NationStates Jolt Archive

Hello :) Yeah, I am LDS (Mormon), and I've noticed that in most online communities most people know very little about Mormons, expect for false stereotypical stuff. So I was wondering if anyone had any questions about my religion....

Have you ever seen them wear such a jewel?

http://www.livejournal.com/users/morma/

do you actuaclly belive the lost tribes of the jews went to north america.

and that jesus went to go visit them.

Hello :) Yeah, I am LDS (Mormon), and I've noticed that in most online communities most people know very little about Mormons, expect for false stereotypical stuff. So I was wondering if anyone had any questions about my religion....
Don't you mean LSD? ;)

What are your beliefs concerning Jesus?

We don't believe that it was the Lost Tribes.

We believe that approx. 600 B.C., a group of Jews traveled to America shortly before Jerusalem's destruction, and that they started a civilization that ended approx. A.D. 400. And yes, we believe that Jesus went to visit them ~A.D. 35, after his resurection.

And New Granada, that link is a funny parody! :)

What are your beliefs concerning Jesus?

We believe that Jesus is the Son of God, and all that is said in the Bible. The only real difference we have from mainstream Christianity is that we believe that He visited the Americas shortly after his ressurection, and we also believe that He, the Father, and the Holy Ghost are three separate and distinct beings.

Do you really eat babies?

(I am kidding. That's just an old myth about mormons).

Oh and one of my friend claim that 60 year old mormon men have 10 14 year old wives? Is that true and/or possible?

We believe that Jesus is the Son of God, and all that is said in the Bible. The only real difference we have from mainstream Christianity is that we believe that He visited the Americas shortly after his ressurection, and we also believe that He, the Father, and the Holy Ghost are three separate and distinct beings.
That's interesting.

We believe that Jesus is the Son of God, and all that is said in the Bible. The only real difference we have from mainstream Christianity is that we believe that He visited the Americas shortly after his ressurection, and we also believe that He, the Father, and the Holy Ghost are three separate and distinct beings.

FINALLY! A christian sect that doesn't contradict itself!

*hugs Thechya*

Why the hell did a new morman church near me put 15kilos of gold...thing on top of the building, rather than giving it to the needy and such?

We don't believe that it was the Lost Tribes.

We believe that approx. 600 B.C., a group of Jews traveled to America shortly before Jerusalem's destruction, and that they started a civilization that ended approx. A.D. 400. And yes, we believe that Jesus went to visit them ~A.D. 35, after his resurection.

And New Granada, that link is a funny parody! :)


Um what did the paddle from isreal in cannoe's, what do you mean by jerusalem's descution, the temple that went in 70ad to my knowledge (i think an earlier version did to that might be what you mean)

Its a bit far fetch, i seriously doubt the jewish civilisation circa 600ad could traverse the atlanic, if other majory civilisations such as the greeks could only manage scotland!?

Oh and one of my friend claim that 60 year old mormon men have 10 14 year old wives? Is that true and/or possible?

No, they do not. Mormon couples are as normal as other couples, age-wise. And no, it isn't possible, as polygamy is illegal in the U.S., as is a 60-year-old man marrying a 14-year-old.

A former Mormon friend of mine told me that there are passages of the Mormon bible that refer to some sort of female divine being but that usually get ignored. Are these just the ones in the more mainstream bibles (Sophia, etc.) or are there more/different ones?

No, they do not. Mormon couples are as normal as other couples, age-wise. And no, it isn't possible, as polygamy is illegal in the U.S., as is a 60-year-old man marrying a 14-year-old.

Thats what I thought!

He is the son of a protestant missionary, and missionaries(especially protestant ones) usually don't think highly of other religions.

*sigh* If only everyone was Buddhist. Then we'd all be happy.

Why the hell did a new morman church near me put 15kilos of gold...thing on top of the building, rather than giving it to the needy and such?

The Statue of the Angel Moroni on Mormon Temples is not pure gold, and the Church does give millions of dollars a year to humanitarian aid.

Um what did the paddle from isreal in cannoe's, what do you mean by jerusalem's descution, the temple that went in 70ad to my knowledge (i think an earlier version did to that might be what you mean)

Its a bit far fetch, i seriously doubt the jewish civilisation circa 600ad could traverse the atlanic, if other majory civilisations such as the greeks could only manage scotland!?

They built a boat, and were lead there and protected by God. It did of course take many months. Jerusalem was captured and destroyed shortly after B.C. 600 (that is factual).

How does the LDS teaching that Jesus came to America square with the New Testament (Matthew through Revelation)teachings about Christ's earthly ministry and His return?

We believe that approx. 600 B.C., a group of Jews traveled to America shortly before Jerusalem's destruction, and that they started a civilization that ended approx. A.D. 400. And yes, we believe that Jesus went to visit them ~A.D. 35, after his resurection.

approximately how big was this civilization and where was it located?

They built a boat, and were lead there and protected by God. It did of course take many months. Jerusalem was captured and destroyed shortly after B.C. 600 (that is factual).

???????

That was over 600 years before Christ(Christ was born sometime around 7-8 A.D.) If Jesus took the boat 600 years before he was born...

They built a boat, and were lead there and protected by God. It did of course take many months. Jerusalem was captured and destroyed shortly after B.C. 600 (that is factual).

by babylon, iirc

No, they do not. Mormon couples are as normal as other couples, age-wise. And no, it isn't possible, as polygamy is illegal in the U.S., as is a 60-year-old man marrying a 14-year-old.

Though from what I've heard from other Mormons there is usually a slight age difference because men have to do a certain amount of missionary work before marrying while women are encouraged to marry relatively early.

???????

That was over 600 years before Christ(Christ was born sometime around 7-8 A.D.) If Jesus took the boat 600 years before he was born...

two seperate events. 600 bce, a couple of jews make the trip. sometime after jesus' ressurection, he makes a stop over there, what with the being supernatural and all.

Is it true about the magic underwear?

A former Mormon friend of mine told me that there are passages of the Mormon bible that refer to some sort of female divine being but that usually get ignored. Are these just the ones in the more mainstream bibles (Sophia, etc.) or are there more/different ones?

We don't believe in a female divine being, or any divine beings but God and Jesus. The Book of Mormon does not mention any other.

How does the LDS teaching that Jesus came to America square with the New Testament (Matthew through Revelation)teachings about Christ's earthly ministry and His return?

It doesn't contradict it all. We believe in Christ's earthly ministry in the Old World, as recorded in the Bible, and they ascended to His Father. However, we believe that before ascending to be with the Father, He visited the Americas and taught them.

approximately how big was this civilization and where was it located?

Exact numbers and location are unknown; the Book of Mormon does not say. Obviously very large, for there were many wars including armies of ten thousand or more. Estimated location is central America; some believe the civilization was the Mayan civilization.

Why the hell did a new morman church near me put 15kilos of gold...thing on top of the building, rather than giving it to the needy and such?
Mormon (or The Church of Latter-day Saints) churches don't have gold "things" on top of their buildings. LDS temples do have a gold leaf covered statue of Moroni on their highest spire however.

The LDS faith believes that the churches and temples that they build are the house of god as such they use the high quality resources to pay respect to god.
They also donate hundreds of millions of dollars to various welfare and releaf programs.

Dose it say how these jews in america died out.

Though from what I've heard from other Mormons there is usually a slight age difference because men have to do a certain amount of missionary work before marrying while women are encouraged to marry relatively early.

the mission only lasts two years; if anything, account for a two-year difference.

Is it true about the magic underwear?

Teehee, that's quotable. But anyway, we do have special garments that adults were that symbolize a commitment to God, similar to circumcision in the Old World.

Dose it say how these jews in america died out.

They were destroyed by a rival civilization which were the principal anscestors of modern-day Native Americans.

...

(I did not answer questions that were correctly answered by others)

Is it true about the magic underwear?

Damn it! You beat me to it. I'd like to know as well.

We don't believe in a female divine being, or any divine beings but God and Jesus. The Book of Mormon does not mention any other.



So not even the standard Torah references?

You're probably right, though. The former Mormon who told me this is now a Wiccan, which explains her perspective.

Joseph Smith, for one who claimed to be a "divine translator" in direct communication with his God, made hundreds of prophesies, some with exact dates, which have not come true. Doesn't this throw considerable doubt on his integrity?

In the Bible:

"And if thou say in thine heart, How shall we know the word which the Lord hath not spoken? When a prophet speaketh in the name of the Lord, if the thing follow not, nor come to pass, that is the thing which the Lord hath not spoken, but the prophet hath spoken it presumptuously..." Deut 18:21-22

In other words, Jesus told Christians how to spot a false prophet. Those who have their prophesies fulfilled are prophets. Those who do not are not prophets of God.

For example, Sept 22-23, 1832. D&C 84:114-115. New York, Albany and Boston will be destroyed if they reject the gospel. The "hour of their judgment is nigh..." New York has not been destroyed.

Apr 28, 1842. Joseph Smith prophesies about the newly-founded Relief Society: "before ten years... the queens of the earth shall come and pay their respects to this Society. They shall come with their millions and shall contribute of their abundance for the relief of the poor." [Quinn p. 634] No Queens have ever contributed to the Mormon cult.

And best of all:

August 27, 1843. HC 5:554. Joseph Smith announces in a sermon: "I [Joseph Smith] prophesy and bear record this morning that all the combined powers of earth and hell shall not and cannot ever overthrow or overcome this boy, for I have a promise from the eternal God. If I have sinned, I have sinned outwardly; but surely I have contemplated the things of God."

Within a year of saying this, he was asassinated.

EDIT: Oh, and for the record, I'm atheist, and support to immediate disbanding of organised religion.

Dose it say how these jews in america died out.
It was the ancient Nazis, duh.
:p

Joseph Smith....

...EDIT: Oh, and for the record, I'm atheist, and support to immediate disbanding of organised religion.

I made this thread for questions, not attempts to disprove my religion. I could actively argue the things you said (those prophesies were not complete and out of context -- Joseph Smith actually prophesied his assassination), but I won't, because I don't want to digress from the topic. Feel free to e-mail me if you wish to debate.

So not even the standard Torah references?

You're probably right, though. The former Mormon who told me this is now a Wiccan, which explains her perspective.

Well, to clarify, according to our beliefs, there must be a Heavenly Mother figure if there is a Heavenly Father (as we believe we are the literal spirit children of God), but she is not worshipped and rarely mentioned.

any other questions?

I made this thread for questions, not attempts to disprove my religion. I could actively argue the things you said (those prophesies were not complete and out of context -- Joseph Smith actually prophesied his assassination), but I won't, because I don't want to digress from the topic. Feel free to e-mail me if you wish to debate.

My most humble apologies. I misread the first post, I thought you were seeking to disprove your critics since you mentioned the "sterotyping" stuff.

My most humble apologies. I misread the first post, I thought you were seeking to disprove your critics since you mentioned the "sterotyping" stuff.

Apology accepted. :)

It was the ancient Nazis, duh.
:p

Native American Zion-hating Iraquoi?

*cough*

Anyone have any actual questions?

has there been any seriouse attempts or recents sects of mormanism that are attempting to break away from the Union and for a independent republic of deseret, or is this pure fiction...not that you would tell me if there was....

i don't know how i could sleep at night knowing the we could lose Utah

has there been any seriouse attempts or recents sects of mormanism that are attempting to break away from the Union and for a independent republic of deseret, or is this pure fiction...not that you would tell me if there was....

i don't know how i could sleep at night knowing the we could lose Utah

I believe there is a prophesy that says, before the Second Coming, the Church will form its own independant nation. However, it does not give a time, nor is it pursued -- it would probably happen becuase the church was forced to because of attack and/or severe persecution.

Explain the mormon conception of afterlife for us. I understand it involves several stages, including spirit paradise, spirit prison, and after that, three levels of heaven of which only the most dedicated mormons can enter the highest level. Also, do you believe that if you are married in the temple, you and your spouse can become gods of their own world, just like the god of ours? I've heard that the woman in the marriage is said to become eternally pregnent.

Explain the mormon conception of afterlife for us. I understand it involves several stages, including spirit paradise, spirit prison, and after that, three levels of heaven of which only the most dedicated mormons can enter the highest level. Also, do you believe that if you are married in the temple, you and your spouse can become gods of their own world, just like the god of ours? I've heard that the woman in the marriage is said to become eternally pregnent.

Okay, here's how it plays out, but first, it's important to realize that Mormons believe in a premortal existance; that is, we existed as spirits before the creation of Earth, and took part in things. We believe that there was a Council in Heaven and a War in Heaven before the Earth was created, mainly over Lucifer.

Okay, here's how it goes.

Premortal Existance > Earth > Spirit Paradise / Spirit Prison > Judgement > Three Degrees of Heaven / Outer Darkness

When we die on this earth, we go to either the Spirit Paradise or Spirit Prison, where we await the day of Judgement. The baptized and those who accepted the Gospel go to Spirit Paradise, but can freely between Spirit Paradise and Spirit Prison. Those who did not go to Spirit Prison, but still have the chance to accept the Gospel there and can then go to Spirit Paradise.

When Judgement comes, everyone is sent to one of the three degrees of Heaven: the Celestial Kingdom, the Terrestrial Kingdom, and the Tellestial Kingdom (from highest to lowest, respectively). The most righteous are sent to the Celestial Kingdom, which is where God dwells. The average folk who didn't do much go to the Terrestrial Kingdom, and the scum of the Earth go to the Tellestial Kingdom.

The only ones who go to Outer Darkness (ie: Hell) are Satan and his demons who followed him out of Heaven in the Premortal Existance (the Sons of Perdition).

Those who went to the Celestial Kingdom can still further progress, and yes, eventually become "gods" and have their own spirit children. (No, not eternally pregnant ;) )

I remember a conflict between families of people that died in the holocaust and mormons. The mormons were giving the dead people some kind of a baptism which the jewish believe will condemn them to hell.
What are your thoughts on that? Do you know if these proxy post-humous babtisms are still carried out?

i'm also curious about this being a god of your own world thing.

how do you reconcile the fact that stories in the book of mormon, circa 600 bce, mention horses, yet it is known that horses didn't exist on this continent until around 1500 ce?

and how joseph smith died in a gun fight but is said to have 'gone out like a lamb'?

also, why did god change his mind about polygamy only after the church was threatened with revocation of their tax exempt status by the irs?

and one last one... why did the church formerly not allow african-americans to become members of the priesthood? (or maybe just the church, i'm not sure on this one.)

i'm not trying to disprove you here, these are just some big questions i've come across and i haven't seen a mormon response anywhere yet.

I remember a conflict between families of people that died in the holocaust and mormons. The mormons were giving the dead people some kind of a baptism which the jewish believe will condemn them to hell.
What are your thoughts on that? Do you know if these proxy post-humous babtisms are still carried out?

True enough. Baptisms for the dead are still carried out, but as far as I know they aren't done for Jews unless its a family member of a Mormon because of that. That's one of the reasons why missionaries aren't sent to Israel.

True enough. Baptisms for the dead are still carried out, but as far as I know they aren't done for Jews unless its a family member of a Mormon because of that. That's one of the reasons why missionaries aren't sent to Israel.

Wow, I didn't know that. But why are family members an exception? And what is the point of the baptisms for the dead?

What Stake are you in? ;)

EDR
Champaign, Illinois Stake

I am very impressed with the level of maturity and respect in this thread. It has been along time that I have seen someone discuss my faith (yes I am Mormon too) without there being attack and ridcule. Most people seriously dont understand our beliefs and this has been a great read so far. I usually feel a need to interject and correct a mis-statement or too. But your doing wonderfully. Preach on my good man



And BYU rocks

"Ask the Moron"
Burn!

i'm not trying to disprove you here, these are just some big questions i've come across and i haven't seen a mormon response anywhere yet.

Yeah, thanks for asking in a polite way :) And you're right, they are big questions, and anyone that's heard them needs to hear the answer.

Polygamy was stopped by commandment of the Lord, as it was no longer necessary. The reason it was instituted was because many LDS men were killed, and their wives were left vulnerable. It was ceased when the U.S. established laws against polygamy, as we believe in obeying the laws of our nation.

We believe that the original curse placed upon Cain, as mentioned in the Bible, was his descendants would not be able to hold the priesthood. He was given a black skin to signify him and his descendants, so they would know who had the curse. The Lord chose this time for the curse to be taken away.

As for the horse thing, I'll point you here instead of typing it all up: http://farms.byu.edu/other_questions_evidences.php?id=6&table=questions

And I'll do the same thing for the martyrdom of Joseph Smith: http://farms.byu.edu/other_questions_evidences.php?id=12&table=questions

What Stake are you in? ;)

EDR
Champaign, Illinois Stake

Monroe, Louisiana :)

Wow, I didn't know that. But why are family members an exception? And what is the point of the baptisms for the dead?

Because it is a personal thing that is necessary to be sealed to your family.

