The Book of Mormons and the Bible

[Montalban]

zerinus:

I have made that perfectly clear, but you are either incapable of understanding it, or you turn a blind eye to it.

For you clarity equates to making a vague just-so statement.

zerinus:

I have informed you repeatedly that by the Apostasy we mean the loss of divine authority by the church, which manifests itself most expressly by the loss of the ability of the church leadership to commune directly with God, and to lead and direct the church by revelation form (sic) God.

Which is manifest how? Then we go back to you saying you’ve already answered this… that they just have.

zerinus:

Does the Catholic Church make such a claim today? No! Does the Pope make such a claim?

What claim? That they’ve lost divine authority?

zerinus:

No! Is there any other church that does? No! Does the LDS Church make that claim? Yes it does! You may not believe that claim; but you cannot deny that at least it makes such a claim. The Catholic Church does not even make that claim, and even says that such ability is not required to govern the church. That is false. Whenever God has had a true church on earth, it has always been led, guided, and directed by revelation directly from Him. The LDS Church is the only church on earth that claims to be led by true prophets and Apostles that possess the same authority that the ancient Apostles did, and are able to direct the Church by revelation from heaven as they did. That is the difference.

What’s the relevance to me as an Orthodox what the Catholic church claims? However you’re simply basing your beliefs on the system “My church makes this claim, therefore it is true”.

But getting back to your Protestant mistake for a moment…Joseph Smith simply shows his ignorance here by making the Catholic Church ‘the’ church by which he is reacting against.

Montalban:

In fact you admit nothing serious has been changed in the Bible.

zerinus:

I made no such admission. All I can say is that you are incapable of understanding what I am saying.

Actually you’ve done two things…
Post #10, you minimised the amount of instances…

zerinus:

I believe I have already answered that question before. Our eighth Article of Faith states: “We believe the Bible to be the word of God as far as it is translated correctly . . .” That means that we accept all of the Bible to be correct unless it is proven otherwise; and there are not many instances of those that I know of.

Post #15 you minimise their impact…

zerinus:

Yes, but they are not that many, and theologically not very significant when it comes to the fundamentals of the religion.

When I ask you for a list of these mistakes, you don’t know.
When I ask what it is they’ve failed in you repeat that your church makes a vague claim about another church… that it’s lost divine authority. How was this manifest? You’ve answered that question before (so you claim angrily). And in doing so you’ve inadvertently acknowledged the Catholic Church as normative… by being the church with which you’re reacting against.

Let me put this another way. Some Satanists say the Catholic Mass backwards. In doing so they are expressing themselves, but not just that they’re expressing themselves as being the opposite of Catholics, by taking the Catholic Mass as the thing by which they are going to reverse. Like Protestants who make the Catholic church into ‘the church which we are not’.

zerinus:

That is not true. I think I have made my position as clear as I could.
zerinus

Which is that you believe it to be so.

 

[kellie]

No, there isn’t a definitive list. As I said before, we accept all the Bible to be correct unless we have good reason to believe otherwise through additional revelation that the Lord has given to us today—and those instances are not many. The corrections made in the Bible by the JST (which are quite numerous) do not so much contradict what it contains, as add additional material to it that enhance and clarify its meaning. There may be other errors that we are not yet aware of because the Lord has not yet revealed to us enough information to enable us to make that determination.

Hi zerinus,

Can you please tell me if there is an official LDS view, or do you have an opinion, on why God would allow us to be living according to the Bible, knowing some of it is in error, and not revealing to us by now through revelation which parts are in error?

Thanks

zerinus:

By the Apostasy we mean the loss of the divine authority and priesthood of the Church. It is clear to us that that authority was lost to the Christian church early on, because after the death of the Apostles the church was no longer being led by revelation from the Lord as the early church used to be, and also the institution of the Twelve Apostles disappeared with keys of the kingdom that they once possessed. All of these have now been restored to earth in this dispensation of the gospel, and are fully functional in only one church in the world, and that is the LDS Church.

Do you mean that the 2nd pope, Pope Linus, who took over from St Peter, wasn’t leading by revelation? Wouldn’t he have been leading as per what St Peter had taught him?

