Mormon church's website addresses 1st vision accounts

[RebeccaJ]

The list of why-Mormonism-is-so-unbelievable is very long. The biggest things for me prior to becoming Catholic were men-becoming Gods, and God being nothing more than a man, and polygamy. During my conversion to Catholicism, the list became even longer. Great Apostasy? Marriage required to live in the presence of God? Children should be denied baptism? The Eucharist is symbolic?

That is a very, very, very short list. Smith & Co. made it all up. I don’t know how that is not obvious to everyone.

 

[twopekinguys]

Thanks twopekinguys.

 

[NeuroTypical]

So if you are not sticking your head in the sand, can you please honestly answer some questions? I have asked versions of these questions in other threads and never received a response.

You mean from me personally, or LDS apologetic response in general? I’m assuming you checked into apologetics already, would that be a correct assumption? If it is, what does it matter what my responses are? It would amount to, assuming you’ve done your homework, stuff you have already rejected as valid.

I’ve decided to not do this much on CAF, because it takes away from my day to give a decent response, but ok. Here goes.

I want to start by reiterating - I’m comfortable with viewing y’all as sincere people with genuine concern over the state of my soul. I have no problem with folks trying to talk me out of what they think is wrong, and into what they think is right. God bless y’all.

1. Given the multiple First Vision accounts which are very different and not consistent (as opposed to the Mount of Transfiguration accounts which are very consistent), why do you believe Joseph Smith?

I’ve said basically everything I have to say about 1st vision accounts in this thread. You can go scan it if you wish.

But ultimately, I believe Joseph, because after a period of doubt and searching for truth, I received a personal witness from the Holy Ghost that the BoM is what it claims to be, and so was Joseph. (Which is basically my answer for the rest of your questions too. I’ve told people this often - the only valid reason to be a Mormon, is you believe God wants you to be one.)

1. Given Joseph’s money digging and treasure seeking days, why do you believe he is trustworthy?

Apart from my answer above, here are additional answers:
2a. Because those who knew him best, be they friends or enemies or both, are on record as trusting him.
2b. Where do you get the notion that prophets need to be perfect? Joseph wasn’t a prophet because of his dumbness, but the occasionally prideful, sinful, lawbreaking, error-prone OT prophets were? You don’t stop being a fallible human just because God chooses you.
2c. I seem to remember something about Peter denying Christ three times? One would think that if past sins or indiscretions invalidated one from leading Christ’s church, Catholicism has been overlooking Peter a heck of a lot longer than mormons have been overlooking Joseph. Why do you believe a guy who actually lied about knowing Christ - not once, not twice, but three times? (I know the answer - because Peter was an apostle of the Lord, hand-picked by Christ himself. And because of the balance of other reasons to believe Peter.)

(I suppose I need to make it clear here, I’m neither bashing the Bible, nor Catholicism. I’m merely taking your question about me believing Joseph’s story because he was sinful, and pointing out that it’s obviously unfounded from not only a scriptural view, but also that you do the same thing. Anyone who tries to claim I’m bashing scripture or Catholicism, is twisting my words.)

1. Joseph was caught with his first “plural wife” Fanny Alger before the alleged restoration of the sealing powers from Elijah which make the new and everlasting covenant of marriage possible. Why do you believe that Fanny was Joseph’s first plural wife rather than his first adulterous relationship?

Out of curiosity, are you choosing to believe the 1838 Oliver Cowdery account, William McLellin’s 1861 account, Frederick Williams’ 1872 account, Cauncey Webb’s 1876 account, Levi Hancock’s 1896 account, Warren Parrish’s account, or one of the others? They all differ in great detail, including her name (Williams called her “Miss Hill”), whether it was an “affair”, “sealing”, or “marriage”, Oliver’s reaction, Joseph’s reaction, and Emma’s reaction. One would think that someone so believing of the importance of 1st vision discrepancies, would be hesitant to convict someone based on such uncorroborated and conflicting testimonies, several of them indicating that there was not even a physical side to the relationship.

1st vision accounts are inconsistent, therefore mormonism is false.
Fanny Alger accounts are inconsistent, therefore the worst one is true.

I’m not seeing the weighty critical power there.

The majority of believing Mormons are educated and intelligent. As I know from experience, they also have a mental shelf and have some level of cognitive dissonance.

