Clearing up Mormonism

[DeepShadow]

It was necessary that they (thte indians) would first except and rever the conquerer, or else they may have won, with thier superior numbers and all.

Perhaps I misunderstand you, Aqualung, but I don't believe that the prophecies in the BoM made it necessary for those conquests to happen. That's like saying Judas was meant to betray Christ in order for the (necessary) crucifiction to happen; sure, it was convenient, but if Judas hadn't done it, it would have happened some other way.

Judas will have to account for his actions, and so will Cortez.

 

[DeepShadow]

Why, though? Doesn't it say in D & C somewhere that it is okay if it approved by God? Is he just not approving it anymore (which is not to say it's gone, but just that he hasn't found anyone who needed it) or did it come in revelation that it was no longer an accepted practise in any country, no matter what its laws? (Because I was always under the impression that is just wasn't done here because it was illegal, and you have to follow the laws of the land)

Actually, quite the opposite. The Book of Mormon states quite clearly that polygamy is an abomination before God, and is only marginally excused at times to prevent the extinction of God's people. I'm referring to Jacob 2, verses 27-30:

27. Wherefore, my brethren, hear me, and hearken to the word of the Lord: For there shall not any man among you have save it be one wife; and concubines he shall have none;
28. For I, the Lord God, delight in the chastity of women. And whoredoms are an abomination before me; thus saith the Lord of Hosts.
29. Wherefore, this people shall keep my commandments, saith the Lord of Hosts, or cursed be the land for their sakes.
30. For if I will, saith the Lord of Hosts, raise up seed unto me, I will command my people; otherwise they shall hearken unto these things.

When it was sanctioned by Joseph Smith, it was during a time when women were not allowed to own property, and mobs were coming in, killing the men, and taking everything they wanted. Polygamy allowed for women to be cared for, own their own property, and continue to have children despite outnumbering the men.

Even then, it had to be very carefully monitored. Entering into plural marriage required the approval of the prophet and (gulp!)the first wife. The church also required proof that the husband could financially support such a large family.

Even then, it was a terrible burden on many relationships, and its end was counted a blessing by many. One of my ancestors practiced polygamy, and in the family history written by his daughter a lot of tension can be seen.

 

[Draka]

Even if the majority of the Church of LDS does not condone polygamy, can anyone tell me why it is that men can have several wives...like a harem, but the reverse is all but unheard of? In those churches that do allow polygamy is it allowable for a woman to have more than one husband? Why or why not?

Could DeepShadow answer this for me? Not to offend anyone else here, but his answers are the easiest for me to logically understand.

 

[DeepShadow]

The root of polygamy is (or ought to be, at least according to the scripture above) procreation. This makes which kind of polygamy (polygyny versus polyandry) a simple matter of biology: a single man can have many more children through polygyny, while a woman still has the same number of children, regardless of polyandry.

Make sense?

 

[Kowalski]

Indeed. FWIW, some accounts explain that Quetzalcoatl was expected to be a bearded man with white skin who came from across the sea. This corresponds to the BoM account of Jesus Christ's visit, which explains LDS scholars' belief that Quetzalcoatl was a corruption of Christ.

I can tell you that that is all wrong. That is the Spanish interpretation of the Aztec texts and it is written from a Spanish point of view, so Mormen, wrong yet again LOL.

K

 

[DeepShadow]

*sigh*

Kowalski, I'd ask you for a source, except I've alreadly commented on this on another thread. Here's what I said there:

Unfortunately, many of the parallels these scholars draw between Quetzalcoatl and Christ are taken from texts that were recorded with the help or at the behest of the Catholic church, making it easy for other scholars to dismiss these parallels as the effects of Catholic indoctrination. Harder to dismiss are the references to Book of Mormon events that the Catholic priests would have no knowledge of. I found such a reference, staring back at me from page 22 of [Aztecs: Reign of Blood and Splendor (Time/Life 1992; part of the "Lost Civilizations" series)], and I doubt that any scholar from the Smithsonian would have seen the clues that mark it as evidence of the Book of Mormon. Here's the passage; can you find them?