Baptisms for the dead are done in a temple, and a person is baptized in the place of the deceased. This is for those who were not baptized while they were on the Earth. It's purpose is that the person baptized is now considered as baptized as someone who was baptized while they were alive. Baptism is required to go to Spirit Paradise and the Celestial Kingdom.

Baptisms for the dead were practiced in the old world too; they are mentioned in the KJV of the Bible.

[QUOTE=Thechya]We don't believe in a female divine being, or any divine beings but God and Jesus. The Book of Mormon does not mention any other.

Uhhhmm. While it's not generally discussed, the plan of salvation is such that there pretty much has to be a Heavenly Mother. And a divine father, with a divine son logically leads one to a divine female. But logic is not the way one comes to a belief in God or any particular religion or doctrine. You have to be open to the Spirit of God and ask. Even our LDS Church leaders have told us we have to ask and know for ourselves.

We don't believe in a female divine being, or any divine beings but God and Jesus. The Book of Mormon does not mention any other.

Uhhhmm. While it's not generally discussed, the plan of salvation is such that there pretty much has to be a Heavenly Mother. And a divine father, with a divine son logically leads one to a divine female. But logic is not the way one comes to a belief in God or any particular religion or doctrine. You have to be open to the Spirit of God and ask. Even our LDS Church leaders have told us we have to ask and know for ourselves.

Yes, I corrected myself in another post. I mentioned the Heavenly Mother.

Because it is a personal thing that is necessary to be sealed to your family.

Baptisms for the dead are done in a temple, and a person is baptized in the place of the deceased. This is for those who were not baptized while they were on the Earth. It's purpose is that the person baptized is now considered as baptized as someone who was baptized while they were alive. Baptism is required to go to Spirit Paradise and the Celestial Kingdom.

Baptisms for the dead were practiced in the old world too; they are mentioned in the KJV of the Bible.

But why does it go beyond members of the church? I'm not trying to be an ass, but don't you think it's a little bit disrespectful to do such ceremonies in the name of people of other religions?

But why does it go beyond members of the church? I'm not trying to be an ass, but don't you think it's a little bit disrespectful to do such ceremonies in the name of people of other religions?

Well, the thing is, its only done for non-members. Members would have already been baptised.

No, I don't think it's disrespectful at all. From my religious standpoint, they are actually waiting for me to do it so that they can accept the Gospel in the afterlife.

do you find "those" episodes of south park to be utterly offensive or do you laugh your ass off at them?

do you find "those" episodes of south park to be utterly offensive or do you laugh your ass off at them?

I won't lie and say I've never seen them. I find some parts funny, some parts mildly offensive, but not so much that it really bothers me.

Well, the thing is, its only done for non-members. Members would have already been baptised.

No, I don't think it's disrespectful at all. From my religious standpoint, they are actually waiting for me to do it so that they can accept the Gospel in the afterlife.


I'm sorry, but it all sounds too much like being made a member in a club you didn't want to join...etc.

But from certain religious standpoint it could condemn them to hell. Do people have the option of asking the church to not do this ceremony?

Yes, I corrected myself in another post. I mentioned the Heavenly Mother.

Ah, my mistake. Sorry.

I'm enjoying this thread because many of the questions asked here are ones I asked when I was investigating the Church so many years ago. 1989 it was.

EDR

Why would you accept Joe Smith (a fanatic) as a prophet, and not Mohammed?

You both "believe in the Bible" and you both have another book "equal to the Bible" - so why does Smith have authority, and not Mohammed?

I'm sorry, but it all sounds too much like being made a member in a club you didn't want to join...etc.

But from certain religious standpoint it could condemn them to hell. Do people have the option of asking the church to not do this ceremony?

I certainly think they can do so. More importantly, our belief is not that baptism by proxy necessarily makes them members of our religion, but provides an option for them that would not otherwise be possible. The (spirit) individual is not required to accept the offer, to put it another way.

EDR

I certainly think they can do so. More importantly, our belief is not that baptism by proxy necessarily makes them members of our religion, but provides an option for them that would not otherwise be possible. The (spirit) individual is not required to accept the offer, to put it another way.

EDR

Myself, I'm not really upset by it. But I could see how some people could be.
I understand "your" side of it, but I also understand "their" side of it. But the followers of some of the really big religions, such as Catholics, in their belief-system, it takes very little to send them straight to hell, and this ceremony just might. Don't you think it would be right to at least ask people or their families if they want this done in their name?

Hello. I am a Latter-Day Saint from the Woodbridge, Virginia Stake. I was wondering if I could help you guys with any questions. I am only a Priest, but I would like to help any way I can.

EDIT: By Priest, I do not mean a minister or a pastor that you would see in Baptist churches or Catholic churches or other christian sects.

First off, I would like to put down our basic beliefs, called the thirteen Articles of Faith.

1 WE believe in God, the Eternal Father, and in His Son, Jesus Christ, and in the Holy Ghost.

2 We believe that men will be punished for their own sins, and not for Adam’s transgression.

3 We believe that through the Atonement of Christ, all mankind may be saved, by obedience to the laws and ordinances of the Gospel.

4 We believe that the first principles and ordinances of the Gospel are: first, Faith in the Lord Jesus Christ; second, Repentance; third, Baptism by immersion for the remission of sins; fourth, Laying on of hands for the gift of the Holy Ghost.

5 We believe that a man must be called of God, by prophecy, and by the laying on of hands by those who are in authority, to preach the Gospel and administer in the ordinances thereof.

6 We believe in the same organization that existed in the Primitive Church, namely, apostles, prophets, pastors, teachers, evangelists, and so forth.

7 We believe in the gift of tongues, prophecy, revelation, visions, healing, interpretation of tongues, and so forth.

8 We believe the Bible to be the word of God as far as it is translated correctly; we also believe the Book of Mormon to be the word of God.

9 We believe all that God has revealed, all that He does now reveal, and we believe that He will yet reveal many great and important things pertaining to the Kingdom of God.

10 We believe in the literal gathering of Israel and in the restoration of the Ten Tribes; that Zion (the New Jerusalem) will be built upon the American continent; that Christ will reign personally upon the earth; and, that the earth will be renewed and receive its paradisiacal glory.

11 We claim the privilege of worshiping Almighty God according to the dictates of our own conscience, and allow all men the same privilege, let them worship how, where, or what they may.

12 We believe in being subject to kings, presidents, rulers, and magistrates, in obeying, honoring, and sustaining the law.

13 We believe in being honest, true, chaste, benevolent, virtuous, and in doing good to all men; indeed, we may say that we follow the admonition of Paul—We believe all things, we hope all things, we have endured many things, and hope to be able to endure all things. If there is anything virtuous, lovely, or of good report or praiseworthy, we seek after these things.

I hope this clears up a few questions some of you might have. These are just the basic beliefs as some of you have figured out already, but still a great foundation for our organization and so one.

Why would you accept Joe Smith (a fanatic) as a prophet, and not Mohammed?

You both "believe in the Bible" and you both have another book "equal to the Bible" - so why does Smith have authority, and not Mohammed?

The same reason Muslims believe Mohammed was a prophet, and not Joseph Smith.

Anyone can ask God, and He will tell them. Ask God if Joseph Smith was a prophet, sincerely and with an open mind, and do the same with Mohammed. The Holy Ghost has revealed to me that Joseph Smith was a prophet. And it requires faith.

The only ones who go to Outer Darkness (ie: Hell) are Satan and his demons who followed him out of Heaven in the Premortal Existance (the Sons of Perdition).

Don't forget those that deny the Holy Ghost... :)

Just a lil random add on... sorry...

Ok then, what do you think of this scripture then, if Mormanism does indeed support the Bible: "For I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book, If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book: And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book." Revelations 22:18-19 (KJV)

I think the Book of Mormon constitutes an addition, don't you?

Also, "Behold, he cometh with clouds; and every eye shall see him, and they also which pierced him: and all kindreds of the earth shall wail because of him. Even so, Amen." Revelations 1:7 (KJV)

And, "And then shall appear the sign of the Son of man in heaven: and then shall all the tribes of the earth mourn, and they shall see the Son of man coming in the clouds of heaven with power and great glory." Matthew 24:30 (KJV)

In short, EVERYONE will see when Christ returns, therefore if what you claim is true, then it makes sense that many of the cultures around the world would have documented it. Well, where's the proof then??

Few Quetions:

a)Do you believe God was once human?

b)Do you believe God's sons were Lucifer and Christ?

c)Do you believe Jesus reigned with God and was there from the beginning.. this kind of ties in with the second question

Ok then, what do you think of this scripture then, if Mormanism does indeed support the Bible: "For I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book, If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book: And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book." Revelations 22:18-19 (KJV)

I think the Book of Mormon constitutes an addition, don't you?

This refers to that book only, the Book of Revelations. The Book of Mormon is a compilation of seperate records by people from ancient times, just like the Old Testament and the New Testament.

Also, "Behold, he cometh with clouds; and every eye shall see him, and they also which pierced him: and all kindreds of the earth shall wail because of him. Even so, Amen." Revelations 1:7 (KJV)

And, "And then shall appear the sign of the Son of man in heaven: and then shall all the tribes of the earth mourn, and they shall see the Son of man coming in the clouds of heaven with power and great glory." Matthew 24:30 (KJV)

In short, EVERYONE will see when Christ returns, therefore if what you claim is true, then it makes sense that many of the cultures around the world would have documented it. Well, where's the proof then??

And while reading this, it appears to be talking about the second coming of Christ. Luke 21:27-28 says much of the same. It just explains how the Lord will come at his Second Coming.
"27 And then shall they see the Son of man coming in a cloud with power and great glory.
28 And when these things begin to come to pass, then look up, and lift up your heads; for your redemption draweth nigh."
But also to answer your question, there are writings from other cultures that have not been found yet, or that never had a written record. No one is truly sure.

Thechya may be able to correct me or to add on, but this is my input.

Ok then, what do you think of this scripture then, if Mormanism does indeed support the Bible: "For I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book, If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book: And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book." Revelations 22:18-19 (KJV)

I think the Book of Mormon constitutes an addition, don't you?

you are aware, of course, that revelation was always a controversial book, and very nearly didn't make it into the canon.

I'm Mormon as well, and it seems my friend and I have a disagreement.
Actually Mormon doctrine implies that there is a heavenly mother just like a heavenly father. We don't talk about her much because heavenly father left her out because he didn't wish people to use her name in vain, etc.

Ok then, what do you think of this scripture then, if Mormanism does indeed support the Bible: "For I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book, If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book: And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book." Revelations 22:18-19 (KJV)

I think the Book of Mormon constitutes an addition, don't you?

Also, "Behold, he cometh with clouds; and every eye shall see him, and they also which pierced him: and all kindreds of the earth shall wail because of him. Even so, Amen." Revelations 1:7 (KJV)

And, "And then shall appear the sign of the Son of man in heaven: and then shall all the tribes of the earth mourn, and they shall see the Son of man coming in the clouds of heaven with power and great glory." Matthew 24:30 (KJV)

In short, EVERYONE will see when Christ returns, therefore if what you claim is true, then it makes sense that many of the cultures around the world would have documented it. Well, where's the proof then??

Your first scripture refers to those who wish to change what the Bible says, which has happened through the years. The Book of Mormon does not add to the Bible, it is its own book and teaches almost identical principles. Your other scripture refers to the second coming of Christ, referred to by other religions as the rhapsody.

Few Quetions:

a)Do you believe God was once human?

b)Do you believe God's sons were Lucifer and Christ?

c)Do you believe Jesus reigned with God and was there from the beginning.. this kind of ties in with the second question

We don't know if he was once human. I have no idea. It never says. But yes, Lucifer and Christ were brothers. Lucifer wished to have all men achieve glory by never being allowed to sin, by being forced to do good. Lucifer also wished for the glory to be his for this, not God's. Christ sided with the father in giving men a choice. As for your last question, as Christ was God's son he couldn't be there as long as God was, but he was always on God's side and reigns with God as a member of the Godhead.

The same reason Muslims believe Mohammed was a prophet, and not Joseph Smith.

Anyone can ask God, and He will tell them. Ask God if Joseph Smith was a prophet, sincerely and with an open mind, and do the same with Mohammed. The Holy Ghost has revealed to me that Joseph Smith was a prophet. And it requires faith.

Your NationStateHere is also comparing apples with oranges. Smith and Mohammed didn't believe the same thing and had different sets of teachings. Just because they both have the same circumstances doesn't mean that both of them are right or both are wrong. One or the other could be right. I also have a testimony of Joseph Smith.

P.S. Please don't call Joseph a fanatic. He is one of the greatest men who ever lived and was not a fanatic. He believed strongly in what was right. If that makes him a fanatic then I'm one too.

No answer to my question?

Myself, I'm not really upset by it. But I could see how some people could be.
I understand "your" side of it, but I also understand "their" side of it. But the followers of some of the really big religions, such as Catholics, in their belief-system, it takes very little to send them straight to hell, and this ceremony just might. Don't you think it would be right to at least ask people or their families if they want this done in their name?


It's not like we're performing satanic rituals or something. If this sends anyone to hell, then may I forever rest in torment. They can accept it or not. Tell me, if you were dead and you knew a church was true and you knew that the if you only became a member you would be better off, would you want your descendants making that decision or would you want that decision for yourself? We used to ask families but then this sort of logic popped up.

Wow, I didn't know that. But why are family members an exception? And what is the point of the baptisms for the dead?

Actually you don't have to have a family member's permission. There have been Jewish baptisms for the dead before. We used to have to have permission but no longer. In fact the whole thing was started because of some people who had died in concentration camps.

It's not like we're performing satanic rituals or something. If this sends anyone to hell, then may I forever rest in torment. They can accept it or not. Tell me, if you were dead and you knew a church was true and you knew that the if you only became a member you would be better off, would you want your descendants making that decision or would you want that decision for yourself? We used to ask families but then this sort of logic popped up.

I know those aren't satanic rituals, but to some they might as well be. And many catholics and jews think this might send them to hell no matter what people of another faith believe. I really think this is very inconsiderate. Forcing a ritual on someone, even if it's done when they are dead and not present, is not ethical.

Personally, I don't think I will be making any decisions when I'm dead, I think I'd prefer to make them before that happens.

Joseph Smith, for one who claimed to be a "divine translator" in direct communication with his God, made hundreds of prophesies, some with exact dates, which have not come true. Doesn't this throw considerable doubt on his integrity?

In the Bible:

"And if thou say in thine heart, How shall we know the word which the Lord hath not spoken? When a prophet speaketh in the name of the Lord, if the thing follow not, nor come to pass, that is the thing which the Lord hath not spoken, but the prophet hath spoken it presumptuously..." Deut 18:21-22

In other words, Jesus told Christians how to spot a false prophet. Those who have their prophesies fulfilled are prophets. Those who do not are not prophets of God.

For example, Sept 22-23, 1832. D&C 84:114-115. New York, Albany and Boston will be destroyed if they reject the gospel. The "hour of their judgment is nigh..." New York has not been destroyed.

Apr 28, 1842. Joseph Smith prophesies about the newly-founded Relief Society: "before ten years... the queens of the earth shall come and pay their respects to this Society. They shall come with their millions and shall contribute of their abundance for the relief of the poor." [Quinn p. 634] No Queens have ever contributed to the Mormon cult.

And best of all:

August 27, 1843. HC 5:554. Joseph Smith announces in a sermon: "I [Joseph Smith] prophesy and bear record this morning that all the combined powers of earth and hell shall not and cannot ever overthrow or overcome this boy, for I have a promise from the eternal God. If I have sinned, I have sinned outwardly; but surely I have contemplated the things of God."

Within a year of saying this, he was asassinated.

EDIT: Oh, and for the record, I'm atheist, and support to immediate disbanding of organised religion.


For an atheist, you sure know a lot about religion. Anyway, most of what you said is easily refuted. 1) Notice how it says "if they reject the gospel" if is the key word. 2) Metaphorical queens, not literal. And it offends me to have you speak of my faith as a cult as it is not. 3) Again a bit metaphorical, it means that no one can stop his work that he started, not him.

Alex, and any other Mormons out there, I ask you only to read this message, here: http://www.chick.com/reading/books/126/126cont.asp I'm only asking you to read it, but read it with an attentive mind and an open heart.

I know those aren't satanic rituals, but to some they might as well be. And many catholics and jews think this might send them to hell no matter what people of another faith believe. I really think this is very inconsiderate. Forcing a ritual on someone, even if it's done when they are dead and not present, is not ethical.

Personally, I don't think I will be making any decisions when I'm dead, I think I'd prefer to make them before that happens.

No offense meant, but you're not getting it. We don't force this on them. This is their choice. They aren't truly baptized until they accept it. If not the ritual doesn't apply to them. We give them a choice and if they don't want it they don't have to accept it. Let me see if I can get this to a easier way to understand it. Its like saying this "When you're on vacation, we'll sign you up for this program that gives you a better life. We get the letter all signed and everything, but check with you before we send it. If you don't want to join, we'll throw the letter away. If you do, we'll send it. No harm done.

And many catholics and jews think this might send them to hell no matter what people of another faith believe.

