Mormon FAQ!

  • Thread starter Thread starter zerinus
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
When you get past the insulting rhetoric,the unsubstantiated allegations,the lies (or is it ignorance) and distortions maybe then we can have a proper dialogue.
TEMPLE EXPERIENCE
I found the Mormon temple not at all like I had been taught to believe it would be. The temple ceremony was one of the main reasons I left the Mormon church. I soon realized the Mormon church was not the church I had been told it was or I thought it was. It certainly was not the church of God as I had been told. Many who came to the temple never wanted to come back. It was a very depressing experience for me and my wife and very sickening, especially if one believes that it was designed by God. I was ashamed of having served there, after I found out the truth. I realized I could no longer serve a God who was so changable, violent and deceptive.
home.teleport.com/~packham/temples3.htm
 
c. Gordon B. Hinckley lying to the FBI about his involvement in the Mark Hoffman affair
I had forgotten about the Hoffman affair! I could never understand how any self-respecting Mormon could continue their membership in this cult after reading the unrefuted facts about this case. God bless them in their blindness!
 
Mormons certainly believe that the land of America is a favoured land; but not that the Americans are a “favoured group”. The Americans in the sight of God are no different from any other people. If they are righteous, they will be favoured of God; if not, they will not be. That is the deciding factor for everyone, not whether they are “Americans” or something else.

zerinus
zerinus You do well in defending your faith, but you cannot teach, to those who have not ears to hear. But isn’t it in your belief that you believe that Israel’s blood landed in America, that your faith was restored to this holy blood line that was given this land by your God of Israel and that is why your church was restored in America, because Judah (one blood line) rejected the Christ, and your Christ came to the other chosen house of Israel, promised in Ezk. 37 and that is why according to your faith in Christ. the chosen blood line of Israel was here in America therefore it was restored to that blood line. Is it not your belief that Christ died for Israel and that he was interested only in Israel, and those who joined his church would be apart of Israel, and those who would not, would be damed, the Lost sheep that he talked about in John 10. I have found your faith interesting. But I have to many unanswered questions, I do have a question why don’t you except the authority of the Catholics or our faiths???
 
TEMPLE EXPERIENCE

I found the Mormon temple not at all like I had been taught to believe it would be. The temple ceremony was one of the main reasons I left the Mormon church. I soon realized the Mormon church was not the church I had been told it was or I thought it was. It certainly was not the church of God as I had been told. Many who came to the temple never wanted to come back. It was a very depressing experience for me and my wife and very sickening, especially if one believes that it was designed by God. I was ashamed of having served there, after I found out the truth. I realized I could no longer serve a God who was so changable, violent and deceptive.

home.teleport.com/~packham/temples3.htm
You have to do more then post anti-Mormon URLs for me to take an interest in what you have to say. I don’t want to appear to be insulting but what exactly am I to respond to? Now if this the extent of what I have to look forward to then this will be our last exchange on this forum.
 
So anyone that believes in the Book of Mormon is ignorant or gullible? This is not an argument. Name calling should be left behind in grade school where it belongs and has no place here.
No one is name-calling. I am simply stating fact. You are obviously a new-comer to these forums, so I suggest that you go back and cover the ground that has been covered ad nauseum. Zerinus has presented no provable evidence for mormonism, and attempts to prove his case using only mormon sources and “burning in the bosom” to try to convince us of the truth of mormonism. I am sure that if credible evidence was presented for the truth of mormonism, we would have less trouble in giving Zerinus and mormonism serious consideration. So far, it has not happened. As to Zerinus’ contention that a “restoration” took place in North America, his contention is false. God did it right the first time, no “restoration” was necessary. Christ’s Church is found in the Catholic Church, not some home-grown imitation. In all charity, of course.
 