"According to one Aztec codex, nightly for a year 'there arose a sign like a tongue of fire, like a flame. Pointed and wide-based, it pierced the heavens to their midpoint, their very heart. All night, off to the east, it looked as if day had dawned. Then the sun arose and destroyed it.' A temple inexplicably burst into flames, and the fire could not be extinguished. On a calm day, lightning struck the roof of another temple. A large column of light was seen in the east. A comet appeared one afternoon, hurtling from west to east and 'scattering sparks like glowing coals.' Lake Tetzcoco was suddenly roiled to flood heights, for no apparent reason. And at night, people claimed to have heard a woman weeping. 'She would pace about wailing, "My dear children, we have to go! Where can I take you?"'"

Also, if the Spanish added these elements of Christianity, what would cause them to alter the Works of Ixtlilxochitl, an Aztec prince who recorded the oral history of his people, such that he would include the following elements:

--Three groups of migrants from across the water (consistent with the Book of Mormon account of Jaredites, Nephites, and Mulekites).
--The first group were called Ancient Ones, or Giants, or First Toltecs ("giants" is consistent with Book of Mormon accounts of Jaredites being extremely large).
--The second group, called the Toltecs, split into two groups who had wars between them, with dates that correspond to the accounts in the Book of Mormon.
--The third group, called the Olmecs, slew the last survivors of the Giants, and afterwards joined with the Toltecs, who became the dominant culture. Compare with the Book of Mormon, where the third group (the Mulekites) took in the last survivor of the Jaredites (Coriantumr) who died a few months later. Later the Mulekites united with the Nephites, who became the dominant culture.
(Source: Archaeology and the Book of Mormon Vol. 1, by Milton R. Hunter, p. 43)

So there are corresponding elements in the accounts that would have been unknown to the Spanish.

If you have a rebuttal, I'd love to hear it, but please keep it civil and please cite your source. I would also appreciate it if we could move this to one of the two threads on BoM evidence in the LDS educational section, as this thread has now spun dramatically off topic.

 

[DeepShadow]

Peace be for the one who seek the truth and adher to it,
It pleases me to hear people asking the type of questions you asked. i also apreciate the way deffend your ideas about religion. I realy hope that you would rely on finding it on the one who brohght you to life and granted you the inteligence to find the stight path. On my part i advice you to read God's final reveald book: the qura'n, believe me you'll find satisfying truths about JESUS( peace be upon him)

Thank you! I regret not having yet read the qura'n, but it's on my reading list now. I appreciate the reminder, and hope I won't need too many more! I attended a mosque for three weeks in the mission field, and I was very impressed with what I learned there.

 

[Katzpur]

Even if the majority of the Church of LDS does not condone polygamy, can anyone tell me why it is that men can have several wives...like a harem, but the reverse is all but unheard of? In those churches that do allow polygamy is it allowable for a woman to have more than one husband? Why or why not?

Could DeepShadow answer this for me? Not to offend anyone else here, but his answers are the easiest for me to logically understand.

Hello, Draka.

May I just add one quick remark? When you say the "Church of LDS," I'm assuming you are referring specifically to the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. Many people use the term "Mormon" when speaking of this church and all of the splinter groups that have broken off from it over the years, but this is a misnomer. There really is no such thing as a church called the "Mormon Church." You said that "the majority of the Church of LDS does not condone polygamy." That is a bit like saying "the majority of the Catholic Church..." The fact is that the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints prohibits polygamy and has done for one hundred fifteen years. Anyone found to be engaged in the practice of plural marriage is excommunicated. We do not consider the splinter groups to be a part of our church any more than the Catholic Church considers any of the Protestant Churches to be "part of" it.

