Mormon Claims

[why_me]

I’m fully against the falsehoods of Mormonism and I have no problem saying the Smith was an intelligent con-man. While he may not have had much formal education, he still had the raw stuff that makes one of at least average intelligence. We also know that he had a very vivid imagination, too.

Another matter to point out is that magic rocks were common in Mormonism’s early days as they were in American folk magic preceding Mormonism.

As far as Smith writing the BOM, refer to the PM I sent you, the one detailing just a few of the New Testament references found in the BOM, some used about 600 years before they were written. Not only that, but they weren’t references to just any Bible, but specifically to the KJV first published in 1611, clearly indicating that the BOM authors had ready access to the text, coincidentally the same one that Smith is known to have owned.

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?

 

[SirThomasMore]

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.

 

[dianaiad]

I can answer that one. According to the BOM, the Bible is missing many ‘plain and precious things,’ a phrase used seven times in 1 Nephi 13:24-42 so as not to be misunderstood about its position on the matter. While the church has canonized it, it also places great doubt on it, and tries to clarify it through the lense of the BOM.

It then makes sense to ask why God would give us faulty scriptures. The Mormon God told Joseph Smith to ‘retranslate’ the Bible, which he claims to have done, though the church doesn’t use it. (it’s actually one of the slowest moving books sold at Deseret Book CO)

Why? Because as the Mormons were packing up to head west, Brigham Young sent men to get the Joseph Smith Translation from his widow, Emma, who refused to give the the full manuscript. She did, however, give them some notes that Smith made.

Since the Bible is incomplete or in error, it leaves the church free to insert whatever they like and simply tell the congregation that it has been ‘restored.’ The church says that it values the Bible, but it’s actually somewhere below the BOM as far as reliabiity goes.

That said, the church still uses whatever it likes from the Bible and simply discards the rest as a mistranslation or mistake. Without a correct version, however, they have no idea what they’re quoting is correct or not.

Does that clear it up for you?

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

 

[Stephen168]

How do the LDS authenticate the books that are in the Bible now when the decisions for what made it into the Canon were made by the early Catholic Church?

I can answer that one. According to the BOM, the Bible is missing many ‘plain and precious things,’ a phrase used seven times in 1 Nephi 13:24-42 so as not to be misunderstood about its position on the matter. While the church has canonized it, it also places great doubt on it, and tries to clarify it through the lense of the BOM.

It then makes sense to ask why God would give us faulty scriptures. The Mormon God told Joseph Smith to ‘retranslate’ the Bible, which he claims to have done, though the church doesn’t use it. (it’s actually one of the slowest moving books sold at Deseret Book CO)

Why? Because as the Mormons were packing up to head west, Brigham Young sent men to get the Joseph Smith Translation from his widow, Emma, who refused to give the the full manuscript. She did, however, give them some notes that Smith made.

Since the Bible is incomplete or in error, it leaves the church free to insert whatever they like and simply tell the congregation that it has been ‘restored.’ The church says that it values the Bible, but it’s actually somewhere below the BOM as far as reliabiity goes.

That said, the church still uses whatever it likes from the Bible and simply discards the rest as a mistranslation or mistake. Without a correct version, however, they have no idea what they’re quoting is correct or not.

Does that clear it up for you?

You seem to be saying the answer is, “They don’t.” But two Mormons suggest they do. Let’s see what a third one has to say:

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

Oh, I guess she isn’t here to explain the Mormon Church

 

[SirThomasMore]

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

No, he is just someone who belongs to THE true Church, and uses his God-given intellect

 

[dianaiad]

You seem to be saying the answer is, “They don’t.” But two Mormons suggest they do. Let’s see what a third one has to say:

Oh, I guess she isn’t here to explain the Mormon Church

What I am “here for” isn’t the issue, Stephen.

I was reacting to Returning Home (an anti if I ever saw one) telling everybody what the “Mormon Church says.” about the question.

I can confidently say that whatever Returning Home says the “Mormon church” will say bears little resemblance to what it actually DOES say.

Diana, who wonders why she EVER takes you off ignore.

 

[dianaiad]

No, he is just someone who belongs to THE true Church, and uses his God-given intellect

…which is all well and good (and VERY arguable, by the way), but he’s not qualified to tell anybody what the Mormon Church says about anything.

Ok, You are back on ignore now, too.

 

[SirThomasMore]

…which is all well and good (and VERY arguable, by the way)

Wow, so you are saying he is not intelligent? Is there a reason you feel the need to insult those who show the faults of your faith?

, but he’s not qualified to tell anybody what the Mormon Church says about anything.

Sure he is. We can read. We can discern. We have the books, articles, television shows, and experience to do just that. We may be even more qualified than you because we do not have those pesky LDS blinders on.

Ok, You are back on ignore now, too.

.it is a badge I wear with pride. When another Mormon realizes they cannot fool me, outwit me, out-logic me, or out-study me, they run or put me on ignore. I thank the true God above for helping me to speak up for the True Church and to speak out against false prophets.

 

[SirThomasMore]

What I am “here for” isn’t the issue, Stephen.

I was reacting to Returning Home (an anti if I ever saw one) telling everybody what the “Mormon Church says.” about the question.

How sad. Anyone who speaks the truth is an anti-Mormon

I can confidently say that whatever Returning Home says the “Mormon church” will say bears little resemblance to what it actually DOES say.

Actually, it bears a LOT of resemblence to what he says. He speaks the truth

Diana, who wonders why she EVER takes you off ignore.

