"...metallurgy in the Book of Mormon..."

[campeador]

And this proves what exactly? No serious critic of Mormonism believes that Joseph Smith borrowed from the View of the Hebrews. And of course, there have been studies about Joseph Smith and mormonism. But that proves nothing also.

B.H. Roberts was not a ‘serious critic of Mormonism’, that is true. But he was a Mormon leader, historian, and politician who published a six-volume history of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. (wiki source)

Studies of the Book of Mormon, is a collection of previously unpublished manuscripts, written by B.H. Roberts (from wiki):

Roberts gave three conditions that would suggest that one book had been derived from another: that the derivative book had appeared after its model, that the author of the derivative book had access to the model, and that the derivative work be similar to the model. Roberts concluded that* View of the Hebrews* had been published first, that the possibility that Smith had access to it was “a very close certainty,” and that there were many similarities between the works. The bulk of Roberts’ manuscript considers the similarities between View of the Hebrews and the Book of Mormon.

Would you please read what I’ve actually provided and not dismiss it out of hand with some lengthy fairmormon.org ‘cut and paste’ that rarely addresses the points I was trying to make? I don’t think you’ve checked a single link I’ve provided.

You really should research the other side before you reach conclusions. There is more to the picture than the antisites claim.

Is Wikipedia an anti-Mormon site???

 

[why_me]

B.H. Roberts was not a ‘serious critic of Mormonism’, that is true. But he was a Mormon leader, historian, and politician who published a six-volume history of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. (wiki source)

Studies of the Book of Mormon, is a collection of previously unpublished manuscripts, written by B.H. Roberts (from wiki):

Would you please read what I’ve actually provided and not dismiss it out of hand with some lengthy fairmormon.org ‘cut and paste’ that rarely addresses the points I was trying to make? I don’t think you’ve checked a single link I’ve provided.

Is Wikipedia an anti-Mormon site???

I have read them and responded. You need to understand of what BH Roberts was attempted to do. Here is a summary:

B.H. Roberts’ examination of the theory
Main article: B.H. Roberts and Studies of the Book of Mormon
The View of the Hebrews theory was examined in detail by B. H. Roberts in 1921 and 1922. Roberts took the position of examining the Book of Mormon from a critical perspective in order to alert the General Authorities to possible future avenues of attack by critics. The resulting manuscripts were titled Book of Mormon Difficulties and A Parallel. Roberts, who believed in a hemispheric geography for the Book of Mormon, highlighted a number of parallels between View of the Hebrews and The Book of Mormon. Roberts stated,

[C]ould the people of Mulek and of Lehi…part of the time numbering and occupying the land at least from Yucatan to Cumorah…live and move and have their being in the land of America and not come in contact with other races and tribes of men, if such existed in the New World within Book of Mormon times? To make this seem possible the area occupied by the Nephites and Lamanites would have to be extremely limited, much more limited, I fear, than the Book of Mormon would admit our assuming.[3]
Roberts concluded that, if one assumed that Joseph Smith wrote the Book of Mormon himself, that View of the Hebrews could have provided him with a foundation for creating the book. In fact, many of the issues highlighted by Roberts vanish when a limited geography theory is considered. The acceptance of the View of the Hebrews theory is therefore contingent upon the acceptance of a hemispheric geography model for the Book of Mormon. In order to promote View of the Hebrews as a source, critics necessarily reject any limited geography theory proposal for the Book of Mormon.

In 1985, Roberts’ manuscripts were published under the title Studies of the Book of Mormon. This book is used by critics to support their claim that B. H. Roberts lost his testimony after performing the study. Roberts, however, clearly continued to publicly support the Book of Mormon until his death, and reaffirmed his testimony both publicly and in print.

By picking off websites that may not be mormon friendly, you lose the context. And yes, Wikipedia can be antimormon depending on who is writing the information and the interpretation offered.