Kathryn

 

[Katzpur]

This is just quick question for LDS...does your church still sanction polygamy, or are those that still practice it disfellowshipped, and no longer considered members?

This is not being asked for a debate, but for my own knowledge, and I know that best person of ask this of is a LDS member. And not someone or site other than LDS.

Thanks,

Jensen

I tried giving you frubals, but apparently I've given you too many of them lately. Just a thank you for asking this question of a Latter-day Saint as opposed to someone outside our faith.

 

[sncjoff1]

So Jonny, help me understand the LDS "doctrine of salvation". Doesn't is say that there is no salvation unless you recognize Joseph Smith as a prophet of God?

 

[sncjoff1]

Response to Aqualung and DeepShadow

God chose Jesus, and Lucifer and 1/3 of his angels revolted. They will never get physical bodies, so your being here means that you agreed with Jesus when we were still spirits.

So did Angel Moroni get his physical body? or for that matter did any of the other 2/3's angels get theirs?

As far as Lucifer, Here's what God's word says about Him.
Ezekiel 28:17
Your heart was proud because of your beauty; you corrupted your wisdom for the sake of your splendor.

Where is there any mention of the "Jesus Plan or the Lucifer Plan for the "spirit children" found?"

How do you make the leap and bring in the fact that Lucifer was on equal to Jesus by using this "planning session" for the spirit children?

Was there another being in the Trinity?

In actuality in my bible, lucifer was an angel not a god, but desired to be one, which is what lead to his being thrown down from Heaven.
Ezekiel 28:16
In the abundance of your trade you were filled with violence, and you sinned; so I cast you as a profane thing from the mountain of God, and the guardian cherub drove you out from the midst of the stones of fire.

Core question to you is "do you believe satan to be angel or a former god-like being?"

And this ends the debate "DeepShadow."

 

[Kowalski]

Thanks Man. You have to tell it like it is, I didn't expect them to like it, but that's not my problem.

Cheers

K

 

[Katzpur]

Spiritual image.

Hi, Mister Emu.

What's a spiritual image? If an image is the representation of something's physical qualities (which, according to Webster's, it is), a "spiritual image" is an impossibility. Would you mind using the word "image" in a sentence, the way you would in everyday English, where it would be understood to mean something other than the dictionary meaning?

Kathryn

 

[Katzpur]

A really don't mean to insult your faith, but I cannot for the life of me understand why Smith hoodwinked so many people. Was it that they were just desperate, disullusioned, or was Smith a con artist par excellence. I'm not going to pull any punches, but I have no reason not see that the Book of Mormon is nothing more than a tissue of lies.

The whole scenario is so ridiculous that it hardly bears credibilty, and really I think you have to have enormous credulity to buy this stuff.

Lost tribe of Isreal in America, please, it is just is too nonsensical.

K

Of course you mean to insult our faith, Kowalski. That's what you've been doing ever since you showed up here. The fact that you have made up your mind that Joseph Smith was a "con artist" whose work was nothing more than a "tissue of lies" is the most "nonsensical" thing of all. Your knowledge of his work is about as superficial as I've witnessed in a very long time. Nobody's asking you to accept the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints as being what it purports to be, but for crying out loud, don't come here throwing out words like "hoodwinked," "desperate," "disillusioned," "con artist," "lies", "ridiculous" and "nonsensical" and then have the audacity to say you're not trying to be insulting.

 

[Katzpur]

So Jonny, help me understand the LDS "doctrine of salvation". Doesn't is say that there is no salvation unless you recognize Joseph Smith as a prophet of God?

No. Please cite your source. We believe that salvation is through Jesus Christ and Him alone.

 

[Katzpur]

So did Angel Moroni get his physical body? or for that matter did any of the other 2/3's angels get theirs?

Yes and yes.

Where is there any mention of the "Jesus Plan or the Lucifer Plan for the "spirit children" found?"

