No Crosses on Mormon Temples...

[dragonfly]

tempting folks that they can become Gods…

Yes, they certainly do that. And they do believe that!! Though they do not tell you that when they come to your door!! They suck you in with all their kindness, Love, emphasis on Family, etc…

The “Temple Teachings” are for such teachings, that we can become Gods and rule over our own planet!!!
Journal of Discourses, Vol.6 and the Doctrine of Covenants, section 132, go into further detail…in order to understand the direct connection between MORMON GODHEAD(and the practice of polygamy in the lds prior to 1890.

No wonder they are not christians, and no wonder they do not believe in the blood of Jesus Christ as their salvation! So why would they even practice taking of the sacrament then??

 

[amgid]

Mike_D30:

You clearly were, and I wasn’t the only one to point it out, it wasn’t until I quoted and bolded the book of mormon you admitted it meant literal skin color.

I did not, and I still don’t.

Well I do believe the teaching to be based on race, seeing the book of mormon considers dark skin a curse. I don’t believe God to be a racist, so draw your own conclusion.

OK, So you think that would make God a racist? if that be the case, then I can also say that these verses make God a racist, prejudiced, and a discriminator:

Exodus 20:

5 Thou shalt not bow down thyself to them, nor serve them: for I the Lord thy God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation of them that hate me;

Deuteronomy 22:

2 A bastard shall not enter into the congregation of the Lord; even to his tenth generation shall he not enter into the congregation of the Lord.

3 An Ammonite or Moabite shall not enter into the congregation of the Lord; even to their tenth generation shall they not enter into the congregation of the Lord for ever:

4 Because they met you not with bread and with water in the way, when ye came forth out of Egypt; and because they hired against thee Balaam the son of Beor of Pethor of Mesopotamia, to curse thee.

Also, the tribe of Levi being given the exclusive right to the priesthood over the other tribes (Joshua 18:70).

"Shall I tell you the law of God in regard to the AFRICAN RACE? If the WHITE man who belongs to the chosen seed mixes his blood with the seed of Cain, the PENALTY, under the LAW OF GOD, IS DEATH ON THE SPOT. THIS WILL ALWAYS BE SO.” (Journal of Discourses, Vol. 10, page 110) -Brigham Young.

Two points here: Firstly, where does it say that Brigham Young derived this idea from the Book of Mormon? Secondly, this quote is made out of context. If you read it in its original context, it won’t sound so bad as it does here.

Well now you have read something from Brigham Young stating that.

I have? I am aghast! I am speechless!

That’s your opinion, over a billion Christians do not agree with you.

Don’t worry. Most of them will eventually come round to it. It takes a bit of time.

Please post one falsehood I spread like “wildfire”, I know for certain I find several you posted:

Almost everything you have said here on this board so far has been a calculated misrepresentation.

You know just as well as I do that “pure” used to read “White” it was changed, . . .

That has already been answered before. No need to answer again.

. . . one of many changes to the book of mormon. The so called most perfect book ever, (yet it was edited more than 4,000 times since the 1830 version).

Yea, 4,000 punctuation changes! And you think that is not dishonest? God didn’t punctuate the Book of Mormon you know. The original punctuation was done by the printer, who was not even a Mormon. That punctuation was bad, and has had to be revised many times.

I apologize if I offended you, but like I said I stand by what I wrote.

I wouldn’t try to patronize me if I were you. I can answer you as well as anybody else can!

amgid

 

[dragonfly]

Are you a Mormon or have you ever been?? Have had ANY of the “Temple Teachings”??

Which first I do not agree w/ their Temple of being so sacred that no one is permitted to enter if they are not a Mormon and has been for more than year! “For NO Temples can be made of the hands of man, for we are the temples of God”

God is not racist!! He is a Loving and Forgiving God. All who believe that Jesus Christ is our Lord and Savior and died for our sins, then we shall enter into the Kingdom of Heaven!!

After that, what else really matters?? NOTHING As for so many different teachings from the Mormon Religion, they will say they do not believe that or this, it has been changed. Here’s the real question, HOW could they believe in a religion that at ANY TIME contradicted the bible, that has had and STILL has FALSE PROPHETS (Gordon B. Hinkley) and that STILL believe they will be Gods. If I am not mistaken here, that is the FIRST LIE told BY SATAN HIMSELF!! “eat, and you will become like God and have all knowledge” And he said “like” God, they are proclaiming to be A GOD!! I guess that one is still working for Satan huh.

It is absolutely discusting!!

 

[Mike_D30]

amgid:

I did not, and I still don’t.

You already admitted the passages I showed from Nephi 2 had to do with literal skin color, I can post them again.

amgid:

:
Originally Posted by Mike_D30
My point was, you were setting a smoke screen that it meant ‘spiritual purity’.

I was doing no such thing. In some contexts, it does mean literal skin color

amgid:

OK, So you think that would make God a racist? if that be the case, then I can also say that these verses make God a racist, prejudiced, and a discriminator:

No it means I don’t think God was involved one bit in writing the book of mormon…

amgid:

Exodus 20:

5 Thou shalt not bow down thyself to them, nor serve them: for I the Lord thy God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation of them that hate me;

Deuteronomy 22:

2 A bastard shall not enter into the congregation of the Lord; even to his tenth generation shall he not enter into the congregation of the Lord.