However, you can find much information about BH Roberts here:

google.com/cse?cx=006480910542272568972%3Adjiv3kx8zqo&ie=UTF-8&q=bh+roberts&siteurl=www.fairlds.org%2F&sa.x=9&sa.y=10

Now I have challenged the interpretation offered here on this thread by quoting Joseph Smith mentioning the view of the hebrews in the newpaper from something that he wrote. I also stated that the book was known among the early saints but no critic ever challenged Joseph Smith about authorship plagarism by using view of the hebrews. It came much later long after he was dead. And now I am showing the context behind BH Roberts research.

Any problems? It is quite easy to find antimormon sources. They are a dime a dozen on the internet. But in the end, what they say comes to naught.

 

[why_me]

Would you please read what I’ve actually provided and not dismiss it out of hand with some lengthy fairmormon.org ‘cut and paste’ that rarely addresses the points I was trying to make? I don’t think you’ve checked a single link I’ve provided.

I have been defending the lds church for a long time. I have seen it all before many times and the interpretations that they offer. But I also know the mormon interpretations. You see for Smith to use the view of the hebrews he would have needed to be seen with the book and writing a book of mormon manucript. But he was never seen with a manuscript. Also, his research would have occured when he was quite young…20 or 21 years old. Critics have him money digging and farming at this time. Not much time to sit down unnoticed to write a book. Also, the amount of rough drafts involved and paper involved would be enormous. The smith family were a little short of money at that time. His taking money for ink, paper and pens would have been noticed.

And even his future wife emma claimed that she never saw him with a manucript and throughout her life, always denied that her husband could have written the book of mormon.

 

[why_me]

The only thing that I could even remotely give credit to Joseph Smith for would be a prodigious imagination. He rivals L. Ron Hubbard himself, who was also a science fiction writer and also manufactured his own religion. Suffice it to say, that even after all the time and treasure spent by the mormon “church” to prove the truth of the BOM, not a shred of evidence exists to verify all the yarns spun by Joseph in hopes of legitimizing his bogus “religion.” This thread merely points out just one of the falsities of the BOM. Prove the BOM? Good luck, mormons.

I don’t know Hose, can you prove the bible true. If so, please inform Richard Dawkins. He needs to know so he can stop wasting his time writing atheistic books. And I do believe that Richard Dawkins can also claim that the gospel writers had a wonderful imagination too. Do you see my point? Life is always difficult on the other side of the fence.

So please, prove the bible true so we no longer need faith but live on evidence that you can provide.

Now of course, this has nothing to do with metals that did exist during book of mormon times as I referenced.

 

[ParkerD]

I have read them and responded. You need to understand of what BH Roberts was attempted to do. Here is a summary:

B.H. Roberts’ examination of the theory
Main article: B.H. Roberts and Studies of the Book of Mormon
The View of the Hebrews theory was examined in detail by B. H. Roberts in 1921 and 1922. Roberts took the position of examining the Book of Mormon from a critical perspective in order to alert the General Authorities to possible future avenues of attack by critics. The resulting manuscripts were titled Book of Mormon Difficulties and A Parallel. Roberts, who believed in a hemispheric geography for the Book of Mormon, highlighted a number of parallels between View of the Hebrews and The Book of Mormon. Roberts stated,

[C]ould the people of Mulek and of Lehi…part of the time numbering and occupying the land at least from Yucatan to Cumorah…live and move and have their being in the land of America and not come in contact with other races and tribes of men, if such existed in the New World within Book of Mormon times? To make this seem possible the area occupied by the Nephites and Lamanites would have to be extremely limited, much more limited, I fear, than the Book of Mormon would admit our assuming.[3]
Roberts concluded that, if one assumed that Joseph Smith wrote the Book of Mormon himself, that View of the Hebrews could have provided him with a foundation for creating the book. In fact, many of the issues highlighted by Roberts vanish when a limited geography theory is considered. The acceptance of the View of the Hebrews theory is therefore contingent upon the acceptance of a hemispheric geography model for the Book of Mormon. In order to promote View of the Hebrews as a source, critics necessarily reject any limited geography theory proposal for the Book of Mormon.