No one is name-calling. I am simply stating fact. You are obviously a new-comer to these forums, so I suggest that you go back and cover the ground that has been covered ad nauseum. Zerinus has presented no provable evidence for Mormonism, and attempts to prove his case using only Mormon sources and “burning in the bosom” to try to convince us of the truth of Mormonism. I am sure that if credible evidence was presented for the truth of Mormonism, we would have less trouble in giving Zerinus and Mormonism serious consideration. So far, it has not happened. As to Zerinus’ contention that a “restoration” took place in North America, his contention is false. God did it right the first time, no “restoration” was necessary. Christ’s Church is found in the Catholic Church, not some home-grown imitation. In all charity, of course.
What statistical methodology did you use to come to the conclusion that anyone who believes that the Book of Mormon is an ancient record is both ignorant or gullible? I might be overly sensitive but when i am accused of being ignorant and gullible I do not take this as a compliment. Sorry but I can’t convince you of anything. If you think that the Catholic Church is headed by Christ I am happy for you. Live your religion and be the best Catholic that you can be.
 
When you get past the insulting rhetoric,the unsubstantiated allegations,the lies (or is it ignorance) and distortions maybe then we can have a proper dialogue.
Tactic # 1 is an enduring favourite among the Mormon elite.

"As Boyd K. Packer once said, in quoting Henry D. Moyle, “I never pay any attention to the questions… If he doesn’t ask the right questions [the questions I like to be asked], I give answers to questions he should have asked.”

Packer added, “That short statement from President Moyle held great wisdom, and on a number of occasions I have been rescued in difficult situations by referring back in my mind to his comment.”

[source: Boyd K. Packer, p.63, Teach Ye Diligently] "

So, Boyd Packer was lying? And in a respected mormon reference work, as well? How do you explain that?
 
You have to do more then post anti-Mormon URLs for me to take an interest in what you have to say. I don’t want to appear to be insulting but what exactly am I to respond to? Now if this the extent of what I have to look forward to then this will be our last exchange on this forum.
Breaking the Mormon Code: A Critique of Mormon Scholarship (Paperback)

In Provo, Utah, there exists the Foundation for Ancient Research and Mormon Studies (FARMS) renowned as a Mormon think-tank, FARMS is owned and operated by Brigham Young University (BYU) and the Mormon Church. Their mission seeks to repudiate the opposition, applaud its supporters, and justify many peculiar Mormon doctrines. This book demonstrates that FARMS often twists the truths to justify Mormon doctrines. To justify their position they often will utilize inane accusations, misquotes and equivocation. This collection of deceit from Mormon scholarship is what Matt Paulson has identified as the ¿breaking of the Mormon Code.¿

Customer Reviews
This book is unlike other apologetics in that Paulson does not set out to prove that Mormonism is theologically incorrect. Instead, he reveals the ways in which Mormon scholars deceive their readers by misquoting, taking out of context, and misapplying the teachings of the Early Christian Church Fathers. Paulson also touches on a few of the many scriptures the Mormon Church twists into aberrant meanings through eisegesis and exegesis. Through the use of fallacious arguments these same scholars attempt to seduce Mormons and Christians alike into believing that there is little difference between what Christian Church Fathers taught and what the LDS Church teaches today.

Paulson’s book performs two very valuable services in the academic arena. First of all, he demonstrates conclusively that many LDS scholars have been less than professional in the way that they have selectively quoted-- and sometimes, misquoted – early Christian Fathers and heretic writers of the last 2000 years, with the aim of making it seem that Mormonism restores the original, doctrinally pure Gospel of the first century AD. Paulson’s second contributions are his helpful charts and lists. Especially useful is the comparison of classic Christian creeds with the LDS Articles of Faith–which is, as Paulson shows, indeed itself a creed.
amazon.com/Breaking-Mormon-Code-Critique-Scholarship/dp/1595940677
 
What statistical methodology did you use to come to the conclusion that anyone who believes that the Book of Mormon is an ancient record is both ignorant or gullible? I might be overly sensitive but when i am accused of being ignorant and gullible I do not take this as a compliment. Sorry but I can’t convince you of anything. If you think that the Catholic Church is headed by Christ I am happy for you. Live your religion and be the best Catholic that you can be.
I’m sorry that you do not take my statement as a complement, but I will stand by my contention that that there is NO historical evidence for the BOM. There IS extensive historical and forensic evidence that the BOM was largely plagarized from other contemporary sources as well as being produced by JS’s fertile imagination. IF you choose to believe a book with this little historical veracity, then that is your affair. Thank you for your support of Catholicism (which IS headed and founded by Our Lord Jesus Christ) though, perhaps you would like to inquire further into the absolute truth of Catholicism?
 