3 An Ammonite or Moabite shall not enter into the congregation of the Lord; even to their tenth generation shall they not enter into the congregation of the Lord for ever:

4 Because they met you not with bread and with water in the way, when ye came forth out of Egypt; and because they hired against thee Balaam the son of Beor of Pethor of Mesopotamia, to curse thee.

Also, the tribe of Levi being given the exclusive right to the priesthood over the other tribes (Joshua 18:70).

No idea how you compare this to the statements of the lamanites in Nephi 2

amgid:

Two points here: Firstly, where does it say that Brigham Young derived this idea from the Book of Mormon? Secondly, this quote is made out of context. If you read it in its original context, it won’t sound so bad as it does here.

Either the book of mormon or the god the mormons worship is where Young got inspiration for this, (or his own racist views like I think), as the prophet seer and revelator what brigham young said is divine scripture. So tell me do mormons practice killing whites if they lay with blacks as Brigham Young instructed? Or was the prophet wrong?

amgid:

I have? I am aghast! I am speechless!

Yes you have I posted it for you twice, I can post it again.

amgid:

Don’t worry. Most of them will eventually come round to it. It takes a bit of time.

Doubtful:

FACT: mormons are leaving the lds church at the same rate they’re converting.

amgid:

Almost everything you have said here on this board so far has been a calculated misrepresentation.

Then you’ll have no trouble where I posted lies and calculated misrepresentations. You keep accusing me, yet you won’t show anywhere, where I lied. I showed where you did…

amgid:

That has already been answered before. No need to answer again.

It wasn’t answered

amgid:

Yea, 4,000 punctuation changes! And you think that is not dishonest? God didn’t punctuate the Book of Mormon you know. The original punctuation was done by the printer, who was not even a Mormon. That punctuation was bad, and has had to be revised many times.

That’s a lie I already showed where the original 1830 version of the book of mormon said “white and delightsome”, but it was changed to “pure and delightsome”, that is not a punctuation change. I will not let you get by with lies and half truths amgid. You can see the rest of the changes to the book of mormon here:

saintsalive.com/mormonism/bomchanges.htm

I don’t want to paste them all here, for fear of being accused of claiming the information is mine.

amgid:

I wouldn’t try to patronize me if I were you. I can answer you as well as anybody else can!

I’m not trying to patronize you, I don’t want to offend you, but this is a Catholic board, and I will defend the faith against your heresy, half truths and at times out right lies.

 

[Mike_D30]

Mike_D30:

Doubtful:

FACT: mormons are leaving the lds church at the same rate they’re converting.

This stat is tough to verify due to members having to request their names be removed from the church. So members who left or have been inactive for years are still counted towards membership. In my time spent on FAIR boards. I noticed even total believing mormons concerned about this.

I don’t have the stats to back this up, so I respectfully withdraw calling it a fact.

 

[gryskull]

amgid:

I agree that through the suffering and death of Christ we have eternal life. That is not disputed. But the fact that He now lives, and has restored His Church on earth in the last days is of greater point of focus to us at the present time than the fact that He once died. Paul once wrote to the Corinthian saints that he was determined to “not to know any thing among {them}, save Jesus Christ, and him crucified” (1Cor. 22). I know “Jesus, and Him resurrected”!

amgid

I think you mean 1 Cor 2:2 not 1 Cor 22. But any way the bible says in 1 Cor 2:2 “For I resolve to know nothng while I was with you excepts Jesus Christ, and Him crucified. 1 Cor 1:22-23 says " For Jews demand signs and Greeks look for wisdom, but we proclaim Christ crucified.” St. Paul preaches Christ crucified because of the significance of it, which is our salvation and that’s how the early christians saw it and that’s how christians today see it. I am not trying to say that you are wrong. I’m just trying to make a point of how christians see it today(even before) which differs greatly from your church’s point of view.

 

[mormon_fool]

Tmaque:

amgid,

Please stop pretending that the Book of Mormon does not equate skin color with God’s favor, or lack thereof. It’s in there, plain as day. Lately, every attempt has been made to soften the doctrine taught in the book, but it’s still there to see for those who can be objective. I realize that the LDS Church is in no way overtly racist today. But can we please stop pretending that it was never so? It certainly was, right up until about 25 years ago. That said, I’m certainly glad they changed the doctrine that kept all the benefits and blessings of the church from those of african descent.

Tmaque,

I agree with everything you say except you first statement. I admit that if we judge by today’s standards, early LDS authorities were racist. I don’t think that so much of 20th century leaders. Since 1954 leaders tried to end the inherited ban, but there was too much cultural baggage, scripture proof-texting to justify the ban, and respect for the authorities that perpetuated it to end it with out a revelation. As avante garde I wish revelation could be it never came until momentum mounted in missionary work in foreign countries and Spencer Kimball and co. were earnestly praying for it. Given that I believe that the revelation actually occured, I can only speculate that the God’s timing took into consideration how many people would leave the church. I can see that the church may have fractured into two different sects if the change were to have occured in the early stages of the Civil Rights movement. Some times the serious needs of the many outweigh the needs of a the few.

