Mormons... Seriously.... Why?

[Xavierlives]

You are quite right, Xavier. I HAVE met some not-so-nice Christians. I actually have scars.

By the way, that’s not how the quote goes. It does NOT say that 'not everyone who says Lord, Lord will be called Christian." In fact, almost everyone who DOES say Lord,Lord can be called Christian—but can they be called Christ’s?

there is, you need to understand, a very big difference.

Well to be technical it is

Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven. - Matt 7:21

 

[Rv_Cain_Spencer]

…by leaving it half done, that’s how!

No, I’m sure you have a trick up your sleeve. I’ve not seen anyone post such elaborate messages so fast.

 

[dianaiad]

She has always said she’d never join the Catholic Church whatever happened which I think is sad. I always pray for her, every day. It makes me sad that she won’t talk to me. The last time I saw her she came with my mum and she stole some of my clothes and burned them. She’s been mentally ill for years and she sometimes refuses to take her medication.

You are going to think I’m nuts, now…

but the CoJCoLDS has a VERY effective welfare system, and the local relief society and ward are supposed to send people to see her every month to see if she needs anything. If your sister is mentally ill and needs to take her meds, her Bishop and her Relief Society President can help her with that.

Whether she stays LDS or not is up to her, but as long as she is, she DID pick an organization that might, actually, help her get healthy–if she will allow it. They’ll see to it that she gets to the doctor when she needs to, for instance. As well, if you tell her Bishop and/or Relief Society president your concerns, and about how she is refusing to see you, you will find that they will be solidly on your side. They will most definitely encourage her to see you.

Diana

 

[Rv_Cain_Spencer]

You are going to think I’m nuts, now…

but the CoJCoLDS has a VERY effective welfare system, and the local relief society and ward are supposed to send people to see her every month to see if she needs anything. If your sister is mentally ill and needs to take her meds, her Bishop and her Relief Society President can help her with that.

Whether she stays LDS or not is up to her, but as long as she is, she DID pick an organization that might, actually, help her get healthy–if she will allow it. They’ll see to it that she gets to the doctor when she needs to, for instance. As well, if you tell her Bishop and/or Relief Society president your concerns, and about how she is refusing to see you, you will find that they will be solidly on your side. They will most definitely encourage her to see you.

Diana

I visited my friends mormon church (back some time past now), but it was like a community of its own.

 

[dianaiad]

Hardly. It’s like pulling teeth unless you get them really enthusiastic. Then they’ll “go there.”

Lol. Personally, I’m terrified of my BOM. I grabbed it off my book shelf and said in my heart while thinking of my Mormon friend:
"Well, it may not be historically accurate. But Catholics (as do I) believe that it’s not the historical accuracy, but the message that God is trying to get across that is inherent.
I was reading it allowed and the books on my desk fell over! Granted, it could have been because Me taking the BOM out made the larger books knock down the book stands, but still, that was scary.

Odd, I up until now I wasn’t thinking of you as a superstitious type. It’s just a book, Mr. Z. Ink on paper. I realize that right up until the beginning of the 20th century people were actually cutting verses out of the bible, disolving them in water and drinking them as medication–substituting the material symbol with the thing, but I thought that most people were over that sort of thing by now. What’s important about the Bible…and the Book of Mormon, is what the words MEAN; the thoughts those shapes upon the paper express.

And yes, it was because your taking the BOM out of the bookshelf made the larger books knock down the book stands. God’s natural laws don’t particularly give a hoot what’s written IN the book that is physically holding up the shelf.

On the other hand, it could be that God is telling you that the BOM is the only book you needed to read at the time and was conveniently getting rid of the rest of 'em for you. (ducking…)

fustration is poring out of me
Lord, Jesus, calm my nerves… Ok, look, I would acspect scientific skeptisism of a mirical. But that’s an entirely different case. We have physical evidence that Joseph Smith lied.

No you don’t. What you have is physical evidence that some people interpret as that.

I’m not saying it’s not possible for a prophet to translate an ancient Egyptian papyre, but if he actually got it right I’d be more compelled to believe him. THAT is the stumbling block that the church of LDS faces and MUST deal with.