Tactic # 1 is an enduring favourite among the Mormon elite.

"As Boyd K. Packer once said, in quoting Henry D. Moyle, “I never pay any attention to the questions… If he doesn’t ask the right questions [the questions I like to be asked], I give answers to questions he should have asked.”

Packer added, “That short statement from President Moyle held great wisdom, and on a number of occasions I have been rescued in difficult situations by referring back in my mind to his comment.”
[source: Boyd K. Packer, p.63, Teach Ye Diligently] "

So, Boyd Packer was lying? And in a respected mormon reference work, as well? How do you explain that?
I learned an important lesson about answering questions from President Henry D. Moyle. We were in Alaska to attend a youth conference and were scheduled for a television interview. For some reason the cameras had been set up at Elmendorf Air Force Base, so we went there for the interview. A member of the Church who was a television star at that time also was scheduled to be at the youth conference but at the last minute had to cancel.

**When we arrived at the place of the interview the commentator was obviously disappointed as he looked at President Moyle and me and said, “Is this all there is?” **

The mission president indicated that we were the two to be interviewed. “We were given to understand that there would be theatrical luminaries present,” the commentator responded.
**When the mission president explained that the television personality had canceled her appearance, the commentator was obviously irritated. **

When he became discourteous to President Moyle, I could restrain myself no longer. I said to him, “I’ll have you know this is a member of the First Presidency of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. And in most places in the world the media are very interested and anxious to have an opportunity to schedule an interview with him.”

The commentator settled down a little and finally said, “Well, I suppose we might just as well go ahead.” **He started the interview with questions that exposed his antagonism. **The interview lasted for over thirty minutes. **Later, as we were returning to the car, I said, “President Moyle, that was marvelous, just marvelous. How did you do it?” **

President Moyle asked, “What do you mean?” I said, “All those antagonistic questions he asked you; it was just marvelous the way you handled them. **He was so antagonistic and bitter and yet the interview itself was successful.” **

I have never forgotten his answer. He said, **“I never pay any attention to the questions-that is, if the interviewer is antagonistic. If he doesn’t ask the right questions, I give answers to questions he should have asked.” **That short statement from President Moyle held great wisdom, and on a number of occasions I have been rescued in difficult situations by referring back in my mind to his comment.

On one occasion,in Halifax, Nova Scotia,I was invited to appear on a talk show on which people who were thought to be interesting were interviewed. The missionaries had arranged my appearance on the show, thinking it would help the Church. It was obvious to me in the beginning that the commentator wanted to talk about me personally. He asked several questions about my teaching experience, my military experience, and so on, and seemed to be avoiding any questions about the Church.
**
Remembering what President Moyle had said, I paid little attention to his questions and directed the answers in such a way that I explained the Church program rather than talked about myself.**

On another occasion I was scheduled for an interview in Maine. The missionaries who had arranged the radio interview apologized to me beforehand, saying that the commentator appeared to be antagonistic and was intent on embarrassing me and the Church with questions about who could or could not hold the priesthood.

Again I remembered the experience with President Moyle, and when the interviewer raised his first question about the priesthood, I quickly countered with a question: "Do you know anything about the priesthood?"


**He said, “No,” and I was immediately able to take lead in the interview. **“You know about the elders, don’t you?” “Not very much,” he said. So I began to tell him about the elders who were preaching the gospel in the cities and was able to urge those listening to invite them in and hear their message.
**
The time allotted for the interview had elapsed before he was able to twist the conversation back to the point where he had hoped to begin. **
 
I do not want to clutter the thread by quoting your entire response. But the article does illustrate that mormon authorities and apologists DO use obfuscation and evasive tactics in order to avoid direct responses to inquiries about mormon practices and beliefs. That much is quite evident. “If you cannot impress them with facts, baffle them with rhetoric.” There is a basic dishonesty there, which is very disturbing.
 