Now with you problematic statement. It is true that the Book of Mormon has been interpretted as righteousness being related to skin color. I will accept FCEGM quote as being just that. What is important though whether the Book of Mormon allows for other interpretations. I think it does and that these other interpretations are more likely. To my knowledge the Book of Mormon was never used to justify the ban.

That “skin of blackness” is a Hebrew metaphor for a less than pure state of righteousness seems to me to be beyond dispute given its use in the Bible like Job 30:30 and black and white motifs running throughout. That Joseph Smith favored a metaphorical reading in some places and a literal interpretation in others also seems to be beyond dispute because of his change of white to pure. And this 1831 uncanonized revelation:

For it is my will, that in time, ye should take unto you wives of the Lamanites and Nephites, that their posterity may become white, delightsome and Just, for even now their females are more virtuous than the gentiles.

–>meaning physical skin color has nothing to do with being virtuous. If metaphoric black ever happened simultaneously with literal black, it is purely coincidence and not by design.

From my FAIR article:

Richard L. Bushman, author of the definitive biography of Joseph Smith writes:

But the fact that these wild people [the Lamanites] are Israel, the chosen of God, adds a level of complexity to the Book of Mormon that simple racism does not explain. Incongruously, the book champions the Indians’ place in world history, assigning them to a more glorious future than modern American whites… Lamanite degradation is not ingrained in their natures, ineluctably bonded to their dark skins. Their wickedness is wholly cultural and frequently reversed. During one period, “they began to be a very industrious people; yea, and they were friendly with the Nephites; therefore, they did open a correspondence with them, and the curse of God did no more follow them.” (Alma 23:18 ) In the end, the Lamanites triumph. The white Nephites perish, and the dark Lamanites remain. [9]

While these citations work against my personal stance that all the readings in the Book of Mormon are metaphorical, I am somewhat sympathetic to them. I certainly do not believe skin color was miraculously changed. If pigment changed it was through the slow process of the Lamanites intermarrying with a darker race or lighter race. Bushman’s quote makes your obeservation “that the Book of Mormon does not equate skin color with God’s favor, or lack thereof. It’s in there, plain as day.” untenable. There are frequent counter-examples in the Book of Mormon, even if one believes a connection was occasionally made between the metaphoric and the literal.

–fool

 

[mormon_fool]

dragonfly:
if the prophets from the book of mormon and their other Doctrines were said to have gotten their information thru “revelation” and they were men of God and they hold their prophesies to be true and correct, then why does the church say, yes, we do believe Brigham Young and his teachings, but not all his teachings! ???

First let me point out that the premise contained in your if statement should not be taken for granted. In LDS thought a prophet is only a prophet when acting as such and some key questions to ask are 1) Was there a revelation and 2) were the teachings made binding?

The answer to the first question is that it is unlikely BY received a revelation. Some of Brigham Young’s statements are strongly worded (“Thus saith the Lord” or “The law of the Lord is”) but a prophet can say the former and be expounding on scripture in which the Lord is considered the real author. I think Brigham thought his was the only way to interpret the scriptures he had in mind because of his cultural assumptions. Since Brigham never states he had a revelation, I would rather not jump to conclusions.

But even if he did have a revelation backing those quotes, it was never accepted as canonical scripture and hence not binding doctrine. After BY’s death the leaders thought about not maintaining the ban. Some misinformation about Joseph Smith was a deciding factor, which is curious if in fact it had been recognized that BY had had a revelation. So BY’s teachings were not binding, but in a sense the *practice *of the ban was because of the way priesthood is delegated in the LDS church.

I can reject Brigham Young’s teachings on racial issues for all the following reasons. 1) A thorough historical evaluation 2) I don’t believe he had a revelation 3) I understand how BY’s cultural assumptions influenced his judgment 4) A canonized revelation overturns anything prior 5) Two LDS apostles labeled such reasoning as “spectacularly wrong” or “to forget” such items. 6) When I re-read the scriptures used as proof-texts with different assumptions, I do not see a justification for the ban. 7) LDS do not have to accept anything that is not in accordance with their scriptures.

I would only second guess a prophet if I had a lot of reason to. Since most of my reasons are generated by a considerable amount of hindsight and the presence of a new revelation, none of these effects my judgment and loyalty to the current prophet.

–fool

 

[Tmaque]

mormon fool:

Tmaque,

I agree with everything you say except you first statement. I admit that if we judge by today’s standards, early LDS authorities were racist. I don’t think that so much of 20th century leaders. Since 1954 leaders tried to end the inherited ban, but there was too much cultural baggage, scripture proof-texting to justify the ban, and respect for the authorities that perpetuated it to end it with out a revelation. As avante garde I wish revelation could be it never came until momentum mounted in missionary work in foreign countries and Spencer Kimball and co. were earnestly praying for it. Given that I believe that the revelation actually occured, I can only speculate that the God’s timing took into consideration how many people would leave the church. I can see that the church may have fractured into two different sects if the change were to have occured in the early stages of the Civil Rights movement. Some times the serious needs of the many outweigh the needs of a the few.