I was there and paying attention when CogDis hit the scene as a criticism of mormons. Although the term was coined in the 50’s, it didn’t really hit the public consciousness until the late '90’s. Athiests immediately picked up the phrase as a club to use against believers, and Christians followed shortly after in using it against other religions. It’s a favorite club to use against mormons, because of the soundbyte value. “Come on - polygamy? Seriously? How many wives do you get. One? I call CogDis!”

I get it.

My wife tells a story of when she was on a band trip in high school. They visited a Catholic building - she doesn’t remember which one - lots of stone and high ceilings. She was a rebel back then, jumped a rope, and ended up in the basement where she was caught by someone. She doesn’t remember what his title or office, but they spent 30 minutes together with her bouncing questions off of him about Catholic belief. She kept bouncing questions he didn’t have good answers for. Eventually, he stopped her and said that staying mormon was probably the best thing for her - because his church just didn’t have the answers she was looking for. He admitted struggling with many of them himself. And yet there he was - dressed in the clothing of his office - doing his duty.

I get it, iepuras. I sincerely hope your grass stays green.

 

[kimg901]

I have one question to our lds posters and just one.

Do you really think Jesus failed His Church?

 

[kimg901]

But ultimately, I believe Joseph, because after a period of doubt and searching for truth, I received a personal witness from the Holy Ghost that the BoM is what it claims to be, and so was Joseph. (Which is basically my answer for the rest of your questions too. I’ve told people this often - the only valid reason to be a Mormon, is you believe God wants you to be one.)

Ah. Bear your testimony. So how do I take it when Jesus told me to protect His Church and lo and behold, He guided me to a Rock in a field? I had just re-entered the Catholic Church and I had this vision. So is Jesus wrong or the Holy Spirit?

 

[RebeccaJ]

Always comes down to emotion. If it feels good, do it.

 

[RebeccaJ]

My wife tells a story of when she was on a band trip in high school. They visited a Catholic building - she doesn’t remember which one - lots of stone and high ceilings. She was a rebel back then, jumped a rope, and ended up in the basement where she was caught by someone. She doesn’t remember what his title or office, but they spent 30 minutes together with her bouncing questions off of him about Catholic belief. She kept bouncing questions he didn’t have good answers for. Eventually, he stopped her and said that staying mormon was probably the best thing for her - because his church just didn’t have the answers she was looking for. He admitted struggling with many of them himself. And yet there he was - dressed in the clothing of his office - doing his duty.

I get it, iepuras. I sincerely hope your grass stays green.

What are the questions?

For the vast majority of Catholics, they won’t know the context that a Mormon is asking from. There is a wide divide that can’t be crossed via a child’s questions and expectations for what they have been taught to believe is The Right Answer™.

 

[LivingWaters7]

My wife tells a story of when she was on a band trip in high school. They visited a Catholic building - she doesn’t remember which one - lots of stone and high ceilings. She was a rebel back then, jumped a rope, and ended up in the basement where she was caught by someone. She doesn’t remember what his title or office, but they spent 30 minutes together with her bouncing questions off of him about Catholic belief. She kept bouncing questions he didn’t have good answers for. Eventually, he stopped her and said that staying mormon was probably the best thing for her - because his church just didn’t have the answers she was looking for. He admitted struggling with many of them himself. And yet there he was - dressed in the clothing of his office - doing his duty.

I get it, iepuras. I sincerely hope your grass stays green.

What were the questions that he struggled with, and that the LDS faith presumably had answers for that the Catholic faith doesn’t?

 

[LivingWaters7]

The “difficult” issue that I never understood was the priesthood (and temple) restriction of blacks. I simply can’t imagine being a member during that time period. I just couldn’t wrap my head around why this would happen in “The Church of Jesus Christ”, after Christ established His Kingdom for all to be able to come unto Him. Like, I couldn’t imagine having ward temple trips and not being able to go, merely because of my race (sign up sheet goes around, would they just not pass it to me?), or various priesthood functions, callings, etc. The First Presidency once said that it was due to a “direct commandment from the Lord”, as well as other FP statements claiming it a doctrine (and not just a policy). Yes, I read apologetic responses about the importance of lineage and priesthood during the Old Testament, however it still didn’t make sense to me in the context of what Christ came to do, and what He came to establish.