I am not a Mormon, but, why would a Catholic or Jew believe they would go to hell for a ritual performed for them against their consent after their death? Anyways, Jews don't believe in hell, I don't think?

I am not a Mormon, but, why would a Catholic or Jew believe they would go to hell for a ritual performed for them against their consent after their death? Anyways, Jews don't believe in hell, I don't think?

I think he was referring to the performers, not the performees, heh. And, correct me if I'm wrong here, but IIRC the Jewish faith holds that when one dies they go to Paradise to await the day of the Messiah when then they will go to Heaven. Now, I'm Protestant Christian myself, so I'm not gonna open that can of worms on the Messiah, ;)

I am not a Mormon, but, why would a Catholic or Jew believe they would go to hell for a ritual performed for them against their consent after their death? Anyways, Jews don't believe in hell, I don't think?

I don't know the jewish standpoint on this all too well but I know the jewish are particularly opposed to this ritual for some religious reasons. It was on the news when the holocaust thing came up.
The catholics believe that the "babtism" is an act of heresy which sends them to hell. I remember a discussion on it on NS a very long time ago.

No offense meant, but you're not getting it. We don't force this on them. This is their choice. They aren't truly baptized until they accept it. If not the ritual doesn't apply to them. We give them a choice and if they don't want it they don't have to accept it. Let me see if I can get this to a easier way to understand it. Its like saying this "When you're on vacation, we'll sign you up for this program that gives you a better life. We get the letter all signed and everything, but check with you before we send it. If you don't want to join, we'll throw the letter away. If you do, we'll send it. No harm done.

But the ritual itself is performed. You must understand that alot of people don't believe in the same things you do. It is to many people the same as casting voodoo spells at someone.

The catholics believe that the "babtism" is an act of heresy which sends them to hell. I remember a discussion on it on NS a very long time ago.

A Catholic who receives a LDS baptism while alive assuredly would be committing heresy according to Catholic beliefs, but they can't control what is done in their name after their death. Are you saying that Catholics would believe that the Pope would go to hell if a LDS temple decided to perform a ritual baptism for him after his death?

A Catholic who receives a LDS baptism while alive assuredly would be committing heresy according to Catholic beliefs, but they can't control what is done in their name after their death. Are you saying that Catholics would believe that the Pope would go to hell if a LDS temple decided to perform a ritual baptism for him after his death?

Some probably do... I wish there was someone catholic in here, I remember alot of them being furious over this.

Alex, and any other Mormons out there, I ask you only to read this message, here: http://www.chick.com/reading/books/126/126cont.asp I'm only asking you to read it, but read it with an attentive mind and an open heart.

Good link, thank you.

My question: How do Mormoms reconsile the statement in the scriptures (presented below in 3 translated versions) -

"For by grace you have been saved through faith; and that not of yourselves, it is the gift of God; not as a result of works, that no one should boast." Ephesians 2:8-9 (New American Standard Translation).

"For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God: Not of works, lest any man should boast" (King James Version)

"For by grace you have been saved through faith; and this is not your own doing, it is the gift of God -- not because of works, lest any man should boast." (Revised Standard Edition).

It seems to me that your requirement of actual, physical baptism before you can enter the celestial kingdom is a "works." If I'm saved through faith and not works, why then do I have to be physically baptized? This is a confusing idea to me.

The same reason Muslims believe Mohammed was a prophet, and not Joseph Smith.

That implies that Joseph Smith was not a prophet and has no authority, because Mohammed was not a prophet and had no authority.

Anyone can ask God, and He will tell them.

Now you make all men prophets... Many at Waco thought they'd found the Messiah; and they were wrong.

How would they justify their beliefs?

"Ask God!"

How are you any different from them? I don't accept circular logic.

---

OT a bit: per the Catholic Church and Mormonism;

The Catholic Church has stated that so far are the beliefs of Mormons from Christianity that their baptisms are considered invalid and they are excluded from the Christian community. This includes the so-called "baptism for the dead" which is simply a ritual performed in futility at so many temples wherever they may be.

I am a Roman Catholic.

I'm LDS and if we can condemn people to hell without their being there we have the ULTIMATE BLACKMAIL tool. We can extort money from descendants to keep their families out of hell. It's genius.

Seriously, if we could send someone to hell after they're dead you're ascribing to us powers beyond those Satan is even hinted to have. If we have the Priesthood to do this then we're right anyways and it's a gift. If we don't we're getting a lot of people wet while reciting a meaningless ceremony and attaching a name to it. If the devil can use that to damn someone I'm on the wrong side (not wrong religion...but obviously Satan is more powerful than God at that point)

Also a few of the statements by LDS people on this board are their theories. Take it with a grain of salt.

Alright, getting down to business.

You say that Cain and his decendants were made black because of his sin. Show me scripture that specifies this please. This sounds eerily familiar, I.E. When Noah cursed the sons of Ham, Christians pointed to this and declared, without direct proof that the sons of Ham were made black, and therefore, had to be slaves. Why was this inference made? Because they were slaves. Circular logic.

It is written that the Lord put a mark on Cain so that no one who found him would kill him. Then Cain left for the land of Nod (Also implying that perhaps there was another civilization before Eden?*) which is east of Eden. East. If we assume that Eden was somewhere in the vicinity of the Tigris and Euphrates (modern Iraq), Cain would have gone into Asia, not Africa.

*My mistake. Nod means wandering. The land of Nod is therefore The Land of Wandering.

Okay, probably married an older sister (nothing states Cain was the eldest) or even a niece.

The curse of Cain is an extrapolation used to attempt to justify something. It may be the right reason. I doubt it. What our scriptures do say is that the Pharoah of Egypt claimed the Priesthood when he had no right to it (whatever that means, either lack of ordination or some sin). Pharoah however was attempting to imitate the order of heaven and was blessed with the blessings of the earth and of wisdom (hardly a mandate for slavery). This is all from our Book of Abraham.

Early LDS saints were mostly abolitionists (part of the reason the Missourians were very wary of them entering the state). There is a huge academic debate on the nature of the Priesthood ban. No one I know of has given a definitive statement on it's nature. It's gone now, I say let it die.

Question:
I heard from someone that there was an incident where Joseph Smith and some other people slaughtered a caravan of innocents because God told him to. I don't remember details, so it's not exact. Is this true or even remotely true?

You're referring to the Meadow Mountain Massacre. A group of Arkansas immigrants were passing through Utah going west. Joseph Smith was dead at the time. Brigham Young was the Prophet and President of the Church. One of the church's Apostles had just been killed by people who could be remotely connected to those in the caravan.

A local leader organized some members of the Church, disguised them as Indians, claimed the action was authorized, and massacred the caravan. There is no direct evidence that it was authorized by any of the Church leaders. There are accounts stating that Brigham Young dispatched a messenger ordering the people to let the caravan pass and that he arrived too late.

People opposed to the church argue that this was created after the fact. This is unlikely in my opinion. Even if Brigham Young was a cold-hearted bastard (I don't think he was at all) he was smart. The Mormons had enough trouble with the United States government without stirring up more. There is no concrete proof either way though in terms of letters, orders, etc.

There was never an announcement from the general leadership of the Church that God wanted those people dead and according to church doctrine only they could declare such a doctrine.

Also a few of the statements by LDS people on this board are their theories. Take it with a grain of salt.
I couldn't have said that anybetter myself. If anyone wants a second opinion feel free to TG me or e-mail me.

You're referring to the Meadow Mountain Massacre. A group of Arkansas immigrants were passing through Utah going west. Joseph Smith was dead at the time. Brigham Young was the Prophet and President of the Church. One of the church's Apostles had just been killed by people who could be remotely connected to those in the caravan.

A local leader organized some members of the Church, disguised them as Indians, claimed the action was authorized, and massacred the caravan. There is no direct evidence that it was authorized by any of the Church leaders. There are accounts stating that Brigham Young dispatched a messenger ordering the people to let the caravan pass and that he arrived too late.

People opposed to the church argue that this was created after the fact. This is unlikely in my opinion. Even if Brigham Young was a cold-hearted bastard (I don't think he was at all) he was smart. The Mormons had enough trouble with the United States government without stirring up more. There is no concrete proof either way though in terms of letters, orders, etc.

There was never an announcement from the general leadership of the Church that God wanted those people dead and according to church doctrine only they could declare such a doctrine.
It was, however, mormons doing what they belived was the will of the church. This does not make it right or justified, and it something that I am personally ashamed was ever commited by people of my faith.

how do you reconcile the fact that stories in the book of mormon, circa 600 bce, mention horses, yet it is known that horses didn't exist on this continent until around 1500 ce?

not to mention wheat, barley, cows, donkeys, chariots, swords, jewish-style temples, etc., all of which ae completely absent from the americas in the time frame given by the book of mormon.

Okay, probably married an older sister (nothing states Cain was the eldest) or even a niece.

The curse of Cain is an extrapolation used to attempt to justify something. It may be the right reason. I doubt it. What our scriptures do say is that the Pharoah of Egypt claimed the Priesthood when he had no right to it (whatever that means, either lack of ordination or some sin). Pharoah however was attempting to imitate the order of heaven and was blessed with the blessings of the earth and of wisdom (hardly a mandate for slavery). This is all from our Book of Abraham.

Early LDS saints were mostly abolitionists (part of the reason the Missourians were very wary of them entering the state). There is a huge academic debate on the nature of the Priesthood ban. No one I know of has given a definitive statement on it's nature. It's gone now, I say let it die.

There is a bit more to it than that.

And the Priesthood ban only ended in 1978.

Heres something I'd like to know.

Please exscuse the accusory tone of this question.
I find Mormonism to be no more silly than than any other religion, altough admittedly, I find them all pretty silly.

So...these questions will mainly revolve around Joseph Smith.

1.While in his backyard, Smith claims to be visited by an angel "Moroni", no one claims to have witnessed these meetings.
Awfully conveinient isnt it?

2. The tablets and the device for translating this "angelic script"
No one was allowed to see either of these devices.
How do you know for certain they existed?

3. I have been told by at least one mormon that a few people were allowed to view these items, however, hey were close friends and family of Smith, and would almost certainly have corroborated his lies, if indeed no such items truly existed.

4. The idea of the tribe of Isrealites crossing the landbridge between russia, and modern day Alaska is ludicrous.
Considering that by the time there were people who identified themselves as Isrealites, the land bridge had been overtaken by water millennia ago.

5.When texts of Smiths writings were lost, or destroyed, Smith could not reproduce the texts exactly as they had originally appeared.
Indeed entire passages were not the same, and the new texts beared almost no resemblance to the former ones.

6. Correct me if im wrong, but the highest stage of Heaven, suppossedly, is to rule as a god yourself, over an earth of your own making.
Doesnt this clash a little of "Thou shalt not worship any God before me.."


I guess what Im saying is, if you read a little about Smith, its completely easy to think that he fabricated the entire story, and when his followers increased, mainly becuase spiritualism and alternate religion was so much in vogue at the time, the money started coming as well.
Once so many people began to believe Smith, there was no going back, to admit he had fabricated the whole thing was have been suicide by angry mob.

"The Angel Moron-I"....come on....!

We believe that Jesus is the Son of God, and all that is said in the Bible. The only real difference we have from mainstream Christianity is that we believe that He visited the Americas shortly after his ressurection, and we also believe that He, the Father, and the Holy Ghost are three separate and distinct beings.

Last I heard, there wasn't anything about "spirit children" in mainstream Christianity, and nothing about Joseph Smith. Nothing about posthumous baptism.

BTW, why is it that despite agreeing multiple times not to do it anymore, the LDS Church is still posthumously baptizing Jews? This is apparently the third time around - they promise not to do it, and then turn around and do it.

The following equation best sums up how Mormons understand the universe and the purpose of life: As humans are, God used to be; as God is, humans may become.

One main key to getting the gist of Mormonism is the belief that a person's existence doesn't begin with birth on this earth. Rather, Mormons believe that all people lived as spirits before coming here. For Mormons, this belief helps explain a whole lot about the conditions and purposes of this earthly life, which they view as God's test of his children. In addition, Mormons hold some unusual views about the afterlife, particularly regarding what human beings can become.

If life doesn't start with conception and birth, when does it start? For Mormons, it never really started, because each person has an eternal essence that has always existed. However, Mormons believe that God created spiritual bodies to house each person's eternal essence, so he's the spiritual father of humankind. All human spirits were born before the earth was created.

Sitting at the knee of God and his wife, many spirit children expressed a desire to grow up and become like their Heavenly Parents. So God set up the plan of salvation, which involved creating an earth where his children could gain physical bodies and go through a challenging test of faith and obedience. Those who pass the test with flying colors get the chance to eventually start an eternal family like God's.

In premortality, as Mormons call this stage, two of the oldest spirit siblings made a big impression. The first spirit, named Jehovah, volunteered to help everyone overcome the sin and death they'd unavoidably encounter during the earthly test, and this brother was eventually born on earth as Jesus Christ. Mormons believe he's their Savior and strive to be like him. The other spirit, named Lucifer, rebelled against God's plan of salvation, convincing a bunch of siblings to follow him and start a war. God banished Lucifer and his followers to the earth without bodies, and Mormons believe that these spirits are still trying to win humans to their side and thwart God's plan.

Good news: In the Mormon view, everyone who's born on this earth chose to follow God's plan of salvation and come here. Even those who give in to evil during earthly life will still receive an eternal reward for making the correct choice during premortality. Mormons don't believe that humans are born carrying the stain of Adam's original sin, as Catholics and some Protestants do. But they do believe that each individual's circumstances in this life are at least partly influenced by what that person did in premortality.

One difficult aspect of this mortal test is that humans can't remember what happened in premortality, so they must rediscover their divine origins through faith. However, God sent Jesus Christ not only to overcome sin and death but also to establish the gospel, which serves as a road map back to God. Two kinds of messengers help people understand and follow this gospel: prophets and the Holy Ghost, a spiritual being who speaks directly to the human spirit. By listening to these guides, people can figure out the puzzle of life. Unfortunately, the devil strives to fill the world with distractions and counterfeits.

Another hard aspect of the earthly test is that God generally won't interfere with people's freedom to act, even when they do terrible things to each other or fail miserably. In addition, God allows accidents, natural disasters, illnesses, and other difficulties to challenge his children and prompt them to seek him out. For Mormons, it helps to remember that these temporary trials represent a mere blink of the eye on an eternal scale, and they exercise faith that God will comfort and protect those who ask for his help to endure suffering.

During mortality, Mormons believe that everyone needs to participate in certain rituals in order to live with God in the afterlife and become like him. Someone holding God's priesthood authority, which Mormons believe currently comes only through the LDS Church, must perform these rituals. If a person dies without receiving these ordinances, Mormons perform the rituals in temples on behalf of the deceased person, whose spirit then decides whether or not to accept. These ordinances are

Baptism
Confirmation, which includes receiving the gift of the Holy Ghost
Priesthood ordination
Washing and anointing
Endowment
Sealing, including celestial marriage for those wedded on earth
Life after mortal life

Mormons believe that when humans die, they slough off their physical bodies and return to the spiritual state. Some go to spirit paradise, and some go to spirit prison. Mormons believe that the spirits in paradise visit the spirits in prison and teach them the gospel, and some choose to accept it and cross over into paradise. Whether they're in paradise or prison, the stopover in the spirit world is only temporary, because God has greater things in store.

Eventually, after God's spirit children have experienced their earthly tests and paid for their sins either by receiving the Savior's Atonement or suffering themselves, he'll resurrect everyone with perfect physical bodies that will last forever. Then he'll sort people into three heavenly kingdoms:

Telestial kingdom: Those who live in sin, die without repenting, and never accept the Savior's Atonement go here, after suffering for their own sins in spirit prison.
Terrestrial kingdom: Those who live good lives but don't embrace the full gospel will inherit this kingdom. Jesus pays for their sins.
(Both the telestial kingdom and the terrestrial kingdom are glorious paradises, not hell or places of torture.)
Celestial kingdom: This highest kingdom is reserved for those who live the full gospel and receive the proper ordinances. This kingdom is where God lives and where his children can become like him.

Not even close to mainstream Protestantism. Not even close.

I'm not criticising so please don't misunderstand me, I'm just really interested (which sometimes comes across as being argumentative!). How do you justify believing most of the Bible but not the Trinity being one, which is kind of central to it?

I'm not criticising so please don't misunderstand me, I'm just really interested (which sometimes comes across as being argumentative!). How do you justify believing most of the Bible but not the Trinity being one, which is kind of central to it?

I'm still waiting for him to come back and answer the other questions.

You're referring to the Meadow Mountain Massacre. A group of Arkansas immigrants were passing through Utah going west. Joseph Smith was dead at the time. Brigham Young was the Prophet and President of the Church. One of the church's Apostles had just been killed by people who could be remotely connected to those in the caravan.

A local leader organized some members of the Church, disguised them as Indians, claimed the action was authorized, and massacred the caravan. There is no direct evidence that it was authorized by any of the Church leaders. There are accounts stating that Brigham Young dispatched a messenger ordering the people to let the caravan pass and that he arrived too late.