Why? It’s like you and the Shroud of Turin. (or Christ’s Resurrection itself, for that matter). Do you think it is possible for science to come up with something so damning about it that you can’t explain it away? Or, if they come up with something that LOOKS that bad, do you say, wait…the jury’s not in yet…even if everybody ELSE thinks it is?

That’s what faith is, Mr. Z.

Yes, I’m an evolutionist too. But that wasn’t my point. My friend thinks that God makes creation and evolutin contradicting to test our faith. And THAT is what I see wrong.

And I just told you that he’s allowed his opinions. The church itself doesn’t have a formal position on it, except to say that we should leave science to the scientists, and religion to the church…and it doesn’t matter in the end HOW God created man, but THAT He created man.

So your friend can be a strict creationist if he wants to. Most of us aren’t, but in spite of popular belief, Mormons do not march in lockstep.

We are still good friends. I find this part kinda offensive though, when you ask me to tell him:
"I need to concentrate on my personal connection with Christ."
WHATEVER!

Why? It wasn’t meant to be offensive. I figure you should tell him whatever the Spirit tells you to tell him–the truth,…as you will note that I actually mentioned.

 

[CHRISTINE77]

One thing (among many) thatI don’t understand about the Book of Mormon is that when these Jews came to South America and gradually split into two groups, the Lamanites and the Nephites, how did they come worship idols? In the Old Testament, there were all kinds of different cultures, such as Egyptian, Sumerian, Assyrian etc, who had different Gods that they worshiped. The Jews would fall back into sin by worshipping these other people’s Gods. But in South America all these people were of Jewish origin.

Also how does a person’s skin suddenly turn dark? I assume that Joseph meant they turned into native-looking people, not just white people with a tan. Which is also kind of funny because Jews do have darker skins than Europeans, which is what Joseph and most of his followers’ ancestry was.

To me it is a funny book, almost a satire on what was going on in the United States in terms of different religions, with a boyish sort of adventure spin to it.

 

[dianaiad]

What do you mean?!? Asians are Jews too???
Blood is running off my scalp and down my face. I hope you’re happy. :crying:

Nope, I mean that the vast majority of native Americans descended from the migrants over the land bridge. the Book of Mormon wasn’t talking about the entire population of the new world…and if you read the thing, you see that the peoples of the BoM are pretty much kaput by the end of the book.

 

[dianaiad]

No, I’m sure you have a trick up your sleeve. I’ve not seen anyone post such elaborate messages so fast.

quick wits.
Fast typing.

Great talent.

 

[dianaiad]

I visited my friends mormon church (back some time past now), but it was like a community of its own.

Most good churches are, or at least they are SUPPOSED to be that, not a social club or ‘duty meetings.’

I think Christ had this sort of thing in mind when He said 'love one another,"

It’s just a hunch, of course, but isn’t that what Jesus had in mind, for us to care for one another?

 

[dianaiad]

One thing (among many) thatI don’t understand about the Book of Mormon is that when these Jews came to South America and gradually split into two groups, the Lamanites and the Nephites, how did they come worship idols? In the Old Testament, there were all kinds of different cultures, such as Egyptian, Sumerian, Assyrian etc, who had different Gods that they worshiped. The Jews would fall back into sin by worshipping these other people’s Gods. But in South America all these people were of Jewish origin.

Those who came over with Lehi included two of his sons who were well aquainted with other belief systems, and who were not a bit shy about criticising that of their father and brothers.

As well, while those who came over were Jewish, they ran into quite a hefty population already there. Those folks had their own belief systems. They were the people we now call ‘native Americans.’

Also how does a person’s skin suddenly turn dark? I assume that Joseph meant they turned into native-looking people, not just white people with a tan. Which is also kind of funny because Jews do have darker skins than Europeans, which is what Joseph and most of his followers’ ancestry was.

So do native Americans, Christine. which probably explains a lot. Intermarriage would do that.

To me it is a funny book, almost a satire on what was going on in the United States in terms of different religions, with a boyish sort of adventure spin to it.

Interesting approach. In fact, if I were your grad school professor, you would now be assigned a paper using that thesis. I know of at least three peer -reviewed journals that would be interested in publishing such a work.

 

[Rv_Cain_Spencer]

quick wits.
Fast typing.

Great talent.