The First Vision is also interesting, only because I don’t understand why Joseph would have the story evolve as to what the purpose of the vision was for (investigators certainly would know nothing about remission of sins from the version taught today), and who actually appeared to him.

Plural marriage…meh, never really thought about it.

Infinite regress of Gods…yes, that was difficult. Like other things, it’s easy to just put it on the mental shelf, or think that we “only have to do” with our Godhead, but it’s still there (or at least a valid expression of LDS belief). I simply could never believe that the Father was once a man that progressed to Godhood. I had no problem with exaltation, heck I had no problem believing that the Father is embodied, but the progression of the Father was very difficult (since I found no Biblical support, nor any hint of it in ancient Judaism and Christianity). Indeed, it is believed that the Father is still progressing, as there is no end to progression.

Then the big one of Book of Mormon archaeology, what with varying views as to where it took place (depending on which apologist you speak to, as the Church has no official view). It may be nice to read, but many books are inspiring, uplifting, etc, and aren’t real scriptures from God.

 

[zaffiroborant]

I get it.

My wife tells a story of when she was on a band trip in high school. They visited a Catholic building - she doesn’t remember which one - lots of stone and high ceilings. She was a rebel back then, jumped a rope, and ended up in the basement where she was caught by someone. She doesn’t remember what his title or office, but they spent 30 minutes together with her bouncing questions off of him about Catholic belief. She kept bouncing questions he didn’t have good answers for. Eventually, he stopped her and said that staying mormon was probably the best thing for her - because his church just didn’t have the answers she was looking for. He admitted struggling with many of them himself. And yet there he was - dressed in the clothing of his office - doing his duty.

I get it, iepuras. I sincerely hope your grass stays green.

Your wife tells a lot of stories, stories I’ve heard from other LDS members who were told the same stories by a friend, relative…

 

[twopekinguys]

Out of curiosity, are you choosing to believe the 1838 Oliver Cowdery account, William McLellin’s 1861 account, Frederick Williams’ 1872 account, Cauncey Webb’s 1876 account, Levi Hancock’s 1896 account, Warren Parrish’s account, or one of the others? They all differ in great detail, including her name (Williams called her “Miss Hill”), whether it was an “affair”, “sealing”, or “marriage”, Oliver’s reaction, Joseph’s reaction, and Emma’s reaction. One would think that someone so believing of the importance of 1st vision discrepancies, would be hesitant to convict someone based on such uncorroborated and conflicting testimonies, several of them indicating that there was not even a physical side to the relationship.

You scoff at the different accounts shown above, yet you don’t apply the same thought process to the 9 or more versions of the “first vision”.

How do you reconcile that? Smith couldn’t even be consistent in describing who was there.

As far as your comment regarding OT prophets being sinners (to paraphrase), you are absolutely correct. The difference is, even though they were sinners, their prophecies came true. How many failed prophecies did smith have? It only takes one to be a false prophet.

 

[twopekinguys]

The “difficult” issue that I never understood was the priesthood (and temple) restriction of blacks. I simply can’t imagine being a member during that time period. I just couldn’t wrap my head around why this would happen in “The Church of Jesus Christ”, after Christ established His Kingdom for all to be able to come unto Him. Like, I couldn’t imagine having ward temple trips and not being able to go, merely because of my race (sign up sheet goes around, would they just not pass it to me?), or various priesthood functions, callings, etc. The First Presidency once said that it was due to a “direct commandment from the Lord”, as well as other FP statements claiming it a doctrine (and not just a policy). Yes, I read apologetic responses about the importance of lineage and priesthood during the Old Testament, however it still didn’t make sense to me in the context of what Christ came to do, and what He came to establish.

I agree. This is perplexing considering that the Jewish people of the Bible were enslaved, and considered less that second class citizens for how many years, yet, they were the chosen people of God.

One would think that God would look after blacks in the same manner, especially if it is his restored church.

 

[RebeccaJ]

The “difficult” issue that I never understood was the priesthood (and temple) restriction of blacks. I simply can’t imagine being a member during that time period. I just couldn’t wrap my head around why this would happen in “The Church of Jesus Christ”, after Christ established His Kingdom for all to be able to come unto Him. Like, I couldn’t imagine having ward temple trips and not being able to go, merely because of my race (sign up sheet goes around, would they just not pass it to me?), or various priesthood functions, callings, etc. The First Presidency once said that it was due to a “direct commandment from the Lord”, as well as other FP statements claiming it a doctrine (and not just a policy). Yes, I read apologetic responses about the importance of lineage and priesthood during the Old Testament, however it still didn’t make sense to me in the context of what Christ came to do, and what He came to establish.