People opposed to the church argue that this was created after the fact. This is unlikely in my opinion. Even if Brigham Young was a cold-hearted bastard (I don't think he was at all) he was smart. The Mormons had enough trouble with the United States government without stirring up more. There is no concrete proof either way though in terms of letters, orders, etc.

There was never an announcement from the general leadership of the Church that God wanted those people dead and according to church doctrine only they could declare such a doctrine.
acutally there is plenty of evidence that it was authorized by church leaders. there are a few books on the subject and you can probably find all you need to know on the internet.

How do you justify believing most of the Bible but not the Trinity being one, which is kind of central to it?

no it isn't. the bible never uses the term, and the new testament is inconsistent on the point.

If you don't believe the Nicean Creed, you're technically not a Christian. You could be a Unitarian, or you could be a Mormon - but those two don't follow the Nicean Creed, which is the centerpoint of belief for Christians.

The Nicene Creed

We believe in one God
the Father, the Almighty,
maker of heaven and earth,
of all that is, seen and unseen.

We believe in one Lord, Jesus Christ,
the only Son of God,
eternally begotten of the Father,
God from God, Light from Light,
true God from true God,
begotten, not made,
of one Being with the Father;
through him all things were made.
For us and for our salvation
he came down from heaven,
was incarnate of the Holy Spirit
and the Virgin Mary
and became truly human.
For our sake he was crucified
under Pontius Pilate;
he suffered death and was buried.
On the third day he rose again
in accordance with the Scriptures;
he ascended into heaven
and is seated at the right hand
of the Father.
He will come again in glory
to judge the living and the dead,
and his kingdom will have no end.

We believe in the Holy Spirit, the Lord,
and the giver of life,
who proceeds from the Father and the Son,
who with the Father and the Son
is worshiped and glorified,
who has spoken through the prophets.
We believe in the one holy catholic
(Christian) and apostolic church.
We acknowledge one baptism
for the forgiveness of sins.
We look for the resurrection of the dead,
and the life of the world to come. Amen

Joseph Smith was a self-professed expert at several dead Middle-eastern languages. He translated the Book of Mormon, then established the city of Nauvoo, a name he chose for its meaning of "beautiful place" in old Hebrew. Except that, it doesn't, and it was a word he invented from whole cloth. My question is this... given the overwhelming evidence that your founder was a fraud, how can anyone continue to believe in Mormonism?

Sorry, I thought this topic was titled "Ask the Moron".

*read through topic*

I still think this topic is titled "Ask the Moron".

The Nicean creed is the centerpoint for Christianity because some Christians think it is? There is no Christian church as such. There is Christianity which has a ton of sects within it. We reject the right of Constantine to gather a group of scholars and declare doctrine (in a fierce debate, I must add that some people left in disgust).

I don't recall Joseph Smith claiming he was an expert. He hired a Jewish teacher to learn Hebrew. He translated some Egyptian but never claimed that wasn't divine translation like the Book of Mormon (language he never claimed to know). Nauvoo was a word Joseph Smith found in a Hebrew dictionary while studying
na-avauh:

Na usually translated as "becometh"
Avauh usually translated as "are beautiful" or "are comely"
Avauh can refer to any noun so it's just a description that can be applied to a city, I have no problem with the use of the word that way. I don't consider the fact that he named a city something overwhelming proof that he was a fraud but to each his own.

I've read books about the Meadow Mountain Massacre. The evidence is circumstantial that church leaders approved of the action. I hate that it happened but it did. I don't think Brigham Young would have authorized it.

BackwoodsSquatches: I'll try to answer your questions to the best of my ability.

1. Moroni only once appeared in his backyard (morning after his first visit) to our knowledge. Angels do those kinds of things and have the ability to tell when they're not going to be seen by others. It is convenient and well-planned.

2&3. They were seen by others and yes, most of those were part of his family or associates of his. There were no 'disinterested' (but how can you be disinterested after seeing them) parties viewing the objects. The interesting thing is that all three of the witnesses who saw the angel while seeing the plates left the Church and many of them fought against it. But none of them ever denied their account of the angelic visitation and of seeing the plates which they would have done as some of them fought Joseph Smith regarding various points of doctrine. Two of them came back to the Church later in life but one died still refusing to deny what he saw.

4. You ask the question in ignorance. They didn't cross the land-bridge. They built a ship and crossed the Indian and Pacific oceans.

5. I don't know what you're talking about here. If you could state what documents you're talking about, I can help you.

6. This doctrine is not often spoken of since we know so little about it. My opinion is that we will continue to worship our father once we ascend to his state. Worship in it's purest sense implies only that the object of the worship is worthy or holy. I would discuss deification if I knew more about it but I pretty much only know it exists.

It's easy to believe Smith fabricated it? The Book of Mormon? Have you read it? It's the greatest evidence we have. History is almost impossible to fake but I haven't found an inconsistency and the whole thing reads like it was a real society with tidbits of political revolutions thrown it.

Your comment about Moroni's name somehow not fitting your aesthetic sense of what a name should sound like is idiotic.

If you don't believe the Nicean Creed, you're technically not a Christian. You could be a Unitarian, or you could be a Mormon - but those two don't follow the Nicean Creed, which is the centerpoint of belief for Christians.

1700 years on, and you guys are still denouncing arius and bishops theonas, secundus, and eusebius. rockin'.

It's easy to believe Smith fabricated it? The Book of Mormon? Have you read it? It's the greatest evidence we have. History is almost impossible to fake but I haven't found an inconsistency and the whole thing reads like it was a real society with tidbits of political revolutions thrown it.

except that the things it talks about have nothing in common with the actual history of the americas. being consistent with yourself is the mark of a decent story-teller. but being consistent with the facts of the world is the important measure when it comes to truth.

and there really were not any horses in the americas during the time period the book of mormon says there were. not a single one.

It's easy to believe Smith fabricated it? The Book of Mormon? Have you read it? It's the greatest evidence we have. History is almost impossible to fake but I haven't found an inconsistency and the whole thing reads like it was a real society with tidbits of political revolutions thrown it.

A single shred of physical evidence which supports this charade would be interesting.

Some notes on the process of translation beginning here: http://www.atheists.org/christianity/mormon.html#seer

I also note some extreme liberties being taken to explain the word Nauvoo. Perhaps you didn't notice that "Nauvoo" and "Na Avauh" are very different.

So because we've found nothing, there could have been no small collection of city states in some area of the world. We have nothing to link them to. We don't know where they landed. We don't know how large they were (probably pretty small considering the army sizes mentioned). The Book of Mormon doesn't say much about what was left after the extermination of the Nephites. The Lamanites could be any native American tribe. We wouldn't know much about the Nephites since the Lamanites wiped out their culture and made it a point to burn their scriptures etc. Then Europeans came and destroyed many more cultures that we're still trying to reconstruct. What do you expect to be found if we're right?

The physical evidence IS the Book of Mormon. Joseph Smith was either the greatest genius charlatan ever to live and devils helped him write the thing or it happened like he said it did. I've debated and discussed these things with literally over a hundred people. Not one of those who attacked Mormonism had read the Book of Mormon cover to cover. Read it. If it's false history (the hardest thing to fake) there should be glaring errors on every other page. Yet it works.

I have read the book of mormon back to back, and I read it as a non-believer. I was like many thinking that Joseph Smith was an imposter and just looking for a break for his monotomous life however. For those who don't know the life of Smith, he was barely literate. So for him to be able to make up a book in the short amount of time he did, would have been amazing. As for the horse comment many peopel have been putting up, recent studies are beginning to show that horses were existent here long before we originally thought they were here. I still have problems some things in the church, such as the appointment of the apostle and the quorum of the twelve, for they seem to be more of an appointed position rather than divinely. However, for all those who are trying to come up with excuses at why LDS doesnt work, try and read their texts before you try and counteract something. Otherwise, you are just wasting your time!

So because we've found nothing, there could have been no small collection of city states in some area of the world. We have nothing to link them to. We don't know where they landed. We don't know how large they were (probably pretty small considering the army sizes mentioned). The Book of Mormon doesn't say much about what was left after the extermination of the Nephites. The Lamanites could be any native American tribe. We wouldn't know much about the Nephites since the Lamanites wiped out their culture and made it a point to burn their scriptures etc. Then Europeans came and destroyed many more cultures that we're still trying to reconstruct. What do you expect to be found if we're right?

If Smith were such a great historian, you'd think he'd have been able to fill in these gaps.

The Europeans destroyed many cultures, but they are being reconstructed based on archaeological evidence gathered from their sites. Where are the ruins of Nephite cities?

The Lemba tribe of South Africa claim to be descended from a lost tribe of Israel, and as they migrated south they built cities. Their claim to descent has been verified genetically... and there are stone ruins along the route. Why did the Nephites not leave any ruins?

Because they were made up.

The physical evidence IS the Book of Mormon. Joseph Smith was either the greatest genius charlatan ever to live and devils helped him write the thing or it happened like he said it did. I've debated and discussed these things with literally over a hundred people. Not one of those who attacked Mormonism had read the Book of Mormon cover to cover. Read it. If it's false history (the hardest thing to fake) there should be glaring errors on every other page. Yet it works.

"The Wheel of Time" works, as it contains no glaring contradictions with itself. And it has just as much corroborating evidence as the Book of Mormon.

False history is the easiest thing in the world to fake, so long as you place your history in a pre-literate environment.

If it's false history (the hardest thing to fake) there should be glaring errors on every other page. Yet it works.

how is it hard to make up an internally consistent history? i mean, fuck, tolkien made up the basic structures of entire languages to go along with his.

where are the horses, chariots, swords, wheat, cows, steel refineries, massive battlefields, etc in the americas at the relevant time?

I also note some extreme liberties being taken to explain the word Nauvoo. Perhaps you didn't notice that "Nauvoo" and "Na Avauh" are very different.

You don't know much about linguistics, do you? I've been studying linguistics for years, and from a linguistic point of view, that's as similar as it gets without being the exact same thing. Joseph Smith would have read Hebrew in the Hebrew alphabet; not in the Roman alphabet written as "Na Avauh". He just spelled it in the Roman alphabet "Nauvoo". It is spoken the same.

how is it hard to make up an internally consistent history? i mean, fuck, tolkien made up the basic structures of entire languages to go along with his.

Yet Tolkien had to spend a lifetime doing it, after years in college and extensive study in linguistics, anthropology, and history. Joseph Smith was uneducated, and produced the Book of Mormon in a very, very short time.

And Tolkien's son went through and had to correct several inconsistencies and there's still a few left in there.

Horses were rare. There is no mention of cavalry anywhere in the book. Chariots are only mentioned three times that I know of (excepting biblical references) in the Book of Mormon. Two were about the chariots of a local king and his father having one. And the word was singular so it's likely only royalty had them...again no mention of them in war scenarios. In 3 Nephi when the whole nation fortified with a large stockpile of food it mentions them gathering all their chariots (guessing an extremely small portion of military since again, they are never mentioned in the battle section. What kind of swords did they use? I don't know. We know Nephi had one steel sword he took from Israel and there were a few more made like it and he taught them how to use steel in some form.

The largest battle I've found in the Book of Mormon involved at least 230,000 dead and that was a desperate battle where they probably armed anyone they could find. Big, but it happened over 1,600 years ago. We probably wouldn't have found it. What species of wheat are we looking for? If it wasn't indigenous what proof do we have in the Book of Mormon that it survived? There were plenty of N. American foodstuffs they could have switched to over the years.

You know, if you really have questions about what "Mormons" believe, I suggest visiting their official site for answering common questions:

http://www.mormon.org/

If your questions isn't already answered, you can ask it and it will be answered.

Right, you can find our basic beliefs at the official website for investigators, http://www.mormon.org

And I didn't want this to turn into a debate; this was for people who had no idea about our religion or who weren't sure, and maybe wanted to know something about it.

You don't know much about linguistics, do you? I've been studying linguistics for years, and from a linguistic point of view, that's as similar as it gets without being the exact same thing. Joseph Smith would have read Hebrew in the Hebrew alphabet; not in the Roman alphabet written as "Na Avauh". He just spelled it in the Roman alphabet "Nauvoo". It is spoken the same.

I don't know if you noticed, but "Na Avauh" consists of Roman letters. I don't even have any Hebrew letters on my keyboard.

We know Nephi had one steel sword he took from Israel and there were a few more made like it and he taught them how to use steel in some form.

We know from Joseph Smith that the Nephites emigrated around 600 BCE.
http://lds.about.com/library/glossary/bldefnephites.htm

And we know that steel did not appear until the Celts began experimenting with softened iron around 200 CE.
http://www.appaltree.net/aba/iron.htm

Ho hum.

The largest battle I've found in the Book of Mormon involved at least 230,000 dead and that was a desperate battle where they probably armed anyone they could find. Big, but it happened over 1,600 years ago.

If every able-bodied man was armed and killed, thus numbered among the 230,000 casualties, you're still talking about a local population of over 600,000 people. You can't have that many people in one place that don't leave their mark behind. The Vikings had less than 1% of that at the peak of their Greenland settlements, and the physical evidence is plentiful.

Dont you believe that god turned Indians red because they were bad?

Maybe the evidence is there and just can't be tied to anything....Aztec? Mayan? Incan? More likely they would be the Lamanite civilization. In the histories it would just be them putting down an upstart rival civilization. There are numerous terms in mesoamerican languages that relate to metallurgy.

I guess no one felt compelled to answer my charge?

Anyway; I suppose a second question would be:

What do you think of the Utah War of 1857 and how it altered Mormon doctrine?

Maybe the evidence is there and just can't be tied to anything....Aztec? Mayan? Incan? More likely they would be the Lamanite civilization. In the histories it would just be them putting down an upstart rival civilization.

There would have to be some striking similarities to Israelite civilization, such as was found at the sites of the Lemba cities.

Of course, the Lamanites are an easy out, because they are completely unidentified... because they, like the Nephites, never existed. Ho hum.

There are numerous terms in mesoamerican languages that relate to metallurgy.

I fail to see how this addresses the problem of Nephi allegedly taking steel from the Middle East 800 years before it was invented.

And here I was led to believe that the Book of Mormon was consistent with the outside world. Disproving it is proving all too easy.

A question after viewing the website: what of Hell?
Jesus Christ had mentioned hell, the eternal place of torment and fire, and surely Moromons believe in Christ? So, what of Hell? Does it exist in Mormonism?
Another question: what of Jesus Himself? It He the Savior, or merely a prophet? Will he bring you do heaven, or just give you an inner happiness?

As far as I've seen it, Mormonism is one of the few heresies of Christianity that are popular today. Please, correct me if I'm wrong, though.

There would have to be some striking similarities to Israelite civilization, such as was found at the sites of the Lemba cities.

Of course, the Lamanites are an easy out, because they are completely unidentified... because they, like the Nephites, never existed. Ho hum.



I fail to see how this addresses the problem of Nephi allegedly taking steel from the Middle East 800 years before it was invented.

And here I was led to believe that the Book of Mormon was consistent with the outside world. Disproving it is proving all too easy.

I could pull a religion out of my ass in an afternoon of frenzied writing, and come up with something more consistent. Hell, L. Ron Hubbard did...

It makes me wonder what would happen if King Henery the VIII Just had a healty son on the first go.

My question: How do Mormoms reconsile the statement in the scriptures (presented below in 3 translated versions) -

"For by grace you have been saved through faith; and that not of yourselves, it is the gift of God; not as a result of works, that no one should boast." Ephesians 2:8-9 (New American Standard Translation).

"For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God: Not of works, lest any man should boast" (King James Version)

"For by grace you have been saved through faith; and this is not your own doing, it is the gift of God -- not because of works, lest any man should boast." (Revised Standard Edition).

It seems to me that your requirement of actual, physical baptism before you can enter the celestial kingdom is a "works." If I'm saved through faith and not works, why then do I have to be physically baptized? Same thing with the "holy clothing" deal - if I have to wear special garments to establish my salvation, am I again not being required to do "works." Why isn't belief and faith in Christ alone enough to save me when he said "I am the way, the truth and the light, no one may come unto the father but through me" and Paul said the above? This is a confusing idea to me.

I don't know if you noticed, but "Na Avauh" consists of Roman letters. I don't even have any Hebrew letters on my keyboard.

Maybe you should reread what I said. But I'll explain further: Joseph Smith read it in the Hebrew alphabet, not you. It doesn't matter if you have Hebrew on your keyboard. He could write it "Na Avauh" or "Nauvoo", or however he wanted. It's still pronounced the same.

If you don't know anything about linguistics, don't toot your horn.


And we know that steel did not appear until the Celts began experimenting with softened iron around 200 CE.
http://www.appaltree.net/aba/iron.htm

I'm not sure that the Book of Mormon specified steel. But smithing swords was actually done in the New World prior to European settelement; evidence concludes that the Proto-Algonquian Indians, much older than 600 BC, smithed swords, but the technology was later lost to their descendants.