In a nutshell.

Most good churches are, or at least they are SUPPOSED to be that, not a social club or ‘duty meetings.’

Social club… sounds like my previous church back in the old days.

I think Christ had this sort of thing in mind when He said 'love one another,"

It’s just a hunch, of course, but isn’t that what Jesus had in mind, for us to care for one another?

…hmm let me think about that one.

 

[MrZetterlund]

Odd, I up until now I wasn’t thinking of you as a superstitious type. It’s just a book, Mr. Z. Ink on paper.

Hey, I wouldn’t chalk just any book up to “ink on paper.” One time my dad read this demonic book about satan and casting spells, pentagrams, ect, and when he went to throw it away, immediately his refridgerator caught on fire. Also this one other guy read it for some time and woke up with a dark image at the foot of his bead. Strange, I do remember something telling me the LDS church has ties to the Occult:
youtube.com/watch?v=b3lmWszMRTU

On the other hand, it could be that God is telling you that the BOM is the only book you needed to read at the time and was conveniently getting rid of the rest of 'em for you. (ducking…)

Then I don’t see why He’d scare me so bad. I picked up the BOM to try and see if it was worthy of teaching some sort of message. You know, like Narnia or Star Wars. It may not be true, but maybe it held a message. I tried to humor it, but it scared me. God knows how influential I am.

No you don’t. What you have is physical evidence that some people interpret as that.

It’s very simple, Joseph Smith claimed to be something he clearly is not. I don’t see how else you could interpret that. If an egyptologist, native American, or theologin were asked on a scale of 1-10 (one being the closest) how on-key he is in what he says, they’d give him a 62.

Why? It’s like you and the Shroud of Turin. (or Christ’s Resurrection itself, for that matter). Do you think it is possible for science to come up with something so damning about it that you can’t explain it away? Or, if they come up with something that LOOKS that bad, do you say, wait…the jury’s not in yet…even if everybody ELSE thinks it is?

That’s what faith is, Mr. Z.

sigh Lord give me strength to deal with this Mormon.

No, the “Lost Book of Abraham” is nothing at all like the Shroud of Turin. The only thing forensic science can deem the Shroud of Turin as is the Buirial cloth of Jesus Christ. And no, there is nothing that science can come up with that would be so damning about the Shroud of Turin or the ressurection that it couldn’t be explained away. You know why? Because it’s true. Jesus rose from the dead and the Shroud of Turin verrifies that. Faith doesn’t mean the same thing as blind faith. And REAL FAITH is always followed with proof:

“And without faith it is impossible to please God, because anyone who comes to Him must believe that He exists, and that He rewards those who earnestly seek Him.” -Hebrews 11:6
If you read any of the examples listed after verse six God’s servants were met with proof. I think it is uttterly cruel that Joseph Smith asks you for such blind faith. It plays with your emotions, and with your mind. THAT is evil.

And I just told you that he’s allowed his opinions. The church itself doesn’t have a formal position on it, except to say that we should leave science to the scientists, and religion to the church…and it doesn’t matter in the end HOW God created man, but THAT He created man.

So your friend can be a strict creationist if he wants to. Most of us aren’t, but in spite of popular belief, Mormons do not march in lockstep.

Yes, I understand that, Diania. I’m an theistic-evolutionist too. But my point was was that my Mormon friend believes God would produce false evidence to test our faith. And it’s not in God’s nature to decieve.
“God is not a man, that he should lie, nor a son of man, that he should change his mind. Does he speak and then not act? **Does he promise and not fulfill?” **-Numbers 23:19

Nope, I mean that the vast majority of native Americans descended from the migrants over the land bridge. the Book of Mormon wasn’t talking about the entire population of the new world…and if you read the thing, you see that the peoples of the BoM are pretty much kaput by the end of the book.

The introduction to the BOM says that the Lamanites are the principle ancestors of the Native Americans. Funny that they never heard of them

 

[dianaiad]

Hey, I wouldn’t chalk just any book up to “ink on paper.” One time my dad read this demonic book about satan and casting spells, pentagrams, ect, and when he went to throw it away, immediately his refridgerator caught on fire. Also this one other guy read it for some time and woke up with a dark image at the foot of his bead. Strange, I do remember something telling me the LDS church has ties to the Occult:
youtube.com/watch?v=b3lmWszMRTU

You have got to be kidding. Good heavens…we aren’t even allowed to play with Oiji boards, use Tarot cards (even for fun)! As to that video, it has about the same amount of credibility that all that stuff does. Zero. It does sound as if you have a great deal more dealings with the occult than any Mormon ever has, to be honest!