The First Vision is also interesting, only because I don’t understand why Joseph would have the story evolve as to what the purpose of the vision was for (investigators certainly would know nothing about remission of sins from the version taught today), and who actually appeared to him.

Plural marriage…meh, never really thought about it.

Infinite regress of Gods…yes, that was difficult. Like other things, it’s easy to just put it on the mental shelf, or think that we “only have to do” with our Godhead, but it’s still there (or at least a valid expression of LDS belief). I simply could never believe that the Father was once a man that progressed to Godhood. I had no problem with exaltation, heck I had no problem believing that the Father is embodied, but the progression of the Father was very difficult (since I found no Biblical support, nor any hint of it in ancient Judaism and Christianity). Indeed, it is believed that the Father is still progressing, as there is no end to progression.

Then the big one of Book of Mormon archaeology, what with varying views as to where it took place (depending on which apologist you speak to, as the Church has no official view). It may be nice to read, but many books are inspiring, uplifting, etc, and aren’t real scriptures from God.

Race was a big one for me, and the first “What the heck is going on here?” question I had, as a kid in elementary school when we were taught melanin is what determines different skin colors, rather than curses by God. (Things that make you go, hmmmm.) Hugely impactful for me as my best friend was a Navajo, and all the Primary and Sunday school stories of cursed Lamanites really, really made me feel uncomfortable. My friend was NOT cursed. (At that time, all Mormons believed every Native American were Lamanites. Since scientific evidence has also proven this wrong, Mormonism now teaches Lamanites as more of a legendary group of people that faded into history.) Anyway, this whole thing had a child wondering how to believe what I was being taught! So it is, as you already know, adults buying into it just flabbergasts me.

Mormons today tell me I was never taught what I was taught, but I KNOW what I was taught, and I know people who are my age and were taught the same thing. So, it goes to historical cover-up that apparently can be made transparent with an lds.org website explaining “this is how it is”. Well, I know how it was. I lived it.

BTW, I was on a youth conference trip with the ward youth when the ban was lifted in 1978. No one had cell phones then so we didn’t hear about until we pulled up to the first house to drop off the first group of kids. That was the first thing the parents asked us, “Did you hear?” It was like a huge weight was lifted off the shoulders of the entire church. I remember it as a very, very, joyous and happy occasion that was talked about in positive and teary-eyed testimony meetings for months to come.

Too late for a kid who was trying to reason out how supposed prophets can teach one thing, that could be so easily explained by science. And I was a sciency-geeky girl, so no, “God said.” answer was, or ever will, cover it. Faith and reason work together.

 

[RebeccaJ]

Ok, got me to reminiscing. Mormons are very creative. My favorites from those times past are miracles of God explained via scientific methods. People can be cursed with darker skin by God changing their DNA. Adam and Eve can be changed from immortal to mortal, by God changing their DNA. The stars can fall from the heavens in the last days, via God moving the earth through space to its Celestial location, ala Star Trek, at warp speed, the stars whizzing by and appearing to “fall” if you happen to be standing on our planet.

I do miss those days, it was a lot of fun.

OH! On the subject of first vision,the Gods (plural) travel space via beams of light! That is why JSjr saw his two personages standing in beams of light. There was more to this theory, regarding Kolob and its planet that is like the Urim and Thummim, but the details are lost to my memory. It was really a very intricate theory.

No other group of people I know of are as creative as this!

 

[iepuras]

You mean from me personally, or LDS apologetic response in general? Yes, from you personally. I’m assuming you checked into apologetics already, would that be a correct assumption? Yes. If it is, what does it matter what my responses are? It matters because I want to understand why a true believing Mormon could know these things yet still believe Joseph Smith and find him trustworthy. I couldn’t. The rest of my family are true believing Mormons. I am trying to make sense of why Mormons can know all the issues yet still find Joseph Smith trustworthy. It would amount to, assuming you’ve done your homework, stuff you have already rejected as valid.