 

[kellie]

It seems the Mormons believe that after all the Apostles died, then the Church was left here on earth without anyone in authority.

It also seems that the Mormons believe that the true church should be run by Apostles and prophets.

However, this thread has made me go back and read Acts (which is a good thing, as I have never fully delved into the Bible properly) and I found this passage…

Acts 6

***The Choosing of the Seven ***

*1In those days when the number of disciples was increasing, the Grecian Jews among them complained against the Hebraic Jews because their widows were being overlooked in the daily distribution of food. 2So the Twelve gathered all the disciples together and said, “It would not be right for us to neglect the ministry of the word of God in order to wait on tables. 3Brothers, choose seven men from among you who are known to be full of the Spirit and wisdom. We will turn this responsibility over to them 4and will give our attention to prayer and the ministry of the word.” *

*5This proposal pleased the whole group. They chose Stephen, a man full of faith and of the Holy Spirit; also Philip, Procorus, Nicanor, Timon, Parmenas, and Nicolas from Antioch, a convert to Judaism. 6They presented these men to the apostles, who prayed and laid their hands on them. *7So the word of God spread. The number of disciples in Jerusalem increased rapidly, and a large number of priests became obedient to the faith.

So in my opinion, this shows that the Church wasn’t meant to be run by Apostles or prophets, but by people filled with the Holy Spirit through baptism, who knew the teachings of Jesus through word of mouth.

Aren’t the priests, bishops, popes, and all Catholics disciples then? I can’t see any logic in saying we apostasized.

 

[zerinus]

What’s the relevance to me as an Orthodox what the Catholic church claims?

I hadn’t realized that you were Orthodox. Regardless, the logic of what I has said of the LDS Church vis-à-vis the Catholic, is equally valid vis-à-vis the Orthodox, or any other church for that matter.

But getting back to your Protestant mistake for a moment…Joseph Smith simply shows his ignorance here by making the Catholic Church ‘the’ church by which he is reacting against.

And that shows your ignorance about Joseph Smith. Joseph Smith didn’t make “the Catholic Church ‘the’ church by which he is reacting against”. He didn’t in fact have any quarrels with the Catholic Church. He had a lot more problems with the Protestant churches than with Catholic.

Actually you’ve done two things…
Post #10, you minimised the amount of instances…
Post #15 you minimise their impact…

Then you had not understood what I had said. The changes that were made in the text of the NT were deliberate and extensive—but they consisted largely of omissions from the text, not of alterations of them so as to make the reading of them completely false. The omissions distort the text so as to prevent the reader form obtaining full comprehension of the meaning of the original author(s). But they do not falsify the meaning completely. The additions or changes made by the JST in the text of the NT are considerable and extensive. But they are of the kind described above. They restore the missing parts. Here is are some typical examples. All the words typed in red were added by Joseph Smith:

JST, MATTHEW 12:37–38

1. Then came some of the Scribes and said unto him, Master, it is written that, Every sin shall be forgiven; but ye say, Whosoever speaketh against the Holy Ghost shall not be forgiven. And they asked him, saying, How can these things be?
2. And he said unto them, When the unclean spirit is gone out of a man, he walketh through dry places, seeking rest and findeth none; but when a man speaketh against the Holy Ghost, then he saith, I will return into my house from whence I came out; and when he is come, he findeth him empty, swept and garnished; for the good spirit leaveth him unto himself.

JST, MATTHEW 16:25–26 (compare Matthew 16:24)

1. Then said Jesus unto his disciples, If any man will come after me, let him deny himself, and take up his cross, and follow me.
2. And now for a man to take up his cross, is to deny himself all ungodliness, and every worldly lust, and keep my commandments.

JST, MATTHEW 16:27–29

1. Break not my commandments for to save your lives; for whosoever will save his life in this world, shall lose it in the world to come.
2. And whosoever will lose his life in this world, for my sake, shall find it in the world to come.
3. Therefore, forsake the world, and save your souls; for what is a man profited, if he shall gain the whole world, and lose his own soul? Or what shall a man give in exchange for his soul?

