Refuting Mormons

[majick275]

Cowdery and rigdon both needed the BoM for their own misguided attempts. Josehp Smith did in fact have lengthy track record of “visions” and manifestations that he claimed. (as did his father) They do not contradict any of the the spaulding theories. Spaulding Theory has it’s own problems though and should be regarded as a mere possibility at best in my opinion. Looking at the timeline and doctrinal stances it seems plausible that Oliver cowdery, Joseph and Emma worked together on the BoM with Rigdon being the driver for D&C. I don’t know of any non-LDS “academic circles” in which the BoM is even seriously analyzed.

 

[frnate]

I know there are a few good web sites, but does anyone have some good book recommendations for refuting Mormon doctrines?

Speaking the Truth in Love to Mormons

While this resource is most definitely NOT Catholic, the author is Lutheran, it may very well be the best non-polemical guide to actually converting LDS. The author who pastors(ed) a Church in Nampa, Idaho wrote it after decades of developing a witnessing style which was non-offensive, which is very difficult to do with the LDS but also seems to be very effective. It is well worth a read.

Peace,
+N

 

[BartBurk]

Trust me…it’s not as hard as it sounds.

But as far as the Spaulding manuscript, I should give you the 411: You’ll get laughed at in academic circles if you really believe that’s where the BoM came from. Textual analysis have not been beneficial to your argument, and you seem to forget that Joseph’s experiences started long before he had ever met Cowdery or Rigdon. His experiences as a boy have many witnesses (that he spoke about it then rather than fabricating it later). Moreover, the glaring hole is the fact that both Cowdery and Rigdon left the church but never denied their testimonies of the truth. For those disenfranchised with Mormonism and even having came out harshly against Joseph, they never pointed any illuminating finger at the actual work as being false.

Yes…keep tauting Spaulding…it makes my apologist position some much easier.

A Pac

If Cowdrey and Rigdon were co-conspirators with Joseph Smith they obviously wouldn’t want to deny anything – it would incriminate them.

His experiences as a boy were mainly witnessed by his immediate family. There are other witnesses that aren’t so kind to the young Joseph Smith. Did you even read the article? The Spalding theory has been dismissed to easily by the few professional historians who have looked at it. And many of the ones that have were biased against it and don’t seem to be interested enough to even give it a hearing. There has been more and more research done which shows that Sidney Rigdon did have opportunity to know Spalding. The interesting thing is that Rigdon denied even knowing Spalding and the evidence seemed to show that was a huge Rigdon lie. Go to Broadhurst’s web site and you’ll find a lot of interesting information:

solomonspalding.com/index.htm

It’s easier to stay with preconceived notions than it is to investigate and find the truth. As a former Mormon I know it’s easier just to go along with the old Mormon story than it is to seek the truth. Finding the truth about Mormonism is a very uncomfortable path for an active Mormon, but it’s well worth the journey. I am so happy I found God’s truth in the Catholic Church.

 

[Jerusha]

That doesn’t seem to me to be what she is saying at all. I think she is saying there were real Native American legends existing in Joseph Smith’s 19th century New York that were reworked by authors in the 19th century to create the Book of Mormon. Since these legends may have had some amount of truth in them, the Book of Mormon might actually reflect some of what really happened with religious add-ons.

Exactly.

As my article indicates, literate Natives in the 1800’s read and studied the BOM, and found some crumbs of authenticity in it. It has not been until recently, with DNA science soundly refuting the “Jewish” theory, putting decent (and there are some) LDS people into a state of confusion, that it was worthwhile to re-present this counter-argument. Literary and archaeological research into the Vikings, Irish, and Persians, as well, tighten up this counter-argument. (hostile comment self-edited)

If you will look carefully at my friend Dale’s work, he also believes that there was a “Nephite” text which was woven into the BOM. The entirety of the BOM wasn’t derived from the Spalding writings, it was just one source. (straw man)

Whether that “Nephite” text was 500 years old, or recently composed from legends, remains to be determined.

Those testimonies about the process of writing the BOM may, as all reasonably successful lies, have some truth in them. And, as lies from a conspiracy of individuals usually are, they are inconsistent. The inconsistencies within the BOM are evidence in themselves of extensive plagirism from multiple sources.

A scholarly discussion of the subject is in this quite extensive thread-- obviously, Dan Vogel and Dale Broadhurst are more qualified on the subject than myself. mormondiscussions.com/discuss/viewtopic.php?t=868 (I believe that cross-posting is quite justified in this situation).