1) Greenland preserves settlemental evidence much better than Central America; the Central American climate isn't really adept to preserving history as well as other places.

2) Very little archaelogical research has been done in Central America. New things are constantly being discovered whenever a new dig is funded.

3) It is quite possible the Mayans or Ancient Aztecs were the Nephites or Lamanite civilizations.

I don't want this to be a debate. Please e-mail me if you want to continue.

[quote]Jesus Christ had mentioned hell, the eternal place of torment and fire, and surely Moromons believe in Christ? So, what of Hell? Does it exist in Mormonism?

We believe Hell is the Outer Darkness in which Satan and his followers will be cast into.

Another question: what of Jesus Himself? It He the Savior, or merely a prophet? Will he bring you do heaven, or just give you an inner happiness?

He is the Savior of the World, and the Son of God. Only through Him can we obtain salvation and return to live with our Father in Heaven.

And here I was led to believe that the Book of Mormon was consistent with the outside world. Disproving it is proving all too easy.

I find your arrogance very annoying. You have disproved nothing; you have only bragged about your ignorance to history and my religion. This thread wasn't for people to try to disprove or argue our religion.

"For by grace you have been saved through faith; and that not of yourselves, it is the gift of God; not as a result of works, that no one should boast." Ephesians 2:8-9 (New American Standard Translation).

"For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God: Not of works, lest any man should boast" (King James Version)

"For by grace you have been saved through faith; and this is not your own doing, it is the gift of God -- not because of works, lest any man should boast." (Revised Standard Edition).

It seems to me that your requirement of actual, physical baptism before you can enter the celestial kingdom is a "works." If I'm saved through faith and not works, why then do I have to be physically baptized? Same thing with the "holy clothing" deal - if I have to wear special garments to establish my salvation, am I again not being required to do "works." Why isn't belief and faith in Christ alone enough to save me when he said "I am the way, the truth and the light, no one may come unto the father but through me" and Paul said the above? This is a confusing idea to me.

Yet you have no problem believe that ancient Jews had to be circumcised, as told by Moses, who we believe to be a prophet? Is that not "works" as well?

We believe this scriptures mean that not through works alone; if faith is only required, then you can have faith but do all these terrible things in the world and still go to Heaven? It doesn't seem right. Take a look at these scriptures:

22 But be ye adoers of the word, and not hearers only, deceiving your own selves. - James 1:22 (KJV)

17 Even so faith, if it hath not works, is dead, being alone. - James 2:17 (KJV)

Sorry, I thought this topic was titled "Ask the Moron".

*read through topic*

I still think this topic is titled "Ask the Moron".

I do not recall anyone bashing any of your beliefs or teachings. We Latter-Day Saints have all willingly given up our time to review these questions to help you understand more about our beliefs. We have not opened this thread for those who disagree with us to criticize us. If you do not have anything nice to say, don't say it at all.

Also, I would appreciate if some of you would quit being biased. I haven't seen anyone who has acted mature be biased once, whether they be LDS or not. Unless you are willing to hear the other side of the story, and not be rude in asking questions, I don't think we should have to answer your questions. Thats just my opinion.

I agree. I have donated large amounts of time to patiently answer questions for those who are genuinly interested. I would appreciate it if you didn't force me to spend time arguing your points.

There's no point to posting anti-Mormon material. There is an endless supply of it, and although all if it can be argued by us, I know more will be brought. It's an endless cycle; they just don't give up until they think they're right.

Yet you have no problem believe that ancient Jews had to be circumcised, as told by Moses, who we believe to be a prophet? Is that not "works" as well?

Don't you think it a little presumptious on your part to tell me what I believe? Secondly, Moses and the law were before Jesus and christian salvation through faith in Christ alone, both historically and according to christian doctrine.

We believe this scriptures mean that not through works alone; if faith is only required, then you can have faith but do all these terrible things in the world and still go to Heaven? It doesn't seem right. Take a look at these scriptures:

22 But be ye adoers of the word, and not hearers only, deceiving your own selves. - James 1:22 (KJV)

17 Even so faith, if it hath not works, is dead, being alone. - James 2:17 (KJV)

So, you believe it takes faith and works, is that it? If so, that is one area where where you differ signficicantly from Christianity which teaches that it only takes faith.
Yes, it may not seem right to you that you can have faith and do terrible things and still go to heaven, but since all have sinned and fall short of the glory of god, no amount of works will ever be good enough. If you have real faith you will strive to do good works and not bad, but it is your faith alone, under christian doctrine, that gets you into heaven. Jesus paid the ultimate price for your sin, no matter how bad your sin was. Christianity would explain the verses you cite as explaining that if you have true faith you must act upon it and a failure to act upon is evidence that your faith is not "real" or "true." These verses, however, do not stand for the proposition that you must do "good" works to enter heaven, only that a faith without works is questionable as a faith.
Note, I'm not trying to be a butt, I just see some significant differences between christianity and mormonism and I'm pointing out what I see as a glaring inconsistency between the two and I wanted to see if you could reconsile that inconsistency in a way that made sense to me and did away with that inconsistency in my mind. As it stands now, it is apparently an irreconsilable difference.

The two ideas will never be reconciled. The Faith and Works debate though is insane. The works without faith accomplish nothing. Faith without works is dead and likely not a real faith at all.

Doing good works develops faith. Faith leads to good works. LDS people believe that God asks us to do all we can and then faith and the atonement of Jesus Christ will make up the infinitely huge difference between what we did and what we should have done. To show no effort to become like Christ in preparation is to use him as a convenience.

The two ideas will never be reconciled. The Faith and Works debate though is insane. The works without faith accomplish nothing. Faith without works is dead and likely not a real faith at all.

Doing good works develops faith. Faith leads to good works. LDS people believe that God asks us to do all we can and then faith and the atonement of Jesus Christ will make up the infinitely huge difference between what we did and what we should have done. To show no effort to become like Christ in preparation is to use him as a convenience.

That I have no quarrel with.

However, (you knew there was a however didn't you? :) ) It would seem that a person who accepts Christ and repents at the very end of his life and has no chance to engage in works will be denied the celestial kingdom under Mormom doctrine while under straight Christianity he gets the benefit of the doubt so to speak. Am I correct in this, if not, tell where I'm wrong so I understand. I promise I'm seeking only more understanding of what Mormoms believe and I'm not trying to butt heads or argue endlessly and I've certainly not ridiculed your beliefs at all.

I agree. I have donated large amounts of time to patiently answer questions for those who are genuinly interested. I would appreciate it if you didn't force me to spend time arguing your points.

There's no point to posting anti-Mormon material. There is an endless supply of it, and although all if it can be argued by us, I know more will be brought. It's an endless cycle; they just don't give up until they think they're right.
And the same can be said for you ;) you dont just give up cause you think you are right.

I agree. I have donated large amounts of time to patiently answer questions for those who are genuinly interested. I would appreciate it if you didn't force me to spend time arguing your points.

There's no point to posting anti-Mormon material. There is an endless supply of it, and although all if it can be argued by us, I know more will be brought. It's an endless cycle; they just don't give up until they think they're right.

You "donated" your time in order to spread acceptance of your faith. You cannot expect not to face criticism of your faith in such a forum -- either as a practical or an ethical matter.

You wish to put a shiny happy face on your Church. You are free to do so. Others are free to disagree. Welcome to the free exchange of ideas.

You "donated" your time in order to spread acceptance of your faith. You cannot expect not to face criticism of your faith in such a forum -- either as a practical or an ethical matter.

You wish to put a shiny happy face on your Church. You are free to do so. Others are free to disagree. Welcome to the free exchange of ideas.


Mormonism is, if certain facts are to be believed, very much in the business of putting shiny faces on things.

Shiny golden faces.

http://livejournal.com/users/morma

Maybe the evidence is there and just can't be tied to anything....Aztec? Mayan? Incan? More likely they would be the Lamanite civilization. In the histories it would just be them putting down an upstart rival civilization. There are numerous terms in mesoamerican languages that relate to metallurgy.

Because we all know that the reds couldn't have had an advanced civilization all by themselves.

I'm not sure that the Book of Mormon specified steel. But smithing swords was actually done in the New World prior to European settelement; evidence concludes that the Proto-Algonquian Indians, much older than 600 BC, smithed swords, but the technology was later lost to their descendants.

Alright, I confess that linguistics are not my strong suit. But if you can't even read English, then I have to wonder about your Hebrew.

1 Nephi 4:9 - And I beheld his sword, and I drew it forth from the sheath thereof; and the hilt thereof was of pure gold, and the workmanship thereof was exceedingly fine, and I saw that the blade thereof was of the most precious steel.

More curious than steel is the fact that Nephi navigated with the aid of a compass, some 1800 years before they were discovered:

1 Nephi 18:21 - 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.

There are also frequent mentions of plants and animals which did not exist in pre-Columbian times. If the people were wiped out, their barley, horses, cows, and goats would have lived on after them. They would also serve as signposts pointing out the location of the original Nephite settlements. Where were they when the colonial era began?

Does anyone else find it interesting that the ancient texts translated in to King James' English?

L. Ron Hubbard would grade this book as very bad fiction.

The following equation best sums up how Mormons understand the universe and the purpose of life: <snip lenghty post(#102 for those interested)>
WL just did a very good job of summing it up.

except that the things it talks about have nothing in common with the actual history of the americas. being consistent with yourself is the mark of a decent story-teller. but being consistent with the facts of the world is the important measure when it comes to truth.

and there really were not any horses in the americas during the time period the book of mormon says there were. not a single one.
I have heard speculation that when it says horses it is referring simply to pack animals. And it seems to fit, if I am remembering correctly it never mentions anyone actually riding a horse (which is an extremely obvious and basic use of one). The speculation I have heard is that it may have been llama's. THIS IS NOT OFFICIAL CHURCH TEACHING, SIMPLY SPECULATION.

If you want an interestin book on the history of the America's, read the "Ra Expeditions". It is by a reliable person (name slipping my mind, also wrote "Kon Tiki". Both books are accounts of actual projects of his). The Ra Expiditions points out several, (read creepily many) similarities between middle eastern and egyptian culture and architecture, and ancient American. Also note, the author of the book is not affiliated with the LDS church.

No, death-bed repentance works...if it's sincere. If it's a last-minute attempt to get in good it will fail. The question is if the person were suddenly healed would their stance change. Which according to Mormon doctrine is close to what happens. They die and either serve and obey God in the Spirit World or they don't. Again, their works will show their faith.

The problem is some people (LDS, Christians, and everyone else) don't know another person well enough to know how hard things are for that person so they pass a VERY premature and uninformed judgement. Someone else doing a kind deed may be equal in god's eyes to someone else's martyrdom due to degree of difficulty in their life, upbringing, genetics, etc. I often wonder if I'd grown up in the environment one of the great tyrants had been in would I be any different. I have no idea. So leave it to God.

Hello :) Yeah, I am LDS (Mormon), and I've noticed that in most online communities most people know very little about Mormons, expect for false stereotypical stuff. So I was wondering if anyone had any questions about my religion....
The world does not need Mormons or other ideologically deranged people.

If you want an interestin book on the history of the America's, read the "Ra Expeditions". It is by a reliable person (name slipping my mind, also wrote "Kon Tiki". Both books are accounts of actual projects of his).

That would be Thor Heyerdahl. With his expeditions he tried to proof that Egyptians were able to reach the Americas, as well as that Polynesia was within reach for South American cultures.

You "donated" your time in order to spread acceptance of your faith. You cannot expect not to face criticism of your faith in such a forum -- either as a practical or an ethical matter.

You wish to put a shiny happy face on your Church. You are free to do so. Others are free to disagree. Welcome to the free exchange of ideas.

As you know, the title of this thread is "ASK the Mormon", NOT "BASH the Mormon". We ask that you only ASK questions, not try to tear us down. We haven't done anything to harm you, but we may have offended you, and for that I apologize. But it doesn't call for retaliation. We are not trying to put a shiny face on our religion. As I stated before, this thread is for asking, not bashing. We are only answering questions, not glorifying our church, trying to let you better understand our true beliefs instead of what people who have never been in the church or have studied from church produced materials tell you. We are giving answers from first-hand experiences and from what we have learned by official members of the church and from our own discoveries.

Many problems arise, however. You can't believe a Mormon because he or she might be biased. You can't believe an Anti-Mormon because he or she might be biased. You can't believe a Former-Mormon because he or she might have faced a problem on a personal note with the church and/or be biased (i.e. excommunicated or left due to their own beliefs differing from our teachings, etc.) So, what we lay in front of you, is for you to believe or not. We are just telling you the truth in our eyes, and what we have been taught. You must find this out on your own.

I personally have a testimony that this church is true. I have witnessed, first-hand, the glory of God and of the pure love of Christ. I have felt the Holy Ghost, and it has testified unto me the truthfulness of the Book of Mormon, and by this, I have found the Prophet Josheph Smith to be a true prophet with divine insight from our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ. And if he be a true prophet, then the Prophet Gordon B. Hinckley must be true. The same with all those called to offices within the church, past or present.

Now I hope you take into account what I have said. Just don't be biased with your posts, and leave the stupid posts for yourself. Study before you ask, and hear the viewpoints from both sides of the argument, willingly. If I am wrong, correct me... and make it nice.

EDIT: I'm not personally attacking anyone by quoting. I simply am using it as the basis for my post.

I personally have a testimony that this church is true. I have witnessed, first-hand, the glory of God and of the pure love of Christ. I have felt the Holy Ghost, and it has testified unto me the truthfulness of the Book of Mormon, and by this, I have found the Prophet Josheph Smith to be a true prophet with divine insight from our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ. And if he be a true prophet, then the Prophet Gordon B. Hinckley must be true. The same with all those called to offices within the church, past or present.


I personally testify that my faith is true. I have witnessed, first hand, the glory of God and the pure love of Christ. I have felt the Holy Spirit, and it has testified unto me no such thing as the Book of Mormon, nor did God say anything about you, or Joseph Smith, either.

Everyone has testimony, brother. Keruvalia, I am quite sure, has testimony that he has dealings with Allah. Makes it true for each individual, but it doesn't do much good to testify to others.

Testifying worked in spreading faith in the 19th century, for many different religions. It rarely works today (well, it did work with the three Mormon boys that I turned into Pentacostals in 20 minutes of talk).

As you know, the title of this thread is "ASK the Mormon", NOT "BASH the Mormon". We ask that you only ASK questions, not try to tear us down. We haven't done anything to harm you, but we may have offended you, and for that I apologize. But it doesn't call for retaliation. We are not trying to put a shiny face on our religion. As I stated before, this thread is for asking, not bashing. We are only answering questions, not glorifying our church, trying to let you better understand our true beliefs instead of what people who have never been in the church or have studied from church produced materials tell you. We are giving answers from first-hand experiences and from what we have learned by official members of the church and from our own discoveries.

*snip*

Now I hope you take into account what I have said. Just don't be biased with your posts, and leave the stupid posts for yourself. Study before you ask, and hear the viewpoints from both sides of the argument, willingly. If I am wrong, correct me... and make it nice.

Actually, I have not bashed your religion or been biased in my posts. Nor do I believe I made any stupid posts.

I have mostly stayed away from this thread because I know a great deal about your Church and have studied it extensively. There are aspects of it I would defend and I have corrected erroneous views of the Church in past threads like this one. I have many criticisms of your Church, but have chosen not to feed any prejudices by raising them.

Nonetheless, you cannot ask that people "hear the viewpoints from both sides" and at the same time demand that no one present the other side or ask pointed questions. That was my point. People are free to disagree with your religion. I too would prefer that they do so intelligently -- as I think many here have done. If you don't like to be challenged, tough.

Similarly, it makes little sense to protray yourselves as providing a selfless public service. You are seeking to increase understanding and acceptance of your religion. Nothing wrong with that. But it doesn't deserve special consideration either.

Mormonism is, if certain facts are to be believed, very much in the business of putting shiny faces on things.

Shiny golden faces.

http://livejournal.com/users/morma

That link is a load of crap, that armor has never been in any museum around BYU and that jewel was never worn by a member of our church. Brigham Young (no E... ever) did not shoot Joseph Smith for it. He was killed outside of Carthage Jail by a mob of assassins, who searched him out specifically. And lastly, Joseph Smith was born around 20 years AFTER he supposedly arrived via the ship HMS Redflower mentioned in 1781. I state again what I have said in a previous post. Study both sides of the story before you jump to conclusions. This link is a stupidly hilarious falsity. I thought its truth ended in the beginning, but I guess it wasn't enough. If New Granada, had intended this to be a joke, then I apologize.

EDIT: I'm not personally attacking anyone by quoting. I simply am using it as the basis for my post.

I believe it explains itself Cat...

I personally testify that my faith is true. I have witnessed, first hand, the glory of God and the pure love of Christ. I have felt the Holy Spirit, and it has testified unto me no such thing as the Book of Mormon, nor did God say anything about you, or Joseph Smith, either.