Now with you problematic statement. It is true that the Book of Mormon has been interpretted as righteousness being related to skin color. I will accept FCEGM quote as being just that. What is important though whether the Book of Mormon allows for other interpretations. I think it does and that these other interpretations are more likely. To my knowledge the Book of Mormon was never used to justify the ban.

That “skin of blackness” is a Hebrew metaphor for a less than pure state of righteousness seems to me to be beyond dispute given its use in the Bible like Job 30:30 and black and white motifs running throughout. That Joseph Smith favored a metaphorical reading in some places and a literal interpretation in others also seems to be beyond dispute because of his change of white to pure. And this 1831 uncanonized revelation:

For it is my will, that in time, ye should take unto you wives of the Lamanites and Nephites, that their posterity may become white, delightsome and Just, for even now their females are more virtuous than the gentiles.

–>meaning physical skin color has nothing to do with being virtuous. If metaphoric black ever happened simultaneously with literal black, it is purely coincidence and not by design.

While these citations work against my personal stance that all the readings in the Book of Mormon are metaphorical, I am somewhat sympathetic to them. I certainly do not believe skin color was miraculously changed. If pigment changed it was through the slow process of the Lamanites intermarrying with a darker race or lighter race. Bushman’s quote makes your obeservation “that the Book of Mormon does not equate skin color with God’s favor, or lack thereof. It’s in there, plain as day.” untenable. There are frequent counter-examples in the Book of Mormon, even if one believes a connection was occasionally made between the metaphoric and the literal.

–fool

fool,

When I say “racist” I simply mean that the BOM and the earlier LDS Church did not treat and consider non-whites as true equals.
I’m not passing judgement, I realize that the times and expectations were different. I’m just making what I believe to be an observable statement of fact.

My problem with the notion that “skin of blackness” is metaphorical is that it is a recent one. It was certainly not understood as metaphor when I was growing up in the 60’s and 70’s. I’m no student of LDS history, but I believe you would be hard pressed to find many references from LDS leaders prior to 1980 to back up the claim that this is metaphorical language.

The LDS Church, being what is with the claim of continuing revelation, can change understandings, doctrines, practices, etc, whenever the leadership believes God wills it to do so. But, if we’re dealing with historical facts, I believe there is no doubt that a racist doctrine was absolutely present and practiced up until the late 20th century.

As I stated in the previous post. It’s obvious that the modern LDS Church is in no way racist.

As far as Job 30:30 goes, it’s seems to me that the verse is refering to skin that is burnt black. It’s not refering to pigment.

From NAB
30
My blackened skin falls away from me; the heat scorches my very frame.

From KJV
30: My skin is black upon me, and my bones are burned with heat.

 

[majick275]

This is one of the biggest problems with Mormonism.
mormon fool:

First let me point out that the premise contained in your if statement should not be taken for granted. In LDS thought a prophet is only a prophet when acting as such and some key questions to ask are 1) Was there a revelation and 2) were the teachings made binding?

The answer to the first question is that it is unlikely BY received a revelation. Some of Brigham Young’s statements are strongly worded (“Thus saith the Lord” or “The law of the Lord is”) but a prophet can say the former and be expounding on scripture in which the Lord is considered the real author. I think Brigham thought his was the only way to interpret the scriptures he had in mind because of his cultural assumptions. Since Brigham never states he had a revelation, I would rather not jump to conclusions.

But even if he did have a revelation backing those quotes, it was never accepted as canonical scripture and hence not binding doctrine. After BY’s death the leaders thought about not maintaining the ban. Some misinformation about Joseph Smith was a deciding factor, which is curious if in fact it had been recognized that BY had had a revelation. So BY’s teachings were not binding, but in a sense the practice of the ban was because of the way priesthood is delegated in the LDS church.

This is absolutely not true and the fact that LDS retreat into this when their prophets are proven false is one of the most dishonest tactics that they use. “canonical scripture” in the LDS church changes when necessary to match what they want. (examples already abound on this very thread) TO claim this great benefit of modern, ongoing revelation and then say it doesn’t count unless the members vote on it is ridiculous. One is either a prophet or not. To claim that BY might have had a revelation but it wasn’t canonized so it doesn’t count epitomizes this. Why have a prophet then if you can’t trust his revelations? (JS and his “some are of the devil” remark comes to mind) You would have us believe that LDS prophets can say “Thus saith the Lord” or issue authoratative statements in their position and it’s just some guys personal opinion. Further you would have us believe that the Lord promises to never let these “prophets” lead the church astray but the fact that they DID on numerous occasions is okay because they were just being human then. To cause an entire church to engage in practices that are in direct contradiction of canonized scripture would certainly appear to be leading the church astray. TO teach false doctrine to the chruch as a whole from the pulpit would also seem to mee that criteria.Let’s look at some of the attempts to reconcilet this. Spencer W. Kimball NEVER said that BY was wrong on race nor did overturn racist doctrine. He merely “updated” the practice. Read what he wrote in the OD. He just says the day has come when you don’t have to ban anyone from the preisthood on account of race anymore. BTW where is this “revelation” that he alludes to and why isn’t it canonized?

