Clearing up Mormonism

[joeboonda]

Lol, I think I am replying to myself!?!, LOL!!! I just believe that once the Holy Bible was finished, that it is our (Christians) supreme authority and guide as far as written revelation from God. I take the warnings at the end of revelation, the closing book of history, that we are not to add or take away what was written. As also I believe in the cessations of tongues,and someone interpreting God's "message" to a body of believers. We have all we need in the Holy Bible. That's just my opinion, and I won't argue it, as its just my opinion. I just wanted to state it for the record, lol! Peace!

 

[Katzpur]

You got that right, brother, frubals to ya!

joeboonda,

Since I never saw sncjoff1's original post and he appears to no longer be participating in this discussion, I will address my remarks to you.

sncjoff posted twenty-two statements in which he attempted to interpret the doctrines and teachings of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints and you apparently thought he did a great job. Let me ask you something: Have you ever attended an LDS worship service? Have you ever read the Book of Mormon, the Doctrine and Covenants and the Pearl of Great Price? How many Latter-day Saints have you personally asked to explain their beliefs?

If your answers are (1) no, (2) no, and (3) zero, may I suggest that you, like sncjoff, have no business making any kind of a statement as to what Mormons believe. Of the twenty-two statements, three or four are correct. (I'd say that, if this were a test, you'd have scored perhaps a D- at best.) Perhaps another half-dozen have their basis in LDS doctrine, but have been purposely distorted so as to make them appear offensive and/or ludicrous. The rest are so far-fetched as to make them almost unrecognizable to members of the Church who -- I can assure you -- have a far better understanding of their own doctrines than either you or sncjoff do.

There were a total of eleven sources listed. Of these, only two are doctrinally binding on the Church: the Doctrine and Covenants and the Pearl of Great Price. It is hardly coincidental that of the very few correct statements that sncjoff made, two that actually were accurate were from those two sources. For future reference, please keep in mind that the following are not part of the LDS canon:

The History of the Church
Mormon Doctrine
The Articles of Faith
The Journal of Discourses
Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith
The Gospel Through the Ages
Doctrines of Salvation
A Marvelous Work and a Wonder
Times and Seasons

While there is much in many of these volumes that is worthwhile, they represent the opinions of men concerning doctrinal issues. Sometimes these opinions are correct. In other instances they are not. Most often, they are correct when interpreted correctly. This is something anti-Mormons don't quite seem to be able to do very well.

Finally, it would be virtually impossible for me or any other Latter-day Saint on this forum to address these issues in a single post or even in several posts. People seem to forget that it takes a lot less time (not to mention intelligence) to cut and paste a list of mostly inaccurate statements than it takes to provide an informed and comprehensive response to even one of them. If you would like to discuss any one of these statements (which you evidently believe to be true), please start a new thread for each one. I can assure you that you will receive a number of responses, clarifying what we actually do believe.

If, on the other hand, you would simply prefer to stick with the distorted version, that's your choice. But I would respectfully ask that, in the future, you stick to explaining your own beliefs and not the beliefs of a denomination on which you have only the most superficial knowledge.

Kathryn

 

[Kowalski]

Smith was no prophet, if anything he was what the Bible terms a ' false prophet'. Only you people have made him a prophet through your childish naivity.

K

 

[Ori]

Smith was no prophet, if anything he was what the Bible terms a ' false prophet'. Only you people have made him a prophet through your childish naivity.

K

Not trying to be rude here, but if they see him as a prophet, shouldn't you just let them be happy?

 

[Sunstone]

Not trying to be rude here, but if they see him as a prophet, shouldn't you just let them be happy?

Excellent question, Ori! I second it!

 

[michel]

Excellent question, Ori! I second it!

And I'll third it.

 

[Pah]

Smith was no prophet, if anything he was what the Bible terms a ' false prophet'. Only you people have made him a prophet through your childish naivity.

K

Can ya just hear the sneer in "you people"? :biglaugh:

 

[Katzpur]

Can ya just hear the sneer in "you people"? :biglaugh:

Sure, but you've just got to consider the source. All any of these anti-Mormon posts really do is provide a legitimate forum on which we as members of the Church can clarify and explain our beliefs. It's like one of the greatest LDS scholars who has ever lived once said, "We need more anti-Mormon books. They keep us on our toes." In a way, negative press beats no press at all. It's proof that the subject of Mormonism continues to interest people. I've learned to just consider it free advertising.