Then I don’t see why He’d scare me so bad. I picked up the BOM to try and see if it was worthy of teaching some sort of message. You know, like Narnia or Star Wars. It may not be true, but maybe it held a message. I tried to humor it, but it scared me. God knows how influential I am.

Something scared you, but it wasn’t the book. I believe you had yourself scared pretty badly before you picked the thing up! (grin) sheesh.

It’s very simple, Joseph Smith claimed to be something he clearly is not. I don’t see how else you could interpret that. If an egyptologist, native American, or theologin were asked on a scale of 1-10 (one being the closest) how on-key he is in what he says, they’d give him a 62.

I’m quite sure you don’t see, Mr. Z. …but that’s not my problem.

sigh Lord give me strength to deal with this Mormon.

There, there, Mr. Z. …It will be all right, eventually.

No, the “Lost Book of Abraham” is nothing at all like the Shroud of Turin. The only thing forensic science can deem the Shroud of Turin as is the Buirial cloth of Jesus Christ. And no, there is nothing that science can come up with that would be so damning about the Shroud of Turin or the ressurection that it couldn’t be explained away. You know why? Because it’s true. Jesus rose from the dead and the Shroud of Turin verrifies that. Faith doesn’t mean the same thing as blind faith. And REAL FAITH is always followed with proof:

I see…if ‘real faith’ isn’t followed by proof, then it’s not real?

 

[dianaiad]

“And without faith it is impossible to please God, because anyone who comes to Him must believe that He exists, and that He rewards those who earnestly seek Him.” -Hebrews 11:6
If you read any of the examples listed after verse six God’s servants were met with proof. I think it is uttterly cruel that Joseph Smith asks you for such blind faith. It plays with your emotions, and with your mind. THAT is evil.

…and how is asking us to believe that Moses parted the Red Sea, that Joseph was the second most powerful man in Egypt, that Joshua stopped the sun, that Jesus changed water into wine, raised the dead–and was raised from the dead Himself NOT ‘blind faith’ in the same way you use the term?

Because, my friend, the shroud of Turin does NOT prove that Jesus was resurrected. Even if the carbon dating is off (and frankly, the arguments against it are pretty flimsy) there is the fact that the weave of the cloth (a twill) is one that wasn’t used in Jesus’ time…didn’t appear, in fact, for another 1000 years.

It woudn’t bother me a bit if it turned out that the Turin shroud IS that of Jesus. I’d love it–but I don’t need it and my faith in Him wouldn’t be a bit altered if/when it turns out that the Shroud is a remarkable piece of art–but not His shroud. I do not require physical proof of that which is confirmed to me by the Holy Ghost.

Yes, I understand that, Diania. I’m an theistic-evolutionist too. But my point was was that my Mormon friend believes God would produce false evidence to test our faith. And it’s not in God’s nature to decieve.

So your friend is wrong. Mormons are allowed to be wrong, y’know, just like Catholics and Protestants are…but that ‘God would produce false evidence’ is not a theory unique to your friend. In fact, it’s a pretty standard claim for many fundamentalist literal creationists. It’s a claim that this idea of creation pretty much has to have, when you think about it.

“God is not a man, that he should lie, nor a son of man, that he should change his mind. Does he speak and then not act? **Does he promise and not fulfill?” **-Numbers 23:19

Hey, don’t look at me. I think that God gave us two records of His dealings with the universe. One is in the scriptures; His dealings with man and our spiritual needs. The other is in the rocks and the oceans, where his dealings with the universe are there for us to read…as soon as we learn how.

