choose to defend their beliefs. The key to their belief system is that they honestly believe in the Apostasy and that the keys of the priesthood was removed from the earth and eventually given to Joseph Smith to give to the world that started with the First Vision and then other visitations. If you believe ANY part of the BoM or Joseph Smith story, it’s easy to believe the whole thing even with the lack of physical evidence. That’s where the role of faith comes in for Mormons. Faithful Mormons have ALL prayed about it and that does include some very scholarly folks. In my community, many of the higher up scientists and engineers are LDS folks. It’s like a snowball effect. Since there are obvious well off people in the faith, there must be some truth to their beliefs (or so the thought goes). Is it any wonder that the LDS church places such a high regard on education and helps supplement the faithful in attending BYU?

If you think all LDS stick their heads in the sand, I suggest you reevaluate your basic approach with them.

 

[blueadept]

That means not a thing about the Book of Mormon, though. One’s frame of reference has everything to do with their reaction to reading it.

.

I agree with your analysis about your ‘frame of reference.’

IMHO, one needs a sincere heart and desire for the BoM to be true to get an affirmative answer through prayer. IMO, that’s what I lacked when I prayed about it.

 

[Stephen168]

IMHO, one needs a sincere heart and desire for the BoM to be true to get an affirmative answer through prayer. IMO, that’s what I lacked when I prayed about it.

First the BoM would have to actually be true before one could KNOW it was true by any means. There was nothing lacking in you but much is lacking in the BoM.

 

[blueadept]

First the BoM would have to actually be true before one could KNOW it was true by any means. There was nothing lacking in you but much is lacking in the BoM.

My point was that someone praying about the BoM really needs to want it to be true in order to get an affirmative answer.

Most LDS state that they were honestly neutral about the subject prior to praying about it. I honestly do not know how one can be neutral prior to praying.

 

[Lefty0908]

Oh, but they did heft them.

And if that’s good enough for Mark Twain, that’s good enough for me.

How droll. Rather like this portion of Twain’s reflections on his deeply spiritual experience in Jerusalem at the Church of the Holy Sepulchre (most likely not built by the Mormons).

"The priests tried to show us, through a small screen, a fragment of the genuine Pillar of Flagellation, to which Christ was bound when they scourged him. But we could not see it because it was dark inside the screen. However, a baton is kept here, which the pilgrim thrusts through a hole in the screen, and then he no longer doubts that the true Pillar of Flagellation is in there. He cannot have any excuse to doubt it, for he can feel it with the stick. He can feel it as distinctly as he could feel anything …

But the feature of the place is a short column that rises from the middle of the marble pavement of the chapel and marks the exact center of the earth … To satisfy the headstrong and the foolish that this is the genuine center of the earth, is the fact that from under this very column was taken the dust from which Adam was made. This can surely be regarded in the light of a settler. It is not likely that the original first man would have been made from an inferior quality of earth when it was entirely convenient to get first quality from the world’s center. This will strike any reflecting mind forcibly. That Adam was fromed of dirt procured in this very spot is amply proven by the fact that in six thousand years no man has ever been able to prove that the dirt was not procured here whereof he was made."

Twain continues to skewer the relics and traditions associated with the church via his withering, hilarious, sarcasm (Mark Twain, The Innocents Abroad,, chapter 53). So Campy, because your two-bit mocking cuts both ways and once again exposes the well-entrenched double-standard that I always see applied in this place, I’m more than happy to join you in a hearty guffaw.

 

[Lefty0908]

From what I’ve read, not even the supposed ‘witnesses’ actually saw the plates with their own eyes. They supposedly weren’t allowed to look at them directly (I guess they might have gone blind if they did) but only ‘saw’ them in some kind of ‘vision’, and that was the extent of their ‘sworn testimony’ that they were real.

In case anyone’s interested… I have a famous NY bridge for sale.

The always devastating “from what I’ve read.” Maybe you missed these straightforward statements from eight farmers and artisans regarding the plates:

“We have seen and hefted …”
“We did handle with our hands …”
“We also saw the engravings …”
“And we lie not …”

But these are very esoteric teachings about the plates and are known only to a select few within Mormondom. You can hardly find the statements, buried as they are among the first two pages of every published copy of the Book of Mormon under the heading THE TESTIMONY OF EIGHT WITNESSES (all upper-case lettering in the heading further obscures their location and intent).