LDS obviously accepted waht was not in the scriptures and in fact what was specifically prohibited in their scriptures when they were practicing polygamy from 1835 to 1876 and they had a section on their D&C that said it wasa crime and they did NOT practice it. Of course later they just changed the scriptures to say that it was okay.

Once again we see this Mormon penchant for just changing waht the scriptures say to meet personal beliefs:

amgid:

Paul once wrote to the Corinthian saints that he was determined to “not to know any thing among {them}, save Jesus Christ, and him crucified” (1Cor. 22). I know “Jesus, and Him resurrected”!

Mormons want to elevate the “restoration” at the expense of the cucifixion so that they can sing praises to Joseph Smith Jr. about him mingling with Gods while he plans for his brethren. This is a personality cult that grew into a church. Nothing more.

As we go on down the list of “symbols” (which I think includes pictures and such) why is it that Mormons contuinue to portray the myth of Joseph Smith Jr. “translating” the plates by looking over them with his scribe nearby. We know from LDS historical souces that he had a rock in a hat over his face and the plates “hidden outside”. The symbols change in the LDS church to be more “faith promoting”. What “really” was the Urim and Thummim? (answer - the seer stone)

While the cheerio in tupperware may be content with revised history and just listening to the “brethren” tell them what to do (different definition of waht is binding on members is apparent) Those of us who value truth reject these false doctrines, practices and prophets along with their church.

Christ never abandoned us. There was no great apostasy, his church that he established never failed andis still here. Repent and be baptized.

 

[amgid]

Mike_D30:

You already admitted the passages I showed from Nephi 2 had to do with literal skin color, I can post them again.

I was doing no such thing. In some contexts, it does mean literal skin color

Then perhaps you need to take a lesson in English grammar. “In some contexts” is not the same as “Nephi 2” (I take it you mean 2 Nephi . . ?).

No it means I don’t think God was involved one bit in writing the book of mormon…

And I call that crating a red herring, and jumping from one subject to another in order to avoid obvious defeat in argument.

No idea how you compare this to the statements of the lamanites in Nephi 2

Cursing people for four generations because of the iniquity of their fathers, and denying the Ammonites the right to “enter the congregation of the Lord” for ten generations just because they happen to be born Ammonites, and restricting the privileges of having the priesthood exclusively to the tribe of Levi just because they were Levites, would be considered racially discriminatory following the same standard of judgment which your apply to determine that cursing the Laminates with a darkened skin color for the wickedness of their fathers is discriminatory. If these actions are consstent with God attributes and past actions in the OT, the BoM is also consistent with it when judged by the same criteria.

(Continued in the next post…)

amgid

 

[amgid]

(Continued from the previous post…)

Yea, 4,000 punctuation changes! And you think that is not dishonest? God didn’t punctuate the Book of Mormon you know. The original punctuation was done by the printer, who was not even a Mormon. That punctuation was bad, and has had to be revised many times.

That’s a lie I already showed where the original 1830 version of the book of mormon said “white and delightsome”, but it was changed to “pure and delightsome”, that is not a punctuation change. I will not let you get by with lies and half truths amgid. You can see the rest of the changes to the book of mormon here:

saintsalive.com/mormonism/bomchanges.htm

I don’t want to paste them all here, for fear of being accused of claiming the information is mine.

Let’s see who is doing the lying here. You had said that the Book of Mormon has been “edited” more than 4,000 times since the 1830 edition. By that I presume you mean that more than 4,000 changes have been made in the Book of Mormon since that edition. It would have been physically impossible to edit the Book of Mormon 4,000 times during that period. I had replied that most of those so called 4,000 changes are in fact punctuation changes, and that is true. The number of verbal changes made in the Book of Mormon since the first edition was published are quite small, no more than a couple of hundred probably; and most of these reflect errors discovered in the book caused during the copying and the typesetting of the original manuscripts. Those kinds of errors were common in manually copied manuscripts and typeset books at that time. Another source of change was the fact that in 1830 American spelling had not yet been standardized, and some of the words in the 1830 edition have non-standard spellings that had to be changed to make them conform to modern American spelling standards.

The original manuscript of the Book of Mormon was first copied by hand by Oliver Cowdery for submission to the printer. Most of this manuscript, known as the printer’s manuscript, has survived. Around 28% of the original manuscript, which was dictated directly by Joseph Smith, has also survived. In a recent comparison it was shown that during this copying process, approximately three errors were made per page of the manuscript, most of which are quite insignificant errors. As many of these as have been discovered or detected have been corrected. A number of errors were also made during the typesetting of the book by the printer which, as far as they have been discovered or detected, have been corrected. The vast majority of the so called “4,000 changes” are indeed punctuational changes. The original manuscript of the Book of Mormon had no punctuation in it at all. It was revealed without punctuation. The first punctuation of the Book of Mormon was made by the compositor who typeset the first edition of the book, who was not even a Mormon. It should be obvious that a punctuation made under those circumstances was going to be very inadequate and contain serious deficiencies. Therefore it has been revised several times to improve it since then, and to bring it more in line with modern punctuational practices.

