The Book of Mormon... have you read it?

[lax16]

So, he decided to lose his soul, even at time of death instead of telling the “secret truth” about the “fraud.”

So, for you the guy was not only a liar and con, but also a coward! Anything else for the poor Oliver?

evanfaust - Actually, after having this discussion, I have come to a different conclusion.

I think he knew there would be riots if he told the truth about the fraud.
He did not want to jeopardize the lives of family and friends.
Perhaps he felt the truth would come out eventually and that it would be handled at that point.
Actually, I don’t think he was a coward. I think he was playing it smart.
As far as losing one’s soul, unless you or anyone else"heard" his last **thoughts and ****prayers **to God, nobody knows what he confessed. Therefore, only God can judge him.

 

[why_me]

You claim Oliver was a coward for protecting his family? That is pretty harsh, Evan

Actually, by admiting to the fraud, he would have saved his family. Instead according to you, he decided to lie on his deathbed to his wife and child so they could join the mormons and live a lie. How is that protecting his family?

 

[why_me]

One does not have to establish the obvious. Had Oliver come clean, his family would have been hated by the Mormons AND haunted by the legal system. There is no way he would have done that.

Actually the feeling of antimormonism was strong. In fact, the legal system was against the mormons. Mormons had their homes burned down and no one persecuted for the crime. Mormon printing presses were destroyed and no one was convicted of any crimes. Legally, oliver and his family would have been heroes and money would have been made by him. The legal system was against the mormons. Oliver, had he been a conartist would have told the truth when he left the church. In fact, JS showed no nervousness about oliver at all being free out there as a bird. Why? because none of them had anything to hide.

But by bearing his tesimony on his deathbed must have been very powerful to those present.

 

[why_me]

evanfaust - Actually, after having this discussion, I have come to a different conclusion.

I think he knew there would be riots if he told the truth about the fraud.
He did not want to jeopardize the lives of family and friends.
Perhaps he felt the truth would come out eventually and that it would be handled at that point.
Actually, I don’t think he was a coward. I think he was playing it smart.
As far as losing one’s soul, unless you or anyone else"heard" his last **thoughts and ****prayers **to God, nobody knows what he confessed. Therefore, only God can judge him.

1. There were riots anyway even after he left the lds church.
2. No life would have been jeopardized. So you claim that he would rather have his wife and child live a lie?
   3.If he remained silent and if he was a conartist, bearing his testimony on his deathbed would have been very cowardly because he sold his wife, daughter and friends out.
3. Bearing ones testimony that something is true when that person knows that it was false and when that has to do with god, well…such is a soul heading for damnation

 

[why_me]

Oliver was in need of money after he left the church. One way to make some cash would be to write a book about the con. He was certainly an insider. And that book would have destroyed mormonism for sure, especially if it were well written and filled with convincing facts. Mormons would have left the fold and most likely killed JS themselves.

But what we have is oliver returning to the saints, bearing his testimony to a large gathering and then, when faced with death, bearing his testimony again to his family and friends. Now that is powerful.

 

[lax16]

Oliver was in need of money after he left the church. One way to make some cash would be to write a book about the con. He was certainly an insider. And that book would have destroyed mormonism for sure, especially if it were well written and filled with convincing facts. Mormons would have left the fold and most likely killed JS themselves.

But what we have is oliver returning to the saints, **bearing his testimony **to a large gathering and then, when faced with death, **bearing his testimony **again to his family and friends. Now that is powerful.

What is “bearing his testimony” and why is it so powerful?

 

[lax16]

Oliver was in need of money after he left the church. One way to make some cash would be to write a book about the con. He was certainly an insider. And that book would have destroyed mormonism for sure, especially if it were well written and filled with convincing facts. Mormons would have left the fold and most likely killed JS themselves.

But what we have is oliver returning to the saints, bearing his testimony to a large gathering and then, when faced with death, bearing his testimony again to his family and friends. Now that is powerful.

Why then did he die in the home of David Whitmer? Whitmer had been cursed by Joseph Smith and was excommunicated. He was definitely not a fan of Joseph Smith and it seems odd a devout member would die in his home.

 

[barnesms]

barnesms - There were 60,000 Mormons in 1850. Is that small?

What type of misinformation “is the same that Hitler used…and what many Americans did?” Please be specific.

Lax, I apologize, but I am not sure responding to you in any manner is beneficial, but I will try again. Unfortunately, you have a single purpose. I would prefer that as individuals who all say they are committed to our Lord Jesus Christ, that we could discuss what is good and true in each other’s church as well as discuss our differences. A topic of faith remains a topic of faith and cannot be reduced to just reason or the facts of man.

If you say there are 60,000 saints in 1850 then the vast majority of them are in the Utah territory are attempting to go there. It has been proposed that Oliver lied because of danger from LDS. Though this is preposterous in the face of mountains of material about all kinds of critics, anti-Mormon authors and publishers, somehow we are to believe that OC lied because of fear. The fact is that OC did not deny the truth because he believed it up to the moment of his death. That it is so important that he encouraged his family and friends to abide by its concepts. That is the fact and attempting to denigrate it, minimize it, and distort is not the actions of a Christian. We do not do that do that to St. Bernadette or any other Catholic visionary or any Saint of the Catholic Church.

To answer your last questions about Hitler and what anti-Catholics wrote, I will ask you two questions. 1) What did Hitler say of the Jews that caused Germans to forget their humanity and kill Jews? 2) Have you ever read anti-Catholic literature?

 

[barnesms]

lax16:
Why then did he die in the home of David Whitmer? Whitmer had been cursed by Joseph Smith and was excommunicated. He was definitely not a fan of Joseph Smith and it seems odd a devout member would die in his home.

I suspect you already know the answer, but Cowdery had travelled to meet with Whitmer in Richmond to persuade Whitmer to move west with him to rejoin the Saints in Utah. Unfortunately, while staying with Whitmer, Cowdery succumbed to Tuberculosis and died. All Cowdery was doing is to attempt to read the broken hearted and recover the lost sheep to the fold.

 

[evanfaust]

You claim Oliver was a coward for protecting his family? That is pretty harsh, Evan

You are calling him a coward indirectly! You are saying he was not courageous enough to tell the “truth” that you expected him to confess at time of death. The fact is that He was a courageous and brave man. He proved it by enduring the persecution for 8 years!

I prefer to accept fact that he was an honest man all along and that he stated the truth, verifiable by other people and documents! These are the facts! Now…you hypothesis of “keeping a secret to protect his family” has no bearings whatsoever! You have nothing to back it up! It is not even a theory, just a hypothesis. All the facts are agains it!

Of course I understand your position! If you admit Oliver statements and Joseph story…then Catholicism colapses! So, you will do everything you can to make this story a fraud!

 

[twopekinguys]

Something to consider with OC, is that when a person tells a lie repeatedly, and does it long enough, they tend to believe that it is true.

 

[evanfaust]

Originally Posted by evanfaust

These men are actual witness to visions and celestial manifestations.

Answersplease

Galatians 1:8
But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach to you a gospel contrary to the one we preached to you, let him be accursed.

Please answer me:

**To whom is the apostle Paul directing the speech? **

Answer: To the Saints in Galatia (1:1-2)

“The Epistle of Paul to the Galatians, usually referred to simply as Galatians, written about 54 AD is the ninth book of the New Testament. It is a letter from Paul of Tarsus to a number of Early Christian communities in the Roman province of Galatia in central Anatolia.

Why was it written?

The main theme was that the people of Galatia have turned away from Paul’s teachings.

The author is principally concerned with the controversy surrounding Gentile Christians and the Mosaic Law within Early Christianity.

Some believe the churches of Galatia (Antioch of Pisidia, Iconium, Lystra and Derbe) were founded by Paul himself (Acts 16:6; Gal 1:8; 4:13, 4:19)

After Paul’s departure, the churches were led astray from Paul’s faith/trust centered teachings by individuals proposing “another gospel” (which centered around salvation through the Mosaic law, so-called legalism), whom Paul saw as preaching a “different gospel” than what Paul had taught. (1:6–9).

The Galatians appear to have been receptive to the teaching of these newcomers, and the epistle is Paul’s response to what he sees as their willingness to turn from his teaching.

Now, let’s reason! The epistle to the Galatians was written in 54 AD, which is before the book of Revelation written by John, much later, around 96 AD.

According to the book of Revelation, another angel preached another message to John! Was it another gospel? Does Paul mean that no more angels could bring more messages from anyone or even from Christ? Of course he did not mean that! Because if you believe that, then you have to consider the book of Revelation another gospel and throw it away!

The Book of Mormon does not preach another gospel! It is another Testament of Jesus Christ, and it is the same gospel. It confirms Christ’s mission in Jerusalem, his atonement, his resurrection and testifies of Christ! The Book of Mormon is in favor of Christ not against His Gospel!. The gospel that was lost due to the apostasy!

The epistle to the Galatians is another evidence of the apostasy infiltrating into the Church of Christ! Thanks for bringing up this scripture, if just re-enforces the teaching of the LDS Church!

 

[Dad_of_3]

This arguement of how did the ancient Nephites know French or Greek makes me laugh. HOW did the ancient Nephites know ANY ENGLISH also? Duh…

The Lord’s translation of what words He felt we needed best were used. How many different translations are there of the Bible? Languages don’t always directly translate. There is no need to apologize for the Book of Mormon. It can hold it’s own weight against the critics.

That’s funny because if your assessment is correct, we should see the exact same pattern in the Old Testament as well. Instead, however, we find that the BOM is full of phrases and outright plagiarizations of the New Testament some 700 years before it was written. Further, not only does the BOM quote directly from the New Testament, it quotes specifically from the King James’ version, not published until 1611, which was, coincidentally, the very same version that Joseph Smith owned.

 

[evanfaust]

Something to consider with OC, is that when a person tells a lie repeatedly, and does it long enough, they tend to believe that it is true.

Which is not consistent with his character and personality! Oliver’s reputation was one of integrity not a compulsive liar as you allege!

Like you said, people who lie on big things like this, tend to lie on everything else. History does not back that up! There is no evidence of such behavior on the part of Oliver, Martin Harris, David Whitmer or Sidney Ridgon!

Keep trying, but sorry…there is no better explanation that the truth! He was telling the truth all along and died declaring it!

 

[zaffiroborant]

What is “bearing his testimony” and why is it so powerful?

Silly man testimony=truth

 

[twopekinguys]

Which is not consistent with his character and personality! Oliver’s reputation was one of integrity not a compulsive liar as you allege!

Like you said, people who lie on big things like this, tend to lie on everything else. History does not back that up! There is no evidence of such behavior on the part of Oliver, Martin Harris, David Whitmer or Sidney Ridgon!

Keep trying, but sorry…there is no better explanation that the truth! He was telling the truth all along and died declaring it!

First of all, don’t twist what I said. I never said “people who lie on big things like this, tend to lie on everything else”.

That is your own invention, and also a feeble attempt at sensationalizing something.

Secondly, we are not talking about “history”, we are talking about behavior. Those are two distinctly different things.

In cases where people are trying to perputrate a fraud on another person or persons. They often tell the same story over and over enough they end up believing that. That doesn’t mean they lie about everything else. They lie about the things that will hide the fraud.

The vast majority of the major frauds are done through conspiracy. Meaning there is more than one person involved. If you don’t believe that, look at the prisons today and see how many people are in there because of being involved in a conspiracy.

 

[SirThomasMore]

You are calling him a coward indirectly!

Not at all

You are saying he was not courageous enough to tell the “truth” that you expected him to confess at time of death. The fact is that He was a courageous and brave man. He proved it by enduring the persecution for 8 years!

I am saying he did not come clean in order to protect his family. I would have done the same thing. I never called him a coward. The only person who did was you

I prefer to accept fact that he was an honest man all along and that he stated the truth, verifiable by other people and documents!

Except for the documents where he didn’t…and except for when Joseph did not trust him…

These are the facts!

No, they are opinions, Evan

Now…you hypothesis of “keeping a secret to protect his family” has no bearings whatsoever! You have nothing to back it up! It is not even a theory, just a hypothesis. All the facts are agains it!

Actually, there are facts that support it. The fact that the Book of Mormon is a fraud is the biggest fact supporting it

Of course I understand your position! If you admit Oliver statements and Joseph story…then Catholicism colapses! So, you will do everything you can to make this story a fraud!

Catholicism only only collapses if Jesus was a weak liar. I choose to not believe that.

 

[Dad_of_3]

I think the contradictions have been very well covered here: packham.n4m.org/bomvslds.htm

I really go for the parts that are funny. Can we go for those instead of the contradictory parts?

You mean like the Mormon jesus (little j) saying that he’s going to quote Moses in 3 Nephi 20:23-25, but is, in reality, quoting Peter’s paraphrase of Moses from Acts 3:22-23 (see also Deut 18:15)?

Yeah, I laughed when I read that one, too.

 

[evanfaust]

That’s funny because if your assessment is correct, we should see the exact same pattern in the Old Testament as well. Instead, however, we find that the BOM is full of phrases and outright plagiarizations of the New Testament some 700 years before it was written. Further, not only does the BOM quote directly from the New Testament, it quotes specifically from the King James’ version, not published until 1611, which was, coincidentally, the very same version that Joseph Smith owned.

“When Jesus and the Apostles and, for that matter, the Angel Gabriel quote the [Hebrew] scriptures in the New Testament, do they recite from some mysterious Urtext? Do they quote the prophets of old in the ultimate original? . . . No, they do not. They quote the Septuagint, a Greek version of the Old Testament prepared in the third century B.C. Why so? Because that happened to be the received standard version of the Bible accepted by the readers of the Greek New Testament.”

(Hugh W. Nibley, “Literary Style Used in the Book of Mormon Insured Accurate Translation,” in The Prophetic Book of Mormon, Salt Lake City: Deseret Book, 1989), Collected Works of Hugh Nibley, Volume 8, p. 215.)

lightplanet.com/mormons/response/qa/bom_plagerize_kjv.htm

 

[evanfaust]

Catholicism only only collapses if Jesus was a weak liar. I choose to not believe that.

Where does Jesus Christ endorses Catholicism? Jesus Christ endorses His Church, which is not the same as Catholic church. That is Catholic claim!