Mormon Claims

[dianaiad]

I, too, wear that as a badge of honor.

Well, you may think it is a 'badge of honor." That does not, however, mean that it IS one. It’s not a badge I hand out to everybody, y’know; people who simply disagree with my beliefs and say so don’t get handed one. People who are even vociferously against beliefs I actually HOLD don’t get one. People who politely refuse to listen don’t earn one.

To me, an ‘anti’ is more than a simple critic. An anti is someone who deliberately lies and gives misinformation regarding the target, believing somehow that the ends justify the means. Refusing to accept the word of a believer as to what his or her beliefs actually ARE, and doing so consistently and in spite of constant correction is definitely an anti.

People who take quotes out of context in order to make them ‘mean’ things that they do NOT mean…and do so deliberately and after correction, are anti’s. I hope you are getting the idea, here.

An ‘anti-Mormon’ is aparently anyone who follows the facts to their logical conclusion and doesn’t just take the church’s word for anything.

It is rather important to take the believer’s word for what doctrine actually is, m’friend. Anything else is disengenuous and a total waste of time. OH, and insisting that you know what doctrine is better than the believers is a real indication of anti-hood.

It’s odd how one can read the LDS-produced and pro-LDS texts, taking them at face value, and when the inevitable problems arise and the conclusions of the church are questioned, you’re suddenly an ‘anti-Mormon.’

Amazing.

But no, in reality, a true ‘anti-Mormon’ would advocate Mormons being rounded up into concentration camps, being stripped of their liberties to follow whatever false gospel they choose, and to be executed for their faith.

You mean, like Governor Boggs tried to do? However, if that is so, then perhaps you should stop calling ME an anti-Catholic and anti-Christian. Unless of course you enjoy double standards to much to give them up.

That said, none of the above apply to me, Sir Thomas, or anyone else here.

It is quite easy to define something you don’t want to be as having only qualities you don’t have. I find it interesting to note that you must go to such lengths to FIND qualities of ‘anti-’ hood that don’t apply to you in order to distance yourself from the notion.

As far as I can tell, we all like Mormons as people and it’s only the false teachings that we have problems with. Yes, I have some problems with Catholicism, too, and I’ve never hidden that, but that doesn’t undermine the entire faith as does this part of Mormonism; if the BOM falls, everything built upon it goes with it and we all know that.

Of course. If the BoM falls, Mormonism does. So?

The reason that what I say about the church and what it says about itself aren’t in the same zip code is because you’re willing to ignore much ofyour history and past doctrine in order to make it all work. That’s the wishful thinking component of Mormonism.

The problem is that what you CLAIM it says about yourself isn’t in a zip code at all with what it actually does say about itself. It’s in an international mailing code, about three countries and an ocean away.

…the thing is, m’friend, it doesn’t matter who you are, or what the belief system is. The doctrine of any faith is ALWAYS what the believers say it is. Period.

Nobody else gets a say in that.

 

[dianaiad]

The difference here is that the BOM is referring specifically to skin color in 2 Nephi chapter heading and 5:21, thus setting the tone for the rest of the related passages that follow (Alma 3:6, Mormon 5:15).

The fact that the Lamanites who joined with the Nephites experienced their skin turning white reaffirms this. (3 Nephi 2:14-16)

Your conclusions thus have no merit here.

the change from ‘white’ to “pure” was made by Joseph Smith himself for the second edition of the Book of Mormon. However, when the third and further editions were printed in England, they were taken from the first edition, not the corrected second one. The final correction, made recently, was simply one of many that reconciled the text of the printed BoM with the manuscripts and Josephs personal corrections and comments. As the translator, he certainly had the absolute right to do that, don’t you think?

 

[dianaiad]

I have to say that the ignore feature is a good one. Once you choose to ignore, you should stick with that.

You are quite right, MelanieAnne. …When sirthomasmore was atticusfinch, I had him on ignore. When he changed his name and promised to repent his ways, I gave him some time to see if he actually meant what he said.

He didn’t.

Ah well.

 

[dianaiad]

Mike, my experience shows that the average Mormon does not know that the words and terms they use are defined differently in Mormonism as compared to traditional Christianity. There may be some who know the difference, but many, if not most, do not know.

It is hard for me to believe that the Mormon hierarchy does not know the truth, and yet they allow this to continue. Hence, it is possible that your description that Mormons can “prey” on this difference may be apt. Someone surely knows. Only the extent of the group who knows is in doubt.