The number of verbal changes in the Book of Mormon that actually make a significant change in the meaning of the text, or which have doctrinal significance are even few still, I would say around 5 or 6; and most of these were made by Joseph Smith himself, when he published the second edition of the book. So who is telling the lies here?

I’m not trying to patronize you, I don’t want to offend you, but this is a Catholic board, and I will defend the faith against your heresy, half truths and at times out right lies.

Your dishonest style of debate has already become apparent to all. No further comment is required.

amgid

 

[Mike_D30]

amgid:

And I call that crating a red herring, and jumping from one subject to another in order to avoid obvious defeat in argument.

amgid

Ohh amgid, that’s great I have thoroughly and unequivacably destroyed any and every lie you tried to pass off as truth on this site, like this one:

amgid:

Yea, 4,000 punctuation changes! And you think that is not dishonest? God didn’t punctuate the Book of Mormon you know. The original punctuation was done by the printer, who was not even a Mormon. That punctuation was bad, and has had to be revised many times.

mike_d30:

That’s a lie I already showed where the original 1830 version of the book of mormon said “white and delightsome”, but it was changed to “pure and delightsome”, that is not a punctuation change. I will not let you get by with lies and half truths amgid. You can see the rest of the changes to the book of mormon here:

saintsalive.com/mormonism/bomchanges.htm

I don’t want to paste them all here, for fear of being accused of claiming the information is mine.

You clearly lied and said that only punctuation changes have been made to the book of mormon, it’s a lie amgid, I called you on it. You only admitted that there were revisions with significant changes to the book of mormon AFTER I proved you wrong. This is the same tactics missionaries use, and apologists for mormonism. They will lie right to your face then when challenged with proof, explain it away by saying. Well joseph smitth made those changes, and it was only a handful. Sorry but a divinely inspired book, and “the most perfect book in the world” doesn’t need voer 4,000 edits, and significant changes to the content therein. But of course you have to lie about it. But when all esle fails attack me.

It’s such a common tactic you use, all moromon apologists use it, Lord knows they can’t use thier scripture to back up their arguments, they are forced to “lie for the Lord” right?

 

[amgid]

gryskull:

I think you mean 1 Cor 2:2 not 1 Cor 22.

Yes, sorry for the mistake.

But any way the bible says in 1 Cor 2:2 “For I resolve to know nothng while I was with you excepts Jesus Christ, and Him crucified. 1 Cor 1:22-23 says " For Jews demand signs and Greeks look for wisdom, but we proclaim Christ crucified.” St. Paul preaches Christ crucified because of the significance of it, which is our salvation and that’s how the early christians saw it and that’s how christians today see it. I am not trying to say that you are wrong. I’m just trying to make a point of how christians see it today (even before) . . .

Yes, I agree that they see it somewhat differently form us. That is because they do not know or believe in the restoration of the gospel as we know it today. If they did, I am sure their perspective would change, and they would see things the same as we do.

. . . which differs greatly from your church’s point of view.

No, I wouldn’t say that it “differs greatly” from it. The difference is on of emphasis and perspective. We believe that it is through the atonement and suffering of Christ that we are saved, the same as you do. But we celebrate His life and resurrection, as symbolized in the restoration of His Church in our time, rather than His death on the cross. We rejoice in His life, and in His restoration of His Church by revelation in our time, rather than mourn because of His death on the cross in ancient times.

amgid

 

[Mike_D30]

amgid:

Your dishonest style of debate has already become apparent to all. No further comment is required.

amgid

Like who amgid? How have I been dishonest? You are upset because I showed what mormonism truly believes, to people who may be indifferent, or not know, or care. (they should care though, as no other religion aside from the adventists attacks Catholicism more fervently than mormonism).

Tell them about the temple ceremony where satan puts a Catholic priest on his payroll amgid…(oh wait that’s right that ancient ceremony mormon’s practice given to them by God was recently changed too, to remove the part where satan asks a Catholic Priest and a Minister to work for them).

So why are the perfect ceremony given by God, and the most perfect book changed so often? Why are statements made by your prophet seer and revelator Birgham Young so often denied. Like race, Adam was God etc…These things shouldn’t change with the whimsy of popular culture like they have, if they were truly inspired.

I already caught you lying, you still have yet to show me a post where I outright knowingly lied, like you did claiming there was ONLY punctuation changes to the book of mormon. I clearly showed that is a lie. As you are a mormon I find it too difficult to believe that you were unaware of this before making your claims, therefore I would say you knowingly lied. Show me where I did.

Then you post a thesis on why it was O.K. to change the content like I care. My only point was you wre lying and the book of mormon had significant changes, which I did, I don’t care that joseph smith did it, because he revised it, or whatver other reason. I backed my inital claim up.

 

[gryskull]

amgid:

Yes, sorry for the mistake.

Yes, I agree that they see it somewhat differently form us. That is because they do not know or believe in the restoration of the gospel as we know it today. If they did, I am sure their perspective would change, and they would see things the same as we do.