The introduction to the BOM says that the Lamanites are the principle ancestors of the Native Americans. Funny that they never heard of them

Funny that you have so completely misquoted the introduction to the Book of Mormon. what it ACTUALLY says is this:

"The book was written by many ancient prophets by the spirit of prophecy and revelation. Their words, written on gold plates, were quoted and abridged by a prophet-historian named Mormon. The record gives an account of two great civilizations. One came from Jerusalem in 600 B.C., and afterward separated into two nations, known as the Nephites and the Lamanites. The other came much earlier when the Lord confounded the tongues at the Tower of Babel. This group is known as the Jaredites. After thousands of years, all were destroyed except the Lamanites, ***and they are among the ancestors of the American Indians. ***

Many of us used to believe that Native Americans descended primarily from the Nephites, Lamanites and Jaredites…but the book itself certainly never made that claim. While the phrase you used, “principal ancestors” did appear in earlier editions, please note that ‘principal ancestors’ is still not 'only ancestors." It has been obvious to LDS scholars and members, at least as long as I’ve been around, that it would be difficult for the native Americans of today to claim the Nephites, Lamanites and Jaredites as their only ancestors, when the Book of Mormon rather clearly states that those three groups met, interacted, and intermarried with folks that were here already.

Now I predict that the next objection will be ''how convenient that you changed your minds on this…
Well, of course. We learn things, we grow with them…just as everybody else does.

…and we, at least, are quite able to justify such changes, unlike other belief systems. After all, WE think God is still TALKING to us.

 

[TheosisM]

…and we, at least, are quite able to justify such changes, unlike other belief systems. After all, WE think God is still TALKING to us.

I’m curious, which churches/belief systems think that God is no longer talking to us?

 

[dianaiad]

I’m curious, which churches/belief systems think that God is no longer talking to us?

Pretty much all of 'em.

…unless you can point to a prophet in the Catholic church who can recieve direct revelation FOR the church, and have that revelation be scripture? You know, a Peter, A Paul, a Mark or a John?

Given that one of the biggest criticisms the CoJCoLDS gets is that we claim that there IS such a person walking around on the planet right now, and that Joseph Smith was one…you can understand the problem, I think.

We are not, after all, talking about personal revelation and the answer to personal prayer. That is a very different thing. We are talking about prophets recieving direct revelation…with the power to say ‘thus saith the Lord’ and have it stick.

 

[TheosisM]

Pretty much all of 'em.

…unless you can point to a prophet in the Catholic church who can recieve direct revelation FOR the church, and have that revelation be scripture? You know, a Peter, A Paul, a Mark or a John?

Given that one of the biggest criticisms the CoJCoLDS gets is that we claim that there IS such a person walking around on the planet right now, and that Joseph Smith was one…you can understand the problem, I think.

We are not, after all, talking about personal revelation and the answer to personal prayer. That is a very different thing. We are talking about prophets recieving direct revelation…with the power to say ‘thus saith the Lord’ and have it stick.

I think that this is a very important distinction to make here, since we agree that no group in Christianity really says that God no longer speaks to us, or that the “heavens are closed”. What many groups do say is that there is no more need for public revelation, which many believe specifically relates to salvation. All that is necessary for salvation has already been revealed. Anything else that is revealed for “the Church” is peripheral, and may help one on their journey, but is not something else needed for salvation.

And I believe this is a distinction made in Catholicism: those revelations made that are essential for salvation, and those that are peripheral (yet still may be important). We have had many prophets and prophetesses throughout the history of the Church that have received revelations that apply to all of us, yet we are not required to believe, since they are not required for salvation. Papal Infallibility and Ecumenical Councils, which are divinely inspired functions of the Pope and the College of Bishops respectively, can be seen as analogous to what you are referring to, where something is formally/dogmatically defined (this is important, because we don’t necessarily believe that this dogma is completely brand new, but that the “seeds” of it already existed), and required for belief by the Church, and is in essence “scripture”. All Popes have the ability to function in this capacity.

Another question: Have all LDS prophets received “thus saith the Lord” revelations? Did Gordon Hinckley? Has Thomas Monson so far?

A related question: what causes a revelation to be added to the D&C, and if there have been revelations received since the last update to the D&C (I believe the 1978 revelation was the last one, right?), why haven’t they been added? Also, what is the difference between “Official Declarations” and the rest of the D&C? Sorry, multiple questions I’ve had for a while.

