Looking for " other side " of Mormanism

[BDawg]

Hi Maj,

which is henotheistic at best. LDS believe that the “trinity” is one in PURPOSE only. they do not believe them to be the only Gods either.

This is an extremely deficient view. I’m not blaming you, however. It’s a general problem with most LDS lesson materials, so if that’s all you learned when you were a Mormon, I’m not surprised. However, consider the following quotations, which to me indicated that the Oneness of God is more complete than you let on.

“We may be influenced and directed from above, being united with the Gods in heaven we may become one in all things upon the earth, and afterwards one in the heavens.” (John Taylor, JD 19:305.)

“If, then, the one hundred and forty-four thousand are to have the name of God inscribed on their foreheads, will it be simply a plaything, a something that has no meaning? or will it mean that which the inscriptions specify?—that they are indeed Gods—one with the Father and one with the Son; as the Father and Son are one, and both of them called Gods, so will all His children be one with the Father and the Son, and they will be one so far as carrying out the great purposes of Jehovah is concerned. No divisions will be there but a complete oneness; not a oneness in person but a perfect oneness in action in the creation, redemption, and glorification of worlds.” (Orson Pratt, JD 14: 243.)

“If men are faithful, the time will come when they will possess the power and the knowledge to obtain, organize, bring into existence, and own. “What, of themselves, independent of their Creator?” No. But they and their Creator will always be one, they will always be of one heart and of one mind, working and operating together; for whatsoever the Father doeth so doeth the son, and so they continue throughout all their operations to all eternity.” (Brigham Young, JD 2: 305–306.)

“When shall we become entirely independent? Never, though we are as independent in our spheres as the Gods of eternity are in theirs.” (Brigham Young, JD 8:190.)

“Is he one? Yes. Is his trinity one? Yes. Is his organization one? Are the heavens one? Yes.” (Brigham Young, JD 14:93–94.)
I think what goes on is that people get so bent on showing that we DON’T believe the regular Trinity doctrine that they go too far the other way. Does that make sense?

now who’s leaving things out to create a distorted view? he was not eternally God. foreordination even comes after “birth” as a spirit child. so in LDS doctrine there was a time when Elohim and Jehovah existed as “intelligences” (not really defined what that means) who were not divine and not even fore ordained to become divine. Elohim had to endure a mortal existence and be obedient to his own “heavenly father” before Jehovah was ever his “son”. and we must extend this out to his God having done the same in an “eternal REgression” as well eternal PROgression. so there are an infinite number of beings more powerful and glorious than elohim and though he progresses endlessly so do they so that the “chain” is never broken.

Hold on. On the “Nature of God in Mormonism” thread, Rebecca just mentioned something about Catholics believing that Jesus is eternally Incarnate, even before the Creation. She rationalized this by saying that Time doesn’t work the same for God. Anyway, for Mormons, Jesus is eternally God because he was God in the eternities before the Creation, is God now, and will forever be God in the eternities after the Creation. How does time work in the eternities? Hell if we know.

But then you say we believe there are any number of beings who are more powerful and glorious than our Father. This is false. The Father and Son have ALL power in heaven and earth. If there are gradations in glory among separate Beings, that’s another issue. All of them are ONE. All of them share the same power.

I try to obey god and be my brothers keeper in spreading his word as best i can. i feel the need to be very blunt about it. polite failures to evangelize will be of little comfort in Hell. Those who accept the true faith will certainly not complain about how they were converted once in heaven. I do not wish to stand before God at the time of judgment and say I politely respected all the heretics views and lovingly left them in their errors.

You seem like a decent guy to me, Maj. I don’t mind bluntness.