 

[michel]

Sure, but you've just got to consider the source. All any of these anti-Mormon posts really do is provide a legitimate forum on which we as members of the Church can clarify and explain our beliefs. It's like one of the greatest LDS scholars who has ever lived once said, "We need more anti-Mormon books. They keep us on our toes." In a way, negative press beats no press at all. It's proof that the subject of Mormonism continues to interest people. I've learned to just consider it free advertising.

Good for you Kathryn; I wish that I could be as patient and philosophical as you are; turn the negative vibes into an opportunity to see from a constructive viewpoint. Good on you!:clap

 

[Katzpur]

Alright...Found a huge website about this stuff, here's some highlights.
An ancient Egyptian image on papyrus that Smith "reconstructed" began as this. Smith, lacking knowledge of Egyptian culture, asserted that it was, in fact, this. His story was that the image depicted Abraham being almost sacrificed by a pagan priest with a knife. And the bird was God. In fact, it was this:
The first bird, the one that was, according to Smith, the spirit of God, was actually the ba, Osiris's soul. The whole affair, I think (don't quote me), was connected with the papyrus that the Book of Abraham was supposedly deciphered from.

More Examples of Smith's Mistaken Translations:
1)Smith translated the Book of Abraham from a single scroll. Indeed, each Egyptian character was translated into an entire verse. Click here for a picture of the original Egyptian papyrus and Smith's translations side by side. Of course, Egyptologists assert firmly that these scrolls are from the "Book of Breathings" that belonged to a guy named Hor, who's name appears many times. Search the below website for "A Pagan Book?" to skip to that section.
2)Smith described this image as "God sitting upon his throne" but any Egyptologist worth his salt, and even Mormons themselves (read the website below) agree that this is the Egyptian fertility god Min with his crudely drawn phallus. Search for "Religious Pornography?" for the whole story.

This largely came from an absurdly long webpage.
http://nowscape.com/mormon/papyrus/by_his_own_hand.htm

That's a lot to absorb in one post, so I'll stop.

Absurdly long and absurdly inaccurate, as well. Here's my respose. You'll have to excuse me for not providing you with a more condensed version, but I have long since made it a practice to avoid wasting my time trying to go the extra mile for people who are just looking for a fight. You are an athiest and there is nothing I could say to change your mind about God or about the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. Consequently, I'm going to spend my time in more productive endeavors.

http://www.jefflindsay.com/LDSFAQ/FQ_Abraham.shtml

 

[Katzpur]

Good for you Kathryn; I wish that I could be as patient and philosophical as you are; turn the negative vibes into an opportunity to see from a constructive viewpoint. Good on you!:clap

Aw... Thanks a bunch, Michel. I definitely don't consider myself to be a patient person. In fact, I know a lot of people who'd insist you couldn't possibly be talking about the Kathryn they know!

I guess all I can say is:

(1) Practice makes perfect, and any Mormon who participates regularly on message boards such as this one gets a whole lot of practice! Believe me, this board is SOOOO tame!

(2) People who are unnecessarily hateful in expressing their opinions religions other than their own generally do themselves more harm than they do those whom they're insulting. As my dad used to say, "Time wounds all heels." :biglaugh:

(3) In the Book of Mormon, Jesus Christ is recorded as having said, "For verily, verily I say unto you, he that hath the spirit ofcontention is not of me, but is of the devil, who is the father ofcontention, and he stirreth up the hearts of men to contend with anger, one with another." We sincerely believe this, and do our best to not give Satan the satisfaction of seeing us stoop to the level of our enemies.

Kathryn

 

[Aqualung]

You are an athiest and there is nothing I could say to change your mind about God or about the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.

While this statement might or might not be true about dorsk, I used to be a fairly strict anti-mormon, but then someone actually took the time to debate with me and show me that I was pretty much basing my beleifs about the Church in false things. But look at me now. Don't be so quick to assume that just because someone is an athiest that that means they won't change, or that they are just looking for a fight, and not answers.

 

[Katzpur]

While this statement might or might not be true about dorsk, I used to be a fairly strict anti-mormon, but then someone actually took the time to debate with me and show me that I was pretty much basing my beleifs about the Church in false things. But look at me now.

Really? Well, I'll be darned. (That's Mormon for another, more commonly used phrase.)