But I join you in expressing my enjoyment of reading dopey anti-Mormon literature. From what I’ve read, it’s all so very entertaining!

 

[Stephen168]

My point was that someone praying about the BoM really needs to want it to be true in order to get an affirmative answer.

Most LDS state that they were honestly neutral about the subject prior to praying about it. I honestly do not know how one can be neutral prior to praying.

Ok, I understand what you mean now. But is seems to me that what a Mormon means by “it is true” has changed over the years. I knew the story of the BofM was false from the time I was first told of it, so I could not “feel” neutral about it either.

 

[Tony888]

Ok, I understand what you mean now. But is seems to me that what a Mormon means by “it is true” has changed over the years. I knew the story of the BofM was false from the time I was first told of it, so I could not “feel” neutral about it either.

So that is why an anthiest doesn’t feel the ‘real presence’ when attending a Catholic Mass.

 

[Stephen168]

So that is why an anthiest doesn’t feel the ‘real presence’ when attending a Catholic Mass.

Nice attempted at an anti-Catholic barb but it doesn’t make any sense. And it adds nothing to the conversation. I think this proves you are not here for the conversation.

 

[Telstar]

After living in a Catholic/LDS household for 7 years, overall I’ll disagree with your observations. There are times that I would prefer not to explain the mystery of the Trinity versus the humanized LDS version of the nature of God. It’s not that I buy their concept but it’s easier to understand. Then, they add the ‘good fruits’ of their faith, it shouldn’t be surprising they would choose to defend their beliefs. The key to their belief system is that they honestly believe in the Apostasy and that the keys of the priesthood was removed from the earth and eventually given to Joseph Smith to give to the world that started with the First Vision and then other visitations. If you believe ANY part of the BoM or Joseph Smith story, it’s easy to believe the whole thing even with the lack of physical evidence. That’s where the role of faith comes in for Mormons. Faithful Mormons have ALL prayed about it and that does include some very scholarly folks. In my community, many of the higher up scientists and engineers are LDS folks. It’s like a snowball effect. Since there are obvious well off people in the faith, there must be some truth to their beliefs (or so the thought goes). Is it any wonder that the LDS church places such a high regard on education and helps supplement the faithful in attending BYU?

If you think all LDS stick their heads in the sand, I suggest you reevaluate your basic approach with them.

I admit that not all Mormons will fall into the extreme of that category, but I think it’s a big part of the reason that it’s so difficult to get them to see the real truth, or to see the errors that Joseph Smith taught. You’re also correct that they certainly do produce some very ‘good fruits’ by the lifestyle they choose, most obviously through their works of charity, their practice of chastity, their dedication to their families, etc… That’s the hardest thing to deny about their beliefs. Because they really do try to follow many of the things that Jesus taught, their efforts are bound to produce many good results for their sincere intentions in doing it.

I have no doubt that most LDS are very good people, who really are sincere in their beliefs. Unfortunately, their belief in the BoM and other LDS writings, which is an extension of their belief in Joseph Smith, is where they stray from the true path. That’s what keeps them from looking at him, and his life, objectively. If they could get past the thought of him being a real prophet, then they might be able to see him, and what he taught, in a different light. I think that’s when most of them tend to put their heads in the sand and refuse to listen to anyone that says anything against him or his teachings.

Another thing that makes it even more difficult, is the fear of the repercussions that will happen in their families if they decide to leave that ‘community’. The connections that are interwoven in that community are like a security blanket that they don’t want to have to give up. I can’t really blame them because their community is very close-knit. That’s what I admire most about those that do decide to give it all up to follow Jesus more closely. It takes a lot of faith and fortitude to be able to do that.

 

[Lefty0908]

Re: “ANCIENT RECORDS” in the BOM, Please explain the 3,900 changes in it since it’s first published edition in 1830 in Palmyra, NY. Perhaps ParkerD could obtain an original copy of the BOM & compare it to a recent edition & get back to us on the 3,900 differences and what they truly mean.