No, I wouldn’t say that it “differs greatly” from it. The difference is on of emphasis and perspective. We believe that it is through the atonement and suffering of Christ that we are saved, the same as you do. But we celebrate His life and resurrection, as symbolized in the restoration of His Church in our time, rather than His death on the cross. We rejoice in His life, and in His restoration of His Church by revelation in our time, rather than mourn because of His death on the cross in ancient times.

amgid

I respectfully disagree. That is just mere speculation on your part. How could you possibly say that they would have seen it your way. There are no historical evidences, as far as I know, of chrisitians looking at the cross and emphasizing it as the death
or our LORD. Although I could be corrected. If you have any info on any mainstream christian group that saw the cross as the death of Jesus I’d like to know about it. Not until your church was founded did the emphasis on the cross changed.

 

[mormon_fool]

Tmaque:

fool,
When I say “racist” I simply mean that the BOM and the earlier LDS Church did not treat and consider non-whites as true equals.

I will agree with the this judgment about the early LDS church. When it comes to judging whether the 20th century LDS church was racist, they can be judged two ways: from outward appearances or looking at the root causes. On outward appearances it is easy to claim the 20th century LDS church was racist, because they did not treat Blacks equally. But when we look at the root causes, Blacks were not treated equally because there was a loyalty to 19th century leaders. The root cause was not racism! Should we judge 20th century LDS leaders by their hearts or actions?

I simply can not agree that the Book of Mormon treats people of different colors unequally solely on the basis of their skin color. There is much more complexity than that. In fact skin color is completely uncorrelated to levels of righteousness in the Book of Mormon, remember who the more righteous nation is frequently reversed.

Example

Jacob 3:
5 Behold, the Lamanites your brethren, whom ye hate because of their filthiness and the cursing which hath come upon their skins, are more righteous than you.
8 O my brethren, I fear that unless ye shall repent of your sins that their skins will be whiter [clearly a metaphor, compare to other statement associated with being spotless or white at the judgment Scriptures”]1 Ne 12:10,2 Ne. 33: 7 ] than yours, when ye shall be brought with them before the throne of God.
Scriptures
9 Wherefore, a commandment I give unto you, which is the word of God, that ye revile no more against them because of the darkness of their skins; neither shall ye revile against them because of their filthiness; but ye shall remember your own filthiness, and remember that their filthiness came because of their fathers.
10 Wherefore, ye shall remember your children, how that ye have grieved their hearts because of the example that ye have set before them; and also, remember that ye may, because of your filthiness, bring your children unto destruction, and their sins be heaped upon your heads at the last day.

To me (whether Jacob is referring to a metaphoric skin = separation from His congregation or literal skin color from intermarriage or a literal skin marking like a tatoo or war paint that the Lamanites used to distinguish themselves see Alma 3:13) this is the most anti-racial (or better anti-ethnic or anti-bigotry) statement in all of the scriptures. Righteousness is completely decorrelated with color.

The emnity between the Lamanites and Nephites is a political and religous one. It the turmoil of Irish Catholics vs. Brittish Protestants. The curse was that the Lamanites were separated from God’s congregation.

The change of skin color (if any) is completely dependent on intermarriage or self marking. My quote from Joseph Smith shows that was the original modern understanding was that it is only change through intermarriage.

Your analysis Job underscores my point that “skin of blackness” is a metaphor. You say it does not refer to pigment. Great! Now you already agree with me that “skin of blackness” is used in a place where it doesn’t refer to someone’s real skin color. That’s a good start. Clearly the reference to “black” isn’t literal, but perhaps “skin” is, taken as a whole the rhetorical purpose of the passage is Job describing his humility, suffering, and lowly state before God. I am trying to help you look beyond the literal meanings and look at the underlying meaning in the passage. If you can do that here, you can do it for the Book of Mormon as well:

My problem with the notion that “skin of blackness” is metaphorical is that it is a recent one.

Hardly. I think it is both the ancient understanding and Joseph Smith’s understanding demonstrate otherwise. Equating literal skin color with spiritual inferiority is only a reading that came when LDS began to absorb the worldview of pro-slavery Southern Christians. It was a modern concept not an ancient one.

But, if we’re dealing with historical facts, I believe there is no doubt that a racist doctrine was absolutely present and practiced up until the late 20th century.

If you want to deal with historical facts, I suggest reading the online book “Neither White Nor Black” that I link to in my FAIR article.

–fool

 

[ben_dy]

mormon fool:

No it wouldn’t be fair. No more fair than assuming Catholics bacame pagan by re-appropriating pagan symbols. Catholics assign different meaning to those symbols. And Mormons certainly assign different meanings to the symbols than what they are accused of here.

Later,
fool

fool,

Excellent answer! I’m out of the hospital & physical rehab after nearly two months and this is my first message since I’ve returned - spent two months reading - and writing a few rebuttals to - all of the 2004-2005 FARMS papers I could get my hands on (and was also ‘fortunate’ to have friends, knowing my obsession with the LDS, bring me a copy of Leaving the Saints - more on that at a later time…

As I said, I think your answer is terrific but I’m wondering if you agree that the symbols were borrowed from the Freemasons? It looks to me as if they were… I see no reason to fault the choice, but it seems as glaring as the eye & pyramid on the back of the dollar bill?