In 1985, Roberts’ manuscripts were published under the title Studies of the Book of Mormon. This book is used by critics to support their claim that B. H. Roberts lost his testimony after performing the study. Roberts, however, clearly continued to publicly support the Book of Mormon until his death, and reaffirmed his testimony both publicly and in print.

By picking off websites that may not be mormon friendly, you lose the context. And yes, Wikipedia can be antimormon depending on who is writing the information and the interpretation offered.

However, you can find much information about BH Roberts here:

google.com/cse?cx=006480910542272568972%3Adjiv3kx8zqo&ie=UTF-8&q=bh+roberts&siteurl=www.fairlds.org%2F&sa.x=9&sa.y=10

Now I have challenged the interpretation offered here on this thread by quoting Joseph Smith mentioning the view of the hebrews in the newpaper from something that he wrote. I also stated that the book was known among the early saints but no critic ever challenged Joseph Smith about authorship plagarism by using view of the hebrews. It came much later long after he was dead. And now I am showing the context behind BH Roberts research.

Any problems? It is quite easy to find antimormon sources. They are a dime a dozen on the internet. But in the end, what they say comes to naught.

Why me,
I just wanted to thank you for your kindness and continuing patience (far more than I have) as you explain these kinds of matters that come up so often.

 

[why_me]

Why me,
I just wanted to thank you for your kindness and continuing patience (far more than I have) as you explain these kinds of matters that come up so often.

You see parker, I have been around a long time defending the lds church. I no longer give winded explanations. Rather I give a short counter explanation and then paste a piece from FAIR, the Ensign or somewhere else that gives a different interpretation. I stick to context. The catholics on the mormon threads would be much happier if they would stop attempting to prove mormonism untrue and get on living their faith.

My motto: let mormons be mormons and catholics be catholics. And if both groups are living their faith, the world is a better place.

Now I must confess that on another forum (Not MAD) I don’t paste and post from FAIR because these people are seasoned critics and so I need to use my own logic with the knowledge that I know. It usually works quite well. As one poster stated on that forum: Why Me talks a good talk.

 

[ParkerD]

My earlier post did not point to the most obvious answer to your query.

3 Nephi 10:3-6:

Sound familiar? It should:
Matthew 23:37 (KJV):

You could fill many volumes with embellishments like that.

So in your mind, how dare the Savior actually speak to a small group of people who had been taught enough to be His covenant people in the western hemisphere using the same metaphors and similes He used and the prophets used in the Old World with the people there?

When the Second Coming happens, I will expect that the Savior will quote Biblical passages as He teaches the people. That is often what He did when He ministered among men and women during His mortal ministry. Why shouldn’t He? He and the Holy Ghost had inspired the writing of them.

Here is a bigger selection of verses from 3 Nephi 10 that shows, for one thing, the extensive physical changes of the land itself (there is another verse that says “the whole face of the land was changed”), and also tells of the “brass plates” (coming from the Old World) that are a source of much teaching among the Nephite and converted Lamanite groups of people:

3 And it came to pass that there came a voice again unto the people, and all the people did hear, and did witness of it, saying:
4 O ye people of these great cities which have fallen, who are descendants of Jacob, yea, who are of the house of Israel, how oft have I gathered you as a hen gathereth her chickens under her wings, and have nourished you.
5 And again, how oft would I have gathered you as a hen gathereth her chickens under her wings, yea, O ye people of the house of Israel, who have fallen; yea, O ye people of the house of Israel, ye that dwell at Jerusalem, as ye that have fallen; yea, how oft would I have gathered you as a hen gathereth her chickens, and ye would not.
6 O ye house of Israel whom I have spared, how oft will I gather you as a hen gathereth her chickens under her wings, if ye will repent and return unto me with full purpose of heart.
7 But if not, O house of Israel, the places of your dwellings shall become desolate until the time of the fulfilling of the covenant to your fathers.
8 And now it came to pass that after the people had heard these words, behold, they began to weep and howl again because of the loss of their kindred and friends.
9 And it came to pass that thus did the three days pass away. And it was in the morning, and the darkness dispersed from off the face of the land, and the earth did cease to tremble, and the rocks did cease to rend, and the dreadful groanings did cease, and all the tumultuous noises did pass away.
10 And the earth did cleave together again, that it stood; and the mourning, and the weeping, and the wailing of the people who were spared alive did cease; and their mourning was turned into joy, and their lamentations into the praise and thanksgiving unto the Lord Jesus Christ, their Redeemer.
11 And thus far were the scriptures fulfilled which had been spoken by the prophets.
12 And it was the more righteous part of the people who were saved, and it was they who received the prophets and stoned them not; and it was they who had not shed the blood of the saints, who were spared—
13 And they were spared and were not sunk and buried up in the earth; and they were not drowned in the depths of the sea; and they were not burned by fire, neither were they fallen upon and crushed to death; and they were not carried away in the whirlwind; neither were they overpowered by the vapor of smoke and of darkness.
14 And now, whoso readeth, let him understand; he that hath the scriptures, let him search them, and see and behold if all these deaths and destructions by fire, and by smoke, and by tempests, and by whirlwinds, and by the opening of the earth to receive them, and all these things are not unto the fulfilling of the prophecies of many of the holy prophets.
15 Behold, I say unto you, Yea, many have testified of these things at the coming of Christ, and were slain because they testified of these things.
16 Yea, the prophet Zenos did testify of these things, and also Zenock spake concerning these things, because they testified particularly concerning us, who are the remnant of their seed.
17 Behold, our father Jacob also testified concerning a remnant of the seed of Joseph. And behold, are not we a remnant of the seed of Joseph? And these things which testify of us, are they not written upon the plates of brass which our father Lehi brought out of Jerusalem?

 

[SirThomasMore]

Not really. But let me put it this way: North Carolina is a public university. Do you really think that a public university would endorse the web page that seems to be leeching onto it? I don’t think so. Suppose a similiar webpage was started about the catholic faith. Do you think that a public university should be helping catholics leave their faith? Of course, in our biasness we fail to see the wrong. The las time I looked mormons pay state taxes in North Carolina. No public university should be engaged with such a site especially since the site is hooked up to a North Carolina University department’s webpage.

No public university would endorse this type of webpage and so, the site is already suspect. See my point?

And people are entitled to what they want to believe. Do you think that no catholic academic lost their faith and went to the other side? Are they any more reliable than someone else?

You attack the webpage, but not the content. Is it safe to believe then, that you agree with the content but simply have a huge distate to the webpage?

 

[SirThomasMore]

You see parker, I have been around a long time defending the lds church. I no longer give winded explanations. Rather I give a short counter explanation and then paste a piece from FAIR, the Ensign or somewhere else that gives a different interpretation. I stick to context. The catholics on the mormon threads would be much happier if they would stop attempting to prove mormonism untrue and get on living their faith.

My motto: let mormons be mormons and catholics be catholics. And if both groups are living their faith, the world is a better place.

Now I must confess that on another forum (Not MAD) I don’t paste and post from FAIR because these people are seasoned critics and so I need to use my own logic with the knowledge that I know. It usually works quite well. As one poster stated on that forum: Why Me talks a good talk.

When you start posting fr0om FAIR, I don;t read it. I figure, at that point, that you are stumped and need help from an LDS aplologetic website. I have read the site and most of what they say stretches the realm of reason in their efforts to put the round facts into the square Mormon Doctrine.

 

[why_me]

You attack the webpage, but not the content. Is it safe to believe then, that you agree with the content but simply have a huge distate to the webpage?

