Serious question for Mormons

[LongJourney]

I really think that Returning Home has gone over the top with offensive remarks.

The LDS church has no official position on where the events described in the BoM took place. We know why, but that is beside the point.

The BoM, like anything, scripture or teaching, of the LDS church, is open to the interpretation of the individual. They have no authoritative source, like we have. Yes, they have prophets, but any given quotation from any given prophet is subject to debate and and questioning as contradictory statements accumulate.

Let it be. Let them find out as questioning individuals. Conversion has to come from within. Harsh criticism of their doctrines, teachings, history, and scriptures will only serve to activate their persecution complex. The more they retreat into that persecution complex, the less they will question.

It is very simple.

 

[SirThomasMore]

I really think that Returning Home has gone over the top with offensive remarks.

 

[Returning_Home]

That’s false.

You couldn’t make that any more vile and offensive if you tried, could you?

Since the Biblical Jesus never promoted men becoming Gods or anything else that modern Mormonism claims to be factual, we now have two separate and disctinct Jesuses.

I wasn’t trying to offend you here; I’m just following the clues to the logical and ultimate conclusion that your teachings come to: since God is the father of all of our spirits, his having literal sex to produce jesus can only mean that God was involved in an incestuous relationship with his own daughter.

And since we all have physical bodies, that in and of itself is proof that we fought on the side of righteousness in the premortal existance against Satan and the rebellious angels. With that being the case, Mormonism has redefined the nature of mankind as being essentially good which thus redefines the nature and purpose of Jesus Christ.

This is shown as fact with in Moses1:37-39: “…For behold, this is my work and my glory–to bring to pass the immortality and eternal life of man.”

What doesn’t that quote contain? Any mention of sin. Since the Bible clearly states that all are sinners and fall short of the grace of God, we can see that the BOM preaches another gospel, one not of God, but of one mortal and dishonest man.

 

[Returning_Home]

Do you really suppose that starting in by accusing your opponents of “lying” is a productive way to begin any sort of discussion?

I can prove the church and Joseph Smith lied about polygamy. You, however, can’t prove that they were telling the truth. But yes, I would love to give you the facts. Which point would you like them on?

Since I can prove that the church has lied continually about polygamy, I have nothing to apologize for here.

I am rapidly losing patience with this baseless, scurrilous, unsupported accusation. Do you, alone of all the accusers, actually have some evidence to support it? If so, kindly put up. If not, please retract it.

Sorry about you losing patience but your anger comes from being confronted with facts and the church’s programming kicking in: the church is right, no matter what evidence is provided to you. Your natural reaction is to take this as a personal attack, which it is not and never has been. I’ll start with polygamy and I’ll post the evidence in a separate new post after this response.

But how many of these elders and texts are actually authoritative?

Any that are printed by the church because, since the church is the one established, later restored, and now lead by Jesus Christ Almighty, it doesn’t make sense that he’d permit any of its leaders to say or publish anything that would go against His will, does it? No, anything the church authorizes, commissions, prints, distributes, and sells would have to fall under the umbrella of Christ’s divine authority. To say otherwise would be to cast doubt on everything it has ever published; in this case, it’s an all or nothing proposition.

A fact that I have not disputed.

Actually, you clearly did, twice, in fact:

I am someone who reads the Book of Mormon and knows what it says. Cumorah is identified in the book as a place close to a geographical feature known as the Narrow Neck of Land. No known geographical feature in upstate New York fits this description.

It couldn’t possibly be, could it, that the New York drumlin is and remains important because that’s where Moroni’s plates were buried, and where Joseph Smith retrieved them?

Since I’ve noted that the BOM clearly shows a photo identifying the one and only HIll Cumorah, your opinion contradicts that of the church.

Further, my hardback 1971 copy of the BOM shows an aerial photo of the Hill with the caption “The Hill Cumorah.” The usage is singular and proper, not plural and general. It doesn’t get more specific than that.

As for the ‘narrow neck of land,’ that could be any of the isthmuses near or around Lakes Erie and Ontario. That would place them plenty close to the fictional Hill Cumorah and thus keep the BOM events where Smith originally intended them to be: New England.

No doubt part of a vast Church-orchestrated cover-up. Which explains why the Times and Seasons article in which Joseph raised this theory explicitly referred to the Stephens book.