Everyone has testimony, brother. Keruvalia, I am quite sure, has testimony that he has dealings with Allah. Makes it true for each individual, but it doesn't do much good to testify to others.

Testifying worked in spreading faith in the 19th century, for many different religions. It rarely works today (well, it did work with the three Mormon boys that I turned into Pentacostals in 20 minutes of talk).

Just in case you missed it...

Also, I do believe people will try to dispute the arguments set. It is when they are BIASED. That is when I care. And you have at least "studied extensively" our religion. I commend you on that. That is also what I have asked of people. YOU are one of the few who know both sides of the church, if what you read is produced by Mormons, and Anti-Mormons. I leave all of you who read this thread to decide on your own, what you believe, because it is just that, what YOU believe.

I believe it explains itself Cat...

I appreciate that clarification -- which you made after my response.

Nonetheless, my point stands. Both sides cannot be heard unless criticism and pointed questions are welcome.

Not only can you not prevent critique, you should welcome the opportunity to respond to it. That is what the free exchange of ideas is about.

Also, I do believe people will try to dispute the arguments set. It is when they are BIASED. That is when I care. And you have at least "studied extensively" our religion. I commend you on that. That is also what I have asked of people. YOU are one of the few who know both sides of the church, if what you read is produced by Mormons, and Anti-Mormons. I leave all of you who read this thread to decide on your own, what you believe, because it is just that, what YOU believe.

I grew up mostly in Southern Idaho (where most of my family still lives), so I had little choice but to learn about the Church.

I have read little produced by "Anti-Mormons." It is not necessary in order to see problems with the Church.

It is a bit presumptuous to start an "Ask A Mormon" thread and claim you are answering questions, but ask that others study your religion before asking questions.

It is possible, but I doubt you have spent much time studying other religions that you reject. (And I am fully aware of the study of "comparitive religion" in seminary -- it is, in my experience, rarely accurate and very superficial.)

Growing up in Salt Lake City exposed me to all the Mormons I ever needed to meet, unless they want to give up on preaching.

Apparently, the missionaries know to avoid my house now, since I've successfully converted three. The adults who were hosting the boys who pedal up and down my street came down after number three and had a talk with me - they were apparently upset that, without saying anything anti-Mormon, I converted them. This, to them was unfair - that they should have the right to try and convert me, but I should not have the right to convert whomever they send to my door.

Now they stay away.

Horses were rare. There is no mention of cavalry anywhere in the book.

but they certainly had to have had a viable breeding population of them. and just look at what happened with the relatively small number of horses brought over by the spanish that escaped. not only did become wild, they absolutely thrived. the americas were (and are) great land for horses. and horses were so useful that within a very short time after their introduction a large number of agricultural native cultures totally gave up on agriculture and took up what became the plains culture of hunting and gathering.

if there had been any horses brought to the americas prior to the arrival of the spanish, the same thing would have happened even earlier. the spaniards would have arrived to a land filled with horse-based cultures (and consequently would almost certainly not have been able to establish a foothold here, let alone a full on conquest). you cannot bring a new species into an area where conditions are right for it to thrive without it getting out into the environment. nature just doesn't work like that.

It is a bit presumptuous to start an "Ask A Mormon" thread and claim you are answering questions, but ask that others study your religion before asking questions.

I didn't ask them to study. I asked those with questions to ask, not for people who think they already know about it to voice their opinions.

It is possible, but I doubt you have spent much time studying other religions that you reject. (And I am fully aware of the study of "comparitive religion" in seminary -- it is, in my experience, rarely accurate and very superficial.)

In fact, I am taking many theology courses in college. I have read the Quran through (in an English translation, though I'm studying Arabic so that some day I might read an Arabic version). I have also studied Buddhism, Wicca, Catholicism, Taoism and others, though I admit not extensively. I am very interested in religion, and hoped people with the same interest might want to learn about mine. I have close friends that are Protestant, Catholic, and Buddhist as well.

Get your facts straight before you criticize; there is no reason to think that we are religiously ignorant.

Again my question arises, after reading your website, something concerns me greatly.

What of hell? Does it even exist? Is there no place of punishment for those who did not know God?

And, also, what happened to Jesus? Is he a prophet, bringing you merely a form of happiness when you believe in Him? This is what troubles me most. Jesus was the Great Sacrafice, meant to die on behalf of our sins. If such a sacrifice is unecessary, what was Jesus then? Just another prophet?

The word hell isn't used too often in our Church. When we refer to Spirit Prison we mean Hell. The two terms are interchangeable in almost all cases. After death spirits are assigned to one or the other until judgement day. To be sent to hell after judgement is to have rejected Christ utterly with a full knowledge of what that means.

And, also, what happened to Jesus? Is he a prophet, bringing you merely a form of happiness when you believe in Him? This is what troubles me most. Jesus was the Great Sacrafice, meant to die on behalf of our sins. If such a sacrifice is unecessary, what was Jesus then? Just another prophet?

We believe Jesus was the Son of God and the Savior of the World; He died for our sins so that we can return to live with God, and the only to salvation is through Him.

Hello :) Yeah, I am LDS (Mormon), and I've noticed that in most online communities most people know very little about Mormons, expect for false stereotypical stuff. So I was wondering if anyone had any questions about my religion....
A long time ago Mormons were chased out of Palmyra, so why do they keep going back every year in large numbers?

What are mormons views on abortion?

Yet you have no problem believe that ancient Jews had to be circumcised, as told by Moses, who we believe to be a prophet? Is that not "works" as well?

We believe this scriptures mean that not through works alone; if faith is only required, then you can have faith but do all these terrible things in the world and still go to Heaven? It doesn't seem right. Take a look at these scriptures:

22 But be ye adoers of the word, and not hearers only, deceiving your own selves. - James 1:22 (KJV)

17 Even so faith, if it hath not works, is dead, being alone. - James 2:17 (KJV)
Thank you for this point, I now have respect for your church. Faith and works are ESSENTIAL to entering the kingdom of heaven .

I have heard speculation that when it says horses it is referring simply to pack animals. And it seems to fit, if I am remembering correctly it never mentions anyone actually riding a horse (which is an extremely obvious and basic use of one). The speculation I have heard is that it may have been llama's. THIS IS NOT OFFICIAL CHURCH TEACHING, SIMPLY SPECULATION.

Now why would a translator familiar with modern English say "horse" when he means "pack animal", especially one hailing from a time in which the horse was the primary mode of transportation? 1 Nephi 18:25 lists a few pack animals by name, including horses. Horses are also specifically mentioned in Enos 1:21, Alma 18 (repeatedly), Alma 20:6, and 3 Nephi (several places). A man intimately familiar with horses seems to have made the same mistake quite often.

Divinely inspired? Ho hum.

If you want an interestin book on the history of the America's, read the "Ra Expeditions". It is by a reliable person (name slipping my mind, also wrote "Kon Tiki". Both books are accounts of actual projects of his). The Ra Expiditions points out several, (read creepily many) similarities between middle eastern and egyptian culture and architecture, and ancient American. Also note, the author of the book is not affiliated with the LDS church.

Almost everything Thor Heyerdahl concluded has been proven completely wrong. He was a biologist, and should have stuck to biology, leaving archaeology to those better qualified. He shows a very slim grasp of both Middle Eastern and ancient American culture and architecture.

Yeah, well I think Eric Von Dainiken was on the right track myself. :cool:

Almost everything Thor Heyerdahl concluded has been proven completely wrong. He was a biologist, and should have stuck to biology, leaving archaeology to those better qualified. He shows a very slim grasp of both Middle Eastern and ancient American culture and architecture.

though to be fair, he did prove the technical feasibility of ocean-crossing voyages using ancient tech. shame he jumped from there to the 'this must have happened' idea though.

Ok I got a few question.

1. Is it true that theres more than one verison of "The Book of Mormons" and throughout the Mormon Church History, the book has gone through several revision. If this book is suspose to be holy, then how come man have to revision it?

2. What is Blood Atonement? From what I understand, Mormons consider some sins unforgivable by the blood of Christ. So thereforth, a Mormon is obligated to kill the person. Doesn't this seem condridictary to Jesus's teaching? Jesus taught that through him, we can access heaven, and if we accept him as our personal savoir, and ask for forgivness. He will forgive us.

3. Which book holds the higher power? The Holy Bible, or The Book of Mormons.

4. While the Book of Mormons is handed out to the public like candy. Isn't there a second book that isn't given out until a person has entered into the temple?

5. The fact that yall believe that a person that is a pure Mormon, and if he follows the church teaching very closley or perfect, he can become a "God" of his own planet? Doesn't this seem to contridict the commandment "Thou shall have no other Gods before me." Also, the Bible does state several times throughout that God is the one true God. If this is true, then how can there be other Gods?

6. One of my friends who is Catholic (so am I) states that some Mormons baptized his father, and he was outrage. How come those mormons did not ask for permission? I did read that yall came up with "laws" that didn't require you to ask for permission. However, that seems alittle too convient for me.

Thats all for me.

Why is christian fundamentalism like mormonism really worth discussing ?
Here in Europe they are on their stupid mission to proselytize us, but for what? Those retarded country-boys they send here are just rediculous and easily thrown off track since they know nothing about the origins of christianity and the "logic" behind it.
Europe invented christianity in the first place, and we do not need to have our religion brought back to us with a meaningless addition.
The only solution to the Mor(m)on problem would be a big pyre.

I've been wondering...and I know this question has already probably been asked...but what IS in those big buildings in Salt Lake City? You know, the ones non-mormons aren't meant to be into?

And...don't you think posthumous baptismals are a shocking disregard for personal choice while alive?

And...don't you think posthumous baptismals are a shocking disregard for personal choice while alive?

The shocking thing is that three times they have formally agreed to stop baptising Jews posthumously, and three times they turned around IMMEDIATELY and resumed doing it.

It's patently offensive.

Okay - I have a question for one of our Mormon contributors...

In November of 1967, I believe, certain papyrus manuscripts were discovered at the Metropolitan Museum of Art in New York.

These manuscripts contain a match for the characters described in Smith's "Egyptian Alphabet and Grammar" - the text for which shows, in Smith's own hand, the 'translations' for each character.

Also - the Book of Abraham is derived from a papyrus, which has been shown to be identical to that found in the Museum of Art.

Problems: Explain for me if you can:

How can the Papyrus, which was hand-written by Abraham, be only about 2000 years old?

Why does Smith get 49 verses of the "Book of Abraham" from the 'Sensen' scrolls, as they are called? That's more than 2000 words... derived from only four lines of Egyptian text.

Why is it that, when translated consonant with the Rosetta Stone, the passage which inspired the Book of Abraham, seems to be a part of the Egyptian "Book of Breathings"... a ritual scroll, buried with practically every mummy?

Why does Smith translate the passage as the "Book of Abraham", when the text ACTUALLY says "...this great pool of Khonsu...[Osiris Hor, justified], born of Taykhebyt, a man likewise.. After (his) two arms are [fast]ened to his breast one wraps the Book of Breathings, which is... with writing both inside and outside of it, with royal linen, it being placed (at) his left arm... near his heart, this having been done at his... wrapping and outside it. If this book be recited for him, then... he will breath like the soul[s of the gods] for ever and
... ever"?

Okay, to answer a few of the questions, German Kingdoms, I'll take yours first.

1. The idea of several Book of Mormons is both correct and false. The original transcripts of the Book of Mormon lacked punctuation (dictated word by word) and a few changes were made due to changes in the English language since the 1800's. I have copies of both and there are no doctrinal changes between the two editions (I've gone through both editions verse by verse, I was much more suspicious back then) and I prefer reading the original. There has been no attempt to hide the changes. There were also a very few phrases Joseph Smith inserted as explanatory texts later on due to questions.

2. Blood Atonement states only that some sins are so wrong that it is a mercy too kill those people as part of their punishment. The Law of Moses includes such laws. Since the Church is not the temporal or secular authority we have (and admit we have) no right to enforce this law (as Moses did). It's more of a historical anomaly. The church on our website also states that this doctrine does not place any moral obligation on an individual to be for capital punishment politically and the church is neutral on the subject.

3. A book doesn't necessarily have higher power as such. The Book of Mormon is said to be, "the most correct of any book on Earth and a man can grow nearer to God by abiding by it's precepts than any other book"-Joseph Smith. Both are part of our canon and can be used to establish doctrine.

4. I've been through the Temple and have been a volunteer worker there. There is no such book.

5. We know next to nothing of this doctrine. Presumably even when we reach this state God will still be worshipped. Again, this is presumption. My studies and prayers on the subject have met with a feeling of I'll explain later when you're ready.

6. (see below)

Okay the baptismal situation. The standard within the Church is that you submit names of your ancestors and your relatives (or on behalf of another members relatives). Many in their misguided zeal go beyond this standard. In some cases a person converts from another religion and perform the ordinances for their kindred dead and others are offended. I can only assure you the (having worked in the Temple) the ordinances are done respectfully and out of great love. All who do them accept that the dead have the full right to reject the ordinances done, invalidating them completely. In regards to worries about our ordinances affecting the dead. If we have the right to do them, we're right anyways. If we don't, we have no power to aid or harm the dead and waste our time. I don't consider it disrespect at all or offensive. Choice doesn't end at death. Our baptism's are virtually the same as our missionaries knocking on one of the livings doors to offer to teach them. Some consider that offensive. If so, we don't apologize for our mandate to spread the gospel.

They come to Palmyra to proselyte. Additionally they come back for festivals commemorating the restoration of the Church.

Joseph Smith and the Papyri is a subject too complex to take up here. My theory requires too much explanation. You can turn to FARM's and FAIR's website for some of the most prominent LDS theories and to others for their ideas. Acceptance of it is taken on faith by most members.

I didn't ask them to study. I asked those with questions to ask, not for people who think they already know about it to voice their opinions.

Your fellow LDS to which I was responding did.

Have I not made it clear that we do not really care? You have no power to control the thread, nor should you.

I would think you would appreciate the opportunity to correct those who have erroneous opinions about the Church. It appears, however, that you want others to not raise certain points because you lack good answers.

Remove the plank from thine own eye.

In fact, I am taking many theology courses in college. I have read the Quran through (in an English translation, though I'm studying Arabic so that some day I might read an Arabic version). I have also studied Buddhism, Wicca, Catholicism, Taoism and others, though I admit not extensively. I am very interested in religion, and hoped people with the same interest might want to learn about mine. I have close friends that are Protestant, Catholic, and Buddhist as well.

Get your facts straight before you criticize; there is no reason to think that we are religiously ignorant.

Bully for you.

I have very good reason for thinking most LDS are religiously ignorant. I grew up among LDS and know from personal experience that most -- including many that studied other religions at BYU -- are appallingly ignorant of theology and other religions.

The same is true of most religions, however.

All who do them accept that the dead have the full right to reject the ordinances done, invalidating them completely. In regards to worries about our ordinances affecting the dead. If we have the right to do them, we're right anyways. If we don't, we have no power to aid or harm the dead and waste our time. I don't consider it disrespect at all or offensive. Choice doesn't end at death. Our baptism's are virtually the same as our missionaries knocking on one of the livings doors to offer to teach them. Some consider that offensive. If so, we don't apologize for our mandate to spread the gospel.

If you have made a written agreement three times NOT TO DO IT to Jews, and then you go back IMMEDIATELY and resume doing what you agreed not to do - well, that makes your church a lying, oath breaking organization, does it not?

Joseph Smith and the Papyri is a subject too complex to take up here. My theory requires too much explanation. You can turn to FARM's and FAIR's website for some of the most prominent LDS theories and to others for their ideas. Acceptance of it is taken on faith by most members.

It just seems strange to me, that so many people STILL accept a text which has been proved false.

While there are speculations about the nature of the Qu'ran or the Bible, for example, the Book of Mormon is the ONLY 'holy text' I know of that has been proved to have been false.

Why do people CHOOSE to believe it, despite the fact that it is observably untrue?

though to be fair, he did prove the technical feasibility of ocean-crossing voyages using ancient tech. shame he jumped from there to the 'this must have happened' idea though.

There was a rather glaring flaw with that experiment, though. He did get towed out to sea. Presumably, the ancients would have had to deal with the tides.

What he was actually trying to prove was that ancient South Americans sailed west and populated the Polynesian islands... which we now know is a load of bull. The Polynesian islands were settled by Asians sailing east.

It just seems strange to me, that so many people STILL accept a text which has been proved false.

While there are speculations about the nature of the Qu'ran or the Bible, for example, the Book of Mormon is the ONLY 'holy text' I know of that has been proved to have been false.

Why do people CHOOSE to believe it, despite the fact that it is observably untrue?

Grave, I think the fact that they've sidestepped every scientific and historical inconsistency I've pointed out and have repeatedly asked that this not become a debate proves they're not particularly interested in the question of whether the Book of Mormon is true. They believe it because they want to believe it, and they wish people like you and I would stop making them feel foolish about it.