 

[zerinus]

which is henotheistic at best. LDS believe that the “trinity” is one in PURPOSE only. they do not believe them to be the only Gods either.
i think the lack of a catechism equivalent and rampant speculation on the part of members as evidenced in any Gospel doctrine class make sthis problematic to do. I think the general consensus is there and is not surprisingly very close to Mconkie’s positions. That causes me to believe that cognitive dissonance is more common than harmonizing
yes i believe it is BUT, i think it still essentially what was taught.
now who’s leaving things out to create a distorted view? he was not eternally God. foreordination even comes after “birth” as a spirit child. so in LDS doctrine there was a time when Elohim and Jehovah existed as “intelligences” (not really defined what that means) who were not divine and not even fore ordained to become divine. Elohim had to endure a mortal existence and be obedient to his own “heavenly father” before Jehovah was ever his “son”. and we must extend this out to his God having done the same in an “eternal REgression” as well eternal PROgression. so there are an infinite number of beings more powerful and glorious than elohim and though he progresses endlessly so do they so that the “chain” is never broken.

well it’s a start. it works for LDS missionaries for the same reasons that CA recommends it. once the person divulges THEIR methodology for believing despite perceived contradictions then you can look for the best approach. some will accept history or logic better others are more likely to respond to emotional appeals. some prefer the “mystical”. i myself do not like to get all “salesy” and try to optimize the approach based on sales formulas.it’s not a contest and I see no point in “winning” a debate contest or manipulating the “weak minded” into my viewpoint. This is the fate of souls for all eternity. I try to obey god and be my brothers keeper in spreading his word as best i can. i feel the need to be very blunt about it. polite failures to evangelize will be of little comfort in Hell. Those who accept the true faith will certainly not complain about how they were converted once in heaven. I do not wish to stand before God at the time of judgment and say I politely respected all the heretics views and lovingly left them in their errors.

LDS doctrine teaches that there is only one God, in the literal sense, not in the collective sense; and that one God is the Father:

Moses 1:

6 And I have a work for thee, Moses, my son; and thou art in the similitude of mine Only Begotten; and mine Only Begotten is and shall be the Savior, for he is full of grace and truth; but there is no God beside me, and all things are present with me, for I know them all.

Did you get that? “No God beside me”. That is the Father speaking. So He is the one and only supreme God over all. He is everyone’s God—the God of gods and Lord of lords. He is the God that all other Gods worship. He is the God Whom Jesus worships:

John 20:

17 Jesus saith unto her, Touch me not; for I am not yet ascended to my Father: but go to my brethren, and say unto them, I ascend unto my Father, and your Father; and to my God, and your God.

D&C 88:

75 That I may testify unto your Father, and your God, and my God, that you are clean from the blood of this wicked generation; that I may fulfil this promise, this great and last promise, which I have made unto you, when I will.

This Being is God the Father. He is the Supreme Deity of heaven, above Whom there is no other God; and below Whom there are untold number of saved and exalted beings who worship Him as their one true God—just as Jesus does.

I am sure you will now say, But what about the Mormon belief that they can become gods themselves, and that there are millions of gods in the universe? The answer is the same as the one that I had given to you millions of times before, and also comprehensively explained in my Blog. Firstly, in LDS doctrine, deification is simply another term for salvation and exaltation. It does not mean that we become gods independent of the supreme Deity of heaven, and that we are not dependent on, or need to worship Him anymore. Secondly, as I have shown numerous times, this doctrine is fully in agreement with the beliefs and teachings of the Early Church Fathers. They not only believed fully in the deification of man and the plurality of gods; but they even believe that there were a hierarchy of gods! Just as Jesus is God in rank below God the Father, there will be other gods in rank below Him! But ultimately there is only ONE God in heaven, Who is God the Father; beside Whom there is no other God (Moses 1:6). I have already discussed that at length in my blog articles which you can read here and here.

zerinus

 

[AMDGtoo]

Rebecca just mentioned something about Catholics believing that Jesus is eternally Incarnate, even before the Creation. She rationalized this by saying that Time doesn’t work the same for God.

Awww–BDawg, you disappoint me. She didn’t “rationalize”. That implies that she had to “make up” something to “conform to reason”. You ought to know that that if God created all things, he also created time. It’s not that "time doesn’t work the same for God. And if God created time, that means that He is outside of time. It’s only logical–reasonable. Now who isn’t being totally upfront?