 

[MrZetterlund]

You have got to be kidding. Good heavens…we aren’t even allowed to play with Oiji boards, use Tarot cards (even for fun)! As to that video, it has about the same amount of credibility that all that stuff does. Zero. It does sound as if you have a great deal more dealings with the occult than any Mormon ever has, to be honest!

Well the video didn’t talk much about Oiji boards or using Tarot cards, but the theory is since Joseph Smith, his father, and his brother were all registered members of the occult, therefore alot of practices from the LDS church are dirived from the occult. Such as Ancient Orders, Examinations, Degrees, Candidates, Secrets, Lodges, Rules, Signs, Tokens, Order of the Priesthood, and Keys. I suggest ACTUALLY WATCHING THE VIDEO.

Something scared you, but it wasn’t the book. I believe you had yourself scared pretty badly before you picked the thing up! (grin) sheesh.

No, I wasn’t afraid at all until those books caught me off guard.

I see…if ‘real faith’ isn’t followed by proof, then it’s not real?

Yes, exactly. I’ve noticed when you earnestly seek God He rewards you in your search.

…and how is asking us to believe that Moses parted the Red Sea, that Joseph was the second most powerful man in Egypt, that Joshua stopped the sun, that Jesus changed water into wine, raised the dead–and was raised from the dead Himself NOT ‘blind faith’ in the same way you use the term?

Because we have evidence for alot of these things. Evidence of Hebrew settlers in Egypt in a very desirable part of the land. You should find that and much more in this article:
christiananswers.net/q-abr/abr-a016.html
We also have evidence for the Red Sea Crossing, charriot wheels and axels found under the Red Sea. Also the Image on the Shroud of Turin is believed by particle physisists to have occured after Jesus pulled a Hoodini.
But Catholics believe it’s not the historical accuracy, rather, the message God is trying to get across that makes it inherent. You’d know that if you weren’t in apostasy, I as well. God could care less if you believe in giants, rather, do you believe that through your faith in God you could defeat a giant?

Because, my friend, the shroud of Turin does NOT prove that Jesus was resurrected. Even if the carbon dating is off (and frankly, the arguments against it are pretty flimsy) there is the fact that the weave of the cloth (a twill) is one that wasn’t used in Jesus’ time…didn’t appear, in fact, for another 1000 years.

Not according to a professional textile worker:
youtube.com/watch?v=kXEE9OWXFZg

It woudn’t bother me a bit if it turned out that the Turin shroud IS that of Jesus. I’d love it–but I don’t need it and my faith in Him wouldn’t be a bit altered if/when it turns out that the Shroud is a remarkable piece of art–but not His shroud. I do not require physical proof of that which is confirmed to me by the Holy Ghost.

So that’s it. You’re afraid the Shroud will be proven a fake. Dispite the overwhelming amount of science on our side, that the Lord God has blessed us with, you’re afraid.

So your friend is wrong. Mormons are allowed to be wrong, y’know, just like Catholics and Protestants are…but that ‘God would produce false evidence’ is not a theory unique to your friend. In fact, it’s a pretty standard claim for many fundamentalist literal creationists. It’s a claim that this idea of creation pretty much has to have, when you think about it.

What do you mean by that? Do you believe God does produce false evidence?

 

[MrZetterlund]

Funny that you have so completely misquoted the introduction to the Book of Mormon. what it ACTUALLY says is this:

"The book was written by many ancient prophets by the spirit of prophecy and revelation. Their words, written on gold plates, were quoted and abridged by a prophet-historian named Mormon. The record gives an account of two great civilizations. One came from Jerusalem in 600 B.C., and afterward separated into two nations, known as the Nephites and the Lamanites. The other came much earlier when the Lord confounded the tongues at the Tower of Babel. This group is known as the Jaredites. After thousands of years, all were destroyed except the Lamanites, ***and they are among the ancestors of the American Indians. ***

Well mine says specifically “principle ancestors.” You realize there’s a BIG difference between “principle ancestors” and “among the ancestors.”

Many of us used to believe that Native Americans descended primarily from the Nephites, Lamanites and Jaredites…but the book itself certainly never made that claim. While the phrase you used, “principal ancestors” did appear in earlier editions, please note that ‘principal ancestors’ is still not 'only ancestors."