Ha! Jerry Falwell has passed to his reward and Gordon B. Hinckley may well have Altzheimer’s, so I doubt that I would trust the “revelations” of either one of them.😃
I wouldn’t have in the fullness of their prime.
 
BOOK SUMMARY

Mormonism: A Latter Day Deception is a riveting, at times hilarious, account of how a sincere believer was disabused of his confidence in the Mormon revelation. The author, a Harvard Ph.D., joined the Mormon Church in 1980. A year later, he received a Temple Recommend for the Washington, D.C. temple. He entered the Temple a Mormon, but left it a non-Mormon.

Mormonism: A Latter Day Deception presents a rare detailed eyewitness account of the Mormon Temple ceremonies circa 1981. No other book of which the author is aware presents as starkly authentic an account of these secret ceremonies of Mormonism.

As a Harvard Ph.D. in Political Science, the author was driven by his shocking experience in the Mormon Temple to research the origins of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints. He presents tersely and cogently irrefutable evidence of its true character.

goodmorals.org/mormons/
 
I do not want to clutter the thread by quoting your entire response. But the article does illustrate that Mormon authorities and apologists DO use obfuscation and evasive tactics in order to avoid direct responses to inquiries about Mormon practices and beliefs. That much is quite evident. “If you cannot impress them with facts,baffle them with rhetoric.” There is a basic dishonesty there,which is very disturbing.
When those who were antagonistic towards Jesus were asking dishonest and leading questions he never answered them with a direct answer or explanation. Was he using obfuscation and evasive tactics in order to avoid direct responses to questions? Was this an example of baffling them with rhetoric? Are you disturbed by this example of basic dishonesty? I am not saying that the experience of Elder Ballard was in any way similar to that of the Savior. What I am saying however is that your eagerness to find fault with us has blinded you to the fact that you in turn condemn the Lord.
 
When those who were antagonistic towards Jesus were asking dishonest and leading questions he never answered them with a direct answer or explanation. Was he using obfuscation and evasive tactics in order to avoid direct responses to questions? Was this an example of baffling them with rhetoric? Are you disturbed by this example of basic dishonesty? I am not saying that the experience of Elder Ballard was in any way similar to that of the Savior. What I am saying however is that your eagerness to find fault with us has blinded you to the fact that you in turn condemn the Lord.
You are now talking about two different things. One can in no way compare an official of an American non-Christian group with our Lord and Saviour. He was not trying to deceive the Pharisees, only instruct them. His teachings were open for all to see and hear. He taught openly in the Temple and in the countryside. The evasions and obfuscations practiced by mormon missionaries and apologists are well-known. For example, the “milk before meat” tactic practiced on those inquiring about mormonism. They do not practice “full disclosure”, which is basically dishonest. Yes, most emphatically, I am disturbed by this basic dishonesty and they do attempt to “baffle with rhetoric.”

I suggest that you need to honestly examine the foundations of mormonism and decide wether or not it is worth staking your salvation upon . “Burning in the Bosom” won’t feed the bulldog on judgement day. In all charity, of course.
 
You are now talking about two different things. One can in no way compare an official of an American non-Christian group with our Lord and Saviour. He was not trying to deceive the Pharisees,only instruct them. His teachings were open for all to see and hear. He taught openly in the Temple and in the countryside. The evasions and obfuscations practiced by Mormon missionaries and apologists are well-known. For example,the “milk before meat” tactic practiced on those inquiring about Mormonism. They do not practice “full disclosure”,which is basically dishonest. Yes,most emphatically,I am disturbed by this basic dishonesty and they do attempt to “baffle with rhetoric.”

I suggest that you need to honestly examine the foundations of Mormonism and decide whether or not it is worth staking your salvation upon . “Burning in the Bosom” won’t feed the bulldog on judgement day. In all charity,of course.
Housemonkey I was not making an argument here that the Church of Jesus Christ of latter-day Saints is comparable to the New Testament church founded by the Savior. That is not the present subject of discussion here.

