Mormon Claims

[SirThomasMore]

It is not out of context. The Lord reiterates the same thing in Rev 13:7, which is even more clear…the Lords alows all kindreds, and tongues and nations to have power.

“And it was given unto him to make war with the saints, and to overcome them: and power was given him over all kindreds, and tongues, and nations.”

Just read the entire chapter 13 and you will see the context!

I have. And as I showed on another thread, you are misinterpreting Scriptures. I am not surprised. You follow a prophet who says there are many gods when God Himself saids there is only one.

To believe Joseph Smith is to disbelieve God

 

[evanfaust]

The problem here is that in his book, An Address to All Believers in Christ, Whitmer wrote: "If you believe my testimony to the BOM; if you believe that God spoke to us three witnesses by his own voice, then I tell you that in June, 1838, God spake to me again by his own voice from the heavens, and told me to ‘separate myself from among the LDS, for as they sought to do unto me, so should it be done unto them.’ "

Further, Whitmer said that the church had fallen into error as of 1838. So what, then, are you to believe from David Whitmer?

The most important thing here is that he never denied seeing the angel and the plates. He was upset with the church and disagreed they way things should be conducted in the church, but he does not deny what he saw.

He was trying to explain and justify why he left the church, but do you see him denying his testimony? No! So, that is what matters!

 

[Returning_Home]

It is not out of context. The Lord reiterates the same thing in Rev 13:7, which is even more clear…the Lords alows all kindreds, and tongues and nations to have power.

“And it was given unto him to make war with the saints, and to overcome them: and power was given him over all kindreds, and tongues, and nations.”

Just read the entire chapter 13 and you will see the context!

But why would we do that? If we’re to believe the LDS claims, the Bible is missing many ‘plain and precious things.’ How do we know that any of what you cite as support is correct at all?

Doesn’t it make sense that, if the Bible were so corrupted, God would provide you with a correct version? In fact, God supposedly told Smith to ‘retanslate’ the Bible (D&C 73:3-4) and we know that Smith said he did exactly that (HOTC 1:324, 1:368-69).

Why, then, didn’t God bother to let you use Smith’s ‘inspired’ version? Legally, you can’t use it because it belongs to the Community of Christ, doesn’t it? I spoke to a manager of Deseret Book CO and she told me that the JST was one of the slowest moving books that they carry; there’s simply no demand, it seems, for the corrected word of God. Odd, isn’t it?

 

[SirThomasMore]

The most important thing here is that he never denied seeing the angel and the plates. He was upset with the church and disagreed they way things should be conducted in the church, but he does not deny what he saw.

He was trying to explain and justify why he left the church, but do you see him denying his testimony? No! So, that is what matters!

lol…the question is not whether they denied it. The question is, did they really? And then the question is, did they lie? Joseph said they were not honest. Was Joseph lying when he said that?

Grant Palmer is a Mormon Scholar and still a member of the Church…According to Grant Palmer, the Book of Mormon witnesses had a “nineteenth-century magical mindset” rather than “a rationalist perspective.” They believed in what was called “second sight. Traditionally, this included the ability to see spirits and their dwelling places within the local hills and elsewhere.” A number of the witnesses possessed and used seer stones; Oliver Cowdery was a rodsman. As Tufts University professor John L. Brooke has observed, many of the earliest Mormons were “very much attuned to the supernatural powers of witchcraft.”[9] “Far removed from our own modern empiricism, the world view of the witnesses is difficult for us to grasp,” and thus it is less impressive that “three signatories to the Book of Mormon saw and heard an angel.”

Martin Harris was said to have stated that the Eight Witnesses never saw the plates, and “hesitated to sign that instrument for that reason, but were persuaded to do it.”[13] Although Harris continued to testify to the truth of the Book of Mormon even when he was estranged from the church, at least during the early years of the movement, he “seems to have repeatedly admitted the internal, subjective nature of his visionary experience.”

Joseph Smith later impugned the integrity of at least four of the Witnesses before they left or were expelled from the Church: “Such characters as McLellin, John Whitmer, David Whitmer, Oliver Cowdery and Martin Harris, are too mean to mention; and we had liked to have forgotten them.”

 

[Returning_Home]

The most important thing here is that he never denied seeing the angel and the plates. He was upset with the church and disagreed they way things should be conducted in the church, but he does not deny what he saw.