What do you want the 'hierarchy of the church" to DO about this, MelanieAnne? Remember, we think that our definitions are the correct ones, so we can’t suddenly start using different ones, any more than you can expect any Mormon, who believes from the bottom of his heart that he IS a Christian, to suddenly accept that he is not simply because a Catholic says so. Remember, we think that the CAtholics are wrong about a lot of stuff, including that one.

 

[why_me]

Joseph had several years to write the book while he allegedly had to meet Moroni once a year for a few years. Additionally, just because no one reported seeing him does not mean no one saw him or that he was not careful enough not to be seen. He had very intelligent people helping him and books to copy from. It is all very doable.

Lets see here…the book was published in 1830…so joseph was 24 or 25 when it was published. Did he start the book at 19 or 20…and no one saw him in the general store buying paper and pens…and when the book was published newspaper accounts had him ignorant and not very intelligent…information that they got from those that knew him around town…so according to you…joseph would sneak into the general store and buy his paper and feathered pens…and then go money digging or work on the farm and in the middle of night wake up…and head to the barn to write the book…and his girlfriend emma never knew about it…and because…he wanted to start a new religion and why? Well, I suppose he wanted power and so, he spends years writing this book, in secret…sneaking into the store to buy his things and the store owner never claims that Joe was in quite often buying writing things…and…

Not to mention destroying the rough drafts each day and carefully washing the hands because of ink stains. And his mom and dad knew nothing as did his brothers and sisters…gosh…Joe should have been a spy…

 

[why_me]

the change from ‘white’ to “pure” was made by Joseph Smith himself for the second edition of the Book of Mormon. However, when the third and further editions were printed in England, they were taken from the first edition, not the corrected second one. The final correction, made recently, was simply one of many that reconciled the text of the printed BoM with the manuscripts and Josephs personal corrections and comments. As the translator, he certainly had the absolute right to do that, don’t you think?

I said the same exact thing but no one listens. It is amazing that the 1837 edition of the book of mormon has pure and delightsome and the critics don’t even know it or want to know it. They just cherry pick the internet and garner the so called facts. What to do? And trust me, in two weeks someone will post a thread and say: hey lookie here the book of mormon was changed from white to pure because…the mormon church was…racist…and… And now that the usual catholic critics know about the 1837 edition…we will see if they write something about the 1837 edition…I hope so…but…lets hope…they do.

 

[Returning_Home]

Well, all that is very well and good as far as it goes and certainly your viewpoint is similiar to the critics viewpoints that one can gleam from the internet. But the newspapers of his day as they reported about the book of mormon found Joseph to be far from intelligent. Also, none of the newspapers to my knowledge reported him with paper in hand and I am sure that they were asking questions from townspeople. And since no one mentioned Joseph Smith had a manucript, what can I say? I only see Joseph doing things without a manucript with the help of scribes.

How did Joseph memorize bible portions by sticking his head in a hat with magic rocks and then continue the book of mormon story without a manucript?

The only internet sources I use are LDS ones: FAIR, FARMS, the main LDS site, the Nephi Project, etc. All else I have printed copies of and I verify whatever I can.

I agree, we know of no manuscript whatsoever, but like LDS apologists often say: the lack of evidence for something doesn’t mean it doesn’t exist, right?

Of course he wouldn’t have learned the Bible by putting his head into his hat; he had 13 years prior to the publication of the BOM to do that, silly.

 

[why_me]

That’s fine, but I didn’t write any of those articles so don’t assign that opinion to me. I’ve read a number of his letters and found that he was of a least average intelligence, tempered with a very good imagination. I don’t think either of those things can be disputed.

I posted a few of his letters to his wife on this thread or a recent thread…they show him to be rather limited in grammar. And they were written when he was an adult.

Here is one letter written in 1838 as a man never mind how he wrote when he was a teenager or young man:

Typical of his handwritten prose is this extract from an 1838 letter to his wife Emma written while in jail at Richmond, Missouri:

…Brother Robison is chained next to me he he has a true heart and a firm mind, Brother Whight, is next, Br. Rigdon, next, Hyram, next, Parely, next Amasa, next, and thus we are bound together in chains as well as the cords of everlasting love, we are in good spirits and rejoice that we are counted worthy to be persecuted for Christ sake, tell little Joseph, he must be a good boy, Father loves him With a perfect llove, he is the Eldest must not hurt those that Are smaller then him, but cumfort them tell little Frederick, Father, loves him, with all his heart, he is a lovely boy. Julia is a lovely little girl, I love hir also She is a promising child, tell her Father wants her to remember him and be a good girl, tell all the rest that I think of them and pray for them all,…little baby Elexander is on my mind continuly Oh my affectionate Emma, I want you to remember that I am a true and faithful friend, to you and the children, forever, my heart is intwined around you[r]s forever and ever, oh may God bless you all amen you I am your husband and am in bands and tribulation &c—

As a sidenote: if sidney wrote the book of mormon as some claimed, i wonder what he was thinking sitting in that prison. And how could Joe and sid keep a straight face?

