Mormon FAQ!

  • Thread starter Thread starter zerinus
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
A Professor Joshua Seixas was hired by Joseph Smith and his associates to leach them Hebrew. They originally hired another teacher who turned out to be very unsatisfactory, but they were determined to learn the language as well as they could. So, On November 21, 1835, they agreed to send someone to New York to find a Jew who was more qualified to teach them. On January 4, 1836, however, William E. M’Lellin and Orson Hyde were dispatched to the Hudson, Ohio, to find the right person. When M’Lellin returned on January 6, 1836, he reported that he had hired a teacher who was “highly celebrated as a Hebrew scholar, and proposes to give us a sufficient knowledge during the above term to start us reading and translating the language.” (Joseph Smith, History of the Church, 2:356). It was going to cost $320 for seven weeks, to have him teach forty “scholars.” He would arrive in about 15 days. Meanwhile, the group continued to study as best they could. On February 15, according to Joseph Smith’s History, they began “translating the Hebrew language, under the instruction of Professor Seixas, and he stated that we were the most forward of any class he ever instructed for the same length of time.” (2:396). It was this same Professor Seixas who published the Hebrew grammar they used. Seixas was apparently a professor at Oberlin College.

In 1834 Joshua Seixas published a little book titled Manual. Hebrew Grammar For the Use of Beginners, by J. Sexias, 2d ed. enlarged and improved. This was the manual that was used in the Kirtland school when Seixas came to teach Hebrew to Joseph Smith and his associates in 1836. In 1981 this manual was published in a facsimile edition by the Sunstone Foundation, Salt Lake City. It carried an introduction by Louis Zucker, entitled “Joseph Smith As a Student of Hebrew.”
nauvoo.com/nauvoo_beautiful.html

By 1842 Joseph Smith most likely had touched the subject of Kabbalah in several ways and versions, even if such contacts remain beyond easy documentation. During Joseph’s final years in Nauvoo, however, his connection with Kabbalah becomes more concrete. In the spring of 1841 there apparently arrived in Nauvoo an extraordinary library of Kabbalistic writings belonging to a European Jew and convert to Mormonism who evidently new Kabbalah and its principal written works. This man, Alexander Neibaur, would soon become the prophet’s friend and companion.
Neibaur has received little detailed study by Mormon historians, and his knowledge of Kabbalah has earned only an occasional passing footnote in Mormon historical work.121 Neibaur was born in Alsace-Lorraine in 1808, but during his later childhood the family apparently returned to their original home in eastern Prussia (now part of Poland). His father, Nathan Neibaur, was a physician and dentist, who family sources claim, was a personal physician to the Napoleon Bonapart and whose skill as a linguist made him of “great value” to Napoleon as an interpreter (claims perhaps inflated by posterity). Like his father, Alexander became fluent in several languages, including French, German, Hebrew, and later, English. He also read Latin and Greek. Family tradition claims that as the first child and eldest son, his father wished him to become a rabbi, and that the young Neibaur was begun in rabbincal training. However, at age seventeen he instead entered the University of Berlin to study dentistry, and completed his studies around 1828. Sometime shortly afterwards, he converted to Christianity and migrated to Preston, England. There he established a dental practice and married in 1833. In mid-summer 1837, Heber C. Kimball, Orson Hyde, and Joseph Fielding arrived in Preston. Neibaur had been troubled by several dreams about a mysterious book, and his first question for Joseph Smith’s apostles was whether they had a “book” for him–which of course they did. He was baptized with his family the next spring. On 5 February 1841 they departed for Nauvoo, arriving in Quincy, Illinois, on 17 April. Four days later Neibaur met Joseph Smith, and on 26 April he notes in his journal, “went to work for J. Smith.” Two day later he acquired a quarter-acre lot in Nauvoo, and on 1 June moved his family into their newly complete Nauvoo home on Water Street, a few blocks from Joseph Smith’s residence.122

Where and how Neibaur first came in contact with Kabbalah remains a mystery, though a careful evaluation of his history and personal travels offers a few hints. Given his father’s position, his childhood in western Poland, his studies in Berlin and his subsequent conversion to Christianity, some contact with a reservoir of Kabbalistic knowledge among Sabbatean or Frankist Jews should be considered.123 If he did indeed undertake rabbical studies in Poland prior to his university education, he could not have avoided some exposure to the subject. That Neibaur brought a knowledge of Kabbalah to Nauvoo has been mentioned in several studies of the period. For instance, Newel and Avery note in their biography of Emma Smith, "Through Alexander Neibaur, Joseph Smith had access to ancient Jewish rites called Cabalism at the same time he claimed to be translating the papyri from the Egyptian mummies [which became his Book of Abraham]."124 That he not only knew something of Kabbalah, but apparently possessed a collection of original Jewish Kabbalistic works in Nauvoo, is however documented in material almost totally overlooked by Mormon historians

gnosis.org/jskabb3.htm
What is your point?
 