He was trying to explain and justify why he left the church, but do you see him denying his testimony? No! So, that is what matters!

That’s right, we have no specific denial, but what standard do you use for evaulating what he did say? It seems that you’re only going to accept those things that support your position and not those that go against it.

By that same standard, the absence of something isn’t exactly enough to prove it didn’t exist for it, is it? We have not one single piece of proof that Nephites, Lamanites, or Jaredites ever existed, much less that they were Aztecs, Mayans, or Toltecs, yet that’s the current belief that the church promotes, isn’t it?

Denying his testimony is far below the fact that Whitmer claimed that the church was in error from 1838 onward. How could he possibly be wrong about that but be right about seeing the plates?

 

[evanfaust]

But why would we do that? If we’re to believe the LDS claims, the Bible is missing many ‘plain and precious things.’ How do we know that any of what you cite as support is correct at all?

The Bible states that the Dragon or Satan would have power to defeat the saints? That is in Daniel and Revelation. The Bible is missing “plain and precious things” , meaning that some books are missing, some full verses are also missing, and some other verses are altered, either by negligent or corrupt scribes. However, we have many revelations given to the prophet like Doctrine and Covenants and Pearl of Great Price and the Book of Mormon. For this reason we don’t necessarily need the full Bible revised. Besides, we believe that the majority of what is in the Bible to be correct.

Doesn’t it make sense that, if the Bible were so corrupted, God would provide you with a correct version? In fact, God supposedly told Smith to ‘retanslate’ the Bible (D&C 73:3-4) and we know that Smith said he did exactly that (HOTC 1:324, 1:368-69).

As I stated earlier, the Bible for the most part is correct. It is not “so corrupted” as you state. Joseph Smith in his inspired version of the Bible uncover some hidden truths.

Why, then, didn’t God bother to let you use Smith’s ‘inspired’ version? Legally, you can’t use it because it belongs to the Community of Christ, doesn’t it? I spoke to a manager of Deseret Book CO and she told me that the JST was one of the slowest moving books that they carry; there’s simply no demand, it seems, for the corrected word of God. Odd, isn’t it?

As you said, the inspired version is available for anyone to purchase and use it. Most scholars, general authorities of the church and many of those who study the scriptures use the inspired version as a companion for consultation and comparison. Have you seen how big the inspired version is? It is very small!

 

[evanfaust]

That’s right, we have no specific denial, but what standard do you use for evaulating what he did say? It seems that you’re only going to accept those things that support your position and not those that go against it.

By that same standard, the absence of something isn’t exactly enough to prove it didn’t exist for it, is it? We have not one single piece of proof that Nephites, Lamanites, or Jaredites ever existed, much less that they were Aztecs, Mayans, or Toltecs, yet that’s the current belief that the church promotes, isn’t it?

Denying his testimony is far below the fact that Whitmer claimed that the church was in error from 1838 onward. How could he possibly be wrong about that but be right about seeing the plates?

Think about it! If this whole thing was a con, do you really think Joseph Smith was going to take a risk and excomuncate most of the 11 witnessess? Do you how much he gambled by doing that? If he was a con in agreement with these 11 witnesses, no person in hiis right mind would ever excomunicate these people.

As far as proof of the Book of Mormon, you should not expect any. We see evidences, the same way the Bible has some evidences. But, as you know many stories in the Bible have not a shred of evidence. You should know that the things of God are mainly based on faith! For example, how do you prove the resurrection of Christ? As you well know, millions of people even doubt that Christ even existed!

David Whitmer has never denied seeing the angel or the plates. The story about leaving the church is just he being upset. It is his anger and disappointment about the things he disagreed with. He probably felt some guilty for leaving the church and knowing the consequences thereof, so he tried to justify why he left.

 

[evanfaust]

What good is a Prophets sermon’s or guidance if they cannot be considered doctrine or scripture?
What would be the point in listening to a Prophet if the message he carries has no greater weight than the message of any other contemporary member of the LDS Church?

What good does a Modern Day Prophet serve if you never know when he is or when he isn’t providing “Divine Revelation” from the pulpit?

A speech given from any general authority of the church carries a lot of weight. You are mixing things up! We are saying that they are also humans and are imperfect, so we should not expect perfection from them. They are inspired men of God, but there is a process of canonization in the Mormon Church. Here is what President Lee said about it.