Not part of a cover up perse, but a revision of his opinion as to where his fictional story took place, the same way he revised his opinion about God, which differs greatly in modern Mormonism versus the BOM’s position.

It never ceases to amaze me how people can look right at a piece of evidence and fail to grasp its significance. Joseph appears to have started out, as did many Church members, by assuming a hemispheric geography for the Book of Mormon. After all, since he did not write the book, but merely translated it, the events and people it mentions were not his creation, so he couldn’t be expected to completely understand it. What’s striking here is that he was prepared to modify his opinion in the face of better evidence.

Since he knew all of these things about the ancient inhabitants of North America, how is that God let it slip his mind that one little tidbit of information: the location of said events? That’s laughable in its absurdity.

Your evidence? Your only evidence is a lack of evidence, causing you to fall back to faith alone as proof for the fairy tale of Mormonism. This is the *‘keeping the door open’ *fallacy, fighting to have even just the shadow of plausibility for your position, which flows directly into the *‘better safe than sorry’ *fallacy which assumes it’s all correct and gives you the excuse to keep your priesthood just in case you’re right.

I’ll send you some of the proof that Smith wrote the BOM by PM.

Yes, I am aware of the Romney statement. There is no evidence that President Romney ever gave serious consideration to Book of Mormon geography as an area of study.

It’s odd that the church saw fit to include this quote from him but nothing from you voicing the opposite viewpoint. Go ahead and make the Church Educational System know this so they can correct this oversight in future editions of the BOM student manual, okay?

Wow. A Catholic trying to tell a lifelong Latter-day Saint what the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints teaches.

That’s the reason I own the church’s teaching manuals, so I can get its opinions straight from the horse’s mouth, as it were.

 

[Returning_Home]

I really think that Returning Home has gone over the top with offensive remarks.

The LDS church has no official position on where the events described in the BoM took place. We know why, but that is beside the point.

I have no inention of being offensive; I can prove everything I stated as fact using only LDS sources. This is the final result of the Mormon god having a body of flesh and bone, foul as it is.

And you’re wrong about the church not having taken a position about the location of the Hill Cumorah; my copy of the 1963 ‘gold’ BOM clearly shows that they have indeed taken a stand, no matter what modern apologists claim. This confirms what my aforementioned 1971 edition says as well, which is shown in the third picture (sorry for the glare).

Check out the ‘Reformed Egyptian’ on the gold cover, too.

 

[LongJourney]

The present day LDS church has backed down on that stand. I totally agree that they used to teach that. They change with the wind. My book explains why they are phobic about teaching a NE North American geography.

 

[Returning_Home]

The present day LDS church has backed down on that stand. I totally agree that they used to teach that. They change with the wind. My book explains why they are phobic about teaching a NE North American geography.

What you should’ve said was that the church has no current and public stand on the location of the Hill Cumorah. Behind closed doors, however, it’s another matter.

 

[LongJourney]

LOL That will work. Thank you for the correction. They don’t want schism, so they keep their mouths shut on the topic.

 

[Pahoran]

I can prove the church and Joseph Smith lied about polygamy. You, however, can’t prove that they were telling the truth. But yes, I would love to give you the facts. Which point would you like them on?

But we weren’t talking about “polygamy.” That is a separate and unrelated issue. You trotted out the knee-jerk anti-Mormon accusation of “lying” about something else entirely, namely the location of the Book of Mormon Cumorah.

The necessity of concealing the early practice of plural marriage from the public was vindicated on June 27, 1844. This is an unrelated topic. You are playing a game of “guilt by association” here.

Since I can prove that the church has lied continually about polygamy, I have nothing to apologize for here.

I realise that you have not enough conscience left to remind you of when you need to apologise.

Sorry about you losing patience but your anger comes from being confronted with facts and the church’s programming kicking in: the church is right, no matter what evidence is provided to you.

“Programming.” . Spare me the amateur psychoanalysis, please.

Your natural reaction is to take this as a personal attack, which it is not and never has been.

I take it your faith does not matter to you, to the extent that you would not be offended if it was subjected to scurrilous attacks?

I see.

I’ll start with polygamy and I’ll post the evidence in a separate new post after this response.

Of course you will “start with polygamy.” I take that as a tacit admission that you cannot substantiate your original false accusation.

Any that are printed by the church because, since the church is the one established, later restored, and now lead by Jesus Christ Almighty, it doesn’t make sense that he’d permit any of its leaders to say or publish anything that would go against His will, does it? No, anything the church authorizes, commissions, prints, distributes, and sells would have to fall under the umbrella of Christ’s divine authority. To say otherwise would be to cast doubt on everything it has ever published; in this case, it’s an all or nothing proposition.

Now RH, what did that poor straw man ever do to you?

Your answer is a complete fabrication. You made it up entirely out of whole cloth. The Church has never claimed that everything it prints is authoritative, inerrant or infallible.

Again, please see my discussion of this issue here.

You previously wrote:

Not only that, but my 1963 copy of the BOM shows a picture of the hill itself and the statue of Moroni, stating that it is exactly what it claims to be. In fact, the caption below the picture of the hill, complete with grazing cows, states: “The Hill Cumorah, near Manchester, New York, where Joseph Smith obtained the gold plates from which the BOM was translated.”

And I responded:

A fact that I have not disputed.

And now you retort:

Actually, you clearly did, twice, in fact:

Actually I clearly did not. Even once, in fact.

The Hill Cumorah in Western New York is undoubtedly the hill where Joseph Smith obtained the gold plates from which the Book of Mormon was translated. I have never disputed this at any time.

Since I’ve noted that the BOM clearly shows a photo identifying the one and only HIll Cumorah,

No, it does not. It says nothing at all about “the one and only HIll Cumorah;” you made that up. Immediately after throwing about reckless accusations of “lying.”

your opinion contradicts that of the church.

No. My opinion contradicts the interpretation you choose to make for polemical purposes of a photograph caption.

Further, my hardback 1971 copy of the BOM shows an aerial photo of the Hill with the caption “The Hill Cumorah.” The usage is singular and proper, not plural and general. It doesn’t get more specific than that.

Of course it gets more specific than that. And you know it too; that’s why you introduced that “one and only” that is NOT found in any of your sources – to make it “more specific than that.”

As for the ‘narrow neck of land,’ that could be any of the isthmuses near or around Lakes Erie and Ontario.

Well no, it couldn’t be. The geography is wrong.

End of part 1.

 

[Pahoran]

Post part II:

That would place them plenty close to the fictional Hill Cumorah and thus keep the BOM events where Smith originally intended them to be: New England.

And so now you’re a mind-reader. Haaamazing.

Not part of a cover up perse, but a revision of his opinion as to where his fictional story took place,

In your opinion.

the same way he revised his opinion about God, which differs greatly in modern Mormonism versus the BOM’s position.

Again: in your opinion. Oh, I know it’s not original to you – all of your anti-Mormon polemic is strictly boilerplate stuff – but in this case your sources have failed you.

Since he knew all of these things about the ancient inhabitants of North America, how is that God let it slip his mind that one little tidbit of information: the location of said events? That’s laughable in its absurdity.

Yes, that’s what the mockers in the great and spacious building are supposed to say. Actually, the notion that God should specifically reveal a mundane detail like geography is, to a genuine believer in divine revelation, simply risible.

Your evidence? Your only evidence is a lack of evidence, causing you to fall back to faith alone as proof for the fairy tale of Mormonism. This is the *‘keeping the door open’ *fallacy, fighting to have even just the shadow of plausibility for your position, which flows directly into the *‘better safe than sorry’ *fallacy which assumes it’s all correct and gives you the excuse to keep your priesthood just in case you’re right.

Don’t give up your day job. You’ll starve trying to make a living as a mind-reader.

I’ll send you some of the proof that Smith wrote the BOM by PM.

No thanks. On two counts:

1. *]As a “trial” member, I have space for only two PM’s total in my folder. I’d rather keep it clear for something I haven’t already seen before.
   *]As someone already put off by your arrogant triumphalism, but whose testimony is not the least bit dented by it, I am a poor candidate for the kind of “cult recruitment” you seem to be attempting here.
   

   It’s odd that the church saw fit to include this quote from him but nothing from you voicing the opposite viewpoint. Go ahead and make the Church Educational System know this so they can correct this oversight in future editions of the BOM student manual, okay?

   Very sarcastic. The Church, of course, has no official position on Book of Mormon geography. It never has had such a position. See here.
   

   That’s the reason I own the church’s teaching manuals, so I can get its opinions straight from the horse’s mouth, as it were.

   You mean so you can cherry-pick the tidbits that are most polemically useful.
   
   I’ve done this before. Putting one over on me is going to be a challenge.
   

   What you should’ve said was that the church has no current and public stand on the location of the Hill Cumorah.

   Thank you for that admission. It would have saved us all a good deal of time, had you not laboured so mightily to prove that it does take such a stand.
   

   Behind closed doors, however, it’s another matter.

   Eh? How’s that again?
   
   The Church takes no stand in public, but it does “behind closed doors?”
   
   What sort of “stand” is that, where it is never actually stood upon?
   
   Is all of your thinking done in these kinds of clichés?
   
   Regards,
   Pahoran

 

[Returning_Home]

But we weren’t talking about “polygamy.” That is a separate and unrelated issue. You trotted out the knee-jerk anti-Mormon accusation of “lying” about something else entirely, namely the location of the Book of Mormon Cumorah.

You’re right, we weren’t talking about polygamy specifically, but since we were talking about the church lying, polygamy is a natural extension of the conversation. The best evidence of the church’s practice of playing hard and fast with the facts is found in regards to this subject.

The necessity of concealing the early practice of plural marriage from the public was vindicated on June 27, 1844. This is an unrelated topic. You are playing a game of “guilt by association” here.

Unfortunately, however, D&C 132:4 says that this, celestial marriage, was a “new and everlasting covenant.” We now know, however, that in Mormon-speak, new and everlasting actually means 46 years.

That said, D&C 132 wasn’t even printed until 1876, at which point the old section 101 was quietly removed because it clearly condemned polygamy. So, in reality, from its first publishing to the Manifesto was actually only 14 years.

The revelation was written for Emma Smith’s benefit because Joseph wanted her to get on board with the new program. That’s the reason that it twice mentions her being destroyed unless she shut up and got with the new swing of things. Joseph wasn’t even brave enough to show it to her himself; he had to con Hyrum into doing his dirty work.

And then after the Manifesto of 1890, we find the church still practicing polygamy to the point that Joseph F. Smith, the then-prophet of the church, was charged and plead guilty of violating Utah’s anti-polygamy laws in 1904. If God told the Saints not to be polygamists after 1890, why did Smith have father 11 children after the Manifesto? If the rules don’t apply to the prophet of the church, who do they apply to?

“Programming.” . Spare me the amateur psychoanalysis, please.

Weekly mass, priesthood quorums, assorted callings for the church, Sunday school, Monday family night, monthly home teachers, and every other time you’re involved with church activities, it’s reinforcing its teachings through peer pressure, social acceptance, and by playing on your sense of wanting to part of something bigger than yourself, being something special, being the chosen ones.

That’s the reason for the old saying that there are no Sunday Mormons. Lay off of everything for a couple of weeks and tell me you don’t feel the pressure, I dare you.

I take it your faith does not matter to you, to the extent that you would not be offended if it was subjected to scurrilous attacks?

I didn’t say that but we’re not talking about Catholicism here. Don’t change the subject.

Now RH, what did that poor straw man ever do to you?

Your answer is a complete fabrication. You made it up entirely out of whole cloth. The Church has never claimed that everything it prints is authoritative, inerrant or infallible.

So you’re saying that the savior of all mankind, who went through all of that trouble to restore the church (that he didn’t bother to take care of in the first place), would allow its members to issue falsehoods and thus mislead the faithful? That doesn’t exactly make sense, does it?

Actually I clearly did not. Even once, in fact.

The Hill Cumorah in Western New York is undoubtedly the hill where Joseph Smith obtained the gold plates from which the Book of Mormon was translated. I have never disputed this at any time.

You just got finished telling me that the geography was wrong but that you didn’t dispute it. Which is it? You’re trying to play both sides of the fence because to be pinned down on either side of this has its own perils.

No, it does not. It says nothing at all about “the one and only HIll Cumorah;” you made that up. Immediately after throwing about reckless accusations of “lying.”

No. My opinion contradicts the interpretation you choose to make for polemical purposes of a photograph caption.

Of course it gets more specific than that. And you know it too; that’s why you introduced that “one and only” that is NOT found in any of your sources – to make it “more specific than that.”

I didn’t make up anything. There is not one single example of Cumorah being referred to in the plural sense; it is always the proper and singular.

And how could I possibly misinterpret the caption? It’s in plain English, not Deformed Egyptian and, conforming with the BOM text, refers to the Hill Cumorah in the singular and proper sense.

 

[lax16]

The answer consists of two questions:

1. What would you expect to find, 1625 (about) years later?
2. Where would you start looking?

I start by answering a question with questions, not to deflect, but to give you an idea of the scope of the problem to be investigated. Contrary to what some will hasten to claim, there is no definitive doctrinal statement to be found that names a particular location as the Book of Mormon Cumorah. The Book itself gives a description of the area, and it does not fit the drumlin in upstate New York to which Latter-day Saints have modernly assigned that name.

The Latter-day Saints have faith in God and our Lord Jesus Christ, not in archaeologists.

Regards,
Pahoran

Pahoran - Oh come on, you have got to be kidding! I have read many LDS documents stating that the Hill Cumorah is in New York. If you try to back off of this teaching, you will have to provide evidence to back up your comment. I don’t think Joseph Smith could walk too much farther than a few miles from his father’s farm to meet with Moroni, do you?

I have faith in God and archaeologists. Just go to Israel!

I think we need to have you join us over on the Cumorah thread. Did that one get closed? If not, I would love to have you join in on the discussion there.

 

[Returning_Home]

And so now you’re a mind-reader. Haaamazing.

There’s no indication that prior to 1842, Smith had any knowledge of the Meso-American ruins. Yet after he read Stephen’s book, the truth miraculously came to him in a flash? No, not really a coincidence.

In your opinion.

Not really because it fits the pattern of Smith changing his mind when it suited him.

Again: in your opinion. Oh, I know it’s not original to you – all of your anti-Mormon polemic is strictly boilerplate stuff – but in this case your sources have failed you.

Since we both know that modern Mormonism holds God to be an exalted man with a body of flesh and bone, why can’t we find one example of that in the BOM whatsoever?

In fact, the BOM repeatedly makes itself clear that God is a spirit: Mosiah 15:1-5, Alma 18:26-29, 19:25-27, 22:8-11, and 31:15-38. Further, the God in the BOM is eternal and unchanging: Mosiah 3:5, 2 Nephi 27:23, 29:9, Mormoni 7:22, 8:18, and Mormon 9:9,19.

There’s no mention of the pre-mortal existance, three levels of Heaven, that God, Jesus, and the Holy Spirit are separate and distinct (one major change occurred in the second edition, however) or that they are ‘one in purpose,’ no layout of the elaborate priesthood or the organization of the church, or anything else unique to modern Mormonism.

This is not ‘anti-Mormon’ stuff, this is fact.

Yes, that’s what the mockers in the great and spacious building are supposed to say. Actually, the notion that God should specifically reveal a mundane detail like geography is, to a genuine believer in divine revelation, simply risible.

It stands to reason that if Smith were important enough to meet most of the heavy-hitters from the Bible, up to and including Jesus Christ Almighty and God himself, something like the actual locations of these places wouldn’t have been overlooked by the creator of all things.

In fact, however, Smith, again after reading Stephen’s book, actually identified the likely resting place of Zarahemla, now the ruins of Quirigua, yet no examples of Reformed Egyptian have been found there or anywhere else, no indications of pre-Columbian Christianity or Judaism, and no Nephites or Lamanites.

You’re also forgetting that the fictional mockers in the equally fictional setting of Nephi’s vision bears a remarkable resemblance to the dream that Smith’s father had in 1811. Another coincidence?

Don’t give up your day job. You’ll starve trying to make a living as a mind-reader.

I’m not trying to read minds; you’re proving my point as you fight tooth and nail against the facts that indict Mormonism for being the falsehood that it is.

No thanks. On two counts:

1. *]As a “trial” member, I have space for only two PM’s total in my folder. I’d rather keep it clear for something I haven’t already seen before.
   *]As someone already put off by your arrogant triumphalism, but whose testimony is not the least bit dented by it, I am a poor candidate for the kind of “cult recruitment” you seem to be attempting here.

1. 
   Afraid of the facts? If I’m wrong, surely you can tear apart anything I send. And I already sent the first half.
   
   Arrogant? Do knowing the facts make one arrogant? Since I don’t believe that I can be a god like God, I have no reason to be arrogant or smug. If God didn’t give a damn about you, I wouldn’t be here right now.
   
   I haven’t tried to recruit anyone into anything. That’s not my department.
   
   And no, you probably haven’t seen the list of paralells that I sent you. Check my work and let me know if I made any mistakes, okay?
   

   Very sarcastic. The Church, of course, has no official position on Book of Mormon geography. It never has had such a position.

   Untrue; by printing the pictures and captions already shown, it has indeed taken that stand, though it has now backpedalled, telling members not to make any attempt to identify BOM sites with any existing geographical locations.
   

   You mean so you can cherry-pick the tidbits that are most polemically useful.

   No, that’s not what I meant at all; I take it at face value and accept the claims as they are presented. They, however, don’t hold up to any real scrutiny.
   
   This is also an ironic statement and your attempt at projection because though the LDS claims to love the Bible, you also claim it’s missing many ‘plain and precious things.’ It would stand to reason that you’d use the JST so you’d have the correct version, but since the Community of Christ owns the copyright and the LDS does not, you’re forced to use mere footnotes instead of the finished product.
   
   Mormon apologists use the Bible at will when it confirms their view and tell us that it’s missing something or incorrect when it doesn’t. Why wouldn’t you want to use the version that had the thousands of corrections that Smith made instead of the one that’s full of problems and has been deliberately tampered with?
   

   Putting one over on me is going to be a challenge.

   I don’t think so; Smith managed to fool you from beyond the grave.

 

[Returning_Home]

Thank you for that admission. It would have saved us all a good deal of time, had you not laboured so mightily to prove that it does take such a stand.

Don’t thank me; thank your church for playing the hokey pokey with the facts and their own version of the truth. They’ve been forced to back away from their previous claims and have resorted to a faith-only basis for accepting its position as fact. That way, they need no proof of anything at all. It’s the only position they could take.

Eh? How’s that again?

The Church takes no stand in public, but it does “behind closed doors?”

The church, for example, teaches that all men can hold the priesthood, even though the BOM clearly says that black Lamanites became white when they joined the Nephites. Not only do I not know of even one black person becoming white (except Michael Jackson who was, incidentally, a Jehovah’s Witness), I have personally witnessed returned missionaries making fun of blacks because of the church’s position on them being of the lineage of Cain.

This, of course, is not fit for public consumption, but seems to be common among members.

 

[PaulDupre]

Pahoran:

The Church, of course, has no official position on Book of Mormon geography. It never has had such a position.

Except for the location of the Hill Cumorah:

(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)

 

[SirThomasMore]

Thank you MelanieAnne, for that highly impartial and totally unbiased summary of the case.

 

[SirThomasMore]

Except for the location of the Hill Cumorah:

http://www.utlm.org/images/cumorahletter.gif

darn you for displaying those pesky things called facts. This just shows that Pahoran truly does not have a clue

 

[Returning_Home]

Except for the location of the Hill Cumorah

Keep in mind that D&C is also clear on the location of the Garden of Eden too, located just north west of Independence, MO.

 

[PaulDupre]

PaulDupre;6974426:

Except for the location of the Hill Cumorah

Keep in mind that D&C is also clear on the location of the Garden of Eden too, located just north west of Independence, MO.

Yes, but no one would expect to find artifacts from before the fall, when there was no technology, or even clothing. So that LDS belief is interesting, but of no consequence.

 

[Returning_Home]

Returning Home;6974898:

PaulDupre;6974426:

Except for the location of the Hill Cumorah

Yes, but no one would expect to find artifacts from before the fall, when there was no technology, or even clothing. So that LDS belief is interesting, but of no consequence.

And clearly, Pahoran doesn’t expect to find artifacts at the Hill Cumorah in New York either, but for a different reason.