I don’t agree with the content at all. Everyone has interpretations, Tom. It is no different with the bible. It is just a fact of life. But regardless of all the differing interpretations, the book of mormon has not been proven untrue. Now, most of the stuff written on the internet was also around at the time of Joseph Smith. Nothing is really new. The time to prove the book of mormon false should have occured at the time of Joseph Smith and the 11 witnesses to the book of mormon. Someone would have spilled the beans. Too many people involved for it not to have happened. No one spilled the beans but just the opposite: confirmed their testimony on their deathbeds. And even the wives of the witnesses never spoke out against the book by claiming their husbands told them the ‘truth’…at least to my knowledge. And women have a way of wiggling secrets out of men. And emma, Joseph’s wife continued to teach her children from the book of mormon after her husband was murdered.

So, we are left with a problem: Is the book what it claims to be or isn’t it? But no one at this moment can provide evidence that it isn’t true.

And the website: well, no public university should be having a website helping students to abandon their faith. And that website will be taken down.

 

[why_me]

When you start posting fr0om FAIR, I don;t read it. I figure, at that point, that you are stumped and need help from an LDS aplologetic website. I have read the site and most of what they say stretches the realm of reason in their efforts to put the round facts into the square Mormon Doctrine.

Well, that is your choice. You must prove that it stretches the imagination and stretches the realm of reason. I don’t think so. I have been on this forum a long time and I see the same issues come up over and over again by catholics and usually with absolutely nothing new regardless if the mormons have addressed the issues over and over again. Now what does that tell you? It tells me it is a complete waste of time giving long explanations to the catholics here because the issue will return in a matter of days or a couple of weeks and the same catholics will make the same comments.

I am never stomped. At least so far. Mormon apologetists have heard the same reasoning many times from the critics. And that is why there is FAIR. The work has been done and the critics answered. Why? Because over and over again someone picks something off an antisite and introduces it as if this is something new. But it isn’t new. It has been around for a long time.

 

[SirThomasMore]

Well, that is your choice. You must prove that it stretches the imagination and stretches the realm of reason. I don’t think so. I have been on this forum a long time and I see the same issues come up over and over again by catholics and usually with absolutely nothing new regardless if the mormons have addressed the issues over and over again. Now what does that tell you? It tells me it is a complete waste of time giving long explanations to the catholics here because the issue will return in a matter of days or a couple of weeks and the same catholics will make the same comments.

If it is distateful for you, why stay? We have new people all the time on this board, so yes, topics reappear. They are the same topics you will see on any board where Mormonis, is discussed. And no, I am under no obligation to prove that FAIR is not accurate. If I was on the FAIR website, on their boards, I might. But, I am not. I am here. And when you are stumped and use their words, I am content in knowing you are stumped and had to go someplace where they try to fit round facts in the square LDS doctrine

I am never stomped.

That is good. It is bad enough that you are stumped. I would not want you stomped, too

 

[why_me]

why me;6666495:

Well, that is your choice. You must prove that it stretches the imagination and stretches the realm of reason. I don’t think so. I have been on this forum a long time and I see the same issues come up over and over again by catholics and usually with absolutely nothing new regardless if the mormons have addressed the issues over and over again. Now what does that tell you? It tells me it is a complete waste of time giving long explanations to the catholics here because the issue will return in a matter of days or a couple of weeks and the same catholics will make the same comments.

If it is distateful for you, why stay? We have new people all the time on this board, so yes, topics reappear. They are the same topics you will see on any board where Mormonis, is discussed. And no, I am under no obligation to prove that FAIR is not accurate. If I was on the FAIR website, on their boards, I might. But, I am not. I am here. And when you are stumped and use their words, I am content in knowing you are stumped and had to go someplace where they try to fit round facts in the square LDS doctrine

I am never stomped.

That is good. It is bad enough that you are stumped. I would not want you stomped, too

Well, the mormons are usually stomped on. But not stumped. I don’t find it distasteful at all. I just find it all amazing. The oldtimers know perfectly well the mormon comeback. But they still post the same old same old. And I can understand why. It is much easier to stay in the old mindset, especially if it works for them.

Mormons have come and gone from this forum. Most get tired of the same old same old and leave. They burn out. But I am like an old fire engine…I just keep on trucking.