 

[A_Pac]

If Cowdrey and Rigdon were co-conspirators with Joseph Smith they obviously wouldn’t want to deny anything – it would incriminate them.

Are you kidding? They were already incriminated! The association led to serious misgivings, and in fact, when Oliver Cowdery was excommunicated from the church and wanted to start his law practice, it became a matter of subject on multiple occasions. Essentially the judge said, ‘Just tell us that Joseph Smith swindled you,’ but never did. He couldn’t. In fact, he reiterated what he saw. Now, what reason would he have to stand behind a complete fabrication which caused him financial and physical pain, after disassociating himself with Joseph Smith? On the contrary, he had EVERY reason to.

His experiences as a boy were mainly witnessed by his immediate family.

On the contrary, there are a number of accounts of others thinking he was a bit of a dreamer for the stories that he’d ‘come up with.’ His early experiences were not kept close to only his family.

There has been more and more research done which shows that Sidney Rigdon did have opportunity to know Spalding.

This is a logical fallacy called argumentum ad ignorantium. Sure it’s POSSIBLE, but what’s that mean? It’s simply a ridiculous form of argumentation.

And FYI…I’ve had many, many conversations with Dale in another forum. I think he’s a great guy, but we disagree on a number of issues. In my opinion, he tends to uncritically accept certain assumptions to prove his theory, while I ask for proof. In honesty, there is none, and when taken with the backdrop of the times, the story seems most exaggerated.

As a former Mormon I know it’s easier just to go along with the old Mormon story than it is to seek the truth.

Hehe… You may bring up anything you’d like. I promise, my quest of the truth isn’t shallow. We’ll have fun. I promise. And God’s truth in the RCC? I don’t understand that when it wasn’t even Peter that founded the church of Rome, but that’s another matter all together….

A Pac

 

[BartBurk]

Are you kidding? They were already incriminated! The association led to serious misgivings, and in fact, when Oliver Cowdery was excommunicated from the church and wanted to start his law practice, it became a matter of subject on multiple occasions. Essentially the judge said, ‘Just tell us that Joseph Smith swindled you,’ but never did. He couldn’t. In fact, he reiterated what he saw. Now, what reason would he have to stand behind a complete fabrication which caused him financial and physical pain, after disassociating himself with Joseph Smith? On the contrary, he had EVERY reason to.

On the contrary, there are a number of accounts of others thinking he was a bit of a dreamer for the stories that he’d ‘come up with.’ His early experiences were not kept close to only his family.

This is a logical fallacy called argumentum ad ignorantium. Sure it’s POSSIBLE, but what’s that mean? It’s simply a ridiculous form of argumentation.

And FYI…I’ve had many, many conversations with Dale in another forum. I think he’s a great guy, but we disagree on a number of issues. In my opinion, he tends to uncritically accept certain assumptions to prove his theory, while I ask for proof. In honesty, there is none, and when taken with the backdrop of the times, the story seems most exaggerated.

Hehe… You may bring up anything you’d like. I promise, my quest of the truth isn’t shallow. We’ll have fun. I promise. And God’s truth in the RCC? I don’t understand that when it wasn’t even Peter that founded the church of Rome, but that’s another matter all together….

A Pac

I have a feeling we’ve seen you here before under another name … was it Amgid or something else?

Let me tell you what would have happened if Sidney Rigdon and Oliver Cowdrey had denied their so-called “testimonies”. They would have been tarred and feathered and nobody in the world would ever had trusted them again.

By the way I used to be christianley before I started using my real name. Perhaps you would want to start using yours since you have nothing to lose by doing so.

 

[A_Pac]

No. Honestly, I’ve never been here before.

Had they denied their testimonies, they’d have been welcomed with open arms. There were so many enemies of Mormonism that loved finding new comrades in arms. Bennet, Marsh, Whitmer, Harris, etc…none of them had problems AFTER apostatizing, so your insinuation that Cowdery and Rigdon would be tar and feathered is simply “unique” and unsupported.

A Pac

 

[Jerusha]

No, BartB, he is much more rational than Amgid. Obviously they have sent in one of their best.

 

[majick275]

Rigdon was still promoting his own brand of mormonism so he couldn’t deny the BoM without jeopardizing that. Who knows with Cowdery. He tried a lot of slimy things and when they didn’t work he slunk back the LDS and was welcomed because he had left that “out” by not denying anything.

