Refuting Mormons

[BartBurk]

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

Bennet, Marsh, Whitmer and Harris were the duped, not the dupers. If Cowdrey and Rigdon had admitted their role in inventing Mormonism they would have been seen as dishonest and crooks. That’s a much different position. It might also have to be said that Marsh, Whitmer and Harris never actually went against Mormonism – they just left Joseph Smith. Whitmer and Harris continued to affirm the Book of Mormon was true. The enemies of Mormonism never cared about them at all because they didn’t do anything to help refute Mormonism.

 

[majick275]

MAJICK,

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.

I’m gonna have to disagree with you on cowdery. He was booted for a number of charges and attempting “collect debts” resulting from the Kirtland bank fiasco was one of them. Not exactly high integrity. He was also accused himself of an unauthorized polygamous union. I tried to find an LDS source on this so you wouldn’t just write it off as “anti-mormon”. This one seems okay:

maxwellinstitute.byu.edu/display.php?table=transcripts&id=50

But I think there is evidence that it was even worse and that he did in fact deny the “truth” of mormonism:

freerepublic.com/focus/f-religion/1855929/posts

please note the verifiable references in this article.

I point to this excerpt as an example of Cowdery’s integrity:

*Oliver Cowdery was publicly charged by Joseph Smith and leading Mormons with stealing, lying, perjury, counterfeiting, adultery, and being the leader of a gang of “scoundrels of the deepest degree!”(Senate Document 189, Feb. 15, 1841, pp. 6-9 and Comprehensive History of the Church, B. H. Roberts, vol. 1, pp. 438-439) Joseph Smith listed Oliver Cowdery as among those, “too mean to mention; and we had liked to have forgotten them.” (History of the Church, vol. 3:232) Oliver Cowdery died claiming that the book of Doctrines & Covenants must be discarded.

 

[Jerusha]

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

I have no questions about LDS, those that he presented are just frosting. My research project answered many of the questions I had.

I see some supposedly Catholic people on this thread using tactics more commonly used by cornered LDS. I would suggest that Anthony and Paul back off. I also think A-Pac is making some flip responses that people are misinterpreting.

Yes, I remember Pac-Man from MA&DB. Lets see what happens.

 

[A_Pac]

Lehl,

Yeah…I messed up the sign-up and got “A Pac,” although I wanted PacMan. Oh well. Oh…no, I’m not hung-up with Catholics. I respectively disagree.

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.

And that’s why I’m still here? Right…

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.

Well, thanks! I actually think I’ve been pretty nice over here. Don’t underestimate the power of repentance!

Behave yourself, Pacman, and stop the personal attacks and snideness.

Ironic how your warning is actually an ad hominem attack, eh? And no…I’ve no desire to start a board war.

But if you’d like to engage the actual discussion, please. I’d love it.

BartBurk,

Bennet, Marsh, Whitmer and Harris were the duped, not the dupers.

I don’t know where that claim from, considering Whitmer AND Harris both testified to seeing an Angel with the gold plates on two separate occasions. So if Joseph “dupped” them into seeing and speaking with an Angle, I’d be interested in you explaining how that happens.

Again, Oliver Cowdery’s association with Mormonism was his biggest stumbling block in starting his practice. To turn on it and say he was indeed “dupped” would have cleared his name, just as the judge had suggested. Disagree if you’d like, but you’re inconsistent with the actual facts.

MAJICK,

The issues surrounding Cowdery are certain more complex than a couple sentences.

He was booted for a number of charges and attempting “collect debts” resulting from the Kirtland bank fiasco was one of them.

This is a good example…he had the understanding that as Church authority, he could essentially cash out his “investment.” There wasn’t anything illegal about it, except Joseph didn’t want him to. To Joseph, he certainly felt that Oliver had been dishonest, but I tend to give a little bit of the benefit of the doubt to Oliver. Either way, I don’t know. And yes, you’ve got a lot of facts right…pretty interesting thing that went on with him (although I didn’t find the link very helpful).

As far as Cowdery denying the “truth,” he didn’t. He had plenty of words to say about Joseph and others, but he didn’t deny anything.

Jerusha,

Flip responses? Me? Are you serious?


Who are you over at MADB/

A Pac

P.S. As Jerusha insinuated, I don’t take myself very seriously…so please read some of the posts as friendly banter. But, if something is logically fallacious, I have no problem pointing it out. I find that I have little obligation to respond to an erroneous idea, but am confused why those who make such statements come across offended. If I said something stupid, I’d be upset with myself for saying it…not for those that point it out.

 

[Brenda4God]

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?

Yes, in First Nephi it says, “And what will come of thee shouldst thou wear the shortened trousers and disdain thy neck decoration? Surely thou hast despised the Lord.”



Sorry. Silly mood today.

 

[A_Pac]

Yes, in First Nephi it says, “And what will come of thee shouldst thou wear the shortened trousers and disdain thy neck decoration? Surely thou hast despised the Lord.”



Sorry. Silly mood today.

And your question is actually answered in Yoda 4:1

"Burn in hell, verily, verily you will…YESSSSS!’

 

[Jerusha]

Merry. Who else? I haven’t been there since I moved. Concern about security issues, etc, with some LDS people with Danite/Fundamentalist tendencies. I experienced a lot of baiting over there because of my ancestry, which is a private issue and should stay that way-- which is why I like the internet.

 

[A_Pac]

Merry. Who else? I haven’t been there since I moved. Concern about security issues, etc, with some LDS people with Danite/Fundamentalist tendencies. I experienced a lot of baiting over there because of my ancestry, which is a private issue and should stay that way-- which is why I like the internet.