 

[SirThomasMore]

SirThomasMore;6666517:

Well, the mormons are usually stomped on. But not stumped. I don’t find it distasteful at all. I just find it all amazing. The oldtimers know perfectly well the mormon comeback. But they still post the same old same old. And I can understand why. It is much easier to stay in the old mindset, especially if it works for them.

Mormons have come and gone from this forum. Most get tired of the same old same old and leave. They burn out. But I am like an old fire engine…I just keep on trucking.

lol…thank you for having a sense of humor. Some would have thought my post was an attack, when it was meant in humor.

I suspect that, due to my time as an LDS and my absolutely wonderful memrories of my mission and the temple, and etc etc etc, that I will always feel a pull to the LDS Church. My best friend is LDS and he and I talk about this stuff all the time. Often, I read the old topics that are brought up again to see if anything new will be offered by LDS. Not that there is old stuff that has not been discussed, but that maybe there are new findings, etc.

You know me from the other board. You know how conflicted I can become in my desire to be where God wants me. I am not a Catholic because I want to be, but because this is where I believe God wants me. I try to have an open mind and heart. I find it amazing that, as a managing attorney, a city councilman, and when I was an officer in the Army, that I have always been been so decisive when it comes to making decisions, but that this specific are of my life keeps me conflicted. Maybe that is a good thing. It keeps me open to the will of God.

I know we banter and debate, but I respect all of the Mormons here for their faith and dedication.

To me, there are only two options if you believe Jesus is the Son of God and the Savior: Catholic or LDS. If no Apostasy, then we MUST be Catholic. If an Apostasy, then there would have been a need for a restoration. The topics I typically discuss here are the issues that keep me from returning to the LDS Church.

I was close recently. Things happened in my life and I thought I was headed back. But I simply could not get a testimony of the Book of Mormon.

Anyway, enough rambling. Thank you for your staunch defense of your faith.

 

[lax16]

You see parker, I have been around a long time defending the lds church. I no longer give winded explanations. Rather I give a short counter explanation and then paste a piece from FAIR, the Ensign or somewhere else that gives a different interpretation. I stick to context. The catholics on the mormon threads would be much happier if they would stop attempting to prove mormonism untrue and get on living their faith.

My motto: let mormons be mormons and catholics be catholics. And if both groups are living their faith, the world is a better place.

Now I must confess that on another forum (Not MAD) I don’t paste and post from FAIR because these people are seasoned critics and so I need to use my own logic with the knowledge that I know. It usually works quite well. As one poster stated on that forum: Why Me talks a good talk.

I like your motto whyme.

Unfortunately, Mormons proselytize sending thousands of missionaries around the world to recruit Catholics and others to join your group.
Therefore, Mormons are not letting Catholics be Catholics - you and your church are actively recruiting as we sit here and type.

When the missionaries came to my door they were not invited. Therefore they were seeking me and my family out, insisting we read the BoM, left the BoM, asked who else in the neighborhood might want to hear their message…

Most Catholics I know are living their faith. Some of us (me) choose to live our faith by defending it against people who teach that the Catholic Church is wrong, evil and apostate.

As long as the Mormon church sends out missionaries to proselytize then there will be Catholics who will work to defend the Catholic Church.

 

[campeador]

And yes, Wikipedia can be antimormon depending on who is writing the information and the interpretation offered.

My friend, If you think Wikipedia is in error, I suggest you get an account and start editing right away. Here is the link to their Community portal.

And even his future wife emma claimed that she never saw him with a manucript and throughout her life, always denied that her husband could have written the book of mormon.

I find it quite strange how people can deny the truth throughout their lives and even on their death beds. It seems to be a familiar practice among the LDS. (Wiki quote [sorry]):

Newell and Avery, in their biography, Mormon Enigma, make the claim that Emma witnessed several marriages of Joseph Smith, Jr. to plural wives. However, throughout her lifetime Emma publicly denied knowledge of her husband’s involvement in the practice of polygamy and denied on her deathbed that the practice had ever occurred. Emma stated,

“No such thing as polygamy, or spiritual wifery, was taught, publicly or privately, before my husband’s death, that I have now, or ever had any knowledge of…He had no other wife but me; nor did he to my knowledge ever have."