 

[majick275]

LDS doctrine teaches that there is only one God, in the literal sense, not in the collective sense; and that one God is the Father:

Moses 1:

6 And I have a work for thee, Moses, my son; and thou art in the similitude of mine Only Begotten; and mine Only Begotten is and shall be the Savior, for he is full of grace and truth; but there is no God beside me, and all things are present with me, for I know them all.

Did you get that? “No God beside me”. That is the Father speaking. So He is the one and only supreme God over all. He is everyone’s God—the God of gods and Lord of lords. He is the God that all other Gods worship. He is the God Whom Jesus worships:

John 20:

17 Jesus saith unto her, Touch me not; for I am not yet ascended to my Father: but go to my brethren, and say unto them, I ascend unto my Father, and your Father; and to my God, and your God.

D&C 88:

75 That I may testify unto your Father, and your God, and my God, that you are clean from the blood of this wicked generation; that I may fulfil this promise, this great and last promise, which I have made unto you, when I will.

This Being is God the Father. He is the Supreme Deity of heaven, above Whom there is no other God; and below Whom there are untold number of saved and exalted beings who worship Him as their one true God—just as Jesus does.

I am sure you will now say, But what about the Mormon belief that they can become gods themselves, and that there are millions of gods in the universe? The answer is the same as the one that I had given to you millions of times before, and also comprehensively explained in my Blog. Firstly, in LDS doctrine, deification is simply another term for salvation and exaltation. It does not mean that we become gods independent of the supreme Deity of heaven, and that we are not dependent on, or need to worship Him anymore. Secondly, as I have shown numerous times, this doctrine is fully in agreement with the beliefs and teachings of the Early Church Fathers. They not only believed fully in the deification of man and the plurality of gods; but they even believe that there were a hierarchy of gods! Just as Jesus is God in rank below God the Father, there will be other gods in rank below Him! But ultimately there is only ONE God in heaven, Who is God the Father; beside Whom there is no other God (Moses 1:6). I have already discussed that at length in my blog articles which you can read here and here.

zerinus

nice straw man. you choose to ignore the words of joseph smith when he addressed the LDS church during general conference and taught about how Elohim earned his salvation. you also would appear to reject the subsequent teachings on that subject from the likes of lorenzo snow, Joseph fielding smith and all manner of “apostles” on this subject. try reading the current LDS gospel principles manual. you are deliberately misrepresenting LDS doctrine to avoid dealing with this issue. from the time of JS to the present the LDS teaching on eternal progression is that has always existed and always will. your God has a God who has a God and so on. clever semantics don’t harmonize this with scripture. i know the twists and turns you take to define Elohim as the only “God” yet still be able to say that Jesus is God and the Holy Ghost is…well you don’t really know do you? after all with no body there can be no exaltation can there? here are a few good lessons for you to study on the subject:

lds.org/ldsorg/v/index.jsp?vgnextoid=84010fd41d93b010VgnVCM1000004d82620aRCRD&locale=0&hideNav=1&pageNumber=1&maxResults=20&NARROW_BY=&query=eternal+progression&bucket=LessonManuals&dateFrom=&dateTo=&AUTHOR_CATEGORY=&AUTHOR_NAME=&FORMAT=&submitSearch=Search&dateFromDisplay=&dateToDisplay=&findByAuthor=

 

[J_C]

So why did so many Mormons find Bennett’s story so appealing? Because it makes us feel good to think that a Catholic priest studying anti-Mormon literature would convert to Mormonism. If someone like that converts, then it must be right! Now I don’t have to study it out myself, since someone like good old Isaiah has already obviously examined both sides!