My position is that Jesus never answered his antagonists who asked dishonest and leading questions with direct answers or explanations. You now have the burden of proof to show me otherwise from the scriptures. The apostle Paul according to your standards also did not practice full disclosure.

Hebrews 5:12 For when for the time ye ought to be teachers,ye have need that one teach you again which be the first principles of the oracles of God;and are become such as have need of For when for the time ye ought to be teachers, ye have need that one teach you again which be the first principles of the oracles of God; and are become such as have need of milk, and not of strong meat.

1 Corinthians 3:2 I have fed you with milk, and not with meat:for hitherto ye were not able to bear it, neither yet now are ye able.
 
Housemonkey I was not making an argument here that the Church of Jesus Christ of latter-day Saints is comparable to the New Testament church founded by the Savior. That is not the present subject of discussion here.

My position is that Jesus never answered his antagonists who asked dishonest and leading questions with direct answers or explanations. You now have the burden of proof to show me otherwise from the scriptures. The apostle Paul according to your standards also did not practice full disclosure.

Hebrews 5:12 For when for the time ye ought to be teachers,ye have need that one teach you again which be the first principles of the oracles of God;and are become such as have need of For when for the time ye ought to be teachers, ye have need that one teach you again which be the first principles of the oracles of God; and are become such as have need of milk, and not of strong meat.

1 Corinthians 3:2 I have fed you with milk, and not with meat:for hitherto ye were not able to bear it, neither yet now are ye able.
I have no burden of proof. You need to prove that mormons do not lie to or mislead prospective converts by not disclosing fully abberant mormon theology and practices before that person commits to baptism. I have a copy of the lectures given to prospective converts by mormon missionaries. Nowhere is mentioned wierdness like baptism for the dead, God having a physical body, polygamy, achieving “Godhood” or anything else that does not seem to be mainstream christianity. Only later is all that other stuff sprung on the victim, when it is too late. If I was buying a used car under those conditions, I would holler “FRAUD!”
 
I have no burden of proof. You need to prove that Mormons do not lie to or mislead prospective converts by not disclosing fully aberrant Mormon theology and practices before that person commits to baptism. I have a copy of the lectures given to prospective converts by Mormon missionaries. Nowhere is mentioned weirdness like baptism for the dead,God having a physical body,polygamy,achieving “Godhood” or anything else that does not seem to be mainstream Christianity. Only later is all that other stuff sprung on the victim,when it is too late. If I was buying a used car under those conditions,I would holler “FRAUD!”
I don’t blame you for not wanting to make a defense for the indefensible. If you want to make false accusations and use double standards then yes you do not need to provide any burden of proof. Let us put aside for a moment your double standards that you use against us. I gave the challenge to provide evidence that Latter-day Saint missionaries are taught to lie. So far I have seen no evidence to support this allegation. Please do me a favor and do not bother to reply to this post if no evidence is forth coming.
 
I don’t blame you for not wanting to make a defense for the indefensible

Joseph Smith’s Changing Doctrine of Deity
VIEWED IN SCRIPTURAL ORDER
The Mormon scriptures are not progressive. Viewed chronologically, beginning from the most ancient period, they move from teaching the plurality of Gods, to monotheism, then back to the plurality of Gods.
2000 B.C. Book of Abraham 4:3-7 Plurality of Gods
600 B.C. to A.D. 400 Book of Mormon Modalistic Alma 11:26-29 Monotheism
A.D. 1830 Early (April 1830) Doctrine & Covenants 20:17, 19, 28 Monotheism
A.D. 1830 - Joseph Smith Translation Modalistic Monotheism
A.D. 1834-1835 Lectures on Faith, 5th Lecture Binatarian Monotheism, or Bitheism
A.D. 1839 Later (March 1839) Doctrine & Covenants 121:26, 28, 32 Possibility of Plurality of gods
A.D. 1839-1843 Doctrine & Covenants 131:17-18; 132:20, 37 Plurality of gods (but unlike in the Book of Abraham)
A.D. 1844 [King Follet Discourse*] Plurality of Gods

irr.org/mit/changod.html
 
I have no interest in jumping from topic to topic because you have no answer for the questions I previously asked you.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top