Here are some of the devastating changes (at this point, for full effect, cue the pep band to play Darth Vader’s theme from Star Wars – love John Williams’ scores!):

Words deleted: that (188 times), the (48 times), it came to pass (46 times), a and and (40 times), had (29 times).

Words added: of (12 times), and, is, and the (7 times).

Grammatical changes: which to who (891 times), exceeding to exceedingly (177 times), was to were (162 times), is to are (74 times), done to did (10 times).

Typographical errors: aaswer (answer), among (among), bacause (because), daghter (daughter), mnltitude (multitude), theit (theif).

Spelling changes: strait to straight (10 times). Because both words sound the same, Oliver Cowdery always wrote “straight” (the Book of Mormon was a dictated text, but being the expert you are, I’m sure you already knew that). Oliver’s handwriting caused confusion, too. His r, n, b, and l were difficult to distinguish so the printer misread robber to be nobler and formation as foundation. Other spellings that were changed over time were acceptable when first printed in 1830. Words like ahere, adultry, babtized, berfal, centre, devlish, fraid, sepulchre, phrensied, condescention, and burthensome.

That’s a little under 2000 examples. Perhaps you could supply the other 1900 (or don’t Gerald and Sandra Tanner list them?). And while you’re at it, you could also explain the tens of thousands of changes to the text of the Bible over the centuries.

Of course we Mormons are much disturbed when we learn of these substantive(?) changes in the BOM. They’re kept from us by our leaders, you know. The examples I gave you were very hard to find as they appeared in obscure articles in the October 1981 and December 1983 Ensign, which is the official monthly magazine for adults published by The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.

Really, PBMom, LDS scholars have done so much research and analysis on this topic that to hold forth without addressing it is just embarassing. You might at least do a Google search on the name Royal Skousen. Sheesh!

 

[blueadept]

. But is seems to me that what a Mormon means by “it is true” has changed over the years.

You care to further explain what you mean here. LDS have been given a confirmation from the HG if the BoM is true or not. That’s why it’s difficult for non-LDS to honestly discuss the matter with them. How has this ‘it is true’ changed over the years?

 

[RebeccaJ]

The always devastating “from what I’ve read.” Maybe you missed these straightforward statements from eight farmers and artisans regarding the plates:

“We have seen and hefted …”
“We did handle with our hands …”
“We also saw the engravings …”
“And we lie not …”

But these are very esoteric teachings about the plates and are known only to a select few within Mormondom. You can hardly find the statements, buried as they are among the first two pages of every published copy of the Book of Mormon under the heading THE TESTIMONY OF EIGHT WITNESSES (all upper-case lettering in the heading further obscures their location and intent).

But I join you in expressing my enjoyment of reading dopey anti-Mormon literature. From what I’ve read, it’s all so very entertaining!

Upper case lettering makes it true.

None of the 11 “eyewitnesses” ever saw the plates. They all either say they saw or held a square shaped box or object that was covered with a cloth, or, saw with “spiritual eyes”…meaning, they didn’t see the actual plates but had visions.

All of the 8 witnesses were from the Smith or Whitmer families…no objective third party who didn’t have an interest in keeping the Mormon story going.

 

[blueadept]

I have no doubt that most LDS are very good people, who really are sincere in their beliefs. Unfortunately, their belief in the BoM and other LDS writings, which is an extension of their belief in Joseph Smith, is where they stray from the true path. That’s what keeps them from looking at him, and his life, objectively. If they could get past the thought of him being a real prophet, then they might be able to see him, and what he taught, in a different light. I think that’s when most of them tend to put their heads in the sand and refuse to listen to anyone that says anything against him or his teachings. .

…but he is their original Prophet, Seer and Revelator. They’ve already all accepted that the First Vision really happened and most believe that he was human and made mistakes. For them, that makes him even more believable and doesn’t necessarily take away from his character for them. IMO, this is a no-win scenario for non-LDS since it doesn’t necessarily take away from what Joseph Smith was able to establish. They’re 14 million strong and growing.

That’s what’s cool about a book like Rough Stone Rolling that was written by a Mormon. Non-LDS can read it and be convinced that Joseph Smith wasn’t a prophet while LDS folks can read it and be convinced all the questions about him are now answered.