I’ve decided to not do this much on CAF, because it takes away from my day to give a decent response, but ok. Here goes.

I want to start by reiterating - I’m comfortable with viewing y’all as sincere people with genuine concern over the state of my soul. I have no problem with folks trying to talk me out of what they think is wrong, and into what they think is right. God bless y’all.

I’ve said basically everything I have to say about 1st vision accounts in this thread. You can go scan it if you wish.

But ultimately, I believe Joseph, because after a period of doubt and searching for truth, I received a personal witness from the Holy Ghost that the BoM is what it claims to be, and so was Joseph. (Which is basically my answer for the rest of your questions too. I’ve told people this often - the only valid reason to be a Mormon, is you believe God wants you to be one.)

Apart from my answer above, here are additional answers:
2a. Because those who knew him best, be they friends or enemies or both, are on record as trusting him. And there are plenty of people who found him to be untrustworthy.
2b. Where do you get the notion that prophets need to be perfect? Where do you get the notion that I have the notion that prophets need to be perfect? OT prophets committed all kinds of sins but were still trustworthy. I also don’t recall that any of them stealing other men’s wives. In fact, Nathan condemned such behavior. Joseph wasn’t a prophet because of his dumbness, but the occasionally prideful, sinful, lawbreaking, error-prone OT prophets were? I never said Joseph Smith was dumb. He was quite smart actually.You don’t stop being a fallible human just because God chooses you.
2c. I seem to remember something about Peter denying Christ three times? One would think that if past sins or indiscretions invalidated one from leading Christ’s church, Catholicism has been overlooking Peter a heck of a lot longer than mormons have been overlooking Joseph. Why do you believe a guy who actually lied about knowing Christ - not once, not twice, but three times? (I know the answer - because Peter was an apostle of the Lord, hand-picked by Christ himself. And because of the balance of other reasons to believe Peter.) Why are you acting like I said that prophets, apostles, bishops, priests, etc have to be perfect? I never said or even alluded to believing that. Yes, Peter was a sinful man. I don’t think Peter himself would try to convince you otherwise. One thing I will point out is that after the Resurrection, Ascension and Pentecost, Peter was a changed man. His change was dramatic and powerful. Once he realized his mission, he went forward and never looked back. The difference between how Peter changed because of his experience with Christ is starkly different than Joseph’s behavior.

(I suppose I need to make it clear here, I’m neither bashing the Bible, nor Catholicism. I’m merely taking your question about me believing Joseph’s story because he was sinful, and pointing out that it’s obviously unfounded from not only a scriptural view, but also that you do the same thing. Anyone who tries to claim I’m bashing scripture or Catholicism, is twisting my words.)

 

[iepuras]

Out of curiosity, are you choosing to believe the 1838 Oliver Cowdery account, William McLellin’s 1861 account, Frederick Williams’ 1872 account, Cauncey Webb’s 1876 account, Levi Hancock’s 1896 account, Warren Parrish’s account, or one of the others? ?I’m not saying I believe one account over another. Based on the evidence, there likely was a sexual relationship between the two. The question is whether she is a “valid” plural wife or a mistress. They all differ in great detail, including her name (Williams called her “Miss Hill”), whether it was an “affair”, “sealing”, or “marriage”, Oliver’s reaction, Joseph’s reaction, and Emma’s reaction. One would think that someone so believing of the importance of 1st vision discrepancies, would be hesitant to convict someone based on such uncorroborated and conflicting testimonies, several of them indicating that there was not even a physical side to the relationship. Actually, the reactions of everyone was pretty consistent. Oliver had issues with Joseph and Emma flipped out.

1st vision accounts are inconsistent, therefore mormonism is false.
Fanny Alger accounts are inconsistent, therefore the worst one is true.Where are you getting that I said or believe this? My question regarding Fanny Alger has to do with timing. Let’s say, I accept that Elijah gave the sealing keys to Joseph so that he could establish the new and everlasting covenant of marriage, including plural wives. So with that, I should not have any issues with the plural wives Joseph took after the restoration of those keys (assuming that the women were single and not married to other men at the time). The Fanny Alger incident occurred before Elijah restored the sealing keys. The timing is what is problematic even accepting that Joseph truthful about being a prophet.

I’m not seeing the weighty critical power there.