Yes Philothea against my better judgment I will answer your request for evidence supporting the Book of Mormon/Pearl of Great Price and engage you in this exercise in futility. It must be that you asked so politely. Being that the Doctrine and Covenants claims to be the revelations of Joseph Smith I do not know of any way that you can verify this. As to evidence supporting the claims of the Book of Mormon and Pearl of Great Price being ancient scripture yes there is such evidence. At the moment I have other matters on my agenda that will be taking up my time. I do not know when I will be able to reply to your request but it will not be for at least a couple of weeks. What happened to Zerinius? Did everybody here just gave up on him to provide any answers?
I will remember zerinus in my prayers.

I think you misunderstood my request. I have read all of the evidence that *supposedly supports *these writings as ancient scripture (the discussion of which could be a thread in itself.) I am of the belief that Joseph Smith took so long to produce the plates, etc, and subsequently the BOM, because he was making things up as he went along.The realization of this is one of the (many) reasons that made me resign my membership.

What I am asking for is actual verifiable proof.
 
IS YOUR WARM FUZZY FEELING DEFECTIVE? PRAY ABOUT IT
That must be the reason that I ever replied to a boor like yourself. Don’t change a thing about yourself. It just confirms the fact of why no right thinking Latter-day Saint would ever want to dialogue with you let alone engage you in a debate. I came to my senses. Don’t bother answering this post as you are now on my ignore list.
 
Melanie Anne has every right to make unsubstantiated claims. I think I have every right to ask her for proof. Next time however I will let falsities go unchallenged. Then I will be guaranteed not to be guilty of self contradiction.
Actaully, the burden to move the argument forward is upon you. She made the claims by a preponderance of the evidence as you suggested. You now have to discount those claims.
 
That must be the reason that I ever replied to a boor like yourself. Don’t change a thing about yourself. It just confirms the fact of why no right thinking Latter-day Saint would ever want to dialogue with you let alone engage you in a debate. I came to my senses. Don’t bother answering this post as you are now on my ignore list.
My answer to that is, “too bad”. zerinus

The Shunning Shuffle - Maybe you can find a Muslim and debate who has “The Most Correct Book on Earth” -
 
They would have charged him with being a polygamist. But then again maybe not. I find it funny that you try and disqualify Joseph Smith for being a prophet by charging him with faults yet the Popes acted in a far worse manner. But of course your judgment doesn’t have to be impartial does it?

In a criminal trial proof beyond a reasonable doubt does not mean that your judgment of the facts is based on an absolute certainty. It means that after careful and impartial consideration of all the evidence,or lack of evidence using reason and common sense that the proof is of such a convincing character that you would be willing to rely and act upon it without hesitation.

There is such evidence for the Book of Mormon however no absolute proof that its claims are true. Prove by a clear and convincing standard that Jesus atoned for your sins? Some things including the claim that the Bible is the word of God can only be based on faith.
But he wasn’t charged with polygamy. An OH court found him guilty of criminal fraud for taking worshippers money and not coming through with his promises. He then fled to UT.

Haven’t you read the history of your own prophet? I don’t mean it to disqualify him whatsoever. But it is the facts.

Jesus called all sinners to Him. Why would I disqualify another sinner?

And your point is about beyond a reasonable doubt?

I agree with you about faith. But if thats your position, why call for a standard of proof?
 
Actually, the burden to move the argument forward is upon you. She made the claims by a preponderance of the evidence as you suggested. You now have to discount those claims.
Did she point to a scripture that encourages or condones lying? Did she point to a General Authority of the Church who has taught that lying is permissible? Has she pointed to any of our lesson manuals where it teaches us to lie? What preponderance of the evidence has she presented?
 
Did she point to a scripture that encourages or condones lying? Did she point to a General Authority of the Church who has taught that lying is permissible? Has she pointed to any of our lesson manuals where it teaches us to lie? What preponderance of the evidence has she presented?
Lying for the Lord
The first edition of the Doctrine and Covenants (1835) included a section denying any practice of polygamy:

“Inasmuch as this Church of Christ has been reproached with the crime of fornication and polygamy, we declare that we believe that one man should have one wife, and one woman but one husband, except in the case of death, when either is at liberty to marry again.” (History of the Church, Vol. 2, p. 247)
It is interesting to note that this section in the Doctrine and Covenants was in every single edition until 1876, when the Doctrine and Covenants first included section 132 justifying plural marriage.