“If anyone, regardless of his position in the Church, were to advance a doctrine that is not substantiated by the standard Church works, meaning the Bible, the Book of Mormon, the Doctrine and Covenants, and the Pearl of Great Price, you may know that his statement is merely his private opinion. The only one authorized to bring forth any new doctrine is the President of the Church, who, when he does, will declare it as revelation from God, and it will be so accepted by the Council of the Twelve and sustained by the body of the Church. And if any man speak a doctrine which contradicts what is in the standard Church works, you may know by that same token that it is false and you are not bound to accept it as truth.”

This is what Bruce R McConkie said about prophets:

“Nonetheless, as Joseph Smith so pointedly taught, a prophet is not always a prophet, only when he is acting as such. Prophets are men and they make mistakes. Sometimes they err in doctrine. This is one of the reasons the Lord has given us the Standard Works. They become the standards and rules that govern where doctrine and philosophy are concerned. If this were not so, we would believe one thing when one man was president of the Church and another thing in the days of his successors. Truth is eternal and does not vary. Sometimes even wise and good men fall short in the accurate presentation of what is truth. Sometimes a prophet gives personal views which are not endorsed and approved by the Lord.”

Think about what Paul taught in the scripture below

“There must be also heresies among you, that they which are approved may be made manifest among you.” (1 Cor. 11:19.)

Even Paul stated his opinion when addressing the Saints:

“Now concerning virgins I have no commandment of the Lord: yet I give my opinion, as one that hath obtained mercy of the Lord to be faithful.” 1 Cor 7:25

Paul is not sure if he has the spirit of the Lord here:

“But she is happier if she so abide, after my judgment: and **I think **also that I have the Spirit of God.” 1 Cor 7:40

 

[SirThomasMore]

Think about it! If this whole thing was a con, do you really think Joseph Smith was going to take a risk and excomuncate most of the 11 witnessess? Do you how much he gambled by doing that? If he was a con in agreement with these 11 witnesses, no person in hiis right mind would ever excomunicate these people.

As far as proof of the Book of Mormon, you should not expect any. We see evidences, the same way the Bible has some evidences. But, as you know many stories in the Bible have not a shred of evidence. You should know that the things of God are mainly based on faith! For example, how do you prove the resurrection of Christ? As you well know, millions of people even doubt that Christ even existed!

David Whitmer has never denied seeing the angel or the plates. The story about leaving the church is just he being upset. It is his anger and disappointment about the things he disagreed with. He probably felt some guilty for leaving the church and knowing the consequences thereof, so he tried to justify why he left.

Sure. It’s very smart. Fire them. Then, if they ever told the truth, Joe could just sayit was because they were angry. Face it, they are horrible witnesses whose testimony is very questionable

 

[why_me]

That is not really true. They have 11 friends and family who saw it with their “Spiritual Eyes”

Now Tom, this is not true and you know it. Lets look at John Whitmer, one of the 11 witnesses to the book of mormon shall we? Here is John Whitmer:

There are two notable times that John Whitmer defended his testimony of seeing the plates, after leaving the church. The first was on April 5, 1835, when he was accompanying 8 of a group of 50 men who had sworn to not eat or drink until they had murdered “Joe” Smith. In other words, he was with a bunch of guys slightly hostile to the church. The 8 of them approached Theodore Turley, an elder in the church. They handed Elder Turley a revelation of Joseph Smith’s that they were convinced would never happen. They taunted him claiming this was proof that Joseph was a false prophet and demanded that he denounce the church once the revelation had passed without fulfillment. Turley scoffed at them defending the revelation then turned to John Whitmer and said,

“There are many things published that they say are true, and again turn around and say they are false?" Whitmer, asked, “Do you hint at me?” Elder Turley said, “If the cap fits you, wear it; all I know is that you have published to the world that an angel did present those plates to Joseph Smith.” John replied: “I now say, I handled those plates; there were fine engravings on both sides. I handled them.” Then he described in the presence of these bitter enemies how the plates were fastened and he said, "They were shown to me by a supernatural power."

That was a pretty gutsy response considering he was associating with people who were out for violence against Joseph Smith and the Mormons. Incidentally, the revelation did happen when and where it was said to have. But that’s a subject for a whole other webpage.