You're assuming that the Bible contains a record of every single solitary event that has ever transpired to affect mankind. You're convinced that it is the sole record of God's word, that God has never said or done anything of significance that did not find its way into the pages of this book. That's fine, but the Bible doesn't even make that claim for itself. On the contrary, a great many books which are mentioned in the Bible can't be found in the Bible. Apparently, someone thought they were important enough to refer to by name. And yet you choose to believe that because something is not expressly taught in the Bible that it couldn't possibly be true.

How do you make the leap and bring in the fact that Lucifer was on equal to Jesus by using this "planning session" for the spirit children?

Who said Lucifer was equal to Jesus? Jesus was God. Lucifer was a "light bearer," a "herald son of dawn" or "morning star." That's a far cry from being God.

Was there another being in the Trinity?

Yes. The Holy Ghost. (Except that the Biblical term is "Godhead," not "Trinity.")

In actuality in my bible, lucifer was an angel not a god, but desired to be one, which is what lead to his being thrown down from Heaven.

Hey, that's what it says in our Bible, too (the KJV)!

Core question to you is "do you believe satan to be angel or a former god-like being?"

He (Satan/Lucifer) was a spirit child of God, just as you and I are. However, when he rebelled against God, he permanently forfeited what would have been his right to experience mortality and return to God's presence someday. He lost the right to be known as a child of God -- forever. He was never god or god-like in any respect. It is also accurate to refer to him as a angel, as an angel is nothing more than a messenger in the form of a human being. An angel is a human-like being who is simply in a different stage of progression than we are.

Kathryn

 

[Aqualung]

Perhaps I misunderstand you, Aqualung, but I don't believe that the prophecies in the BoM made it necessary for those conquests to happen. That's like saying Judas was meant to betray Christ in order for the (necessary) crucifiction to happen; sure, it was convenient, but if Judas hadn't done it, it would have happened some other way.

Judas will have to account for his actions, and so will Cortez.

Yeah, maybe I didn't phrase it very well, but, as I said in an earlier post, I tend to make incoherent posts that people rarely understand:bonk:

 

[Aqualung]

Actually, quite the opposite. The Book of Mormon states quite clearly that polygamy is an abomination before God, and is only marginally excused at times to prevent the extinction of God's people. I'm referring to Jacob 2, verses 27-30:

When it was sanctioned by Joseph Smith, it was during a time when women were not allowed to own property, and mobs were coming in, killing the men, and taking everything they wanted. Polygamy allowed for women to be cared for, own their own property, and continue to have children despite outnumbering the men.

Even then, it had to be very carefully monitored. Entering into plural marriage required the approval of the prophet and (gulp!)the first wife. The church also required proof that the husband could financially support such a large family.

Even then, it was a terrible burden on many relationships, and its end was counted a blessing by many. One of my ancestors practiced polygamy, and in the family history written by his daughter a lot of tension can be seen.

Oh. Okay. Thank you. I never got a really clear education about the whole polygamy thing. I just made up my own stuff about what everything meant, and it was frequently skewed by how I was feeling, etc.

 

[Aqualung]

So did Angel Moroni get his physical body? or for that matter did any of the other 2/3's angels get theirs?

Because we did not rebel against God, we did got bodies. OUr being here is proof that at some point we followed God's will, and therefore allowed us to take on a physical body and progress.

As far as Lucifer, Here's what God's word says about Him.
Ezekiel 28:17
Your heart was proud because of your beauty; you corrupted your wisdom for the sake of your splendor.
[/QUOTE]
You're just quoting one verse out of the Bible and expecting it to tell you everything. That's not going to work, and, as Katzpur said, even the Bible pretty plainly tells you that the Bible is not complete, with all the mention it makes of works that aren't there.

In actuality in my bible, lucifer was an angel not a god, but desired to be one, which is what lead to his being thrown down from Heaven.