Like Protestants who make the Catholic church into ‘the church which we are not’.

Actually, we make all churches “the church which we are not”.

zerinus

 

[hosemonkey]

I’ve said this before, in the case of Zerinus you are simply teasing the chained dog. He is in the grip of invincible ignorance and therefore bears no responsibility for knowlege of the truth. The entire Mormon system was founded on fraud, lust and deception. It has not changed.
Mark Twain is (in)famous in Mormon circles for having had this to say about the Book of Mormon:

“…The book seems to be merely a prosy detail of imaginary history, with the Old Testament for a model; followed by a tedious plagiarism of the New Testament. The author labored to give his words and phrases the quaint, old-fashioned sound and structure of our King James’s translation of the Scriptures; and the result is a mongrel – half modern glibness, and half ancient simplicity and gravity. The latter is awkward and constrained; the former natural, but grotesque by the contrast. Whenever he found his speech growing too modern – which was about every sentence or two – he ladled in a few such Scriptural phrases as ‘exceeding sore,’ ‘and it came to pass,’ etc., and made things satisfactory again. ‘And it came to pass’ was his pet. If he had left that out, his Bible would have been only a pamphlet…”

Mark Twain had it right. The Mormon church has spent millions trying to prove the foundation document of it’s origin and millions more concealing the early history of the scam. Every store-front “church” has “apostles”, “prophets”, “bishops”, “Grand Poobahs” etc, etc, etc in an attempt to lend credibility to “homemade” religion like Mormonism. Very few take it seriously. Debating with the likes of Zerinus is a waste of time because you get the same ol’ tune over and over again. Debating is fun, but do not expect to convince him.

 

[zerinus]

Hi zerinus,

Can you please tell me if there is an official LDS view, or do you have an opinion, on why God would allow us to be living according to the Bible, knowing some of it is in error, . . .

How many times do I have to say it? We don’t believe that the Bible is in error. We believe that important parts have been omitted form it, which is not the same thing as saying that it is in error.

. . . and not revealing to us by now through revelation which parts are in error?

Revelation through whom? Through the church that had apostatized? That was impossible. It had to be done in some other way; and He did it in the only way that He could, at the time when it was most appropriate for Him to do it.

zerinus

 

[Montalban]

I hadn’t realized that you were Orthodox. Regardless, the logic of what I has said of the LDS Church vis-à-vis the Catholic, is equally valid vis-à-vis the Orthodox, or any other church for that matter.

How so? You’ve still yet to show this is so, other than to state that it is.

And that shows your ignorance about Joseph Smith. Joseph Smith didn’t make “the Catholic Church ‘the’ church by which he is reacting against”. He didn’t in fact have any quarrels with the Catholic Church. He had a lot more problems with the Protestant churches than with Catholic.

All the criticisms I’ve seen about ‘the’ Church have all been directed against the Catholic Church.

Then you had not understood what I had said. The changes that were made in the text of the NT were deliberate and extensive—but they consisted largely of omissions from the text, not of alterations of them so as to make the reading of them completely false. The omissions distort the text so as to prevent the reader form obtaining full comprehension of the meaning of the original author(s). But they do not falsify the meaning completely. The additions or changes made by the JST in the text of the NT are considerable and extensive. But they are of the kind described above. They restore the missing parts. Here is are some typical examples. All the words typed in red were added by Joseph Smith:

This itself would suggest an ignorance of Holy Tradition. The words of the Lord weren’t the property of a single church, so that when it came time to bring together the canon they looked at what had always been taught.

You see they used Tradition as a guide to Scripture, not the other way round. Again this shows Joseph Smith’s Protestant mind-set.

But thank you for the list. That’s a start to answering a question. I’ll have a look at that later on

 

[Montalban]

It seems the Mormons believe that after all the Apostles died, then the Church was left here on earth without anyone in authority.

It also seems that the Mormons believe that the true church should be run by Apostles and prophets.