Note that from the current heading of D&C 132, the church effectively admits the above statement was a lie:

“Although the revelation was recorded in 1843, it is evident from the historical records that the doctrines and principles involved in this revelation had been known by the Prophet since 1831.”
It is also clear that on May 26, 1844 Joseph lied about practicing polygamy, despite proof to the contrary:

“I had not been married scarcely five minutes, and made one proclamation of the Gospel, before it was reported that I had seven wives. I mean to live and proclaim the truth as long as I can. This new holy prophet [William Law] has gone to Carthage and swore that I had told him that I was guilty of adultery. This spiritual wifeism! Why, a man does not speak or wink, for fear of being accused of this…I wish the grand jury would tell me who they are - whether it will be a curse or blessing to me. I am quite tired of the fools asking me…What a thing it is for a man to be accused of committing adultery, and having seven wives, when I can only find one. I am the same man, and as innocent as I was fourteen years ago; and I can prove them all perjurers.” (Joseph Smith, History of the Church, Vol. 6, pp. 410-411)
As expressed by Charles W. Penrose in a letter to John Taylor in 1887:

“…the endless subterfuges and prevarications which our present condition imposes… threaten to make our rising generation a race of deceivers.” (B. Carmon Hardy, Solemn Covenant: The Mormon Polygamous Passage, p. 368)
trialsofascension.net/mormon/lying.html
 
Did she point to a scripture that encourages or condones lying? Did she point to a General Authority of the Church who has taught that lying is permissible? Has she pointed to any of our lesson manuals where it teaches us to lie? What preponderance of the evidence has she presented?
She presented her claim based on a Faith argument which is enough to overcome the initial standard of proof you required. Remember, you called for a preponderance of the evidence.

Now, discount it.
 
Did she point to a scripture that encourages or condones lying? Did she point to a General Authority of the Church who has taught that lying is permissible? Has she pointed to any of our lesson manuals where it teaches us to lie? What preponderance of the evidence has she presented?
I don’t know about her, but I quoted Ezra Taft Benson, who at the time (1978) was president of the quorum of the twelve and later became president of the church. He told us to bear testimony even if we didn’t have a testimony. That is lying by any definition, but it is such standard practice in Mormonism that Mormons can’t see anything wrong with it. The president of the LTM (now the MTC) also taught us the same thing. If you ever served a mission, you would have been taught that, too.

Every Mormon knows that “a testimony is a missionary’s most potent weapon” and that every missionary is expected to bear testimony every day, and to every investigator. It is part of every standard discussion. But you are certainly not naive enough to believe that every young man or woman who enters the mission field really has a testimony? Most of them are just paying their 2-year dues so that they can marry a pretty Mormon girl from a good family and advance in Mormon society.

So it logically follows that every day throughout the world LDS missionaries are lying their little hearts out, saying “I know Joseph Smith was a true prophet” or “I know that the Book of Mormon is true” or “I know this church is true”, when they know no such thing.

God bless you,
Paul
 
But he wasn’t charged with polygamy. An Ohio court found him guilty of criminal fraud for taking worshippers money and not coming through with his promises. He then fled to Utah. Haven’t you read the history of your own prophet? I don’t mean it to disqualify him whatsoever. But it is the facts.

Jesus called all sinners to Him. Why would I disqualify another sinner? And your point is what about beyond a reasonable doubt?I agree with you about faith. But if that’s your position, why call for a standard of proof?
Joseph Smith and Sidney Rigdon were both charged and convicted with the civil,not criminal offense of illegal banking and issuing unauthorized bank paper currency after the Kirtland Safety Society Anti-Banking Society failed in the financial crash of 1837. They were both fined $1,000 each, but Joseph Smith left Ohio for Missouri before an appeal was heard for fear of his life. The leaders of the Church made a sincere effort to solve the financial problems that the bank caused. They did start operations without a charter however later applied for a second charter. At the time there was considerable doubt as to the constitutionality of Ohio’s’ anti-banking laws. Also the legal failings were more the fault of poor legal advice on the part of lawyers then Joseph Smith. Joseph Smith returns to Kirtland and leaves with Sidney Rigdon to escape the risk of prison and mob action. Joseph Smith did not profit from the formation of the bank. Quite the opposite as he put more into stock save one other person and incurred more debt then anyone else. As late as 1843,he continued to work to settle his Kirtland debts even though now in Nauvoo he is beyond the reach of his creditors. This failing does not disqualify him for being a prophet. You are using a double standard as the history of your Popes shows a conduct that is much worse.
 