Which is what I said. I mentioned that Lucifer offered a plan of salvation, but that he then said that God would have to give him all the glory and make him supreme ruler. Jesus's plan was humble and did it not for his glory. This is why he was thrown down.

 

[dorsk188]

...I just wrote a very long post ripping Mormonism several new ones... Then accidentally lost the whole dang thing... Grrr... Let me do a summary:

EDIT: Disclaimer - Because this thread is in the debate forum, I felt free to be a bit inflammatory. Of course, everyone is free to believe anything they wish, and I don't want to hurt feelings, merely challange the ideas themselves. Hope that makes sense.

Not only is the BoM lacking credibility, I argue that it isn't even well written... I've tried to read the first book of Nephi... It's sad... Redundant, grammatically disasterous, piece of (insert expletive of local color). People claim that Smith, an uneducated farm boy, could never write such a book. I would counter that, judging by the author's writing ability, an uneducated farm boy probably DID write it. All throughout, the narrator says again and again: "...I, Nephi,..." It's repeated so often that it seems like he's trying to convince the reader that he is, in fact, Nephi.

In Chapter 18...

[13] Wherefore, they knew not whither they should steer the ship, insomuch that there arose a great storm, yea, a great and terrible tempest, and we were driven back upon the waters for the space of three days; and they began to be frightened exceedingly lest they should be drowned in the sea; nevertheless they did not loose me.

That's one sentence... Seems that Nephi wasn't one for ending his thoughts, merely blending them together into one long ropey piece of tripe. He did love breaking it up, though, with a stratigically placed "And so it came to pass..."

[21] And it came to pass after they had loosed me, behold, I took the compass, and it did work whither I desired it. And it came to pass that I prayed unto the Lord; and after I had prayed the winds did cease, and the storm did cease, and there was a great calm.

[22] And it came to pass that I, Nephi, did guide the ship, that we sailed again towards the promised land.

[23] And it came to pass that after we had sailed for the space of many days we did arrive at the promised land; and we went forth upon the land, and did pitch our tents; and we did call it the promised land.

[24] And it came to pass that we did begin to till the earth, and we began to plant seeds; yea, we did put all our seeds into the earth, which we had brought from the land of Jerusalem. And it came to pass that they did grow exceedingly; wherefore, we were blessed in abundance

Mark Twain tore into the BoM pretty well, so I'll just offer a couple of reasons that I find Smith less than reliable.

A) Even though he was using a magical stone, when he was challenged to translate the same story twice, he couldn't. Apparently, Satan had stepped in and made that impossible, how convenient. Reminds me of Muhammad's difficulties with the Satanic Verses... Seems that prophets have bad days, too...

B) According to Smith, THIS was actually THIS. According to AA...

The first illustration is accompanied by fantastic interpretation given by Joseph Smith. According to Smith, the "bird" in the upper right is "the angel of the Lord" and the man with the knife is an idolatrous priest trying to make a sacrifice of Abraham (the guy on the check-out counter to the left of the cash register).

Toward the end of the eighteenth century, when more and more scholars appeared who actually could read Egyptian -- even without the use of magic stones -- this interpretation was challenged. The "bird" was not an angel, but the ba or soul of a deceased person. Furthermore, it was claimed, its face had been changed. It should have a human face. The reclining figure wasn't Abraham; it was Osiris being called back to life by Anubis, the god of the dead and of embalming. The so-called priest -- it was claimed over one hundred years ago -- had been altered! He actually should have the head of a jackal and should not have a knife in his hand.

How ironic, that I wrote this all just a minute ago, then accidentally lost the whole post, only to rewrite it, basically the same, with structural differences, etc. on a post about Mormonism... Maybe Satan made me hit the Back Button.... :areyoucra

EDIT: Just remembered my final sentence of the first version of this post: Remember, just because there are 12 million Mormons today doesn't mean Joseph Smith wasn't a conman; it just means he was a skilled conman.