However, this thread has made me go back and read Acts (which is a good thing, as I have never fully delved into the Bible properly) and I found this passage…

Acts 6

***The Choosing of the Seven ***

*1In those days when the number of disciples was increasing, the Grecian Jews among them complained against the Hebraic Jews because their widows were being overlooked in the daily distribution of food. 2So the Twelve gathered all the disciples together and said, “It would not be right for us to neglect the ministry of the word of God in order to wait on tables. 3Brothers, choose seven men from among you who are known to be full of the Spirit and wisdom. We will turn this responsibility over to them 4and will give our attention to prayer and the ministry of the word.” *

*5This proposal pleased the whole group. They chose Stephen, a man full of faith and of the Holy Spirit; also Philip, Procorus, Nicanor, Timon, Parmenas, and Nicolas from Antioch, a convert to Judaism. 6They presented these men to the apostles, who prayed and laid their hands on them. *7So the word of God spread. The number of disciples in Jerusalem increased rapidly, and a large number of priests became obedient to the faith.

So in my opinion, this shows that the Church wasn’t meant to be run by Apostles or prophets, but by people filled with the Holy Spirit through baptism, who knew the teachings of Jesus through word of mouth.

Aren’t the priests, bishops, popes, and all Catholics disciples then? I can’t see any logic in saying we apostasized.

Some excellent points.

I’ve yet to see him show where Jesus says that the church will fail, for 1,800 years.

God sets up a church, lets it fail then picks a -]yokel /-]American to come up with the definitive lessons!

The whole reason Jesus picked 12 was for a system of checks and balances. The church continually kept in contact within itself so that any errors that came up would be known to the other churches.

This is why when they met at an Ecumenical Council, they didn’t judge error by using the Bible, but by what was always taught.

 

[PaulDupre]

How many times do I have to say it? We don’t believe that the Bible is in error. We believe that important parts have been omitted form it, which is not the same thing as saying that it is in error.

Really Z? I don’t think you know what your church teaches.

The Mormon Church has always maintained that the Bible is hopelessly corrupt and untrustworthy:

From The Book of Mormon:

1 Nephi 13:
24 And the angel of the Lord said unto me: Thou hast beheld that the book proceeded forth from the mouth of a Jew; and when it proceeded forth from the mouth of a Jew it contained the fulness of the gospel of the Lord, of whom the twelve apostles bear record; and they bear record according to the truth which is in the Lamb of God.

25 Wherefore, these things go forth from the Jews in purity unto the Gentiles, according to the truth which is in God.

26 And after they go forth by the hand of the twelve apostles of the Lamb, from the Jews unto the Gentiles, thou seest the formation of that great and abominable church, which is most abominable above all other churches; for behold, they have taken away from the gospel of the Lamb many parts which are plain and most precious; and also many covenants of the Lord have they taken away.

27 And all this have they done that they might pervert the right ways of the Lord, that they might blind the eyes and harden the hearts of the children of men.

28 Wherefore, thou seest that after the book hath gone forth through the hands of the great and abominable church, that there are many plain and precious things taken away from the book, which is the book of the Lamb of God.

29 And after these plain and precious things were taken away it goeth forth unto all the nations of the Gentiles; and after it goeth forth unto all the nations of the Gentiles, yea, even across the many waters which thou hast seen with the Gentiles which have gone forth out of captivity, thou seest—because of the many plain and precious things which have been taken out of the book, which were plain unto the understanding of the children of men, according to the plainness which is in the Lamb of God—because of these things which are taken away out of the gospel of the Lamb, an exceedingly great many do stumble, yea, insomuch that Satan hath great power over them.

The above passage claims that the bible we have now is not the same bible written by the prophets and apostles. Many of the “plain and precious parts” were taken away by the “great and abominable Church”. Why? “that they might blind the eyes and harden the hearts of the children of men.” (1 Ne:13:27)

Verse 29 states that those who believe the bible with the plain and precious parts deliberately removed by the great and abominable church stumble so that Satan has great power over them.

Continued…

 

[PaulDupre]

Bible corruption continued…

What do the modern LDS prophets and apostles say?

President Ezra Taft Benson wrote of

“the Bible, which passed through generations of copyists, translators and corrupt religionists who tampered with the text”
(Teachings of Ezra Taft Benson, pg. 53).