Joseph Smith and Sidney Rigdon were both charged and convicted with the civil,not criminal offense of illegal banking and issuing unauthorized bank paper currency after the Kirtland Safety Society Anti-Banking Society failed in the financial crash of 1837. They were both fined $1,000 each, but Joseph Smith left Ohio for Missouri before an appeal was heard for fear of his life. The leaders of the Church made a sincere effort to solve the financial problems that the bank caused. They did start operations without a charter however later applied for a second charter. At the time there was considerable doubt as to the constitutionality of Ohio’s’ anti-banking laws. Also the legal failings were more the fault of poor legal advice on the part of lawyers then Joseph Smith. Joseph Smith returns to Kirtland and leaves with Sidney Rigdon to escape the risk of prison and mob action. Joseph Smith did not profit from the formation of the bank. Quite the opposite as he put more into stock save one other person and incurred more debt then anyone else. As late as 1843,he continued to work to settle his Kirtland debts even though now in Nauvoo he is beyond the reach of his creditors. This failing does not disqualify him for being a prophet. You are using a double standard as the history of your Popes shows a conduct that is much worse.
mesenja, Four hours before you made the post above, I clarified a question I had asked you earlier to which you had replied that you were so busy it would take weeks to answer me, yet, here you are responding, at length, to another post. I don’t understand why mine has to wait weeks.
 
mesenja, Four hours before you made the post above, I clarified a question I had asked you earlier to which you had replied that you were so busy it would take weeks to answer me, yet, here you are responding, at length, to another post. I don’t understand why mine has to wait weeks.
Philothea53,
Mesenja has not answered your question because it is an awkward question that he has no real answer for. In view of some of mesenja’s responses, I have a very strong suspicion that mesenja is really zerinus, flying false colors. that or he is a zerinus surrogate or perhaps a zerinus sock-puppet. He exibits many of zerinus’ traits such as evasiveness, dishonesty, anger at being challenged etc. Or is this just standard mormon apologetics?🤷
 
I don’t know about her, but I quoted Ezra Taft Benson, who at the time (1978) was president of the quorum of the twelve and later became president of the church. He told us to bear testimony even if we didn’t have a testimony. That is lying by any definition, but it is such standard practice in Mormonism that Mormons can’t see anything wrong with it. The president of the LTM (now the MTC) also taught us the same thing. If you ever served a mission, you would have been taught that, too.
Every Mormon knows that “a testimony is a missionary’s most potent weapon” and that every missionary is expected to bear testimony every day, and to every investigator. It is part of every standard discussion. But you are certainly not naive enough to believe that every young man or woman who enters the mission field really has a testimony? Most of them are just paying their 2-year dues so that they can marry a pretty Mormon girl from a good family and advance in Mormon society.
mesenja, meet Paul Dupre, who is a former mormon. These are Paul’s words.

Paul, this is mesenja who claims there is NO evidence for Melanie Ann’s allegations concerning mormon missionaries being somewhat ‘elastic’ with the unpleasantries of their beliefs and being encouraged to invent ‘testimonies’ in order to lead gentiles to Joseph Smith’s one-true-church.

mesenja, here is a good place to begin. What responses do you have for Paul’s evidence in support of Melanie Ann’s assertions?

Peace of the Lord be with you

Robert
 
Philothea53,
Mesenja has not answered your question because it is an awkward question that he has no real answer for. In view of some of mesenja’s responses, I have a very strong suspicion that mesenja is really zerinus, flying false colors. that or he is a zerinus surrogate or perhaps a zerinus sock-puppet. He exibits many of zerinus’ traits such as evasiveness, dishonesty, anger at being challenged etc. Or is this just standard mormon apologetics?🤷
I was thinking the same thing about mesenja. He is either zerinus or his clone. The evasiveness and dishonesty is standard Mormon procedure. But we have had a few Mormons on these forums who were far more mature in their demeanor and did not react with anger when challenged. I think zerinus/mesenja is an adolescent and behaves accordingly.

I was no prize at that age either.😃 I cringe to think about it.

Paul
 
I have always thought that Zerinus was a gangly adolescent, without friends outside of his ‘youth group’ (boy scouts?) or immediate family circle.

There is so much sarcasm and bluster in his postings and he avoids direct questions like the juvenile I was (that reminds me, too, painfully much of my pubescent era).

Robert
 
I have always thought that Zerinus was a gangly adolescent, without friends outside of his ‘youth group’ (boy scouts?) or immediate family circle.

There is so much sarcasm and bluster in his postings and he avoids direct questions like the juvenile I was (that reminds me, too, painfully much of my pubescent era).

Robert
A “Napoleon Dynamite” type?
Perhaps mesenja is his “Pedro”.😃
 
What happened to Zerinius? Did everybody here just gave up on him to provide any answers?
Sorry Mesenja, but you have chosen to debate with a bunch of guys whom I don’t normally debate with. If you want to debate with these folks, you will have to do it on your own. My advice to you is not to. These folks don’t deserve to be debated with, either by you or by me.

zerinus
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top