I do not believe anyone really wonders why Diana puts people on ignore. The truth is very hard to face. I say again that we should pray for our brethern in the LDS Church who follow false prophets and pray the the true Holy Spirit touches their hearts.

 

[Mike2010]

Well, the mormon god is different from your god. How so? And the mormon god is contrary to the christian god of the trinity. How so? And of course, people are conned into becoming mormon? How so? I think that the mormon explanation is a simple one about who god is and what god is. I see no con going on.

That god was once a man is a beautiful concept. To understand that god was once like me shows that he has a deep personal understanding of who I am. I see nothing wrong with that perspective. Mormons have discussed this in their first priesthood lesson for this year. I see no con going on.

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).

 

[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?

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.

No, all accounts are of Smith with his head in his hat. How did he do it? Since we’ve already ruled out divine intervention, we have to look at his history. He said that he’d studied the Bible from the age of 12, giving him, if we are to believe anything he said, 13 years to become intimately familiar with it. That would account for the recurring themes and familiar language we have in the BOM. That also accounts for the fact that the BOM authors were well aquainted with the New Testament long before it was written and published.

It’s not out of the realm of possibility that people can memorize the Bible; Hank Hanegraaf has most of it memorized, I believe.

In regards to the"translation" of the BOM, while we have no accounts of Smith carrying a manuscript around with him, the original edition of the BOM is full of errors that someone lacking in a formal education would likely make, including spelling, punctuation, and grammatical errors. There are also words that are simply made up, words that never existed such as exceeding fraid,arriven, awaked, and phrensied to name a few. Since we know that the BOM is a literal translation, this assigns such errors to God or his Urim and Thummim.

Not only that, but we find errors in ‘fact,’ mistakes that are later corrected, such as the BOM going from a monotheistic view to a polytheistic one. If God could’t get it right the first time, why should we beieve him the second time around?

 

[Returning_Home]

I was reacting to Returning Home (an anti if I ever saw one) telling everybody what the “Mormon Church says.” about the question.

I can confidently say that whatever Returning Home says the “Mormon church” will say bears little resemblance to what it actually DOES say.

I, too, wear that as a badge of honor. 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’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. That said, none of the above apply to me, Sir Thomas, or anyone else here. 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.

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.

 

[Returning_Home]

“Can we justify the prophet’s change from “white” to “pure?” The answer is yes. The terms “white” and “pure” can be found in parallel in Daniel 7:9, Revelation 15:6, and D&C 110:3. They are also found together in a number of passages where they clearly refer to those who are purified and redeemed by Christ. Moreover, we must note that the “white/pure and delightsome” passage that the prophet Joseph modified does not refer to the Lamanites, but to the Jews and Gentiles in the latter days who turn to Christ.”

“ I beheld till the thrones were cast down, and the Ancient of days did sit, whose garment was white as snow, and the hair of his head like the pure wool: his throne was like the fiery flame, and his wheels as burning fire.” Dan 7:9

“And the seven angels came out of the temple, having the seven plagues, clothed in pure and white linen, and having their breasts girded with golden girdles.” Rev 15:6

blacklds.org/tvedtnes

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.

 

[Returning_Home]

Certainly being on this forum will keep you on your toes but this forum is not very challenging for the savvy mormon. It is really old hat since the same is repeated over and over again by the critics. But…if a mormon is a novice, it will force them to seek answers and learn from the experience. And that is always a good thing. You just need to remember that you will not change the minds of most critics on this forum. The most that will happen is that the more open minded catholic will see that mormons have reasons for their beliefs.

Yes, these points are raised over and over again because the church has yet to answer them. Instead, it lets its members answer for it which provides them an easy out by claiming that something not quite in following with the church’s opinion of itself is just so-and-so’s opinion.

By ‘savvy Mormon,’ do you mean someone who has all of the church’s prepared answers memorized and accepted as fact, no matter how absurd?

In answering the charges against it, I’ve never heard a Mormon answer a question with “I don’t know.” They seem to always know (or pretend to) so as to keep from looking foolish, I guess. Honestly, what I know is dwarfed by what I don’t know and I’m not afraid to admit that. Why don’t Mormons approach it in the same way?

 

[MelanieAnne]

I do not believe anyone really wonders why Diana puts people on ignore. The truth is very hard to face. I say again that we should pray for our brethern in the LDS Church who follow false prophets and pray the the true Holy Spirit touches their hearts.

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

 

[MelanieAnne]

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).

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.

 

[twopekinguys]

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

I agree.

It’s not like the people you have on ignore are suddenly going to have something logical or credible to say. At least the ones I have on ignore don’t.

 

[Stephen168]

I do not believe anyone really wonders why Diana puts people on ignore. The truth is very hard to face. I say again that we should pray for our brethern in the LDS Church who follow false prophets and pray the the true Holy Spirit touches their hearts.

The whine with no attempt at a correction is what leads me to believe Returning Home has said something which contains the truth. I’m just not sure how to put it together with what the other Mormons said. Maybe the Mormon Church accepts the authority of the Catholic Church when it works for them.

 

[MelanieAnne]

I, too, wear that as a badge of honor. 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’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. That said, none of the above apply to me, Sir Thomas, or anyone else here. 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.

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.

I have also found this to be true. Any disagreement, any pointing to the facts about early Mormonism leads to the classification of “anti-Mormon”. It appears to be reflexive, not necessarily based on the examination of the facts.

Good luck!

 

[dianaiad]

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).

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.