I was there and paying attention when CogDis hit the scene as a criticism of mormons. Although the term was coined in the 50’s, it didn’t really hit the public consciousness until the late '90’s. Athiests immediately picked up the phrase as a club to use against believers, and Christians followed shortly after in using it against other religions. It’s a favorite club to use against mormons, because of the soundbyte value. "Come on - polygamy? Seriously? How many wives do you get. One? I call CogDis!"That’s a ridiculous example. Did it actually happen to you? Cognitive dissonance comes when you are taught that you are a beloved daughter of Heavenly Father (and Mother), you are special and equal to men and can accomplish anything you want and then also being taught that men can have more than one wife in the celestial kingdom, the only role that women should content themselves with is to be a good wife and mother and even though your heavenly parents love you, you can only access your father in heaven and that it is sinful to speak or think much of your mother in heaven.

I get it.

My wife tells a story of when she was on a band trip in high school. They visited a Catholic building - she doesn’t remember which one - lots of stone and high ceilings. She was a rebel back then, jumped a rope, and ended up in the basement where she was caught by someone. She doesn’t remember what his title or office, but they spent 30 minutes together with her bouncing questions off of him about Catholic belief. She kept bouncing questions he didn’t have good answers for. Eventually, he stopped her and said that staying mormon was probably the best thing for her - because his church just didn’t have the answers she was looking for. He admitted struggling with many of them himself. And yet there he was - dressed in the clothing of his office - doing his duty.

I get it, iepuras. I sincerely hope your grass stays green.

Honestly, I’m not sure that you do get it. Your reasons for trusting Joseph Smith and believing him is based purely on emotional experiences, not based on any evidence. God wants us to use reason and faith to come to Him.

 

[iepuras]

The “difficult” issue that I never understood was the priesthood (and temple) restriction of blacks. I simply can’t imagine being a member during that time period. I just couldn’t wrap my head around why this would happen in “The Church of Jesus Christ”, after Christ established His Kingdom for all to be able to come unto Him. Like, I couldn’t imagine having ward temple trips and not being able to go, merely because of my race (sign up sheet goes around, would they just not pass it to me?), or various priesthood functions, callings, etc. The First Presidency once said that it was due to a “direct commandment from the Lord”, as well as other FP statements claiming it a doctrine (and not just a policy). Yes, I read apologetic responses about the importance of lineage and priesthood during the Old Testament, however it still didn’t make sense to me in the context of what Christ came to do, and what He came to establish.

The First Vision is also interesting, only because I don’t understand why Joseph would have the story evolve as to what the purpose of the vision was for (investigators certainly would know nothing about remission of sins from the version taught today), and who actually appeared to him.

Plural marriage…meh, never really thought about it.

Infinite regress of Gods…yes, that was difficult. Like other things, it’s easy to just put it on the mental shelf, or think that we “only have to do” with our Godhead, but it’s still there (or at least a valid expression of LDS belief). I simply could never believe that the Father was once a man that progressed to Godhood. I had no problem with exaltation, heck I had no problem believing that the Father is embodied, but the progression of the Father was very difficult (since I found no Biblical support, nor any hint of it in ancient Judaism and Christianity). Indeed, it is believed that the Father is still progressing, as there is no end to progression.

Then the big one of Book of Mormon archaeology, what with varying views as to where it took place (depending on which apologist you speak to, as the Church has no official view). It may be nice to read, but many books are inspiring, uplifting, etc, and aren’t real scriptures from God.

Those were big issues for me too. As a woman, polygamy was THE issue. It only got worse after learning Joseph stole the wives of other men, including faithful apostles, and exchanged eternal salvation to families for their teenage daughters. I found the stories of Helen Mar Kimball and Zina Jacobs to be very compelling.

 

[jadamo]

But ultimately, I believe Joseph, because after a period of doubt and searching for truth, I received a personal witness from the Holy Ghost that the BoM is what it claims to be, and so was Joseph. (Which is basically my answer for the rest of your questions too. I’ve told people this often - the only valid reason to be a Mormon, is you believe God wants you to be one.)