When the Second Coming happens, I will expect that the Savior will quote Biblical passages as He teaches the people.

Teaches the people??? The Second Coming will be THE END. It is called The Day of Judgment, not of the day of teaching. Nevertheless, if the Lord does speak, I hope he leaves off all the “And it came to pass”…'s.

Here’s what that Great Anti-Mormon Mark Twain had to say (Roughing It, pages 127-28):

The book seems to be merely a prosy detail of imaginary history, with the Old Testament for a model; followed by a tedious plagiarism of the New Testament. The author labored to give his words and phrases the quaint, old-fashioned sound and structure of our King James’s translation of the Scriptures; and the result is a mongrel – half modern glibness, and half ancient simplicity and gravity. The latter is awkward and constrained; the former natural, but grotesque by the contrast. Whenever he found his speech growing too modern – which was about every sentence or two – he ladled in a few such Scriptural phrases as “exceeding sore,” “and it came to pass,” etc., and made things satisfactory again.

“And it came to pass” was his pet. If he had left that out, his Bible would have been only a pamphlet.

 

[ParkerD]

Teaches the people??? The Second Coming will be THE END. It is called The Day of Judgment, not of the day of teaching. Nevertheless, if the Lord does speak, I hope he leaves off all the “And it came to pass”…'s.

Never mind. If you don’t understand that the Savior teaches all the time, including when He comes again, then I can’t help you.

 

[Answersplease]

I didn’t even think of mining…Good Point!

Answersplease:

The full article actually talks more about the various mining they would have to do.

The article also goes into more detail about the complex metallurgy they would have do as well.

The article is very short, it won’t take long to read and I encourage everyone to read it.

The article also contains a link to the author’s story about why the author left Mormonism.

 

[why_me]

I like your motto whyme.

Unfortunately, Mormons proselytize sending thousands of missionaries around the world to recruit Catholics and others to join your group.
Therefore, Mormons are not letting Catholics be Catholics - you and your church are actively recruiting as we sit here and type.

When the missionaries came to my door they were not invited. Therefore they were seeking me and my family out, insisting we read the BoM, left the BoM, asked who else in the neighborhood might want to hear their message…

The mormons are late to the game, lax. How do you think catholicism spead over the world? It certainly wasn’t by word of mouth. Much had to do with colonialism and imperialism with Spain, France and Portugal in the lead. Catholic missionaries just followed the boats. And how did many in Europe become lutheran? It also wasn’t by word of mouth. Some people had no choice but to go with flow because the King and Queen said so.

So, the mormons are only late to the party. That’s all. I think that you should check how Lithuania became catholic. They were quite happy being pagans before politics entered the picture.

Why find fault with mormon missionaries only because they are coming into the game long after the catholic missionaries began their work.

 

[lax16]

The mormons are late to the game, lax. How do you think catholicism spead over the world? It certainly wasn’t by word of mouth. Much had to do with colonialism and imperialism with Spain, France and Portugal in the lead. Catholic missionaries just followed the boats. And how did many in Europe become lutheran? It also wasn’t by word of mouth. Some people had no choice but to go with flow because the King and Queen said so.

So, the mormons are only late to the party. That’s all. I think that you should check how Lithuania became catholic. They were quite happy being pagans before politics entered the picture.

Why find fault with mormon missionaries only because they are coming into the game long after the catholic missionaries began their work.

Thank God for St. Patrick for bringing Catholicism to the pagans of Ireland! He acted in the name of the Catholic Church and was a wonderful example of Christianity. We have reaped the rewards of his work for almost 1700 years.

Over the years some people have acted in the name of the Catholic Church while furthering their own agenda. That doesn’t make it right or the Catholic Church wrong.

Thank you for acknowledging that the Catholic missionaries have been doing their work for a long time.