The 2nd account came from what was probably John Whitmer’s final interview before his death. It’s funny how all these witnesses who leave the church keep reaffirming their testimonies on their deathbed. What does that tell you? Anyway, this Q&A was published a few weeks after John’s death.

Q - I am aware that your name is affixed to the testimony in the Book of Mormon that you saw the plates?
A - It is so, and that testimony is true.
Q - Did you handle the plates with your hands?
A - I did so!
Q - Then they were a material substance?
A - Yes, as material as anything can be.
Q - Were they heavy to lift?
A - Yes, and as you know gold is a heavy metal: they were very heavy.
Q - How big were the leaves?
A - So far as I recollect, 8 by 6 or seven inches.
Q - Were the leaves thick?
A - Yes, just so thick, that characters could be engraven on both sides.
Q - How were the leaves joined together?
A - In three rings, each one in the shape of a D with the straight line towards the center.
Q - In what place did you see the plates?
A - In Joseph Smith’s house; he had them there.
Q - Did you see them covered with a cloth?
A - No. He handed them uncovered into our hands, and we turned the leaves sufficient to satisfy us.

References:
Lyndon W. Cook, The Revelations of the Prophet Joseph Smith, p.25
LDS Biographical Encyclopedia, Andrew Jenson, Vol. 1, p.251
P. Wilhelm Poulson to the editors of the Deseret News, 31 July 1878, in Deseret News, 6 August 1878.
History of the Church, Vol.3, Ch.21, p.307

 

[why_me]

Doesn’t sound like spiritual eyes to me…Now tom, are you sure that you were a mormon?

 

[why_me]

Face it, they are horrible witnesses whose testimony is very questionable

John Whitmer sounds convincing. Now lets try the other witnesses:

The testimonies of the Three and Eight Witnesses balance the supernatural and the natural, the one stressing the angel and heavenly voice, the other the existence of a tangible record on gold plates. To the end of their lives, each of the Three said he had seen the plates, and each of the Eight insisted that he had handled them. Most of the Eight and all of the Three Witnesses reiterated their Book of Mormon testimonies just before death. Together with Joseph Smith they fulfill Nephi’s prophecy: “They shall testify to the truth of the book and the things therein” (2 Ne. 27:12).

lightplanet.com/mormons/book_of_mormon/witnesses.html

Now this is interesting. Deathbed testimonies are pretty strong. They seem reliable to me.

 

[SirThomasMore]

Doesn’t sound like spiritual eyes to me…Now tom, are you sure that you were a mormon?

Lol. Yes, I provided he quotes that support what I said. Your quotes oy strengthen my position because it showsjust how unreliable the witnesses are. Joe was right to question their integrity. Grant Palmer, who I trust more than you, also supports what I said. Keep trying

and yes, iwas lds. The difference is, I do not ride the fence like you have admitted to doing. God led
me away from a false prophet and my quotes and biblical verses support my point

 

[SirThomasMore]

John Whitmer sounds convincing. Now lets try the other witnesses:

The testimonies of the Three and Eight Witnesses balance the supernatural and the natural, the one stressing the angel and heavenly voice, the other the existence of a tangible record on gold plates. To the end of their lives, each of the Three said he had seen the plates, and each of the Eight insisted that he had handled them. Most of the Eight and all of the Three Witnesses reiterated their Book of Mormon testimonies just before death. Together with Joseph Smith they fulfill Nephi’s prophecy: “They shall testify to the truth of the book and the things therein” (2 Ne. 27:12).

lightplanet.com/mormons/book_of_mormon/witnesses.html

Now this is interesting. Deathbed testimonies are pretty strong. They seem reliable to me.

lol. Joe said they were not honest. I love it when you prove Joseph to be dishonest

 

[why_me]

Lol. Yes, I provided he quotes that support what I said. Your quotes oy strengthen my position because it showsjust how unreliable the witnesses are. Joe was right to question their integrity. Grant Palmer, who I trust more than you, also supports what I said. Keep trying

and yes, iwas lds. The difference is, I do not ride the fence like you have admitted to doing. God led
me away from a false prophet and my quotes and biblical verses support my point

Now tom, you need to face reality. I have just proven your false ‘spiritual eyes’ comment false. All the witnesses testified to what they saw throughout their lives and many on their deathbeds. All saw the plates and the 8 witnesses felt the plates and saw the plates with their eyes. And that is a fact.