Joseph Fielding Smith, Jr., popular LDS author and son of the tenth president of the church, said

“The early ‘Apostate Fathers’ did not think it was wrong to tamper with inspired scripture. If any scripture seemed to endanger their viewpoint, it was altered, transplanted or completely removed from the Biblical text” (Religious Truths Defined, p.175).

Apostle Mark E. Peterson casts doubt on the reliability of the Bible and states forcefully that the corruption was intentional:

“Many insertions were made, some of them ‘slanted’ for selfish purposes, while at times deliberate falsifications and fabrications were perpetrated”
(As Translated Correctly, p.4).

“It is evident then that many of the ‘plain and precious’ things were omitted from the Bible by failure to choose all of the authentic books for inclusion, and by deliberate changes, deletions and forgeries …”
(As Translated Correctly, p.14).

The encyclopedia of Mormonism:

“Thus, the elements of mistranslation, incompleteness, and other errors weaken the Bible”
(Encyclopedia of Mormonism , Vol. 1, Bible).

Again we can see from this small sample of quotes how the conviction that the bible is corrupt and untrustworthy starts with The Book of Mormon (“the most correct book on earth” and “the keystone of our religion”) and continues to pervade Mormon thinking and writing throughout their history.

Grace to you all,
Paul

 

[zerinus]

All the criticisms I’ve seen about ‘the’ Church have all been directed against the Catholic Church.

That is not true. If you have read most of my posts, you will know that I am not overly critical of the Catholic Church. But since I am addressing mostly Catholics here, I am more inclined to make comparisons with the Catholic Church than with other churches.

But thank you for the list. That’s a start to answering a question. I’ll have a look at that later on.

That was copied from the appendix to the LDS edition of the Bible. If you are interested in that, there are lots more in the appendix, and even more in the footnotes. Like I said, the best way to study them is to get hold of a cheap paperback edition of the book, and study them that way. They are also available online; but the footnotes are not easily visible in the online edition; so your best bet is to get hold of a printed copy.

zerinus

 

[Montalban]

That is not true. If you have read most of my posts, you will know that I am not overly critical of the Catholic Church. But since I am addressing mostly Catholics here, I am more inclined to make comparisons with the Catholic Church than with other churches.

You said that the church had become Apostate. Did you mean the Orthodox Church?

That was copied from the appendix to the LDS edition of the Bible. If you are interested in that, there are lots more in the appendix, and even more in the footnotes. Like I said, the best way to study them is to get hold of a cheap paperback edition of the book, and study them that way. They are also available online; but the footnotes are not easily visible in the online edition; so your best bet is to get hold of a printed copy.

zerinus

But as we’ve established;
a) it’s not a definitive list
b) it doesn’t affect any dogma in any major way
and
c) it’s proven because the LDS books say it is so (circular logic)

 

[kellie]

I have done more reading of Acts, and found this passage.

It shows the Apostle Paul stating he is leaving the church to disciples to oversee the teachings of Jesus.

*Acts 20:25-30 25And now, behold, I know that ye all, among whom I have gone preaching the kingdom of God, shall see my face no more. *

*26Wherefore I take you to record this day, that I am pure from the blood of all men. *
*27For I have not shunned to declare unto you all the counsel of God. *
*28Take heed therefore unto yourselves, and to all the flock, over the which the Holy Ghost hath made you overseers, to feed the church of God, which he hath purchased with his own blood. *
*29For I know this, that after my departing shall grievous wolves enter in among you, not sparing the flock. *30Also of your own selves shall men arise, speaking perverse things, to draw away disciples after them.

Apostles were men appointed as teachers of the church by God himself.
Disciples were men appointed by these Apostles.
Clearly the church was left in the hands of disciples, which today are known as our Pope and bishops.
Jesus said we would be persecuted for preaching His Word, and would have known that one by one the Apostles would be killed.
The Catholic Church has Apostolic Succession and Apostolic Tradition as Her foundation.

I still fail to see how then She could have apostasized.

I am really trying to understand the Mormon’s position on this, but it is really hard to do so.

 

[Montalban]

I still fail to see how then She could have apostasized.

I am really trying to understand the Mormon’s position on this, but it is really hard to do so.

Another good point from Kellie

Jesus established a church. Jesus seems to have wasted his time because the LDS says that it will fail.

Also as someone else pointed out the only proof of this failure is the Book of Mormons

 

[zerinus]

You said that the church had become Apostate. Did you mean the Orthodox Church?

I meant every church. We believe that the early Christian church apostatized, and lost the divine authority that it once possessed, and the Christian churches that exist today are a remnant of that apostate institution. That means Catholic, Orthodox, Protestant, the whole lot.

But as we’ve established;
a) it’s not a definitive list

I fail to see the point behind your emphasis on a “definitive list”. It is a list, and a substantial one. That would be like saying that a long list of errors that we have discovered in the new Windows operating system is of no consequence because it is not a “definitive list”. Well, definitive or not, it is a list, and proves that there are errors, and ones that need to be fixed. There may be other errors in there that we have not yet discovered. If we discover more errors, we will report them and fix them as well. In the mean time, we will busy ourselves fixing the ones that we have already discovered.

b) it doesn’t affect any dogma in any major way

Actually, it does. Take, for example, the doctrine of infant baptism. The doctrine of infant baptism has serious consequences for the theology of a religion. Traditionally, Christian churches have always taught the necessity of infant baptisms. The LDS Church, however, teaches that that it wrong, and infants need not be baptized. Now there is nothing in the Bible that categorically states that infants should, or should not be baptized. That doctrine is derived from an incorrect interpretation of the Bible. Now if there had been a statement in the Bible that made it unmistakably clear that infants need not be baptized, that false doctrine would not have arisen in the Christian churches.

and
c) it’s proven because the LDS books say it is so (circular logic)

Religion is ultimately a matter of faith. In every religion, there comes a point where you will have to accept things on faith. We have never claimed to be able to “prove” to anyone the truth of the LDS Church, or of the Book of Mormon, by logic, philosophical reasoning, or scientific evidence. In the Book of Mormon there is a promise that anyone who reads it, and prays to God in the sincerity of heart to know if it is true, the Lord will reveal the truth of it to him by the power of the Holy Ghost. That is what we go by. That is the process by which we know that it is true; and that is the process by which we urge others to determine for themselves if it is true. If that procedure is unacceptable to you, then at that point we part company. We have to go our separate ways. That is a fork at which there can be no reconciliation of the ways. Whoever takes the right turn must part company with whoever takes the left turn.

zerinus

 

[Allweather]

This is true. From what I’ve seen from Zerinus’ statements it’s all rather circular. From what I see is; the LDS church believes it is so, because it is, because it is.

It isn’t only the Mormon church that believes in the Great Apostasy. Other cults, such as the SDA, and the JWs, do also, and probably many Protestants also have their own version of Catholic apostasy. A claim for apostasy really is the only way these cults and sects can justify their existence. Absent an apostasy, real or imagined, and they crumble like old bread.

Add to that his bluff anger and bravado in responding I feel that there’s very little substance to his stance.

Yes, Zerinus is very ill-suited to the work he’s undertaken. A very moody guy. He will be nice for awhile, and then suddenly lash out. Some of us think there is a team of Mormons working under that username. That would explain the shifting emphases. But, so would moodiness.

Perhaps someone who knows more about the LDS church might wish to come and answer som of these questions (and one who is less angry that the questions are being asked)

I had hopes for chasjohn. He provided a couple of links to articles at LDS sites regarding the apostasy, and those were helpful in showing me how the Mormons are busy revising and softening their apostasy claims, perhaps realizing how irritating and insulting they are for Christians. According to the articles chasjohn gave, Mormons believe there was a apostasy, but that there was also still a Christian church doing good work in the world. Only the priesthood was absent. So, we have a church doing good, but no divine authority, no priesthood. A church converting Europe and America, but no priesthood. Absurd!

 

[Allweather]

I meant every church. We believe that the early Christian church apostatized, and lost the divine authority that it once possessed, and the Christian churches that exist today are a remnant of that apostate institution. That means Catholic, Orthodox, Protestant, the whole lot.

The critical words here are “we believe.” No evidence can be generated for this apostasy. In fact, all the evidence of history points to a vibrant, living, breathing, Catholic Church converting Europe and America, not to mention Africa, and making itself present in every corner of the Earth. Mormons, OTOH, after 170 years of feverish evangelical activity, can claim AT MOST 12.5 million adherents, and probably half of those today are inactive to the point they could hardly be considered Mormons, and do not consider themselves to be. This is what I’m talking about when I say “evidence.” The evidence for the divine authority resident in the Catholic Church is, among many other things, the mere fact of its existence, intact, for 2k years. No other earthly institution compares. None even comes close.

Actually, it does. Take, for example, the doctrine of infant baptism. The doctrine of infant baptism has serious consequences for the theology of a religion. Traditionally, Christian churches have always taught the necessity of infant baptisms. The LDS Church, however, teaches that that it wrong…

That is because the Mormons take their theological cues from the Protestants. Even though they deny being Protestant, probably because of that pesky apostasy thing, they are, nevertheless, essentially Protestant, and this curious baptism doctrine proves it.

Religion is ultimately a matter of faith. In every religion, there comes a point where you will have to accept things on faith.

That is fair to say. However, you Mormons reach that point very early on. Christians use their heads as well as their hearts. Things have to make sense at both levels. For instance, Mormons apparently see nothing suspicious in the fact that Joseph Smith had a career as a money digger, using a seer stone to find buried treasure, quite a few years before supposedly being visited by angels and directed to a cache of ancient gold plates bearing the BoM in some ancient language that, just coincidentally, required a urim and thummim to translate. A Christain, using his head, would instantly see something very, very fishy at work in this tale. A Mormon just goes, Oh Wow, a Prophet of God!! Mormons display a shocking lack of critical thought process, critical in the sense of having a healthy resistance to tall tales. This might help to explain how Hinckley and other upper echelon muckety mucks were taken in by those phony Mormon documents a few years ago.

We have never claimed to be able to “prove” to anyone the truth of the LDS Church, or of the Book of Mormon, by logic, philosophical reasoning, or scientific evidence.

Actually, you try to appear to be doing just that, through the improper quoting of Sacred Scripture, and the rather convoluted arguments being made by LDS authorities against recent scientific evidence that shows the BoM to be nothing more than a science fiction story.

We have to go our separate ways. That is a fork at which there can be no reconciliation of the ways. Whoever takes the right turn must part company with whoever takes the left turn. zerinus

Well said, Zerinus. Does this mean that you are finally heading for the door?

 

[zerinus]

Well said, Zerinus. Does this mean that you are finally heading for the door?

Sweet dreams weatherman, sweet dreams! I know how desperately you want to see me through the door. But you are out of luck. I ain’t going nowhere. I will drive you out of the door a lot faster than I would get out myself. Even if I get sick of this place I am going to hang around just so I can be a thorn in your side!

zerinus

 

[wussup]

Allweather;
Why do you put ‘belief’ in “”? That is the business of religion, establishing ‘belief’. I arrived at my answer independent of the Church. My conversion was similar to that I later found to be part of Spencer Kimballs, “Faith Precedes the Miracle”. I felt or believed all Protestant Church’s were false because they could not tell me how to know if what they were teaching was true besides their own logic. I had serious issues with the looonnnggg Catholic history of violence and intolerance of others, I could see no way to rationalize this history with the Jesus of the Bible, nor of the previously quoted scriptures. Nevertheless, I came to the conclusion the Catholic Church had the closest thing to doctrines of the Bible. Then I read the Book of Mormon. Wow! What an idea! Ask God! I recalled the Catholics also felt that, with faith, God could answer prayers, so I did. And God answered my prayer. That is how I know the apostacy prophesied of in the forementioned scriptures occured, and that God made a plan for that.

Contrary to what others have taught, my understanding of Church teaching is that the Gospel of Christ and the Authority to perform ALL the ordinances and sacrements were never removed from the Earth since Christ’s resurrection. However, an organized ecclesiasty (sp?) was not recognized by God until the formal refoming of His Church as the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Sains.