 

[Returning_Home]

…and you are the 'Mormon church," are you, to answer that question?

No, I’m not, of course, but the fact of the matter is that the LDS doesn’t own the copyright to the JST, the RLDS (now Community of Christ) does. This prevents the LDS from canonizing it because they’d most likely be sued over copyright infringement.

And I’ve mentioned it before, but a Deseret Book CO manager I spoke to told me that the JST was one of their slowest moving books of everything they carry. I wonder why Mormons don’t want the correct version of the Bible that their most important prophet produced.

Diana? Any ideas?

 

[why_me]

Of course he wouldn’t have learned the Bible by putting his head into his hat; he had 13 years prior to the publication of the BOM to do that, silly.

I see, so, Joseph would sit home memorizing the bible in between money digs and working on the farm? And for what reason? To include verses inside the book of mormon when he would stick his head in a hat? And what about the rest of the book of mormon? How did he write that? And where? He was not known to have his nose in a book…too much work on the farm supporting his father and mother with the help of his brothers and sisters.

 

[Returning_Home]

If God the Father, Jesus Christ the Son and the Holy Ghost are all one God, sharing substance, then every trinitarian Christian does indeed believe that God was once a man, fully human as well as fully divine.

That’s silly, Diane. You know full well that one belief doesn’t automatically lead to the presumed outcome based on your assumptions.

That’s like me saying that if your drive a Phord pick-up, you must know how to rebuild an engine. After all, the engine is part of the truck, right? That’s a nonsensical assumption that has no bearing on reality. Just because my wife knows where to put the gas, oil, antifreeze, and windshield wiper fluid doesn’t mean that she can rebuild the engine under the hood.

 

[why_me]

No, I’m not, of course, but the fact of the matter is that the LDS doesn’t own the copyright to the JST, the RLDS (now Community of Christ) does. This prevents the LDS from canonizing it because they’d most likely be sued over copyright infringement.

And I’ve mentioned it before, but a Deseret Book CO manager I spoke to told me that the JST was one of their slowest moving books of everything they carry. I wonder why Mormons don’t want the correct version of the Bible that their most important prophet produced.

Diana? Any ideas?

The JST is in their bible. It is footnoted. And so why buy it when it is in their bible already?

 

[Returning_Home]

I see, so, Joseph would sit home memorizing the bible in between money digs and working on the farm? And for what reason? To include verses inside the book of mormon when he would stick his head in a hat? And what about the rest of the book of mormon? How did he write that? And where? He was not known to have his nose in a book…too much work on the farm supporting his father and mother with the help of his brothers and sisters.

If you read the earliest account of the Furst Vision, we find Smith hanging out at home, when the ‘Jewish minister’ Joshua shows up. That being a farm, he had enough time to hang out for a while with him, rapping about religion without being interupted by a family member since he clearly wasn’t actually working. He, then, of course, went out to the grove to pray (where he saw only an angel, not Jesus, God, or the powers of darkness).

Since he had that kind of time to be fooling around, provided the account is true, what else might he have been doing in lieu of working? It seems like he had enough time to me.

Besides, I’m simply taking him at his word, that he began studying the Bible from the age of 12. Was that statement not reliable from him? After all, he’s your prophet, not mine.

 

[dianaiad]

That’s silly, Diane. You know full well that one belief doesn’t automatically lead to the presumed outcome based on your assumptions.

Then Jesus either is not fully God or…didn’t actually get born. The shocked exclamations regarding the idea that God was once man is done in the spirit of 'oh, boy, this is the most outrageous bit of cult stupidity…" but the fact is, almost every Christian (including us…) believes that Jesus Christ is God.

Well, Jesus Christ was born of a woman, grew from childhood to adulthood, and was crucified. He then was resurrected and has a body now of flesh and bones; when pinned down, pretty much every body agrees with that.