:banghead: Well I guess mine’s an “earlier adition” then. EVEN THOUGH I JUST GOT IT LAST YEAR! Even if the book it’self didn’t make that claim, twelve minutes on the BYU channel tells you Joseph Smith ran everywhere telling Native Americans they were Lamanites!

It has been obvious to LDS scholars and members, at least as long as I’ve been around, that it would be difficult for the native Americans of today to claim the Nephites, Lamanites and Jaredites as their only ancestors, when the Book of Mormon rather clearly states that those three groups met, interacted, and intermarried with folks that were here already

.

You do realize when a Native American historian was met with names like “Nephites, Lamenites, and Jaredites” they’ll have no clue what you’re talking about. I suggest watching this video:
youtube.com/watch?v=G1mFdO1wB08

Now I predict that the next objection will be ''how convenient that you changed your minds on this…
Well, of course. We learn things, we grow with them…just as everybody else does.

…and we, at least, are quite able to justify such changes, unlike other belief systems. After all, WE think God is still TALKING to us.

Just as your prophet Joseph Smith, you have predicted wrong.

 

[CHRISTINE77]

…and how is asking us to believe that Moses parted the Red Sea, that Joseph was the second most powerful man in Egypt, that Joshua stopped the sun, that Jesus changed water into wine, raised the dead–and was raised from the dead Himself NOT ‘blind faith’ in the same way you use the term?

Because, my friend, the shroud of Turin does NOT prove that Jesus was resurrected. Even if the carbon dating is off (and frankly, the arguments against it are pretty flimsy) there is the fact that the weave of the cloth (a twill) is one that wasn’t used in Jesus’ time…didn’t appear, in fact, for another 1000 years.

It woudn’t bother me a bit if it turned out that the Turin shroud IS that of Jesus. I’d love it–but I don’t need it and my faith in Him wouldn’t be a bit altered if/when it turns out that the Shroud is a remarkable piece of art–but not His shroud. I do not require physical proof of that which is confirmed to me by the Holy Ghost.

So your friend is wrong. Mormons are allowed to be wrong, y’know, just like Catholics and Protestants are…but that ‘God would produce false evidence’ is not a theory unique to your friend. In fact, it’s a pretty standard claim for many fundamentalist literal creationists. It’s a claim that this idea of creation pretty much has to have, when you think about it.

Hey, don’t look at me. I think that God gave us two records of His dealings with the universe. One is in the scriptures; His dealings with man and our spiritual needs. The other is in the rocks and the oceans, where his dealings with the universe are there for us to read…as soon as we learn how.

Funny that you have so completely misquoted the introduction to the Book of Mormon. what it ACTUALLY says is this:

"The book was written by many ancient prophets by the spirit of prophecy and revelation. Their words, written on gold plates, were quoted and abridged by a prophet-historian named Mormon. The record gives an account of two great civilizations. One came from Jerusalem in 600 B.C., and afterward separated into two nations, known as the Nephites and the Lamanites. The other came much earlier when the Lord confounded the tongues at the Tower of Babel. This group is known as the Jaredites. After thousands of years, all were destroyed except the Lamanites, ***and they are among the ancestors of the American Indians. ***

Many of us used to believe that Native Americans descended primarily from the Nephites, Lamanites and Jaredites…but the book itself certainly never made that claim. While the phrase you used, “principal ancestors” did appear in earlier editions, please note that ‘principal ancestors’ is still not 'only ancestors." It has been obvious to LDS scholars and members, at least as long as I’ve been around, that it would be difficult for the native Americans of today to claim the Nephites, Lamanites and Jaredites as their only ancestors, when the Book of Mormon rather clearly states that those three groups met, interacted, and intermarried with folks that were here already.

Now I predict that the next objection will be ''how convenient that you changed your minds on this…
Well, of course. We learn things, we grow with them…just as everybody else does.

…and we, at least, are quite able to justify such changes, unlike other belief systems. After all, WE think God is still TALKING to us.

But Joseph Smith never said there were other peoples living in South America except for the Nephites, Jaredites and Lamanites. I don’t see where you come up with the fact that there were other people in South America during this time. Clearly all the wars were between these groups of people who were originally from the Middle East. I don’t see where you are coming up with that information.