I’ve read Bennet’s book Inside Mormonism where he discusses his conversion to the religion. he admits certain personality faults among them an unwillingness to consult with and submit to his peers and superiors, which contributed to his poor decisions. where he discloses that almost immediately after he left the priesthood he married, I realized that he was a corrupted individual much earlier than the date of his conversion to mormanism. he must have been pursuing a romantic relationship with this woman for quite some time. It is highly likely that the one led to the other.

so what have we? a defective priest who became a morman, and then after only a few months changed his mind AGAIN: I wonder is how this man ever made it through a seminary. because of this I don’t give much credence to his writings. the very worthy thing he did was to come home to the Catholic Church to be a layman and help others to understand how defective thinking leads to defective decisions.

 

[BDawg]

Awww–BDawg, you disappoint me. She didn’t “rationalize”. That implies that she had to “make up” something to “conform to reason”. You ought to know that that if God created all things, he also created time. It’s not that "time doesn’t work the same for God. And if God created time, that means that He is outside of time. It’s only logical–reasonable. Now who isn’t being totally upfront?

Hi A,

I didn’t mean “rationalize” in a pejorative sense. I just meant that’s how she reasoned it out.

 

[BDawg]

nice straw man.

Hi Maj,

I think Z is at least partially right. To the LDS, there are three ways God is ONE.

1. The Father is the one God, with respect to us. All power and authority that have anything to do with us, flow from him. For instance, Joseph Smith spoke of “the Eternal God of all other gods” (D&C 121:32).

Boyd Packer said,

“The Father is the one true God. This thing is certain: no one will ever ascend above Him; no one will ever replace Him. Nor will anything ever change the relationship that we, His literal offspring, have with Him. He is Elohim, the Father. He is God; of Him there is only one. We revere our Father and our God; we worship Him.” (Boyd K. Packer, Let Not Your Heart Be Troubled, Salt Lake City: Bookcraft, 1991, 293.)

1. The Trinity is One. Bruce McConkie said,

“Monotheism is the doctrine or belief that there is but one God. If this is properly interpreted to mean that the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost—each of whom is a separate and distinct godly personage—are one God, meaning one Godhead, then true saints are monotheists.” (article on Monotheism in Mormon Doctrine)

1. All those who are “gods” are completely one in each other. See all the quotations I gave a couple posts up.

On the other hand, it seems like I don’t agree with Z on one point. That is, I believe Joseph Smith was right about God possibly having a Father, etc. But that doesn’t make Z dishonest. Stephen Robinson has expressed similar views, so Z isn’t way out there, from a contemporary Mormon perspective. Like GB Hinckley said, this isn’t something we discuss much, because it’s sort of out on the edge of our doctrine, and it’s hard to understand.

 

[PaulDupre]

They say, “Moreover, Mormons teach that Christ is a secondary, inferior god. He does not exist from all eternity.” But this is false. Everyone existed from eternity in our view.

Now, I think, it is you who are oversimplifying. Mormons teach that spirits are composed of a type of matter called “intelligence”, which is “organized” by the gods into spirit babies. Jesus (Jehovah) was at one time a spirit baby of Elohim. Even if this raw material existed from eternity it does not mean that Jesus’ spirit as an individual person has existed that long, and it certainly belies the notion that Jesus has existed for all eternity as God.

It would be like saying that since the raw materials that make up my body have existed since soon after the time of the Big Bang, that I have been a computer professional for 14 billion years!

Paul

 

[PaulDupre]

LDS doctrine teaches that there is only one God, in the literal sense, not in the collective sense; and that one God is the Father:

Well, you and BDawg will just have to fight it out amongst yourselves.

 

[BDawg]

Well, you and BDawg will just have to fight it out amongst yourselves.

GRRRRRRrrrrrrrr. Ruff, Ruff!

 

[PaulDupre]

Hold on. On the “Nature of God in Mormonism” thread, Rebecca just mentioned something about Catholics believing that Jesus is eternally Incarnate, even before the Creation. She rationalized this by saying that Time doesn’t work the same for God. Anyway, for Mormons, Jesus is eternally God because he was God in the eternities before the Creation, is God now, and will forever be God in the eternities after the Creation. How does time work in the eternities? Hell if we know.