 

[DianJo]

Here is a link I found about difficult questions Mormons have answering:

carm.org/lds/diff_questions.htm

I might add one more question to the list: If it is over 100 degrees outside, why do Mormon missionaries continue to walk around from house to house in long pants, shirts, and ties? Is it against Mormon teaching to wear shorts?

*I have said this on many threads - every time I see this website - **PLEASE STOP GIVING OUT THIS WEBSITE *- it is run by a bigotted man - Matt Slick - One who is not interested in the truth of any other faith - he’s only interested in his own truth and if you disagree, you are garbage and duped and you know nothing. He ignores logic and above everything else, he ignores historical fact. He takes those facts and twists them so they say what he wants them to say.

He is the most hate-filled person I’ve ever encountered in this venue. He does not explain the Christian faith in love - he does it while putting people down, calling them stupid and twisting meanings.

This is not a good website to give to unsuspecting people just looking for good information. The information he has to give is poisonous.
**

 

[Jerusha]

The particular page on that website asks some legitimate questions. Even if he is virulently anti-Mormon, they are worth answering, if you can.

 

[A_Pac]

Jerusha,

No, BartB, he is much more rational than Amgid. Obviously they have sent in one of their best.

Thanks…as flattering as it is, I wish it were true. Personal intrigue is all.

Rigdon was still promoting his own brand of mormonism so he couldn’t deny the BoM without jeopardizing that. Who knows with Cowdery. He tried a lot of slimy things and when they didn’t work he slunk back the LDS and was welcomed because he had left that “out” by not denying anything.

Rigdon is actually a very interesting case. Joseph often said that after they were dragged behind horses, Sydney was never the same. Some have thought that he suffered from brain damage after that. But with Cowdery, I really don’t know what you are speaking of when you’re suggesting he was involved in “slimy things,” unless you’re being facetious in acknowledging his law practice. But let’s be sure that Cowdery didn’t just leave anything out. He had to, on occasion, explicitly address it. And he did…firmly and resolutely that what he did was true. Also, your generalization about being “welcomed back” is incorrect. He wasn’t welcomed back for what he hadn’t said, but what he did. Aka, he repented.

DianJo,

What I’m surprised at is how people use those vile websites without realizing that by doing so, their association with such sites damages their own credibility. I don’t mind if people use them to learn things…but once it comes time to discuss them, often times these sites are poorly researched, full of lies and deceptions.

That being said, Jerusha, if you have some legitimate questions, I’d be happy to answer them.

A Pac

P.S. Does anyone yet understand why the LDS definition of the trinity makes biblical sense? I want to make sure this is one point that is understood, be that any agree with it or not.

 

[PaulDupre]

Wow. Glad we have a resident ignoramus. I for one am most definitely “temple-worthy” and wear shorts at every opportunity. You can redefine words all you’d like, but I certainly wear shorts.

And it seems we have yet another rude, nasty Mormon. The more you guys type, the more people are innoculated against the Mormons.

The fact that you react so furiously against an innocuous comment about wearing shorts shows how insecure you are about your beliefs. Most of the Mormons I know suffer keenly from the cognitive dissonance caused by trying to believe unbelievable Mormon teachings. Your hateful ranting against everyone on this forum is a way of venting the pain you are in due to such cognitive dissonance. You want to believe in a loving God, yet the Mormon system you are in is nothing but spiritual and psychological slavery. You feel betrayed and frustrated. I am so sorry for you. I have been where you are, and it is hell. Jesus could free you from the painful bondage of Mormonism if you would let Him.

I hope you keep posting, A Pac. You are the best anti-Mormon tool I have seen since Amgid/Zerinus. And perhaps when you have finally spewed all of your Mormon venom, you will be ready to learn something.

God love you,
Paul

 

[majick275]

cowdery was accused by Joseph Smith of numerous dishonest acts. I think that Oliver cowdery actually believed in mormonism though. I don’t see him as a man of integrity and he also seemed easily swayed by others. I think he believed Joseph was a true but “fallen” prophet when they split. Just my opinion though.

 

[Anthony02]

Wow. Glad we have a resident ignoramus. I for one am most definitely “temple-worthy” and wear shorts at every opportunity. You can redefine words all you’d like, but I certainly wear shorts.

Again, I don’t know where you get your info, but let me in no uncertain terms tell you, you’re incorrect. Covering up is the important thing, and many shorts do just that.

你还是LDS吗?

A Pac

Mormonism is a man made religion. I don’t know why you would ever follow such nonsense in the first place. I actually spoke with a couple mormons. Needless to say, they did not even know the teachings of their own faith.