Grant Palmer is Grant Palmer. He is just a guy. But what the witnesses said are for all to see. And that is mighty strong.

 

[why_me]

lol. Joe said they were not honest. I love it when you prove Joseph to be dishonest

Of course Joseph was disappointed that some of them left the fold. But he certainly wasn’t nervous that they were going to spill the beans. See my point? This is often overlooked by people like yourself. If 11 people were in on the fraud and some of these 11 left the fold, I would be sweating bullets if I were Joseph Smith…because I know that it is only a matter of time before one spills the beans. But…Joseph Smith wasn’t nervous at all. Go figure.

 

[SirThomasMore]

John Whitmer sounds convincing. Now lets try the other witnesses:

The testimonies of the Three and Eight Witnesses balance the supernatural and the natural, the one stressing the angel and heavenly voice, the other the existence of a tangible record on gold plates. To the end of their lives, each of the Three said he had seen the plates, and each of the Eight insisted that he had handled them. Most of the Eight and all of the Three Witnesses reiterated their Book of Mormon testimonies just before death. Together with Joseph Smith they fulfill Nephi’s prophecy: “They shall testify to the truth of the book and the things therein” (2 Ne. 27:12).

lightplanet.com/mormons/book_of_mormon/witnesses.html

Now this is interesting. Deathbed testimonies are pretty strong. They seem reliable to me.

lol. Joe said they were not honest. I love it when you prove Joseph to be dishonest

 

[SirThomasMore]

Lol. So a disappointed “prophet” would say falsehoods about people? That is bearing false witness. So, eitherthe witnesses weredishonest or Joe was. Or both. I love it

 

[Returning_Home]

The Bible states that the Dragon or Satan would have power to defeat the saints? That is in Daniel and Revelation. The Bible is missing “plain and precious things” , meaning that some books are missing, some full verses are also missing, and some other verses are altered, either by negligent or corrupt scribes. However, we have many revelations given to the prophet like Doctrine and Covenants and Pearl of Great Price and the Book of Mormon. For this reason we don’t necessarily need the full Bible revised. Besides, we believe that the majority of what is in the Bible to be correct.

But again, since the church claims that it’s flawed and/or incomplete, you have no way of knowing whether what you’re quoting is true or not, undermining your entire basis for belief. What it boils down to is the fact that whatever part of the Bible the LDS uses is correct as long as it appears to support its position and if it doesn’t, it must be incorrect.

As I stated earlier, the Bible for the most part is correct. It is not “so corrupted” as you state. Joseph Smith in his inspired version of the Bible uncover some hidden truths.

Really? Since the church maintains that it is lead by Jesus Christ, that the prophet speaks for God, and that he can never lead it astray, let’s check in with God (via Ezra Taft Benson) and see what he thinks about the Bible, shall we?

“Unlike the Bible, which has passed through generations of copyists, translators, and corrupt religionists who tampered with the text, the BOM came from writer to reader in just one inspired step of translation.” (Ensign, Jan 1992, p 5)

That about sums it up, doesn’t it? The church uses the Bible only as a support for the book it holds in truly high regards, the BOM. That said, since the BOM introduces basically nothing new, it’s just a flimsy copy of the Bible because nothing unique to Mormonism is contained in the BOM whatsoever. It’s not until we get into the later texts and the early 1840s that things really begin to get strange.

As you said, the inspired version is available for anyone to purchase and use it. Most scholars, general authorities of the church and many of those who study the scriptures use the inspired version as a companion for consultation and comparison. Have you seen how big the inspired version is? It is very small!

Yes, it is available, but since I’ve already made it clear that it’s a poor seller, not too many people are doing so, are they? And yes, I have seen it and plan to get one eventually.

There was a book recently written about the JST by an LDS and an RLDS scholar (I can’t remember the title at the moment) came to the conclusion that there’s nothing wrong with it as-is, and yet, the church won’t canonize it, the corrected word of God through Joseph Smith. Why wasn’t it as good as the BOM and why continue to use something that you know full well is in error?

 

[Returning_Home]

Lol. So a disappointed “prophet” would say falsehoods about people? That is bearing false witness. So, eitherthe witnesses weredishonest or Joe was. Or both. I love it

And this is another strange thing about Mormonism: a man can be viewed as prophet and not make one single correct prophecy or give one accurate revelation in his entire career and somehow still not be seen as a liar.