There’s no such thing as a Danite/Fundamentalist LDS person. They’re either LDS, or they’re not.

A Pac

 

[Jerusha]

According to your perspective, then you would say they are not.

 

[A_Pac]

According to your perspective, then you would say they are not.

No. They are not. The leadership of the LDS Church has taken great exception, and gone to great lengths to explain that they are in no way connected to the chruch; and that any philosophical similarities are simply that, although they be completely separate entities. Taken to extremes, there are even court cases to support this distinction.

A Pac

 

[majick275]

and some of those court cases went against the LDS. Kirtland? Temple Lot?

 

[Alma147]

and some of those court cases went against the LDS. Kirtland? Temple Lot?

The Kirtland Temple suit was dismissed–it didn’t go against the LDS Church.

The actual decision found against the RLDS Church and dismissed the case. The RLDS Church failed to publish the decision and for 60 years claimed that it had won the case. However, in the 1940’s they sort of came clean and published the entire judgment which says: "The Plaintiff is not in possession thereof. And thereupon the Court finds as a matter of law that the Plaintiff is not entitled to the judgment or relief prayed for in its petition. And thereupon it is ordered and adjudged that this action be dismissed at the costs of the Plaintiff.”—Book “T”, Common Pleas Record, Lake County, Ohio, page 488, Lake County Courthouse, Painesvile, Ohio).

The Temple Lot suit didn’t involve the LDS Church except for witness testimony. The Temple Lot was owned by the Church of Christ (Temple Lot) and the RLDS Church sued them for title. The RLDS Church initially won but it was reversed on appeal.

Alma

 

[Catholic_Dude]

And your question is actually answered in Yoda 4:1

"Burn in hell, verily, verily you will…YESSSSS!’

This is the first time I have seen a Mormon lose their temper and say something uncharitable like this. (then again I dont know that many mormons).

 

[A_Pac]

This is the first time I have seen a Mormon lose their temper and say something uncharitable like this. (then again I dont know that many mormons).

Then you need a sense of humor transplant. The poster was asking rhetorical question using a fictional Mormon scripture. I responded with another fictional character…Yoda. If you don’t know who Yoda is, you really need to get off the computer and get out more.

If you don’t believe me, realize that he uses anastrophe where he takes the “objective, subjective, verb” structuring.

Again…you need to get out more. Or you’re terribly gullible.

A Pac

 

[Lehl]

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.

Lehl,

And that’s why I’m still here? Right…

The day is very young, Pacman. I hope you don’t pull the same stunts as before…that backfired big time, didn’t it? Your board was furious with you. That had to have been humilating. Although, I meant to thank you for bringing some good Catholics over such as St. Veronica.

Oh…no, I’m not hung-up with Catholics. I respectively disagree.

SIGH And that is why I find you on Catholic board after Catholic board, right? You absolutely do have a Catholic hang-up and it is centered on early church history/authority. I have my theory on why you do and I think it may be blatantly obvious to everyone EXCEPT you.

It bothers you, doesn’t it? It’s so obvious from all your postings on the subject. The Catholic Church has the authority and you know it.

Otherwise, you’d be content on your little Mormon board and wouldn’t be thrashing your cognitive dissonance all over this and other Catholic boards.

You can’t squeeze the toothpaste back into the tube, Pacman.

 

[A_Pac]

SIGH And that is why I find you on Catholic board after Catholic board, right? You absolutely do have a Catholic hang-up and it is centered on early church history/authority. I have my theory on why you do and I think it may be blatantly obvious to everyone EXCEPT you.

You can call it a hang-up. I call it blatant rejection. Semantics…

And as far as my “cognitive dissonance,” there is something called scholarly appeal. I like to talk with intelligent posters. What’s wrong with that? Unless everyone that likes cross-discussion is thus so afflicted. Of course that makes sense!

But I AM amazed that you’re more in tuned with my psychological paradigms than I am myself.

Peace brother,
A Pac

 

[Catholic_Dude]

Then you need a sense of humor transplant. The poster was asking rhetorical question using a fictional Mormon scripture. I responded with another fictional character…Yoda. If you don’t know who Yoda is, you really need to get off the computer and get out more.

If you don’t believe me, realize that he uses anastrophe where he takes the “objective, subjective, verb” structuring.

Again…you need to get out more. Or you’re terribly gullible.

A Pac

Of course you disregard the CONTENT of what “Yoda said” in ‘response’:
Burn in hell, verily, verily you will…YESSSSS

 

[MelanieAnne]

I don’t take myself very seriously…so please read some of the posts as friendly banter.

OK, thanks for the warning. And while we’re on the subject of warnings, just be aware that many people do not regard “banter” that is riddled with put downs to be “friendly”. And some think it is rather juvenile.

 

[Lehl]

But I AM amazed that you’re more in tuned with my psychological paradigms than I am myself.

It does usually take an outsider to recognize those things which we can’t in ourselves, Pacman.

Isn’t that why there are thousands or hundreds of thousands of therapists gainfully employed today? So usually you’d need to pay for that analysis, but I offered it to you free today.

Regardless, you’re welcome here. It’s been boring without much Mormon discussion and you sure do know how to bring it.

And of course, you are also invited to come into full communion with the Lord Jesus Christ in His one holy apostolic Church at any time.

 

[A_Pac]

Lehl,

And you’re invited to repent as well.

Love you like I can without it being creepy,

A Pac