 

[A_Pac]

Paul,

The fact that you react so furiously against an innocuous comment about wearing shorts shows how insecure you are about your beliefs.

Hehe…don’t worry. I didn’t think it made much sense either.

Your hateful ranting against everyone on this forum is a way of venting the pain you are in due to such cognitive dissonance.

Hateful ranting against EVERYONE? Wow. And I hadn’t thought I’d reached EVERYONE, let alone be hateful to them all. What say you about gross exaggerations?

You want to believe in a loving God, yet the Mormon system you are in is nothing but spiritual and psychological slavery. You feel betrayed and frustrated.

You got it, by jove! You DO KNOW how I feel! And no, of course I don’t’ think you were presumptive in the least! Goodness…how ever would that be presumptive? I’m just waiting to catch up to your omniscience, and actually believe what you’re telling me is what I do, truly, believe.

And perhaps when you have finally spewed all of your Mormon venom, you will be ready to learn something.

And all this because I called the person whom said I couldn’t wear shorts as an active LDSer an ignoramus…which is so evidently the case.

Keeping posting! You’re overt-the-topness is entertaining!

MAJICK,

cowdery was accused by Joseph Smith of numerous dishonest acts. I think that Oliver cowdery actually believed in mormonism though. I don’t see him as a man of integrity and he also seemed easily swayed by others. I think he believed Joseph was a true but “fallen” prophet when they split. Just my opinion though.

Actually, the stories a bit flipped. It was Cowedery then went about accusing JS, so the council confronted him and gave him the boot. The one thing that mormon and non-mormon alike DID relate to Cowdery, was his high integrity. That was one of the great conflicts with many critics whom knew him. He was good to his word, but wouldn’t back away from his association with Mormonism. That was the great conflict. I think you’re right though, that he believed Joseph was a true but “fallen” prophet…at least for a period of time.

Anthony,

Mormonism is a man made religion. I don’t know why you would ever follow such nonsense in the first place. I actually spoke with a couple mormons. Needless to say, they did not even know the teachings of their own faith.

YAWN!!! Thanks for the arid jibberish. If you’d like to engage a scholastic discussion, I’d love to. Otherwise, I’ll pass on the junior high ad hominems…I have plenty of pointless conversations going on already.

A PAC

P.S. Does anyone around here say anything, back it up, and then engage it? Or does everyone act like a junior high schooler, interjecting ridiculousness before running away with the nasty, “Yes you are. Because I said so.” PLEASEEEE…I was told I’d get some good apologetic dialog here. That’s why I came. I’m on your “turf.” So go get someone that knows their stuff so we can talk, else I’ll just go back to the Mormon Boards.

 

[Anthony02]

Are you kidding? They were already incriminated! The association led to serious misgivings, and in fact, when Oliver Cowdery was excommunicated from the church and wanted to start his law practice, it became a matter of subject on multiple occasions. Essentially the judge said, ‘Just tell us that Joseph Smith swindled you,’ but never did. He couldn’t. In fact, he reiterated what he saw. Now, what reason would he have to stand behind a complete fabrication which caused him financial and physical pain, after disassociating himself with Joseph Smith? On the contrary, he had EVERY reason to.

On the contrary, there are a number of accounts of others thinking he was a bit of a dreamer for the stories that he’d ‘come up with.’ His early experiences were not kept close to only his family.

This is a logical fallacy called argumentum ad ignorantium. Sure it’s POSSIBLE, but what’s that mean? It’s simply a ridiculous form of argumentation.

And FYI…I’ve had many, many conversations with Dale in another forum. I think he’s a great guy, but we disagree on a number of issues. In my opinion, he tends to uncritically accept certain assumptions to prove his theory, while I ask for proof. In honesty, there is none, and when taken with the backdrop of the times, the story seems most exaggerated.

Hehe… You may bring up anything you’d like. I promise, my quest of the truth isn’t shallow. We’ll have fun. I promise. And God’s truth in the RCC? I don’t understand that when it wasn’t even Peter that founded the church of Rome, but that’s another matter all together….

A Pac

Catholics don’t believe that Peter founded the Catholic Church either. However, Jesus gave Peter the role at 1st pope when he said “you are Peter and upon this rock I build my Church”. Who started your religion? A false self proclaimed prophet named Joseph Smith. Why do you follow so blindly the false man made religion of Mormonism when you could have the fullness of the truth in Catholicism. For crying out loud, you’re not even Christian.