I read the BOM and received a personal witness as well. I prayed and fasted, and truly humbled myself before God asking for truth to this matter b/c if God was in your church, I would be there as well. I’m not a Catholic just b/c I think it sounds cool and my parents are Catholic. I’m a Catholic because I am in love with LOVE. I LOVE GOD and I KNOW that God loves me and He would not lead me into confusion, but to His truth. While reading this book I became physically ill, I couldn’t eat anything my stomach was so upset (And no, this wasn’t something else, I stopped reading after II Nephi b/c I couldn’t handle it anymore and I became well again. A few months later I picked up the BOM again, and again became ill to my stomach while reading it. I ended up reading the whole thing as fast as possible just to get through it!!). And my answer wasn’t just physical but spiritual as well. I FELT spiritually empty. It seemed the Holy Ghost answered my prayers in abundance, my body and soul soundly rejected the BOM. I won’t ever pick up that book again, it’s not worth the anguish I felt.

“Where do you get the notion that prophets need to be perfect?.. You don’t stop being a fallible human just because God chooses you. I seem to remember something about Peter denying Christ three times? One would think that if past sins or indiscretions invalidated one from leading Christ’s church, Catholicism has been overlooking Peter a heck of a lot longer than mormons have been overlooking Joseph. Why do you believe a guy who actually lied about knowing Christ - not once, not twice, but three times? (I know the answer - because Peter was an apostle of the Lord, hand-picked by Christ himself. And because of the balance of other reasons to believe Peter.)” EXACTLY. You should be a Catholic. Go read John 21:15-17. Jesus asks Peter 3 times if he loves him, and after each affirmative response from Peter, tells him to “feed my lambs, tend my sheep, feed my sheep”. Peter responds 3 times that he loves Jesus b/c he denied him 3 times during his Passion. Jesus CHOSE Peter to be the ROCK, the SOLID foundation upon which he built his Church, the household of God which is “the pillar and foundation of truth” (1 Tim. 3:15). Go look up pillar and foundation. Now go and actually STUDY what the Catholic Church teaches about Peter and his denial of Christ, b/c you obviously do not know what the Church teaches in this regard. Also, the Catholic Church does not presume to be perfect, we are sinners striving to become saints made clean through the blood of Jesus. The Church is not made of perfect people and oftentimes, the leaders throughout history have failed, but the Church itself remains HOLY b/c Christ is our head and He sent us the Advocate (Holy Ghost) to be with us ALWAYS. Jesus’ promises have been made crystal clear to me these past few years as I’ve searched for Truth, I have truly hungered for righeousness and have found my fill and true peace of Christ in His Church, the ONE, HOLY, CATHOLIC and APOSTOLIC Church. The Catholic Church never apostatized, for such a thing would make Christ a liar and negate all his promises to us, which are abundant throughout scriptures.

In short, I do not doubt for one moment your love and devotion for your church, I do not know you and you do not know me. I say these things in peace, please pray for me and I will pray for you.

 

[TexanKnight]

this whole thing has always made me laugh.

First, anyone who has so many versions of an event is not being truthful. As I have stated, as an attorney, if a person has TWO different versions of an event, I can destroy him in court.

Next, I love it when Mormons use Paul’s conversion in The Acts as being similar. First, you cannot compare the writings of an American in the 1800s who spoke in English with writings written in the first century in a different language and culture that has been translated numerous times. Mormons always claim the Bible is not to be trusted due to translations…unless it suits them. Second, the writings in the first century of ONE man who relates a story he HEARD ABOUT two different ways is nothing like a man who tells his story to several different people, and wrote it himself several ways and has various versions.

Third, I love it when Mormons try to say, “no one tells a story the same twice” as if saying that a story I have of some small even in my life, or even a big event in my life, is comparable to an alleged visitation from GOD. That is the most ridiculous of the apologetics.

Bottom line: their alleged prophet, who spoke to God and had God speak to him had at least 9 very different versions of his alleged vision. And a God who said His Church was not a Church of confusion apparently allowed his church to be confusing. And God, who said His Spirit would guide His prophets did not have His Spirit help js keep his stories straight.

 

[batman1973]

Correct me if I’m wrong, but I also remember that there are conflicting versions on how Joe came across the “gold plates” i.e. a bleeding spaniard, a white salamander (although that may have been a Mark Hoffman forgery) Oh yeah, who appeared to young Joseph in his room, Nephi (as originally recorded) or Moroni? The dude has a history of not keeping his stories straight. How can you trust him as a prophet of God?