If you have made a written agreement three times NOT TO DO IT to Jews, and then you go back IMMEDIATELY and resume doing what you agreed not to do - well, that makes your church a lying, oath breaking organization, does it not?

I guess they don't want to answer that question, either. Their church is going back to the table for a fourth time - to agree to stop what they agreed to stop before.

Why anyone would continue to negotiate with proven liars is beyond me.

There was a rather glaring flaw with that experiment, though. He did get towed out to sea. Presumably, the ancients would have had to deal with the tides.

What he was actually trying to prove was that ancient South Americans sailed west and populated the Polynesian islands... which we now know is a load of bull. The Polynesian islands were settled by Asians sailing east.

true. and yeah, polynesia was settled in completely the wrong direction for heyerdahl's hypothesis. the one thing that really keeps any of it alive for me is that the sweet potato, which became one of the staples of polynesia, originated in south america and the polynesian word for it bears a striking resemblence to the word used in peru. but it was more probably polynesians making the trip to south america than the other way around.

speaking of which, if you ever go to the polynesian cultural center on oahu, hawaii, it seems that the mormons (who run the thing) are big into american origins for pacific islanders. comes from some stupid thing said by one of their early leaders, i think; pacific islanders are claimed to also be the descendents of the lamanites.

true. and yeah, polynesia was settled in completely the wrong direction for heyerdahl's hypothesis. the one thing that really keeps any of it alive for me is that the sweet potato, which became one of the staples of polynesia, originated in south america and the polynesian word for it bears a striking resemblence to the word used in peru. but it was more probably polynesians making the trip to south america than the other way around.

Absolutely. I don't think there can be any doubt that the Easter Islanders would have remained sea-going people who fished and explored, and the idea that someone would make it to the mainland and return isn't far-fetched at all. And anyone bringing back a strange new food would bring its name with him.

The Easter Islanders would have lost their seafaring abilities once they finished deforesting the island to transport moai.

speaking of which, if you ever go to the polynesian cultural center on oahu, hawaii, it seems that the mormons (who run the thing) are big into american origins for pacific islanders. comes from some stupid thing said by one of their early leaders, i think; pacific islanders are claimed to also be the descendents of the lamanites.

I lived on Oahu for a few years, but never made it to the cultural center. Now that you've told me this, I'm glad I didn't.

Joseph Smith was apparently of the belief that all American Indians were descendants of the Lamanites, so if you buy into the notions of Heyerdahl, and the mind-bogglingly stupid Edgar Cayce, then the idea that the Hawaiians were Lamanites is a natural conclusion. Unfortunately, these two are embraced by Mormonism because they give some credence to the preposterous claims of the Book of Mormon. It makes sense, of course... so long as you're willing to ignore fifty years of anthropological discoveries to the contrary.

But of course, belief in something despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary is the very definition of "faith."

Why did you quote my comments on the papyri and the various theories attached and jump from them to the Book of Mormon. You do know the Book of Mormon never claimed to come from papyri, don't you?

From the Associated Press/April 10, 2004:

"Under the 1995 agreement, the church directed its members not to include the names of unrelated persons, celebrities and certain groups, such as Jewish Holocaust victims, for its "baptisms for the dead," according to documents provided by the LDS church.

The church also assumes that the closest living relative of the deceased being offered for proxy baptism has consented.

"It did not guarantee that no future vicarious baptisms for deceased Jews would occur," church papers say of the agreement. "

There's the agreement, they agreed to DIRECT church members not to include the names of unrelated persons. The Church doesn't screen people before the names are brought to the Temple. I am a member, I have heard several directives come down from the First Presidency telling people to STOP doing this.

Every time they reach this agreement, a letter is sent to be read in EVERY congregation directing people to stop. Those who continue to baptize WWII Jews or anyone else for that matter that aren't related to them are therefore not following the council of the leadership. What more do you want them to do? They did what they promised. They told people to stop AS THEY PROMISED.

But of course, belief in something despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary is the very definition of "faith."

No, faith is believing in something that is supported by facts.

No, faith is believing in something that is supported by facts.

¿qué?

Hello :) Yeah, I am LDS (Mormon), and I've noticed that in most online communities most people know very little about Mormons, expect for false stereotypical stuff. So I was wondering if anyone had any questions about my religion....
Have you ever put a "Jesus Loves You" pamphlet on my car?

Have you ever put a "Jesus Loves You" pamphlet on my car?

No, and I never will. I think bumper stickers are more common though but I wouldn't use one of those either. One of the funniest things I ever saw was a car wrecked (his fault) right in front of me. His bumper sticker read, "God is my copilot".

OT:

One of the funniest things I ever saw was a car wrecked (his fault) right in front of me.

Why is that one of the funniest things you have ever seen? Irregardless of whose fault the accident was or what the bumper sticker said; any car accident is an unfortunate event at best and a tragic event at worst. You should have expressed gratitude that you were not involved and offered up a prayer that the parties involved were not injured. I hope that you stopped to see if anyone was injured and waited for the police to take your statement as a witness.

No, faith is believing in something that is supported by facts.

ROFL. I can see I'm dealing with a real intellectual heavyweight here.

If you have facts, you don't need faith.

I didn't see the wreck and no, no one was hurt but the bumper sticker was hilarious.

Grave, I think the fact that they've sidestepped every scientific and historical inconsistency I've pointed out and have repeatedly asked that this not become a debate proves they're not particularly interested in the question of whether the Book of Mormon is true. They believe it because they want to believe it, and they wish people like you and I would stop making them feel foolish about it.

It just perturbs me... I don't mind debating any religion - but Smith has been categorically proved a fraud... at the very LEAST, on the Book of Abraham.

Since he claimed to translate ALL of the texts in much the same way, it calls the whole book into question.

And, unlike in the case of the Bible, where copyist errors, etc. can be cited, the evidence in THIS case is in Smith's own hand.

How does a Mormon rationalise the fact that their 'prophet' deliberately lied to them, about at LEAST one part of the scripture?

Smith has been categorically proved a fraud... at the very LEAST, on the Book of Abraham.

hahaha, i just looked it up. even without all the other shit, the 'book of abraham' gives itself away as a fake on the first line. land of the chaldeans, ha!

for those of you that don't know, smith lifted this from the bible, where abram is described as coming from ur of the chaldeans. this happens to be one of the ways we know that genesis wasn't written by moses in ~1450 bce. the chaldeans didn't exist until ~650 bce. there certainly was no such place as "ur of the chaldeans" when abraham is reported to have lived.

hahaha, i just looked it up. even without all the other shit, the 'book of abraham' gives itself away as a fake on the first line. land of the chaldeans, ha!

for those of you that don't know, smith lifted this from the bible, where abram is described as coming from ur of the chaldeans. this happens to be one of the ways we know that genesis wasn't written by moses in ~1450 bce. the chaldeans didn't exist until ~650 bce. there certainly was no such place as "ur of the chaldeans" when abraham is reported to have lived.

Also - of course - The Book of Mormon makes the mistake of claiming to be ancient, and yet quoting text that matches the King James translation of the Bible...

Add to that the fact that Smith apparently couldn't tell the difference between 'thee' and 'thy', and the fact that he drops 'and so it came to pass' in on practically every page... basically, it appears, whenever he couldn't think of something 'scriptural sounding' to say...

Also - of course - The Book of Mormon makes the mistake of claiming to be ancient, and yet quoting text that matches the King James translation of the Bible...

oh god, it gets worse and worse. this is hilarious.

compare these passages:

But wild beasts of the desert shall lie there; and their houses shall be full of doleful creatures; and owls shall dwell there, and satyrs shall dance there.

And the wild beasts of the islands shall cry in their desolate houses, and dragons in their pleasant palaces; and her time is near to come, and her day shall not be prolonged.

But wild beasts of the desert shall lie there; and their houses shall be full of doleful creatures; and owls shall dwell there, and satyrs shall dance there.

And the wild beasts of the islands shall cry in their desolate houses, and dragons in their pleasant palaces: and her time is near to come, and her days shall not be prolonged.

But wild beasts of the desert shall lie there; and their houses shall be full of doleful creatures; and ostriches shall dwell there, and wild goats shall dance there.

And wolves shall cry in their castles, and jackals in the pleasant palaces: and her time is near to come, and her days shall not be prolonged.


But desert creatures will lie there, jackals will fill her houses; there the owls will dwell, and there the wild goats will leap about.

Hyenas will howl in her strongholds, jackals in her luxurious palaces. Her time is at hand, and her days will not be prolonged.

hmm, some of these translations made up imaginary creatures because they couldn't do the translations properly. funny, that.

oh god, it gets worse and worse. this is hilarious.

compare these passages:

hmm, some of these translations made up imaginary creatures because they couldn't do the translations properly. funny, that.

It's just scary, isn't it...

I have an ex-Mormon (now a kind of non-denominational christian... pretty much by default) friend who 'lost his faith' because of exactly 'this' kind of thing.

It's just scary, isn't it...

yeah. i thought they were doing pretty bad on the horses and chariots and wheat and barely and jewish polynesians, but damn - is there anything in it that isn't an obvious con job?

Why did you quote my comments on the papyri and the various theories attached and jump from them to the Book of Mormon. You do know the Book of Mormon never claimed to come from papyri, don't you?

From the Associated Press/April 10, 2004:

"Under the 1995 agreement, the church directed its members not to include the names of unrelated persons, celebrities and certain groups, such as Jewish Holocaust victims, for its "baptisms for the dead," according to documents provided by the LDS church.

The church also assumes that the closest living relative of the deceased being offered for proxy baptism has consented.

"It did not guarantee that no future vicarious baptisms for deceased Jews would occur," church papers say of the agreement. "

There's the agreement, they agreed to DIRECT church members not to include the names of unrelated persons. The Church doesn't screen people before the names are brought to the Temple. I am a member, I have heard several directives come down from the First Presidency telling people to STOP doing this.

Every time they reach this agreement, a letter is sent to be read in EVERY congregation directing people to stop. Those who continue to baptize WWII Jews or anyone else for that matter that aren't related to them are therefore not following the council of the leadership. What more do you want them to do? They did what they promised. They told people to stop AS THEY PROMISED.


Apparently, they want your church to STOP - not to just tell people to stop. It's your church. Stop means stop. Obviously, your church is composed of people who don't follow directives when there's a wink and a nod.

oh god, it gets worse and worse. this is hilarious.

compare these passages:

hmm, some of these translations made up imaginary creatures because they couldn't do the translations properly. funny, that.

Huge portions of the Book of Mormon (and I've read the whole thing in detail) appear to be sheer plagiarism, or incorrectly remembered Old Testament.

One of the things that the missionaries that have come to my door find shocking is that I know the Book of Mormon much, much better than they do.

I know it far better than the family that is sponsoring them.

Since I have successfully converted three boys to the Pentacostal faith, and they came down to castigate me for doing this, they are now extremely afraid to talk to me.

The missionaries avoid my house now, apparently on explicit instructions.

yeah. i thought they were doing pretty bad on the horses and chariots and wheat and barely and jewish polynesians, but damn - is there anything in it that isn't an obvious con job?

The real problem is that we know the rest of the Bible is the same way. But we're historically removed from that period, and there isn't much in the way of surviving contemporary accounts. So while we can find many reasons to cast doubt on the validity of every part of the Bible, we can't prove any of it as conclusively as we can with the Book of Mormon.

One of the things that the missionaries that have come to my door find shocking is that I know the Book of Mormon much, much better than they do.

I'm an atheist, and I've shocked Christians who try to convert me by knowing their book far better than they do on a regular basis. I have to admit coming into this conversation unprepared, though, since I'd never bothered with the Book of Mormon. But two minutes of browsing at skepticsannotatedbible.com gave me all I needed and more.

The real problem is that we know the rest of the Bible is the same way. But we're historically removed from that period, and there isn't much in the way of surviving contemporary accounts. So while we can find many reasons to cast doubt on the validity of every part of the Bible, we can't prove any of it as conclusively as we can with the Book of Mormon.

well, that's not entirely true. it gets closer to historically accurate after about 650 bce - the kings and cities and battles it mentions are largely real and it is often archaeologically useful. and the mythic past, while largely just stories, is based on cultural tradition, and has meaningful connections with other ancient near east cultures that can be mapped out.

well, that's not entirely true. it gets closer to historically accurate after about 650 bce - the kings and cities and battles it mentions are largely real and it is often archaeologically useful. and the mythic past, while largely just stories, is based on cultural tradition, and has meaningful connections with other ancient near east cultures that can be mapped out.
I concur that it is useful and illuminating in a lot of ways, but you always have to qualify that. For instance, while accounts of David's kingship are historically verifiable to some degree, the bit about Goliath and the purchasing of a wife for the sum of 200 foreskins are probably (in the latter case, hopefully!) not historically valid.

The insights it provides on the ancient world are interesting, but considering how small a player Israel was on the world stage at that point, there are better sources. The best use of the Bible in my opinion is that it provides the key to understanding the context in which most of European history has evolved.

My problem is that it still motivates much of history today. It's reputation as the supreme source of moral guidance is totally undeserved.

hahaha, i just looked it up. even without all the other shit, the 'book of abraham' gives itself away as a fake on the first line. land of the chaldeans, ha!

for those of you that don't know, smith lifted this from the bible, where abram is described as coming from ur of the chaldeans. this happens to be one of the ways we know that genesis wasn't written by moses in ~1450 bce. the chaldeans didn't exist until ~650 bce. there certainly was no such place as "ur of the chaldeans" when abraham is reported to have lived.


so mormons, what do you have to say about this?

There are several explanations. One one scholar suggested to me once is that as the text was obviously not from the days of Abraham the transcriptionists altered it to match the Bible of that day. I find that unlikely myself.

The more likely explanation lies with Josephus who claimed that the Chaldees were a family line coming from Arphacshad (only one spelling) the grandson of Noah who could very well have settled the area (though it would also correctly be called the Sumerian Civilization).

By the way, please stop the insults. It's tactless.

Okay, here's one I want you to answer. In Joseph Smith's rewriting of the Enoch texts (The book of Moses) Joseph Smith includes only one non-biblical name, Mahijah (Moses 6:40), a man who comes to ask Enoch who he is and who sent him. This name could easily be derived from many biblical names. Apocryphal sources have been discovered that show that Enoch was approached by a man sent from the head of the giants named Mahujah. Explanations?

Joseph wrote this in Nov-Dec of 1830 long before he studied with Hebrew scholars. I have seen no evidence of an English translation of any text describing this meeting anywhere at that date. I know of no non-English text that came to this side of the Atlantic. Was Joseph really that lucky?

*snip*
Okay, here's one I want you to answer. In Joseph Smith's rewriting of the Enoch texts (The book of Moses) Joseph Smith includes only one non-biblical name, Mahijah (Moses 6:40), a man who comes to ask Enoch who he is and who sent him. This name could easily be derived from many biblical names. Apocryphal sources have been discovered that show that Enoch was approached by a man sent from the head of the giants named Mahujah. Explanations?

Joseph wrote this in Nov-Dec of 1830 long before he studied with Hebrew scholars. I have seen no evidence of an English translation of any text describing this meeting anywhere at that date. I know of no non-English text that came to this side of the Atlantic. Was Joseph really that lucky?

Please identify these "[a]pocryphal sources ... that show Enoch was approached by a man sent from the head of the giants named Mahujah."

The existence of such documents prior to 1830 and unavailable to Joseph Smith is one of the premises of your point.

This should be interesting.

so mormons, what do you have to say about this?

Probably that this shows only that they are no more, or no less, retarded than Christians, Jews or Muslims.

But that's just a guess.

The Mahujah name comes from the Dead Sea Scrolls. I'd find the exact location but I can't find my copy, just run a search there's numerous mentions online. Nibley mentioned it. It's discussed briefly in the paper: "Mormon Scholarship, Apologetics, and Evangelical Neglect: Losing the Battle and Not Knowing It?" written by an evangelical in the Trinity Journal. Numerous LDS scholars have cited it repeatedly. Again, run a search. The only explanation I've heard is that it sounds like a biblical name (weak argument, how'd he know that was the right one to put there?).

Interesting enough for you?

The Mahujah name comes from the Dead Sea Scrolls. I'd find the exact location but I can't find my copy, just run a search there's numerous mentions online. Nibley mentioned it. It's discussed briefly in the paper: "Mormon Scholarship, Apologetics, and Evangelical Neglect: Losing the Battle and Not Knowing It?" written by an evangelical in the Trinity Journal. Numerous LDS scholars have cited it repeatedly. Again, run a search. The only explanation I've heard is that it sounds like a biblical name (weak argument, how'd he know that was the right one to put there?).

Interesting enough for you?

If you are going to make a point, perhaps you should do the heavy lifting.

From what I have seen this is according to certain disputed translations. Both the translation and the existence of the reference are disputed. As is what the Book of Moses said and when it said it.

And the "sounds like a biblical name" comes from this:

Genesis 4:18 -- "To Enoch was born Irad and Irad was the father of Mehujael, and Mehujael was the father of Methushael, and Methushael was the father of Lamech."