 

[Allweather]

Actually, the stories a bit flipped. It was Cowedery then went about accusing JS, so the council confronted him and gave him the boot.

Partially true, and oversimplified. Cowdery and others, David Whitmer and Warren Parish notably, mounted a public campaign against Smith and Rigdon, one feature of which was the opposition to polygamy. Oddly, according to the Encyclopedia of Mormonism, Cowdery had initially been enthusiastic about the polygamy ordinance when Smith revealed it unto him, but evidently had a bad experience with it and later came to oppose it. That according to the Mormon source, take it as you will.

Cowdery accused Smith of having a “dirty, nasty, filthy affair” with Fanny Alger, who had been a sort of live-in maid in the Smith household. He called Smith’s new teachings (polygamy?) “disorganized doctrines” and referred to the few Smith loyalists remaining as “hot headed power seeking, ignorant men.”

Unfortunately for Smith and his few friends, Cowdery, the Whitmers, and others who’d been excommunicated for their muckracking activities, did not leave the area, but remained there, continuing to make trouble. This led to the formation of what came to be known as the Danites, a covert brotherhood that was also known as the “Destroying Angels.”

When the dissenters rode to another county seeking help against threats made (in writing) by the Destroying Angels against them, the Angels went to their homes and turned their wives and children out into the wilderness, destitute. They confiscated all of their property, including clothing, furniture, and personal possessions. Nice guys, those Destroying Mormons.

Kind of makes you think that the Mormon prophet didn’t cotton to criticism, don’t it?

Source, One Nation Under Gods by Richard Abanes. Detailed sources given within the book available if you want them.

 

[GIMJ]

*I have said this on many threads - every time I see this website - **PLEASE STOP GIVING OUT THIS WEBSITE ***- it is run by a bigotted man - Matt Slick - One who is not interested in the truth of any other faith - he’s only interested in his own truth and if you disagree, you are garbage and duped and you know nothing. He ignores logic and above everything else, he ignores historical fact. He takes those facts and twists them so they say what he wants them to say.

He is the most hate-filled person I’ve ever encountered in this venue. He does not explain the Christian faith in love - he does it while putting people down, calling them stupid and twisting meanings.

This is not a good website to give to unsuspecting people just looking for good information. The information he has to give is poisonous.
**

A few years ago I wrote a several page long email to CARM detailing inaccuracies in their description of Mormonism. The point I made was that you won’t convince Mormons with facts unless they’re airtight, and even then you’ll have your work cut out for you. The response I got was that I must be an apologist (LOL!) for the Mormon Church and that they knew everything already and didn’t need my help thankyouverymuch!

 

[Lehl]

Hello, Pacman. I was wondering when you were finally going to show up here.:dancing:

I’m certain that “A Pac” is someone I know as Pacman on the Mormon Apologetics & Discussion Board or former “FAIR” board.

He has a MAJOR Catholic hang-up. Frankly, he seems obsessed:hypno::hypno::hypno: and can’t stay away from Catholics and Catholic boards.

He likes to “throw rocks” into a bunch of Catholics and run back to the safety of “his” board where he then taunts all the Catholics to come do battle with their “professional” apologists.

Here’s the site forums.catholic-convert.com/
and a bunch of posts on this other Catholic board where he got nasty (and eventually got suspended) and went running back to his board where he whined and cried about how “unfair” all the Catholic moderators were. You’ll have to do a search for “Pacman” when their search function comes back up. I guarantee a wealth of fun reading.

You’ll see that he just LOVES to use the fancy phrases like “Thanks for the reductio ad absurdum” Didn’t he just say a couple posts above…“This is a logical fallacy called argumentum ad ignorantium”?

He also takes a very keen interest in Peter and/or Church authority. I verified that already with many of this new user’s posts being on “Peter, the Bishop of Rome” and they are the same posts I’ve read time and again from Pacman elsewhere. Methinks this topic is the very core of his Catholic obsession.

Honestly, I think Pacman is a sharp guy. He is MUCH more civil on the Mormon board mainly because they won’t tolerate the nasty behavior he is demonstrating here. So when I see his posts here and when I saw them at the other Catholic board, it greatly disappointed and surprised me because I felt he was better than that.:doh2:

Behave yourself, Pacman, and stop the personal attacks and snideness. Do you want to be embarrassed over on MA&D again when some of the Catholics take you up on your offers to battle over there and re-quote some of the things you’ve said again?:tsktsk: