What is the book of Mormon all about

[swplan76]

He certainly founded a church, a huge church, with very loyal followers. None of the other religions which were founded at that time in American history came close to the success of the Mormon Church.

Loyal why?
Once a person is in, or if they are born into it, they may be loyal because they fear damnation handed to them by their local patriarchy in charge. Some may be for one of the same reasons the church is “successful,” because you can be damned for not tithing. Every Mormon gives 10% of their income, or they are out. If I’ve been an LDS for 10 years and I begin to have doubts, I have also paid into that church an entire years worth of household income under the threat of damnation. Do I want to let go now, after I’ve already invested so much? I’m not trying to say anything bad about tithing, but the way it is done in LDS is a bit scary.

The Mormon church has had a boom since the 1950s because of a missionary goal change that came at that time. Converts were all supposed to travel to Utah - the motherland. The president at that time, as the interest in LDS was in decline, decided that it might work better if they set up temples all over the world and set up congregations in that way. It worked. They also started letting black people into the church either in the 60s or the 70s (can’t remember which). One former president of the church said that the only reason black people were here is so that Satan might have some representation among humanity. …which leads back to the BOM… the tribes of Jews were at war with each other in the Americas and God punished one tribe by turning their skin dark. For a long time LDS said that all natives were brown because they were punished by God. So, dark skin is a punishment from God… As times changed, the LDS changed its stance. The same thing happened with polygamy. The government pressured them to change, so they got a revelation and shut the whole thing down… times changed and so did God… He had led the LDS to believe that people with dark skin were cursed and that polygamy was ok and then, when it was culturally convenient, God led the LDS into a more socially acceptable viewpoint.

 

[CHRISTINE77]

Everything is turned on a slightly different angle in LDS.

One huge thing is that heaven in the LDS is about **me **and my celestial kingdom. While on earth I get to build **my **family and get sealed to them on earth, so that in heaven **we **get to hang out together. One of the carrots offered to people who grow up in the LDS is that if they leave the church, they lose their “temple recomend” which is a kin to salvation, so they are no longer sealed to their family and they will not be able to hang with them in heaven. The power over whether they lose their temple recommend/salvation is determined by a council of deacons or elders or something. Men decide who will be saved or damned in the LDS. You can lose your temple recommend for various reasons. If you think in a way that is too unique, you can lose your recommend. If you do not tithe, you will lose your temple recommend. Salvation gone. Damnation. Decided by the men who run the church/ward you attend.

As far as I understand it the Bible presents the idea that heaven is about God. The activity of heaven is worship. When we come face to face with Him, we will be consumed with who He is, overwhelmed and unbelievably satisfied with being in His presence. We get to be eternally in the presence of God. From what I understand, LDS does not see it that way. Heaven will be a place where we are chillin with our homies (not LDS language) and building our own kingdoms. They believe we will get to become gods.

I’m not sure they think they will be gods. Maybe this is true.

However, as a human being, ( and as a Catholic), who has lost loved ones, I certainly hope I will be reunited with them in heaven. I think they are in heaven. I also know God is in heaven and we will be so happy to be with Him and finally see Him face to face. I don’t think the belief that Mormons will be reunited with loved ones in heaven as being strange.

 

[ParkerD]

swplan,
I guess that I had better correct your misperceptions since it needn’t be that you keep them with you.

Once a person is in, or if they are born into it, they may be loyal because they fear damnation handed to them by their local patriarchy in charge.

You don’t get it. What you are aiming for with your beliefs is the same heaven that the LDS call the terrestrial kingdom, which is living with the presence of Christ and praising Him and giving Him glory plus doing whatever will bring happiness and joy within the bounds you have proscribed for yourself by your choices in life.

So if a person who had been a member of the LDS church loses their membership by choices they make, and stays out but lives a good life otherwise, they are not “damned” by that–they would understand (unless they don’t believe the doctrine) that they have placed themselves in a position to go to the terrestrial kingdom which is still a kingdom of glory with God the Son.

Some may be for one of the same reasons the church is “successful,” because you can be damned for not tithing.

That is totally untrue, never taught, never believed by anyone. I have no idea where you came up with this misunderstanding.

Every Mormon gives 10% of their income, or they are out.

No–they can’t get a temple recommend, but why would they want one if they lack that kind of basic faith in the promises of God as given in Malachi in the Bible?

If I’ve been an LDS for 10 years and I begin to have doubts, I have also paid into that church an entire years worth of household income under the threat of damnation. Do I want to let go now, after I’ve already invested so much? I’m not trying to say anything bad about tithing, but the way it is done in LDS is a bit scary.

You have such a wrong concept that it is baffling how you came up with this. Of course it would seem scary if that was the teaching, but of course it is not the teaching, at all.

The Mormon church has had a boom since the 1950s because of a missionary goal change that came at that time. Converts were all supposed to travel to Utah - the motherland.

Another misconception. Members were asked to stay in their own countries far earlier than the 1950’s. More missionaries going out to more countries have led to more convert baptisms, especially in Latin America and the Philippines and now African nations.

All your other comments are so incorrect that I have chosen not to repeat them. Skin color is not a reflection of whether a person is blessed or any such thing in God’s eyes. Blacks could not hold the priesthood in the LDS church until 1978 (though a few did early on in the 1800’s), and this has not necessarily been well explained by the LDS church as to the reasons, but those reasons were not as you have tried to infer. You misstated a certain leader’s personal opinion, who was vastly incorrect in that opinion.

 

[zerinus]

However, Finrock makes a good point. Even if the Book of Mormon is an entirely fictional piece of work written by Joseph Smith, is there anything bad in it? It definitely teaches Christian and Old Testament things, along with being an adventure story of people in the New World. Obviously Finrock and other Mormons get a great deal out of it; a lot of spiritual guidance. Even if Joseph Smith made the Book of Mormon up, perhaps he was guided by the Holy Spirit. He certainly founded a church, a huge church, with very loyal followers. None of the other religions which were founded at that time in American history came close to the success of the Mormon Church.

Thank you Christine for your fair-minded comments. One of the (many) remarkable things about the Book of Mormon is that, apart from being a book of genuine scripture, it is also a great book of English literature. I have noticed that children of Mormon families who are taught regular scripture study at home tend to race ahead of their peers in reading skills, and generally do better at school other children of the same age group.

I’m not sure they think they will be gods. Maybe this is true.

Yes, we believe that we can become gods, in the same way that the early Christians believed we can become gods. We become gods by grace, not by some inherent capability of our own. Deification is the same as salvation. To be saved is to be deified. It is a gift of God the Father, though the mercy and grace of His Son Jesus Christ. If you do a Google search for “theosis,” you will find lots of interesting information about that.

However, as a human being, (and as a Catholic), who has lost loved ones, I certainly hope I will be reunited with them in heaven. I think they are in heaven. I also know God is in heaven and we will be so happy to be with Him and finally see Him face to face. I don’t think the belief that Mormons will be reunited with loved ones in heaven as being strange.

Again, very true. Before Abraham died the Lord said to him, “thou shalt go to thy fathers in peace; . . .” (Genesis 15:15), and when he died the scripture says that he was “gathered to his people” (Genesis 25:8). But our doctrine goes a little bit deeper than that. We believe that through the special ordinances we perform in our temples (by the same sealing power that Jesus promised to Peter, that whatever he sealed on earth should be sealed in heaven, and whatever he loosed on earth should be loosed in heaven), that all family relationships can be sealed, and thus preserved eternally in heaven.

 

[mjf001]

Thank you Christine for your fair-minded comments. One of the (many) remarkable things about the Book of Mormon is that, apart from being a book of genuine scripture, it is also a great book of English literature. I have noticed that children of Mormon families who are taught regular scripture study at home tend to race ahead of their peers in reading skills, and generally do better at school other children of the same age group.

Yes, we believe that we can become gods, in the same way that the early Christians believed we can become gods. We become gods by grace, not by some inherent capability of our own. Deification is the same as salvation. To be saved is to be deified. It is a gift of God the Father, though the mercy and grace of His Son Jesus Christ. If you do a Google search for “theosis,” you will find lots of interesting information about that.

Again, very true. Before Abraham died the Lord said to him, “thou shalt go to thy fathers in peace; . . .” (Genesis 15:15), and when he died the scripture says that he was “gathered to his people” (Genesis 25:8). But our doctrine goes a little bit deeper than that. We believe that through the special ordinances we perform in our temples (by the same sealing power that Jesus promised to Peter, that whatever he sealed on earth should be sealed in heaven, and whatever he loosed on earth should be loosed in heaven), that all family relationships can be sealed, and thus preserved eternally in heaven.

All who are saved will be in heaven. No one can say for sure what it will be like when/if we get there. As for myself, I put my trust in God’s Grace and do my best to keep his commandments and be the best person I can. The rest is in God’s hands and I’m fine with that.

 

[zaffiroborant]

swplan,
I guess that I had better correct your misperceptions since it needn’t be that you keep them with you.

You don’t get it. What you are aiming for with your beliefs is the same heaven that the LDS call the terrestrial kingdom, which is living with the presence of Christ and praising Him and giving Him glory plus doing whatever will bring happiness and joy within the bounds you have proscribed for yourself by your choices in life.

.

Not you don’t get it.m What we are aiming for, Heaven/theosis/deification, is more like the CK we just don’t believe the details you’ve made up or in how it’s organized. Read your fellow’s recommendation on Vajda Catholic or LDS what he wrote about theosis is good and the comparison will (hopefully) dispel your misconceptions.

 

[zaffiroborant]

Yes, we believe that we can become gods, in the same way that the early Christians believed we can become gods. We become gods by grace, not by some inherent capability of our own. Deification is the same as salvation. To be saved is to be deified. It is a gift of God the Father, though the mercy and grace of His Son Jesus Christ. If you do a Google search for “theosis,” you will find lots of interesting information about that.

Could you show me quote from early Christians who believed this

They will have their righteous family members with them and will be able to have spirit children also. These spirit children will have the same relationship to them as we do to our Heavenly Father. They will be an eternal family.

I can’t seem to find anything about spirit children worshiping me when I look into theosis.

 

[Finrock]

Good evening ricko! I’ve had better mornings (thanks for wishing me a good one), but I’m feeling better now. I hope you are well too.

Good morning Finrock.

It is a great probabllity that Joseph Smith did forsee the objections as noted. Fin you are going to have to put aside that feeling in the bosom for just a little while, put on your objective thinking cap and turn on the common sense switch. Hard to let go of the “feeling” that you and LDS are right I know but try.

There are so many troubling things with the whole LDS concept, the golden plates disappearing, the seer stone, the apostasy, ongoing revelations, multiple gods, baptism of the dead, teachings contary to the bible and Christianity to such a degree that the LDS church is labeled a cult and rightly so.

Now, taking all of these things and many, many others together paints a picture of fraud and deception. The probability is extremely high that JS did write the BOM and included the two passages in question. Anyone committing a fraud would of course consider these objections and what better way to answer them than to write a book, claim it was Heaven sent and was written by a person who is now a angel. With some people all it takes is the claim (no evidence) that an angel was involved. They want to believe and so they do against good common sense.

The lost manuscript is so obiviously a ruse that it is hard to believe that anyone could believe the statement of JS and the comments about it in the BOM. There is always someone who will believe the improssible and improbable. There were people who believe the Roswell incident, they believed Jim Jones, Jim and Tammy Baker, the Heaven’s Gate people, the Jehovah Witnesses, etc, etc… We wonder, HOW could these people believe these groups? How could retired people give their checking account number to someone on the phone? I can only speculate that they WANT to believe and feel that there is something wrong with them if they don’t. The retired person who gives their account number away WANT to believe that the person calling them is a decent person. Now Fin, I don’t have any proof that the person asking for their account number is bad, but my common sense tells me that in all probability they are bad. That is how I known that Joseph Smith is not a prophet, wrote the BOM himself as his own invention and has misled many because of it.

God Bless

In regards to the character of Joseph Smith, it seems to me that you have started with the guilty verdict, and have looked for evidence to support that verdict. So, your claims that Joseph Smith committed frauds presupposes him to already be a charlatan. The beauty and the downfall of circular reasoning is that it is self-fulfilling. However, I think historical fact, when actually view objectively, paints another picture of Joseph Smith. Not a picture of a perfect or flawless man, but a man who despite his flaws was a great man who sincerely believed he was doing the will of the Lord and was motivated not by greed, power, or wealth, but rather to bring people to God’s religion.

“Rough Stone Rolling” by Richard Bushman is the new definitive work on Joseph Smith history. I think the fact that the extremes on both sides of the fence find fault with Bushman’s biography of Joseph Smith says a lot about it’s historic quality and objectivity. On the extreme Mormon side you have those who falsely believe Joseph Smith was flawless, and any book that points out his flaws must be “anti-Mormon” literature, and they hate the book and think Bushman is an apostate. On the extreme non-Mormon side you have those who simply can’t see any good in the man Joseph, and any book that praises him in anyway must be “pro-Mormon” propaganda, and they think Bushman is just another “obviously biased” Mormon apologist.

In any case, the life of Joseph Smith as described in this well document and academically respected book by Bushman, simply doesn’t support your assertions about Joseph’s character. Therefore, you have thusly not demonstrated any legitimate reason to support your further assetion about Joseph using a ruse to prop up the authenticity of the Book of Mormon.

Kind Regards,
Finrock

 

[zerinus]

Could you show me quote from early Christians who believed this

They will have their righteous family members with them and will be able to have spirit children also. These spirit children will have the same relationship to them as we do to our Heavenly Father. They will be an eternal family.

I can’t seem to find anything about spirit children worshiping me when I look into theosis.

You ought to know by now that I obtain LDS doctrine directly from LDS scripture; and you can read about the condition of those who are “deified” or “become gods” in this passage of scripture:

D&C 76:

50 And again we bear record—for we saw and heard, and this is the testimony of the gospel of Christ concerning them who shall come forth in the resurrection of the just—
51 They are they who received the testimony of Jesus, and believed on his name and were baptized after the manner of his burial, being buried in the water in his name, and this according to the commandment which he has given—
52 That by keeping the commandments they might be washed and cleansed from all their sins, and receive the Holy Spirit by the laying on of the hands of him who is ordained and sealed unto this power;
53 And who overcome by faith, and are sealed by the Holy Spirit of promise, which the Father sheds forth upon all those who are just and true.
54 They are they who are the church of the Firstborn.
55 They are they into whose hands the Father has given all things—
56 They are they who are priests and kings, who have received of his fulness, and of his glory;
57 And are priests of the Most High, after the order of Melchizedek, which was after the order of Enoch, which was after the order of the Only Begotten Son.
58 Wherefore, as it is written, they are gods, even the sons of God—
59 Wherefore, all things are theirs, whether life or death, or things present, or things to come, all are theirs and they are Christ’s, and Christ is God’s.
60 And they shall overcome all things.
61 Wherefore, let no man glory in man, but rather let him glory in God, who shall subdue all enemies under his feet.
62 These shall dwell in the presence of God and his Christ forever and ever.
63 These are they whom he shall bring with him, when he shall come in the clouds of heaven to reign on the earth over his people.
64 These are they who shall have part in the first resurrection.
65 These are they who shall come forth in the resurrection of the just.
66 These are they who are come unto Mount Zion, and unto the city of the living God, the heavenly place, the holiest of all.
67 These are they who have come to an innumerable company of angels, to the general assembly and church of Enoch, and of the Firstborn.
68 These are they whose names are written in heaven, where God and Christ are the judge of all.
69 These are they who are just men made perfect through Jesus the mediator of the new covenant, who wrought out this perfect atonement through the shedding of his own blood.
70 These are they whose bodies are celestial, whose glory is that of the sun, even the glory of God, the highest of all, whose glory the sun of the firmament is written of as being typical.

As you can see, it doesn’t say anything about having spirit children, so I consider that statement to be speculation.

 

[ricko]

Good evening ricko! I’ve had better mornings (thanks for wishing me a good one), but I’m feeling better now. I hope you are well too.

In regards to the character of Joseph Smith, it seems to me that you have started with the guilty verdict, and have looked for evidence to support that verdict. So, your claims that Joseph Smith committed frauds presupposes him to already be a charlatan. The beauty and the downfall of circular reasoning is that it is self-fulfilling. However, I think historical fact, when actually view objectively, paints another picture of Joseph Smith. Not a picture of a perfect or flawless man, but a man who despite his flaws was a great man who sincerely believed he was doing the will of the Lord and was motivated not by greed, power, or wealth, but rather to bring people to God’s religion.

“Rough Stone Rolling” by Richard Bushman is the new definitive work on Joseph Smith history. I think the fact that the extremes on both sides of the fence find fault with Bushman’s biography of Joseph Smith says a lot about it’s historic quality and objectivity. On the extreme Mormon side you have those who falsely believe Joseph Smith was flawless, and any book that points out his flaws must be “anti-Mormon” literature, and they hate the book and think Bushman is an apostate. On the extreme non-Mormon side you have those who simply can’t see any good in the man Joseph, and any book that praises him in anyway must be “pro-Mormon” propaganda, and they think Bushman is just another “obviously biased” Mormon apologist.

In any case, the life of Joseph Smith as described in this well document and academically respected book by Bushman, simply doesn’t support your assertions about Joseph’s character. Therefore, you have thusly not demonstrated any legitimate reason to support your further assetion about Joseph using a ruse to prop up the authenticity of the Book of Mormon.

Kind Regards,
Finrock

Amazing, it’s as if you never read my post but you’re answering it anyway. You’d make a good politician.

I asked you to put away that “feeling in your bosom” and put on your thinking cap of “reason”. Even gave you examples to help you in your “objective?” thinking.

Can’t you SEE my man Fin? It is so obvious that JS wrote the BOM when you look at the mountain of material. Don’t you know that there have been and will be people just like JS that make claims of visitations by angels and other creatures? What better way to get people to follow you than to make such claims. Fact is, you have been brainwashed into believing such things. Told to have faith or you have fault.

I’ve never conversed with people that believed and followed con-men like Jim Jones, Jim and Tammy Baker, Charles Russell, Charles Manson, Heavens Gate and others. I would watch them on TV and wonder just HOW could anyone believe such nonsense? After talking with you and others about Joseph Smith and the BOM I still don’t have a clue as to why you would follow such an obivous fraud.

 

[ParkerD]

RickO,
If you’re saying the men you compared with Joseph Smith have written a book comparable to the Book of Mormon, I’d like to read their book and see if that is really a valid assertion, because I think not one of them has (of course they haven’t). If you’re saying you could write such a book, I’d say you should go ahead and then let people know about it. Otherwise, if you ever tried such a project I think you would sing a different tune because you would realize that the details of the actual writing of that Book of Mormon would be overwhelming to any one people or any committee of people, even if they had the use of a computer. It just could not be done, hasn’t been done, and will never be done. People dismiss the Book of Mormon without even reading one or a few pages of its words. If they do read, many dimiss it anyway because they have listened to people like you and they don’t want to really think that deeply about it. They go on their way, and that’s just fine, but they have wrong premises and wrong conclusions. The book stands on its own merits, as does truth itself.

 

[ricko]

RickO,
If you’re saying the men you compared with Joseph Smith have written a book comparable to the Book of Mormon, I’d like to read their book and see if that is really a valid assertion, because I think not one of them has (of course they haven’t). If you’re saying you could write such a book, I’d say you should go ahead and then let people know about it. Otherwise, if you ever tried such a project I think you would sing a different tune because you would realize that the details of the actual writing of that Book of Mormon would be overwhelming to any one people or any committee of people, even if they had the use of a computer. It just could not be done, hasn’t been done, and will never be done. People dismiss the Book of Mormon without even reading one or a few pages of its words. If they do read, many dimiss it anyway because they have listened to people like you and they don’t want to really think that deeply about it. They go on their way, and that’s just fine, but they have wrong premises and wrong conclusions. The book stands on its own merits, as does truth itself.

I have to do it again Parker. SHAME ON YOU! Show me in my post where I said anything comparing JS writing the BOM to anyone else.

But now that you have brought it up, I say why do you think it is such a difficult project? It may not be in my nature to write a book but there have been MILLIONS of books written by people all over the world. Mary Shelly wrote “Frankenstein” in one night. Does that qualify her to become a Mormon prophet? How 'bout Salman Rushdie, Ernest Hemingway, William Faulkner, Robert Heinlein and many others. They wrote great books but they are not prophets. Our Joseph Smith had years to write his fiction and it is no great work of art nor was it a great feat either when you compare his work with others.

 

[ParkerD]

Rick O,
Shame on me then. The comparison is germaine. You brought up some people who had followers, based either on their personalities or their persuasiveness or their charisma or their being a relative or whatever.

I say Joseph Smith was a prophet because I have read the Book of Mormon, prayed about it, and know both by prayer and by reasoning that it was not and could not be written by a man or men or women. It is too complex a work. It has too much fullness of truth, at too many levels of meaning, to have been written by a mortal person or people. Plus I have the witness of the Holy Ghost that IT CAME FROM GOD.

I also say Joseph Smith was a prophet because he clarified Biblical teachings in ways that ring completely true to me (not to you or many others, but to me and many others),
and because he added prophetic teachings that have been confirmed to my soul as being true and righteous principles to live by, and I have lived by them as best I can, and have a witness of the Holy Ghost that they are true principles (such as no unrighteous dominion and no religious teaching grounded in fear as the basis of its acceptance), and because he testified of Jesus Christ in a way that rings true to me and has been confirmed by the Holy Ghost.

 

[Mike1886]

So let me get this straight parker, you follow this man because your so impressed with his skill of writing ? Then I guess your the type of person Hitler was after . The same way Hitler would brain wash with his speech I guess your Joseph Smith did it with his writing. Hitler touched so many people with his words he could make any good man do a bad deed because people believed. Parker you sound like a smart man put your emotions to the side and put your facts together brother.

 

[Finrock]

Good evening ricko. I hope you’ve had a good day.

Thank you for taking the time to respond to my post.

Before I get in to responding, I wanted to briefly point out that your attempts to discredit my position by ignorantly claiming that my position is based on some emotional whimsy, rather than reason, is unnecessary and nonsensical. It servers neither me or yourself. If anything, it suggests a prejudicial tendency when dealing with this subject matter. May I suggest that in future dialoges to take a more respectable approach?

Amazing, it’s as if you never read my post but you’re answering it anyway. You’d make a good politician.

I asked you to put away that “feeling in your bosom” and put on your thinking cap of “reason”. Even gave you examples to help you in your “objective?” thinking.

Can’t you SEE my man Fin? It is so obvious that JS wrote the BOM when you look at the mountain of material. Don’t you know that there have been and will be people just like JS that make claims of visitations by angels and other creatures? What better way to get people to follow you than to make such claims. Fact is, you have been brainwashed into believing such things. Told to have faith or you have fault.

I’ve never conversed with people that believed and followed con-men like Jim Jones, Jim and Tammy Baker, Charles Russell, Charles Manson, Heavens Gate and others. I would watch them on TV and wonder just HOW could anyone believe such nonsense? After talking with you and others about Joseph Smith and the BOM I still don’t have a clue as to why you would follow such an obivous fraud.

From what I’m understanding in this post of yours you are essentially making the same argument you did in your last post to me. You are claiming that the evidence indicates that Joseph Smith was a fraud. You are further indicating that this evidence is so blatantly obvious that any reasonable person could see it for what it is. My response to this is also essentially the same as my last post to you.

The mountain of evidence does not indicate that Joseph Smith was a fraud. I offered as a source for my claims the biography by Richard Bushman, “Rough Stone Rolling.” This biography on Joseph Smith is considered the definitive work on Joseph Smith. It is noted for its scholarly and objective approach, by Mormons and non-Mormons alike. It is perhaps the best researched work to date on Joseph Smith. A testament of this books objectivity is that extremes on both sides of the fence have a problem with the biography. Mormon extremes because it supposedly is anti-Mormon. Non-Mormon extremes, because it is supposedly biased pro-Mormon propaganda. By all measures, this book is as historically accurate potrayal of who Joseph Smith was as has been published to date. This is where that “mountain of evidence” is compiled in to one book, and none of it indicates that Joseph Smith was a charlatan or swindler.

I’m sorry, ricko, but your argument at this point really appears to me to be taking the position that simply because I don’t agree with your opinion, I’m therefore brainwashed and incapable of understanding the historical data dealing with Joseph Smith and the authenticity of the Book of Mormon. You are creating a false dichotomy. The historical data simply doesn’t allow for the scenario you paint that there is but two choices: One must either believe Joseph Smith is a fraud, or they are brainwashed and intellectually blind. There is at least a third option, strongly supported by historical data, that Joseph Smith was a flawed man, but not a charlatan, and despite his flaws, he was overall a good man and he was a man who accomplished many great things, who was sincere in his beliefs in being a prophet and was motivated by a desire to do what he truly believed was God’s will. A reasonable person can make this claim without any reliance on “emotion” because it is firmly supported by historical data.

Kind Regards,
Finrock

 

[ParkerD]

So let me get this straight parker, you follow this man because you’re so impressed with his skill of writing ? Then I guess your the type of person Hitler was after . The same way Hitler would brain wash with his speech I guess your Joseph Smith did it with his writing. Hitler touched so many people with his words he could make any good man do a bad deed because people believed. Parker you sound like a smart man put your emotions to the side and put your facts together brother.

Mike,
Is this how they teach you to reason where you come from? To pick the most negative example you can to try and validate your position? No wonder you wouldn’t trust the process of revelation, or the witness of the Holy Ghost–it must be so foreign to your personal belief system that you can’t conceive of anyone else being able to detect the difference between knowing the voice of the Spirit versus hearing the words of some simple-minded smooth-talker, however charismatic.

Without understanding the concept of revelation, you are left in the dark and have to come up with the kind of comparison you came up with, sort of a “last straw” position. Well, you may do that as you like, but all it tells me is you have no experience with the voice of the Holy Spirit, which is why the Book of Mormon would mean nothing to a person like you with your current set of doubts regardless of any attempt to read it.

You opened yourself up to this rejoinder, Mike. Sorry to have been so blunt, but it becomes tiresome to repeat over and over that the voice of the Spirit is recognizable, and is not some charismatic emotional feeling. It is the voice of God communicated to the inner soul. I hope you can experience that some day, whether as you read the Bible or as you pray and receive answers to your sincere questions and pleadings for the guidance of heaven in your life. You can do that as a Catholic. There is no question in my mind about that–but not if you are full of doubt about the process of revelation. The Book of Mormon tries to clear away that kind of doubt, if a person is sincere in reading it. The Bible can do that, too. Read Hebrews ll, 1 Corinthians 2, James 1. Take care. I wish you peace.

 

[Alma_X]

Rick O,
Shame on me then. The comparison is germaine. You brought up some people who had followers, based either on their personalities or their persuasiveness or their charisma or their being a relative or whatever.

I say Joseph Smith was a prophet because I have read the Book of Mormon, prayed about it, and know both by prayer and by reasoning that it was not and could not be written by a man or men or women. It is too complex a work. It has too much fullness of truth, at too many levels of meaning, to have been written by a mortal person or people. Plus I have the witness of the Holy Ghost that IT CAME FROM GOD.

I also say Joseph Smith was a prophet because he clarified Biblical teachings in ways that ring completely true to me (not to you or many others, but to me and many others),
and because he added prophetic teachings that have been confirmed to my soul as being true and righteous principles to live by, and I have lived by them as best I can, and have a witness of the Holy Ghost that they are true principles (such as no unrighteous dominion and no religious teaching grounded in fear as the basis of its acceptance), and because he testified of Jesus Christ in a way that rings true to me and has been confirmed by the Holy Ghost.

Hello all. I’m fairly new to this site, and thank you for the discussions taking place. I am a former LDS bishop and spent over 40 years serving in that church before waking up one morning with a burning in my bosom so fierce and unique, that I actually thought I was having a heart attack. After a couple of years of dedicating myself to becoming humble before God, and listening for His will, I was baptized into the Roman Catholic Church (of all things; I had no prior ties and come from a very Mormon family whom I love dearly).

I thought I might be able to add some of my perspective to this conversation, without any desire to offend or propogate comparative religion…rather for the last several years, I have lived with such joy, hope, and peace as I never had, but thought I had, before, that I wish to share because I know it is available to every one of us.

In hindsight, I feel like I was putting Joseph Smith before God. I was once introduced by an authority as one of the Book of Mormon’s “greatest defenders”. ??? There was, of course, the histrocity of the church to defend, and, one thing that really bothered me, the reconstruction of Native American history, who were primarily descended from the ancient Hebrews, said the Book of Mormon until recently.

There was always just so much “stuff” standing between me and God. I honestly believe now that most of my life was spent trying to conceptually come up with a way that could justify these and other beliefs particular to the LDS church. I stood over Joseph Smith’s grave one time and said “Friend, you are spiritually exhausting me”.

And let me tell you, MY reality wasn’t comfortable. That burning bosom. It wasn’t gas. It was a calling from God. I had been told so much about a still, small voice, as in the scriptures, that when a loud resounding voice came, I wasn’t ready. The council from my curch leaders was don’t be fooled by the deceiver. It was when, for the first time, I couldn’t decide who that was exactly, that I realized I had to lay it all on the table before God, and not until then would I be able to clear the communication lines between the two of us.

And it was humbling. So my point is simply all things are available to any of us if we ask God with faith that He will answer at His will.

Peace to you all.

 

[ParkerD]

Alma X,
Thanks for adding your perspective and unique experience. Best wishes as you progress in your life through following the impressions you have received.

So that there be no mistake in assumptions, I don’t think about Joseph Smith much at all in my personal life, but I think about Christ nearly every waking moment, and am grateful for His shepherding influence and much kindness and support. I feel that as I read the Book of Mormon, as I read the Bible, as I pray personally and with my family, as I prepare to teach or to speak on scriptural topics, and as I interact with my family and others. Christ is the exemplar whom I want to follow.

I might as well add that I knew the words “principal ancestors” needed to be removed from the introduction to the Book of Mormon by reading the Book of Mormon itself. It is clear from the text of the book that the Lamanites were to be nearly destroyed as a nation or a group of mini-nations, by outside forces within the Americas. This was prophesied in the Book of Mormon. The case for the use of the phrase “principal ancestors” (note that the phrase is not in the actual Book of Mormon but was in the introduction) was never strong, and was an assumption that could be gleaned from the text without a careful reading, but with a careful reading would be known not to be accurate. It was an honest mistake, shared by a great number of people including leaders in the church, but it just goes to show as far as I’m concerned that one should read and think for themselves even when reading sacred text.

Best wishes always, Alma.

 

[Alma_X]

Christ is the exemplar whom I want to follow.
QUOTE]

Well said, Sir! You reason from a sound principle that I must admit, took me a long time to find. Best wishes and pfiat’ di Gott (‘May God lead you’ or ‘God protect you’) from Germany.

Respectfully,
X

 

[Oneheartway]

“If you’re saying the men you compared with Joseph Smith have written a book comparable to the Book of Mormon, I’d like to read their book and see if that is really a valid assertion, because I think not one of them has (of course they haven’t).”

Check with Scientology, They had a prolific author who claims to know the truth - L.Ron Hubbard.

Besides the obvious, whereby Joseph Smith stole many of the components of Freemasonry’s rituals and hence this makes me question some of his other claims. The mere thought that one could become a god bothers me even more. I also question the mormon’s use of the words Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints. They are implying some connection to Jesus, yet Jesus said no one would enter the kingdom of heaven except through him. He is the One and Only Savior. The whole LDS thing seems like false advertising. Bait and Switch if you like.