Don't be so quick to assume that just because someone is an athiest that that means they won't change, or that they are just looking for a fight, and not answers.

Okay, I'll try not to. Thanks for pointing that out.

 

[joeboonda]

joeboonda,

Since I never saw sncjoff1's original post and he appears to no longer be participating in this discussion, I will address my remarks to you.

sncjoff posted twenty-two statements in which he attempted to interpret the doctrines and teachings of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints and you apparently thought he did a great job. Let me ask you something: Have you ever attended an LDS worship service? Have you ever read the Book of Mormon, the Doctrine and Covenants and the Pearl of Great Price? How many Latter-day Saints have you personally asked to explain their beliefs?

If your answers are (1) no, (2) no, and (3) zero, may I suggest that you, like sncjoff, have no business making any kind of a statement as to what Mormons believe. Of the twenty-two statements, three or four are correct. (I'd say that, if this were a test, you'd have scored perhaps a D- at best.) Perhaps another half-dozen have their basis in LDS doctrine, but have been purposely distorted so as to make them appear offensive and/or ludicrous. The rest are so far-fetched as to make them almost unrecognizable to members of the Church who -- I can assure you -- have a far better understanding of their own doctrines than either you or sncjoff do.

There were a total of eleven sources listed. Of these, only two are doctrinally binding on the Church: the Doctrine and Covenants and the Pearl of Great Price. It is hardly coincidental that of the very few correct statements that sncjoff made, two that actually were accurate were from those two sources. For future reference, please keep in mind that the following are not part of the LDS canon:

The History of the Church
Mormon Doctrine
The Articles of Faith
The Journal of Discourses
Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith
The Gospel Through the Ages
Doctrines of Salvation
A Marvelous Work and a Wonder
Times and Seasons

While there is much in many of these volumes that is worthwhile, they represent the opinions of men concerning doctrinal issues. Sometimes these opinions are correct. In other instances they are not. Most often, they are correct when interpreted correctly. This is something anti-Mormons don't quite seem to be able to do very well.

Finally, it would be virtually impossible for me or any other Latter-day Saint on this forum to address these issues in a single post or even in several posts. People seem to forget that it takes a lot less time (not to mention intelligence) to cut and paste a list of mostly inaccurate statements than it takes to provide an informed and comprehensive response to even one of them. If you would like to discuss any one of these statements (which you evidently believe to be true), please start a new thread for each one. I can assure you that you will receive a number of responses, clarifying what we actually do believe.

If, on the other hand, you would simply prefer to stick with the distorted version, that's your choice. But I would respectfully ask that, in the future, you stick to explaining your own beliefs and not the beliefs of a denomination on which you have only the most superficial knowledge.

Kathryn

Hi! I didn't wanna debate the LDS religion, I was just browsing and enjoyed his answer. I have studied Mormonism and have read a good deal of the Book of Mormon. I have 2 friends who came out of that cult, who have shared with me what they were taught there. I am just glad you are on a spiritual journey and believe in a God, I believe we will all find the truth as we search for it honestly. I dont wanna debate, sorry! PEACE!

 

[Katzpur]

Hi! I didn't wanna debate the LDS religion, I was just browsing and enjoyed his answer. I have studied Mormonism and have read a good deal of the Book of Mormon. I have 2 friends who came out of that cult, who have shared with me what they were taught there. I am just glad you are on a spiritual journey and believe in a God, I believe we will all find the truth as we search for it honestly. I dont wanna debate, sorry! PEACE!

joeboonda,

If you don't want to debate, that's fine. (I'm getting just a bit tired of debating this particular subject myself. ) However, let me tell you what I think of the word "cult."

"A cult is the church down the street from yours."

"If you believe in it, it is a religion or perhaps 'the' religion; and if you do not care one way or another about it, it is a sect; but if you fear and hate it, it is a cult."

"Cult is a word without much use outside the realm of religious mudslinging."

"When someone uses the word 'cult,' it usually says more about them than the group."

I find the use of this word intentionally offensive, and don't believe that anyone who is a true disciple of Jesus Christ would use it to describe another of His disciples.

Kathryn

 

[Aqualung]

Hi! I didn't wanna debate the LDS religion, I was just browsing and enjoyed his answer. I have studied Mormonism and have read a good deal of the Book of Mormon. I have 2 friends who came out of that cult, who have shared with me what they were taught there. I am just glad you are on a spiritual journey and believe in a God, I believe we will all find the truth as we search for it honestly. I dont wanna debate, sorry! PEACE!