“Hard evidence?” Are you seeking a proof? A sign, as it were? Are you a sign-seeker? Think very carefully about this. Do you think you would be a Christian if you were a Jew at the time of Christ’s Great Sacrifice on the Cross? Are greater than all those who fell away? Put yourself into the mind of a Jew at that time. And this ‘savior’ was claimed to resurrection. You learned of the drinking of his blood and eating of his flesh. Do you think you are so great that you would believe? Maybe you are. Now we are 2,000 years from that time. It requires little faith or sacrifice to believe. Now comes a religion that requires great sacrifice, great humility. Are you great as were the first saints? Allweather, you are displaying not only an incredible ignorance of Church History, but an incredible lack of sensitivity to a very sacred moment in our Church’s History. Nevertheless, I will attempt to correct your ingnorance and illustrate my point re. sacrifice. Joseph Smith was arrested dozens of times (he was found guilty once but the Judge said the crime he was convicted of was not a crime. What was hedu convicted of? Casting a demon out of someone…) During one of the arrests, the arresting officers left the door of his small house open during the winter, the resulting exposure killed the Prophets child. At the time of Joseph Smiths last arrest by duly appointed officers of the law, the second largest military outfit at the time was that brigade established by the Church to defend Nauvoo. The commanding General at the time wanted to escort Smith to the Jail. Joseph said no, he was being led like a lamb to the slaughter. While under the ‘protection’ of the officers of the law, a mob attacked the Jail, shots were fired, and Smith was killed. Joseph Smith did not want his people involved (though some did become so). It was not his neighbors who murdered him while in custody, but politically motivated Missourians (remember that the LDS were becoming so populous they were threatening to change Missouri from a pro-slavery voting majority to an abolishionist voting majority). You may not believe are teachings are correct, however, a certain amount of decorum and respect are expected amoungst rational, mature persons. Anyway, this is a sacrifice. Read about the Mormon trail, the death and destruction. Read about how the Missourians locked up people in barns and set them on fire. Would you be strong enough to believe? Maybe. Have you read the Book of Mormon with an open mind and asked God for guidance, with humility and with the willingness that if He answered you in a way that you knew it was God answering your prayer that you would obey Him? You see, I believe the Book of Mormon because God answered my prayers. I hated the First and Second Book of Nephi because of the repitious use of ‘and it came to pass’. But unlike you oft quoted prophet, Mark Twain, I ignored my dislike and obeyed God. Now, it is turning out that that particular phrase is very much what one would expect from an author of that period. What was for me initially something of a faith-reducer, has become a sign of truth. From now on, when you here criticism of the Book of Mormon’s use of ‘and it came to pass’, you can say to yourself, “self, while that makes for awkward english, it is consistent with ancient writing lack of punctuation and actually is a ‘sign’ the Book of Mormon has more for it than meets the eye”.

 

[Allweather]

Sweet dreams weatherman, sweet dreams! I know how desperately you want to see me through the door. But you are out of luck. I ain’t going nowhere. I will drive you out of the door a lot faster than I would get out myself. Even if I get sick of this place I am going to hang around just so I can be a thorn in your side!

zerinus

When I wondered whether you were heading for the exit, it was in response to your own words, in which you had stated, quite rightly, that there is a fork in the road between we, and thee.

No one, least of all me, has ever suggested, let alone hoped, that Zerinus would leave us. Far be it from me to hope for such a thing. As I have said here many times, Zerinus is our sounding board. He (they?) amplify, as a piano soundboard amplifies the vibrations of strings, the incongruities, the illogic, the utter chaos and foolishness of their cult, by their attempts to defend the indefensible.

It is, however, interesting to me how readily Zerinus Team will reveal its real purposes here: First, to promote their false cult of Joseph Smith. Second, to irritate and annoy. Sometimes I wonder whether the first is the second, or the second, first. Could be, they are one and the same thing. But nevermind that now. The important thing is that Zerinus Team hangs tough.

We, who pay for this forum, are happy to have you here, even if it means putting up with your insults and shameless promotion of sinful lifestyles, like polygamy and adultery. This is how we help to educate the world about Mormonism. It is worth every dime, and every moment of irritation.