One thing I learned with my LDS wife was that any conversation that involved JS needed to be handled with kid gloves since she revered him. Just the way it was.

 

[Stephen168]

You care to further explain what you mean here. LDS have been given a confirmation from the HG if the BoM is true or not. That’s why it’s difficult for non-LDS to honestly discuss the matter with them. How has this ‘it is true’ changed over the years?

First, we know scientifically that the BoM is not true, so there is no way the HG is telling them that it is true. They are getting a warm tingly feeling that they want to believe is the HG telling them it is true.
When you say it is difficult for non-LDS to discuss ‘the matter’ it depends on ‘the matter.’ If the matter is how they feel, you are right. If it is the truth of the BofM story, then I think you are wrong.

In the early 70’s when my Mormon friends told me the BofM was true; it meant just as Joseph Smith said it was true. It is the story of the original of ALL the aboriginal peoples of the Americas.

Now it seems when a Mormon says the BofM is true; they mean it is about some of the aboriginal peoples in the Americas.

I’ve even heard a guy claiming to be Mormon say it is true; but he meant it is truly an inspirational story with no historic truth at all.

The phrase “it is true” has been changing.

 

[blueadept]

First, we know scientifically that the BoM is not true, so there is no way the HG is telling them that it is true. They are getting a warm tingly feeling that they want to believe is the HG telling them it is true.
When you say it is difficult for non-LDS to discuss ‘the matter’ it depends on ‘the matter.’ If the matter is how they feel, you are right. If it is the truth of the BofM story, then I think you are wrong.

In the early 70’s when my Mormon friends told me the BofM was true; it meant just as Joseph Smith said it was true. It is the story of the original of ALL the aboriginal peoples of the Americas.

Now it seems when a Mormon says the BofM is true; they mean it is about some of the aboriginal peoples in the Americas.

I’ve even heard a guy claiming to be Mormon say it is true; but he meant it is truly an inspirational story with no historic truth at all.

The phrase “it is true” has been changing.

Thanks for the clarification… I’ve seen enough of ‘limited geography’ threads on other sites to appreciate your thought.

I was referring to the thought that LDS KNOW the BoM is true since it’s been conferred by the HG. Non-LDS still see it as a feeling. Oh well.

I believe Tony was trying to make a comparison of this to how Catholics treat the Eucharist in that we KNOW that is Christ. IMO, it’s a poor comparison since Jesus says it 8 times in John 6. Anything that Jesus says that many times I tend to just accept, but that’s just me.

 

[Telstar]

The always devastating “from what I’ve read.” Maybe you missed these straightforward statements from eight farmers and artisans regarding the plates:

“We have seen and hefted …”
“We did handle with our hands …”
“We also saw the engravings …”
“And we lie not …”

But these are very esoteric teachings about the plates and are known only to a select few within Mormondom. You can hardly find the statements, buried as they are among the first two pages of every published copy of the Book of Mormon under the heading THE TESTIMONY OF EIGHT WITNESSES (all upper-case lettering in the heading further obscures their location and intent).

But I join you in expressing my enjoyment of reading dopey anti-Mormon literature. From what I’ve read, it’s all so very entertaining!

The problem that I have in believing any of it, is when you look at some of the more objective accounts of what actually happened (that isn’t whitewashed by LDS ‘historians’), from actual letters and statements written by the witnesses themselves, or other people that were close to them, where they said that they only held them wrapped in a cloth bag, or as Martin Harris said, “I never saw the gold plates, only in a visionary or entranced state.”. He was one of the three original witnesses that all stated that they only saw them in ‘visions’. That’s pretty far from being actual witnesses of the plates, themselves.

If you also take into account that nearly all of the purported ‘witnesses’ were close family members or friends of Smith, then the credibility of their ‘testimony’ becomes even more questionable. Many of them might have had good reason to help perpetuate the story that Smith was trying to sell. Since a couple of the witnesses later recanted their stories, it makes it seem that there may have been other motivations, or coercion, involved in obtaining their signed testimonies.

Is there a problem with looking at things from a more objective point of view? Can those sources be viewed as “anti-Mormon”? Maybe. But, some of their well documented sources are much more convincing to me than taking the word of someone that was well known to be a conman.