BDawg,

If that’s what you got from her post, then it went over your head.

In Mormonism, the gods are subject to time because they arose from within the existing universe of energy, matter, space and time. The Mormon gods are composed of matter. Wherever matter exists and moves through space there is time.

In Christianity, God existed by himself. There was nothing but HIM. He is not composed of anything. At some point he created energy, matter and space, which resulted in the beginning of time. Just as a watchmaker does not live inside the watch and is not controlled by it, so God does not live inside the universe he created and is not subject to its laws. He lives outside of time and space, which is why all things are eternally present to him.

Paul

 

[majick275]

Hi Maj,

I think Z is at least partially right. To the LDS, there are three ways God is ONE.

1. The Father is the one God, with respect to us. All power and authority that have anything to do with us, flow from him. For instance, Joseph Smith spoke of “the Eternal God of all other gods” (D&C 121:32).

see the highlighted words. yes i agree with you that this is how mormons interpret this.

Boyd Packer said,

"The Father is the one true God. This thing is certain: no one

OF US!

will ever ascend above Him; no one will ever replace Him. Nor will anything ever change the relationship that we, His literal offspring, have with Him. He is Elohim, the Father. He is God; of Him there is only one. We revere our Father and our God; we worship Him." (Boyd K. Packer, Let Not Your Heart Be Troubled, Salt Lake City: Bookcraft, 1991, 293.)

still doesn’t address my point about eternal regression or the history/nature of elohim.

1. The Trinity is One. Bruce McConkie said,

“Monotheism is the doctrine or belief that there is but one God. If this is properly interpreted to mean that the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost—each of whom is a separate and distinct godly personage—are one God, meaning one Godhead, then true saints are monotheists.” (article on Monotheism in Mormon Doctrine)

excellent example. Mconkie just redefines terms and presto! monotheists.

1. All those who are “gods” are completely one in each other. See all the quotations I gave a couple posts up.

only if we are discussing exalted humans from this earth and “our” relationship with elohim.

On the other hand, it seems like I don’t agree with Z on one point. That is, I believe Joseph Smith was right about God possibly having a Father, etc. But that doesn’t make Z dishonest. Stephen Robinson has expressed similar views, so Z isn’t way out there, from a contemporary Mormon perspective. Like GB Hinckley said, this isn’t something we discuss much, because it’s sort of out on the edge of our doctrine, and it’s hard to understand.

possibly??? please. JS and BY and many others said in very concrete terms that he did. GBH was dissembling and that’s putting it mildly. if you had asked this question in any ward in the 70’s and probably even the 80’s you would have gotten a resounding agreement. i admit the teachings today are very “watered down” but it’s still in the lesson manuals and the reasoning behind it is essential top the whole LDS meaning of exaltation. mainly that humans are embryonic Gods. some will survive through Gods loving care but will not reach their full potential, some will be decoured by “predators”, a few will grow into adult Gods just like him. he will still be greater and the relationship is the same cuz he is still their father and their god but they will be Gods themselves and the cycle will repeat itself without end. this is not new and has always existed. i don’t understand why some LDs try so hard to deny this doctrine as it is one of Mormonism biggest selling points. of course to me it is their biggest blasphemy. the first temptation…you will be Gods…

 

[BDawg]

possibly??? please. JS and BY and many others said in very concrete terms that he did. GBH was dissembling and that’s putting it mildly.

I agree with you. I think GBH was humming and hahing about it because it really, truly is at the edge of our understanding, and we don’t understand how an “eternal regression” would work, probably because we don’t understand how time works in the eternities.

The only point I can make about this is that you sure make a big deal about Mormons not understanding how “eternity” works, when you guys admit that you don’t understand how three distinct Persons can comprise a single, SIMPLE Divine Nature. It seems to me that we can point these things out to each other, assess the strength of the different positions however seems best to us, shrug our shoulders, and move on. Honestly, you guys really do constantly harp on this point, around here.