That’s like me saying that if your drive a Phord pick-up, you must know how to rebuild an engine. After all, the engine is part of the truck, right? That’s a nonsensical assumption that has no bearing on reality.

your analogy makes no sense. How about this one: we claim that Ford trucks haul hay. You claim that, as Socrates used to claim, all Ford trucks are merely shadows of the one perfect Ford truck, and it couldn’t POSSIBLY be used to haul hay…just as the one you happen to be driving is being loaded with freshly dried alfalfa.

Hey. If you can, I can.

Just because my wife knows where to put the gas, oil, antifreeze, and windshield wiper fluid doesn’t mean that she can rebuild the engine under the hood.

Now that is a non-sequitur for the ages…

 

[SirThomasMore]

Well, you may think it is a 'badge of honor." That does not, however, mean that it IS one.

Actually, it does

It’s not a badge I hand out to everybody, y’know;

Only those you cannot silence

To me, an ‘anti’ is more than a simple critic. An anti is someone who deliberately lies and gives misinformation regarding the target, believing somehow that the ends justify the means. Refusing to accept the word of a believer as to what his or her beliefs actually ARE, and doing so consistently and in spite of constant correction is definitely an anti.

No Catholic on this board has lied about the LDS Church. They just repeat facts that you do not like

People who take quotes out of context in order to make them ‘mean’ things that they do NOT mean…and do so deliberately and after correction, are anti’s. I hope you are getting the idea, here.

No, people who speak the truth about the LDS Church are your antis

Of course. If the BoM falls, Mormonism does. So?

And so, in a Spiritual sense, it has fallen

 

[SirThomasMore]

the change from ‘white’ to “pure” was made by Joseph Smith himself for the second edition of the Book of Mormon.

After he saw Blacks were not becoming white. Of course, if the Book or Mormon was translated as Joe described, he would not have needed to make ANY changes

 

[SirThomasMore]

You are quite right, MelanieAnne. …When sirthomasmore was atticusfinch, I had him on ignore. When he changed his name and promised to repent his ways, I gave him some time to see if he actually meant what he said.

That is wrong

He didn’t.

That is not true and just an excuse to run from me and the truth. I promised to be nicer. I have been. I NEVER promised to sit idly by while you preach a false doctrine from false prophets who worship a false god.

I will do as I said I would do…I will stand firm against the false god and his false Church.

That said, I will pray for you to see the truth and welcome you with open arms when the Soirit finally breaks thru the chains of false doctrine

 

[zaffiroborant]

Mike, my experience shows that the average Mormon does not know that the words and terms they use are defined differently in Mormonism as compared to traditional Christianity. There may be some who know the difference, but many, if not most, do not know.

It is hard for me to believe that the Mormon hierarchy does not know the truth, and yet they allow this to continue. Hence, it is possible that your description that Mormons can “prey” on this difference may be apt. Someone surely knows. Only the extent of the group who knows is in doubt.

You just answered your own question about how your god is different than the Christian God. Christians believe that God the Father is not simple, and He was not once one of us. He is all that is - this has probably already been discussed even on this thread.

We also already discussed how there is a difference in beliefs even though we use some of the same words. That was all that I was saying when talking about how some people are misled into believing they are on the same page as Mormons in many ways, yet we aren’t. Using the word con may have been a bit harsh (and I’m sorry for this), or not even the correct word, but I don’t like the fact that Mormons can prey on this (unless even the Mormons don’t even know the fundamental differences of beliefs in those terms).

What are some of the words defined differently in Mormonism, apostasy and salvation come to mind but I can’t think of others. I find this definition thing annoying, on one hand we are told “that is not the definition found in the dictionary” and on the other we are told well “we think this word means this” even though their meaning is not in the dictionary, like apostasy for instance.

 

[CatholicGuyNY]

If God the Father, Jesus Christ the Son and the Holy Ghost are all one God, sharing substance, then every trinitarian Christian does indeed believe that God was once a man, fully human as well as fully divine.

I believe he’s talking about God the Father being once a man. In our beliefs, God the Son was once a man, not the Father (or the Holy Spirit for that matter).

 

[CatholicGuyNY]

Then Jesus either is not fully God or…didn’t actually get born. The shocked exclamations regarding the idea that God was once man is done in the spirit of 'oh, boy, this is the most outrageous bit of cult stupidity…" but the fact is, almost every Christian (including us…) believes that Jesus Christ is God.

Well, Jesus Christ was born of a woman, grew from childhood to adulthood, and was crucified. He then was resurrected and has a body now of flesh and bones; when pinned down, pretty much every body agrees with that.

Again, when we are “shocked” at the statement that “God was once a man”, we’re of course thinking about God the Father being once a man. Not the Son.