If you didn't want to debate, why do you entice us by calling us a cult? Any self-respecting mormon (well, maybe only the young ones who aren't fed up with this argument) will debate you.

Edit: Well, look at the post that was sitting in front of mine when I submitted this one! Nice post, Katzpur!

 

[joeboonda]

You dont like the word cult, ok, I see, sorry, lol. That's just what mainline christian denominations call Mormonism, I suppose because they add to the Bible, and don't consider Jesus as God (at least in the same way we do), and have many other beliefs that differ from basic Bible-only doctrines. You do some quite different things than say the mainline denominations, that I dont call a cult. But if I offended you, I am sorry, wasn't thinking, had to run the store, will try to be more sensitive, i apologize. PEACE!

 

[DeepShadow]

Just a few comments; I need to be heading to bed and will hopefully have more tomorrow:

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...

First, he wasn't "using a magic stone," he was translating. This and other references in your posts suggests your source is using the David Whitmer account of translation--that the stones turned ancient languages into English. This account is apocryphal in the extreme, preferred today by anti-Mormon scholars who want to accuse God of Joseph's grammatical errors.

While we don't know the exact method of translation, we can rule out this method quite easily, based on the account of Oliver Cowdery attempting to translate. As recorded in Doctrine and Covenants 8 and 9, Oliver's short-lived attempt at translator failed because he didn't "study it out in his mind," but only asked God what the words meant. As it stands, the word choices in the Book of Mormon should reflect the language of an 1820's American, because one was indeed choosing the words--exactly what a translator does.

Second, (and speaking of word choice) the proper word here is not "couldn't," but "wouldn't." When the first 116 pages (also known as the "Book of Lehi") were stolen (which is believed to have happened through Martin Harris' wife, not Joseph's, BTW), Joseph was warned that his enemies had altered the pages, and were prepared to present them for comparison if he translated the Book of Lehi again. For this reason, Joseph was instructed not to translate it again, but to move on to the Book of First Nephi.

Regarding Joseph's reconstruction of the Egyptian papyri to create the illustration in the Book of Abraham, Egyptologists are still trying to figure out how old the Sphinx is (what's 2000 years among friends?), to say nothing of how King Tut died, or whether Nefertiti reigned disguised as a man. These are huge debates in the archeological world; how are all these people suddenly united on the interpretation of one (heavily damaged) image? Note that unless they have actually found the missing pieces of the image, these Egyptologists are using methods that leave plenty of room for debate. After all, the frescoes and mosaics of Minos were reconstructed using similar methods, and today a number of archaeologists claim there were many errors there.

 

[dorsk188]

Of course he could have. You were the one who said, "If he dictated, then he wouldn't really have a good reason to say, "Wait a minute, let me edit that first few hundred pages..." Now you're saying he couldn't?

Reread what I said, I said: "He didn't have a good reason to do it." and "He couldn't do it.[because such a request may incriminate him]" I think you'll find that I am consistent in this case (unfortunately not always).

Several individuals served as Joseph's scribe during the translation process, Oliver Cowdery being being the one used far more extensively than anyone else. Joseph's wife, Emma, was his scribe for a brief time only.

Second, (and speaking of word choice) the proper word here is not "couldn't," but "wouldn't." When the first 116 pages (also known as the "Book of Lehi") were stolen (which is believed to have happened through Martin Harris' wife, not Joseph's, BTW), Joseph was warned that his enemies had altered the pages, and were prepared to present them for comparison if he translated the Book of Lehi again. For this reason, Joseph was instructed not to translate it again, but to move on to the Book of First Nephi.

I apologize about my assertion (about Smith's wife), it is one of those things that I can't remember where I heard it, and I got the details wrong. (Right now my DSL disconnects after about 3 minutes and it takes me 5 to get it back up. Right now, research is near impossible to do.) Thank you for correcting me, DeepShadow.

Correct me (again) if I am wrong, but wasn't Smith supposedly warned by God (or an angel) that Satan had altered the manuscript? Thus his was his reason for not translating this part again?

For the sake of argument: I beseech DeepShadow and Katzpuh to consider a hypothetical. Is it possible that Smith refused to translate the book of Lehi again, because he knew he would not be able to do it exactly the same way, and simply used the tampering as a reason not to?