 

[zerinus]

On the other hand, it seems like I don’t agree with Z on one point. That is, I believe Joseph Smith was right about God possibly having a Father, etc. But that doesn’t make Z dishonest. Stephen Robinson has expressed similar views, so Z isn’t way out there, from a contemporary Mormon perspective. Like GB Hinckley said, this isn’t something we discuss much, because it’s sort of out on the edge of our doctrine, and it’s hard to understand.

In a couple of interviews that Hinckley gave to Time Magazine and San Francisco Chrinicle he repudiated that doctrine. Here are the quotes:

Q: There are some significant differences in your beliefs. For instance, don’t Mormons believe that God was once a man?

A: I wouldn’t say that. There was a little couplet coined, “As man is, God once was. As God is, man may become.” Now that’s more of a couplet than anything else. That gets into some pretty deep theology that we don’t know very much about. Source.

Q: …about that, God the Father was once a man as we were. This is something that Christian writers are always addressing. Is this the teaching of the church today, that God the Father was once a man like we are?

A: I don’t know that we teach it. I don’t know that we emphasize it. I haven’t heard it discussed for a long time in public discourse. I don’t know. I don’t know all the circumstances under which that statement was made. I understand the philosophical background behind it. But I don’t know a lot about it and I don’t know that others know a lot about it. Source.

The ultimate source of LDS doctrine is the standard works; and that doctrine is not found in the standard works.

zerinus

 

[PaulDupre]

That’s a repudiation?? Sounds like weasel words to me.

 

[majick275]

if the standard works are the only source of binding doctrine then how come exaltation is dependent on the Temple endowment and sealings that aren’t in those standard works?

come on…sola scriptura in mormonism? that is contradictory to the whole purpose of “living prophets” and “oracles of the lord”. you don’t believe the Bible to be correct enough to provide salvation, the BoM has had to be corrected multiple times and even we just say printing errors, spelling, punctuation, etc. it doesn’t even scratch the surface of LDS doctrine and practice. most of that is in the D&C…the one standard work that has been changed the most. it has seen absolute contradictions more than once and then changed. i could bring up the PoGP but that’s like fish in a barrel. facsimiles??? please…

mormons have and still do teach eternal progression just as i described it. talk to us after you’ve been through the temple Z then maybe you’ll understand mormon doctrine.

 

[BDawg]

if the standard works are the only source of binding doctrine then how come exaltation is dependent on the Temple endowment and sealings that aren’t in those standard works?

come on…sola scriptura in mormonism? that is contradictory to the whole purpose of “living prophets” and “oracles of the lord”. you don’t believe the Bible to be correct enough to provide salvation, the BoM has had to be corrected multiple times and even we just say printing errors, spelling, punctuation, etc. it doesn’t even scratch the surface of LDS doctrine and practice. most of that is in the D&C…the one standard work that has been changed the most. it has seen absolute contradictions more than once and then changed. i could bring up the PoGP but that’s like fish in a barrel. facsimiles??? please…

mormons have and still do teach eternal progression just as i described it. talk to us after you’ve been through the temple Z then maybe you’ll understand mormon doctrine.

Hi Maj,

Z is right that the Standard Works are the source of official doctrine. The Temple ceremonies don’t teach any new doctrine. Anyway, we do believe in living prophets, but since we don’t have any doctrine of infallibility, not everything that a prophet says is necessarily a revelation.

I think Z is on the “minimalist” side of the Mormon theological spectrum; i.e., he only feels bound to defend what Mormonism OFFICIALLY teaches. There are a lot of people like that, and it’s an understandable position. I am a little different, however, because I figure that if Joseph Smith clearly taught it, and bunches of prophets have taught it since, then even if it isn’t as “official” as many of our other teachings, it’s probably true, anyway. (Don’t you guys have different levels of how “official” a doctrine is? E.g., the “Limbo” teaching made it into the Baltimore Catechism, but now the doctrine is in… well, Limbo. )

So there you have it. Not everything that drops out of a prophet’s mouth is necessarily a revelation. On the other hand, just because it hasn’t been made “official,” that doesn’t mean something the prophets said wasn’t based on a revelation.