Your thoughts? I hope that I will be back here frequently!

 

[fayad]

Dear Brothers in Christ,

How goes the renewal of your mind? (Romans 12:2; Ephesians 4:23)

Paul writes to the church at Colossae: “Since, then, you have been raised with Christ, set your hearts on things above, where Christ is seated at the right hand of God. Set your minds on things above, not on earthly things.” (Colossians 3:1-2)

In his book, “The Seven Seasons of a Man’s Life”, Patrick Morley suggests that we consciously move our thoughts away from our ground floor preoccupations with ‘who we are’ and ‘how we are doing’, to the second floor preoccupations with ‘who God is’ and ‘what He is doing’.

New questions can move us up to the second story: It is more important to recognize ‘Whose we are’ than ‘who we are’. The first recognition will inform the second.

It is not a matter of “What is God’s plan for MY life?” But “What is God’s plan as revealed in the Scriptures and what is my particular role in it as a member of the body of Christ?”

The Lord is more interested in forming our character than reading our ‘polished resumes’.

He wants to equip us with a ‘spirituality for the road’ and not have our Christianity locked up in a ‘gated community’ where we insist on a protected environment living on ‘Easy Street’ where there are no spiritual battles, hardships, or daring missions. Our natural selves would want to have everything on its own terms. But Life does not work that way. Neither does God.

While we are not to neglect our ground floor responsibilities, the main residence for our preoccupations should be in the second floor where we realize Who God is and all that we are and have as those who have been positioned in Christ in heavenly places. (See 1 Corinthians 1:10; Ephesians 1:3). We are in the world but not of it. You need to be ‘heavenly minded’ to be of any ‘earthly good’.

I think Morley correctly diagnoses a major problem with cultural Christianity. He writes, “Many of us have pursued a self-help gospel that never rises above the first story. First story preaching and teaching only reach the level of exhorting men to be better husbands and dads, manage their time better, make better decisions, become better money managers, and be successful. Of course, these are good goals - we all need to do better in these areas….But these represent an anemic victory if we neglect the greater second story demands of authentic faith…The mainly economic man is not a whole man. There is no sustaining passion, no fire in the belly, of a man preoccupied only with issues of the first story.” (i.e. the world that is temporal and in many ways illusory).

When we choose the most important thing in life - which is to know God and make Him known - the rest of the things in life find their proper place. When we seek first the kingdom of God and His righteousness, all others things we need are added to us (Matthew 6:33). When we commit ourselves to a life of devotion and the study of God, (on the second floor) we find that the knowledge of God instructs, empowers and brings sanity to all that we think and do on the first.

May these thoughts prime the pump for your reflection and inspire you to keep your mind and attitudes renewed with a consciousness of God’s presence, His kingdom purposes, His Almighty power and His unfailing promises

 

[fayad]

They are all defying Caesar’s decrees, saying that there is another king, one called Jesus." Acts 17:7

In past meditations we have stressed the importance of modeling a ‘kingdom of God’ lifestyle through our speech, our motivations (life), our relationships (love), our trust in God (faith) and our full consecration to the Lord. (1 Timothy 4:12)

The renowned BBC correspondent, magazine editor, educator and social commentator, the late Malcolm Muggeridge, resigned from his position at the University of Edinburgh in protest of the University’s policy to accommodate blatant immorality. As he departed he gave a memorable address to the faculty and student body titled, “I Serve Another King”.

“So I came back to where I began, to that other King, one Jesus; to the Christian notion that man’s efforts to make himself personally and collectively happy in earthly terms are doomed to failure. He must indeed, as Christ said, be born again, be as a new man, or he is nothing. So at last I have concluded, having failed to find in past experience, present dilemmas or future expectations, any alternative proposition, as far as I am concerned, it is Christ or nothing.”

Can it be said of us, that we serve another King? Is there evidence that we are living as His loyal subjects in our conversation, life-pursuits, personal relationships and stewardship of our time, talents, treasures and our spirit, soul and body? If you were brought to trial for being a Christian, would there be enough evidence to convict you?

Your colleagues, your spouse, your children and friends need to see the evidence of God’s grace at work in your heart. You serve another King!

Do you know the joy of being fully conscious of your sins having been forgiven?

Do you love and serve others out of gratitude for the love that God has demonstrated to you through His Son and shed abroad in your heart by His Holy Spirit?

Do you know the freedom of having a covenant relationship with God in which you are justified, pronounced righteous and given a standing as one who is complete in Christ Jesus?

Do your friends know that you live by a wisdom that comes from above and that you have evidence that the Bible is a trustworthy frame of reference for decision-making and value judgments?

Do your children know that they are not the center of the universe? Do they understand that all must give an account before Christ Jesus, the Lord of all?

Are there other kingdoms in which you are putting your confidence? Are there other gods you are serving? Is it “Christ or nothing” for you?

Let the redeemed of the Lord say so.