This is all conjecture, unless someone can produce proof that the original manuscript of the book of Lehi either WAS or WASN'T tampered with. Unfortunately, this thread has grown so that there are many topics in each post, and we can't seem to tackle one at a time.

In describing the experience, she said, "After meals, or after interruptions, he (i.e. Joseph) would at once begin where he had left off, without either seeing the manuscript or having any portion of it read to him." Never did she hide the manuscript or challenge him to reproduce it. That's absolute nonsense. You have no idea what Emma endured in supporting and standing by her husband.

On the other hand, Smith's ability to take up a story right where he'd left off is hardly evidence of divine translation. As I said, his imagination and storytelling skills could account for that.

(In case you've forgotten, your response to the evidence I presented was, "We can drop this topic.... This doesn't work for the BoM or against it.... No points awarded, okay?" Now do you really want to play this game all over again with the Bible as your target?)

I merely wished to drop any argument that is essentially: My opinion vs. Your opinion. With my second post, I intended to begin a genuine debate.

Really? Well maybe that's what the National Enquirer would say, but it's not what the Book of Mormon says. For your information, none of the people in the Book of Mormon were Egyptian. And the second-coming of Christ is yet to take place. You know, if you really want to have an intelligent debate about the Book of Mormon, I would suggest that you at least get your facts straight.

You're right. I should have said "Jews from Egypt", right? I apoligize for hyperbolizing my point, but it IS an outrageous claim, imho. Of course, this whole "National Enquirer" stuff is really off point, anyway.

I don't have the foggiest notion what you're talking about. But I find this crap to be highly offensive.

This wasn't meant to offend you, it was straight from the website I showed you, which is largely from this book By His Own Hand Upon Papyrus (which is free online). The book seems to me to be objective, even citing the "Mormon perspective" on many occasions. If you read my post and what I was referencing, my comments were well within reason. Once again, it was not intended to offend.

What was it you were saying about having a civilized debate? And didn't I hear you say you were going to refrain from the insults? Sometimes I wonder why I ever take people like you at their word. You wanted a second chance? You got one and you blew it.

I am awestruck. I didn't insult you once in my posts (aside from the first which I have sincerely apologized for) and fail to see how I have done anything but present information.

I would strongly suggest that you get your mind out of the gutter and work on your communication skills.

Please tell me that my mentioning very concept of arousal (which is entirely within the confines of the source material I was citing) means that my mind is in the gutter. Read my post, read my links, I don't know what you want from me.

These are huge debates in the archeological world.

As far as I've heard, there are no debates about whether the Egyptian symbol either means a sound or idea (as the Rosetta stone shows) or an entire verse discussing how great a non-Egyptian god is. The image that Smith restored was part of a scroll, and that scroll discusses (according to Egyptologists) the Book of Breathings and the funeral of a priest named Hor. I really don't think the Egyptians making an image of Abraham being attacked by a pagan with a knife is a common debate among archeological circles. It's easy to say "scientists disagree with one another," but that doesn't lend credence to your position if they all agree that this scroll is the Book of Breathings.

Sorry for the large gaps between my posts. As I said, I am having DSL problems. Once again Katzpur, I don't know what I did to warrant this torrential attack on my character and communication skills. I offer an olive branch of civility, but no apoligies for discussing the facts.

 

[Katzpur]

You dont like the word cult, ok, I see, sorry, lol.

Do you? Would you like to be told that you belong to a cult?

That's just what mainline christian denominations call Mormonism...

No, that's not what mainstream Christian denominations call Mormonism. Some may (yours undoubtedly does), but the vast majority of them recognize us as a Christian denomination, some of whose beliefs differ from theirs. In case you hadn't noticed, we are specifically listed as a Christian denomination on this particular forum.

...I suppose because they add to the Bible...

We've added nothing to the Bible. God has, and I don't know that any of us are in a position to tell Him that He's out of line in doing so.

...and don't consider Jesus as God (at least in the same way we do)...

We don't accept the 4th and 5th century creeds, if that's what you mean. But we believe every word the Bible has to say about Jesus Christ -- including the fact that He is "God."

...and have many other beliefs that differ from basic Bible-only doctrines.

Yes, we do. But the Bible does not claim to be either inerrant or complete. You've just made that assumption on your own.

But if I offended you, I am sorry... will try to be more sensitive, i apologize. PEACE!

Thank you for the apology. I appreciate it.

Kathryn