 

[BartBurk]

Hi Maj,

Z is right that the Standard Works are the source of official doctrine. The Temple ceremonies don’t teach any new doctrine. Anyway, we do believe in living prophets, but since we don’t have any doctrine of infallibility, not everything that a prophet says is necessarily a revelation.

I think Z is on the “minimalist” side of the Mormon theological spectrum; i.e., he only feels bound to defend what Mormonism OFFICIALLY teaches. There are a lot of people like that, and it’s an understandable position. I am a little different, however, because I figure that if Joseph Smith clearly taught it, and bunches of prophets have taught it since, then even if it isn’t as “official” as many of our other teachings, it’s probably true, anyway. (Don’t you guys have different levels of how “official” a doctrine is? E.g., the “Limbo” teaching made it into the Baltimore Catechism, but now the doctrine is in… well, Limbo. )

So there you have it. Not everything that drops out of a prophet’s mouth is necessarily a revelation. On the other hand, just because it hasn’t been made “official,” that doesn’t mean something the prophets said wasn’t based on a revelation.

Interesting. I took Zerinius’ position just before I decided Mormonism was a bunch of hooey. I even defended the idea of the Trinity from Mormon scriptures and wrote a long paper I had up on a web site. It was my last gasp at trying to make Mormonism make sense to me. So perhaps the minimalist position is the one taken just before admitting that it’s all bunk?

 

[why_me]

I don’t think that Mormonism will ever be proven wrong. It has gone beyond that. Most of the antimormonism now found on the internet existed at the time of the founding of the church. Salomon Spaulding was out there well over a hundred years ago, as was Sidney as author. Nothing is really new. The early mormons heard it all and some fell away and many stayed connected with the lds church.

The only thing that will destroy the lds religion is if information is discovered that directly links Joseph Smith to book of mormon authorship by finding a rough draft in JS’s handwriting as an example. And links any other theories through factual evidence to authorship by a mortal human being. Dale Broadhurst has not done this. I have dialogued with him on the mormonapologetic site.

The mormon faith and the catholic faith are both wonderful faiths for people to adhere to. I have respect for the both of them and both are in my family. If people would begin to concentrate on what is good in both faiths and begin to work together ( as happens from time to time) our world would be better for it.

Anyway it is good to back on the forums after a suspension!

 

[BartBurk]

I don’t think that Mormonism will ever be proven wrong. It has gone beyond that. Most of the antimormonism now found on the internet existed at the time of the founding of the church. Salomon Spaulding was out there well over a hundred years ago, as was Sidney as author. Nothing is really new. The early mormons heard it all and some fell away and many stayed connected with the lds church.

The only thing that will destroy the lds religion is if information is discovered that directly links Joseph Smith to book of mormon authorship by finding a rough draft in JS’s handwriting as an example. And links any other theories through factual evidence to authorship by a mortal human being. Dale Broadhurst has not done this. I have dialogued with him on the mormonapologetic site.

The mormon faith and the catholic faith are both wonderful faiths for people to adhere to. I have respect for the both of them and both are in my family. If people would begin to concentrate on what is good in both faiths and begin to work together ( as happens from time to time) our world would be better for it.

Anyway it is good to back on the forums after a suspension!

Mormonism has already been proven wrong. We don’t need a Spalding theory to figure that out. All you have to do is look at the scientific evidence that clearly shows Native Americans migrated from Asia, not the Middle East. I agree with you that Mormons have created a nice church, but it is a result of making a lemon into lemonade. The Book of Mormon is a clumsy attempt to create a history of ancient America which doesn’t stand-up to scrutiny. Nephites and Lamanites only existed in the minds of the creators of the Book of Mormon whoever they happened to be.