Enoch and Mehujael.

Enoch and Mahijah.

Enoch and Mahujah.

Go figure.

It's discussed briefly in the paper: "Mormon Scholarship, Apologetics, and Evangelical Neglect: Losing the Battle and Not Knowing It?" written by an evangelical in the Trinity Journal. Numerous LDS scholars have cited it repeatedly.

right, i'm reading this paper currently. but i'd like to point out that the fact that evangelicals can't easily demolish mormons isn't surprising - they believe all sorts of false and silly things too. many of the same ones actually.

That's not the source of the data though, that paper was just a passing reference. The evangelicals at least tried to demolish this point, the rest pass it over in silence. Why???

so apparently the name in the dead sea scrolls transliterates as "mhwy" - rendered as "mahway" here (http://www.meta-religion.com/World_Religions/Christianity/Other_Books/Dead_Sea_Scrolls/book_of_giants.htm), and here (http://www.piney.com/DSSBkGiants.html). i'll go to the university library tomorrow to see what i can find there.

oh, and apparently mehujael in the bible is "mhwy-el".

this is internet sources talking - i'll go get my hands on dead tree sources before committing to this.

The evangelicals at least tried to demolish this point, the rest pass it over in silence. Why???

because only evangelicals are worried about mormons for religious reasons. the rest of us just think the whole thing is a bit silly.

There are several explanations. One one scholar suggested to me once is that as the text was obviously not from the days of Abraham the transcriptionists altered it to match the Bible of that day. I find that unlikely myself.

The more likely explanation lies with Josephus who claimed that the Chaldees were a family line coming from Arphacshad (only one spelling) the grandson of Noah who could very well have settled the area (though it would also correctly be called the Sumerian Civilization).

By the way, please stop the insults. It's tactless.

Okay, here's one I want you to answer. In Joseph Smith's rewriting of the Enoch texts (The book of Moses) Joseph Smith includes only one non-biblical name, Mahijah (Moses 6:40), a man who comes to ask Enoch who he is and who sent him. This name could easily be derived from many biblical names. Apocryphal sources have been discovered that show that Enoch was approached by a man sent from the head of the giants named Mahujah. Explanations?

Joseph wrote this in Nov-Dec of 1830 long before he studied with Hebrew scholars. I have seen no evidence of an English translation of any text describing this meeting anywhere at that date. I know of no non-English text that came to this side of the Atlantic. Was Joseph really that lucky?

So - one name that is a bit like another name, in one text... somehow excuses the fact that the Book of Abraham has been proved to be a pure invention of the 'prophet'?

Nothing has been 'proven'. And the way you have thrown accusations one 'proof' of the falseness of the Book of Mormon destroys my whole religion why shouldn't one 'proof' of divine revelation validate it? The Book of Abraham shows amazing parrallels to the Book of Jasher and other apocryphal Abraham texts. No one seriously attacks it. They attack the papyi, the translation, the facsimilies. Same thing with the Book of Mormon. They attack the translation, the dialect (why not King James English), and a few details about life several thousand years ago that can't be completely proven one way or the other. I can imagine if we actually had the gold plates a group of scholars would endlessly debate whether Joseph Smith got the translation right. Try reading explanations by LDS scholars of the Book of Abraham, the facsimilies, the idea that the Book of Breathings is probably not what Joseph translated.

Oh, and I'm still waiting for your answer, haven't heard anything yet.....(gee, I see why you make this kind of comment a lot, it's kinda fun)

Nothing has been 'proven'. And the way you have thrown accusations one 'proof' of the falseness of the Book of Mormon destroys my whole religion why shouldn't one 'proof' of divine revelation validate it? The Book of Abraham shows amazing parrallels to the Book of Jasher and other apocryphal Abraham texts. No one seriously attacks it. They attack the papyi, the translation, the facsimilies. Same thing with the Book of Mormon. They attack the translation, the dialect (why not King James English), and a few details about life several thousand years ago that can't be completely proven one way or the other. I can imagine if we actually had the gold plates a group of scholars would endlessly debate whether Joseph Smith got the translation right. Try reading explanations by LDS scholars of the Book of Abraham, the facsimilies, the idea that the Book of Breathings is probably not what Joseph translated.

Oh, and I'm still waiting for your answer, haven't heard anything yet.....(gee, I see why you make this kind of comment a lot, it's kinda fun)

I had no intent of questioning your religion. You will find that I have not done so so far. But you attitude provokes a response.

The fact that, if we chose, we could go find other Mormons that have made up some answers to some of the questions riased here that you couldn't answer is hard proof of anything. If you can't be bothered to dig up this "proof" that "nobody attacks," hardly recommends its persuasiveness.

You've received several answers to your little question. But I will add some more observations.

For one thing, your premise is wrong. The Pearl of Great Price wasn't published until 1851 - not 1830. By then Joseph Smith had been studying Hebrew. Some scholars conclude he wrote the Book of Moses before he studied Hebrew -- because there are too many errors to explain otherwise. Regardless, the Book of Moses was written well after 1830.

It is not true that the only non-Biblical name used by Smith was Mahijah. He made up lots of names that were slight variants of Biblical names. In fact, one of the reasons the translations are criticized is that many of the names are Biblical names with changes in the suffix -- to non-Hebrew or Eqypitian suffixes!

The Book of Moses is largely a regurgitation of Genesis. Neither Hebrew nor Egypitian translate into King James English directly. Translation is the act of finding equivalent words between languages. If Smith had translated original texts into English, it would have been the English of Smith's time and place -- not King James English. The use by Smith of King James Version idiosyncracies is ample evidence that he copied and adapted that text -- rather than translated from an original.

Anyway, given that Smith started with Genesis and merely made some changes and additions using variations on Biblical names and places, it is not suprising that Smith may have coincidentally used a name that could appear elsewhere in other Bible-related texts. To the contrary, if you accept the authenticity of the Book of Moses and the Book of Enoch found in the Dead Sea Scrolls -- then it is rather striking that you find so little in common between them. Shouldn't they match more closely?

And, forgive me, but if (1) the translation is inaccurate, (2) the sources of the translation cannot be as claimed, (3) the text is historically inaccurate, (4) the text is internally inconsistent, etc., etc. What is left to attack? To say "no one has attacked it." Is simply silly. There is no proof it is genuine. There is ample evidence it is not.

Feel free to abide by faith. But do not dismiss as irrational those whose questions you cannot answer.

Nothing has been 'proven'. And the way you have thrown accusations one 'proof' of the falseness of the Book of Mormon destroys my whole religion why shouldn't one 'proof' of divine revelation validate it? The Book of Abraham shows amazing parrallels to the Book of Jasher and other apocryphal Abraham texts. No one seriously attacks it. They attack the papyi, the translation, the facsimilies. Same thing with the Book of Mormon. They attack the translation, the dialect (why not King James English), and a few details about life several thousand years ago that can't be completely proven one way or the other. I can imagine if we actually had the gold plates a group of scholars would endlessly debate whether Joseph Smith got the translation right. Try reading explanations by LDS scholars of the Book of Abraham, the facsimilies, the idea that the Book of Breathings is probably not what Joseph translated.

Oh, and I'm still waiting for your answer, haven't heard anything yet.....(gee, I see why you make this kind of comment a lot, it's kinda fun)

Didn't realise you'd asked me a question, sorry?

Post me the question again, or a link... and I'll see what I can do.

Regarding "try reading explanations by LDS scolars".... I thought I'd do something even better, and ask a professing Mormon... but look where that got me.

The 'Book of Breathings " has been categorically proved as the document that Joseph Smith pretended to translate... specifically, the text known as "small Sensen". Smith himself has provided, in his own handwriting, evidence that proves the same 'word order' and set of characters.

He has even recorded the original Egyptian characters, albeit with a few errors in transcription. He also provided sketches of material found on the papyrus with a few subtle amendments... for example, changing the head of Osiris to a normal human head.

There is no doubt that Smith was dealing with the "small Sensen" text... the only 'confusion' is how he managed to get more than 2000 words out of four lines of heiroglyphics, and why it doesn't match up with the ACTUAL translation of the text.

The ONLY people who argue against the truth, are Mormons. I can see that they feel the NEED to protect the story, even after it has been proved to come from a corrupt source...

What I can't see is how they sleep at night, knowing that they are living a lie.

The Book of Moses is largely a regurgitation of Genesis. Neither Hebrew nor Egypitian translate into King James English directly. Translation is the act of finding equivalent words between languages. If Smith had translated original texts into English, it would have been the English of Smith's time and place -- not King James English. The use by Smith of King James Version idiosyncracies is ample evidence that he copied and adapted that text -- rather than translated from an original.


Exactly... this is the part of the post I forgot to respond to, but Cat-Tribe does it better than I would, I suspect.

Hello :) Yeah, I am LDS (Mormon), and I've noticed that in most online communities most people know very little about Mormons, expect for false stereotypical stuff. So I was wondering if anyone had any questions about my religion....

Do you believe that families stick together in heaven?

The Book of Moses is largely a regurgitation of Genesis. Neither Hebrew nor Egypitian translate into King James English directly. Translation is the act of finding equivalent words between languages. If Smith had translated original texts into English, it would have been the English of Smith's time and place -- not King James English. The use by Smith of King James Version idiosyncracies is ample evidence that he copied and adapted that text -- rather than translated from an original.

Anyway, given that Smith started with Genesis and merely made some changes and additions using variations on Biblical names and places, it is not suprising that Smith may have coincidentally used a name that could appear elsewhere in other Bible-related texts. To the contrary, if you accept the authenticity of the Book of Moses and the Book of Enoch found in the Dead Sea Scrolls -- then it is rather striking that you find so little in common between them. Shouldn't they match more closely?


Back in the day, when I was an undergrad studying English Literature, we used to block copy and then alter sections of the Old Testament just for grins. It ended up looking astonishingly like the Book of Mormon.

Back in the day, when I was an undergrad studying English Literature, we used to block copy and then alter sections of the Old Testament just for grins. It ended up looking astonishingly like the Book of Mormon.


Good times, good times. ;)

Okay, here's one I want you to answer. In Joseph Smith's rewriting of the Enoch texts (The book of Moses) Joseph Smith includes only one non-biblical name, Mahijah (Moses 6:40), a man who comes to ask Enoch who he is and who sent him. This name could easily be derived from many biblical names. Apocryphal sources have been discovered that show that Enoch was approached by a man sent from the head of the giants named Mahujah. Explanations?

Joseph wrote this in Nov-Dec of 1830 long before he studied with Hebrew scholars. I have seen no evidence of an English translation of any text describing this meeting anywhere at that date. I know of no non-English text that came to this side of the Atlantic. Was Joseph really that lucky?

Yawn. How boring.

The Book of Enoch was among the Dead Sea Scrolls, but it was not the only surviving copy. The Ethiopian church had preserved it after it had been declared apocryphal, and in 1773 Scottish explorer James Bruce, drawn by rumors, journeyed to Ethiopia and brought three copies back to Europe.

The first English translation was completed by Dr. Richard Lawrence of Oxford University, and published in 1821. Its release would have come in a good time for Joseph Smith to have noticed it.

The copy in the Dead Sea Scrolls stirred the community because Enoch had long been considered a post-Christian work, but the Qumran version dated to the 2nd century BCE, and was likely derived from much older sources.

I may have more to offer on this once I get home and look up the Mahijah reference in my copy of Geza Vermes' translation of the Dead Sea Scrolls. The Enoch fragments I've found online make no mention of him.

What I can't see is how they sleep at night, knowing that they are living a lie.

I'm not sure this is the appropriate sentiment to be used in the examination of any religious topic. Mainly, I think it's ignorant of the basis of religious belief, but I also think it overlooks the relativity in history and even in interpretation. I mean, from the viewpoint of a sophist, one could claim that just because you believe the Mormon religion/religious history/religious translations (or whatever) to be a lie, doesn't mean it is a lie.

It's quite simple why Mormons don't have the trouble sleeping at night you expect them to: because they don't see things the way you do. If they come into contact with these historical investigations you present as "proof" that the religion is a fraud and don't quit the religion then it would seem only 2 things could be happening. First, they could interpret which sources are accurate and not on different grounds than you, and, thus, come to different conclusions. (I'm not sure that they are wrong in doing this--either in claiming that it's justifiable for them to interpret history in any way they desire, or in claiming that the way they interpret history is accurate)

Or second, they might just not be assigning the importance of historical information that you are. Most Mormons believe in the Mormon religion based on personal experience which have built their testimony in the church, typically relating to reading the Book of Mormon. They rank duty to their conscious realm (and the spiritually interpreted events in their conscious realm) higher than duty to another (you or any other) trying to prove to them that they are factually incorrect. In a way, even if it were "definitively proven" that the Book of Moses were wrong, quite a few Mormons would remain unfazed, because their faith in the religion isn't based on historical evaluations of them; it's instead based on a direct relationship between them and their religion (or perhaps the religion's depiction/interpretation of God).

Back to the relativity of historical and other "facts": I imagine that if one were to borrow this attitude (I wonder how Mormons sleep at night) and apply it to other disagreements over history, one would be curious how liberals/conservatives sleep at night, too. One would wonder how Europeans/Americans sleep and night. One would wonder how Ohioans/Michigan-dwellers sleep at night. On would always wonder why a group which feels/interprets differently than you can exist (or sleep at night) if you feel that your feeling/interpretation is somehow more right than another's.

To think that people who believe differently, or interpret evidence differently than you, are somehow less right than you are is a form of cultural/religious/ideological ignorance. Just because I cheer for OSU when they play against Michigan, and just because I have lots of good reasons why OSU's better, doesn't mean I can't recognize that Michigan fans have lots of good reasons for their team being better, too--and that they feel just as justified in cheering for their team as I do.

Yawn. How boring.

The Book of Enoch was among the Dead Sea Scrolls, but it was not the only surviving copy. The Ethiopian church had preserved it after it had been declared apocryphal, and in 1773 Scottish explorer James Bruce, drawn by rumors, journeyed to Ethiopia and brought three copies back to Europe.

The first English translation was completed by Dr. Richard Lawrence of Oxford University, and published in 1821. Its release would have come in a good time for Joseph Smith to have noticed it.

The copy in the Dead Sea Scrolls stirred the community because Enoch had long been considered a post-Christian work, but the Qumran version dated to the 2nd century BCE, and was likely derived from much older sources.

I may have more to offer on this once I get home and look up the Mahijah reference in my copy of Geza Vermes' translation of the Dead Sea Scrolls. The Enoch fragments I've found online make no mention of him.

Um, yeah I knew that brainiac. The Ethiopian translations I have read have no mention of Mahijah or Mahujah anywhere in them. That's the argument, not that this was the first Enoch to be discovered. In response to your counterargument, Yawn.

computer froze, double posted it.

Then why don't you save us some time and point out where and in which Dead Sea scroll fragment in which the Mahijah statement can be found? Enoch is a rather large work, and you are the one making the case, so you are the one with the burden of proof.

We don't believe that it was the Lost Tribes.

We believe that approx. 600 B.C., a group of Jews traveled to America shortly before Jerusalem's destruction, and that they started a civilization that ended approx. A.D. 400. And yes, we believe that Jesus went to visit them ~A.D. 35, after his resurection.

Where's the historical/archaelogical evidence? Even the Vikings left evidence of their stay in North America, but I have yet to see any evidence that a Judaic civilization existed on this continent at that time.

Or more to the point, since belief really has nothing to do with knowledge, why is this story any more believable than that of a Christian who only follows the Bible, and not the Book of Mormon?

Nevermind, I found it. It seems that the Book of Giants was left out of the Ethiopic version of Enoch, which explains why the example is purported to be alien to Smith. That portion of the Mormon claim appears to be true.

So now we have to investigate the two references side by side, and see if there are any parallels worth discussing. I will quote both references to this "Mahijah" character in their entirety.

And there came a man unto him, whose name was Mahijah, and said unto him: Tell us plainly who thou art, and from whence thou comest? And he said unto them: I came out from the land of Cainan, the land of my fathers, a land of righteousness unto this day. And my father taught me in all the ways of God.

The giants begin to be troubled by a series of dreams and visions. Mahway, the titan son of the angel Barakel, reports the first of these dreams to his fellow giants. He sees a tablet being immersed in water. When it emerges, all but three names have been washed away. The dream evidently symbolizes the destruction of all but Noah and his sons by the Flood. 2Q26 [ . . . ] they drenched the tablet in the wa[ter . . . ] 2[ . . . ] the waters went up over the [tablet . . . ] 3[ . . . ] they lifted out the tablet from the water of [ . . . ] The giant goes to the others and they discuss the dream. 4Q530 Frag.7 [ . . . this vision] is for cursing and sorrow. I am the one who confessed 2[ . . . ] the whole group of the castaways that I shall go to [ . . . ] 3[ . . . the spirits of the sl]ain complaining about their killers and crying out 4[ . . . ] that we shall die together and be made an end of [ . . . ] much and I will be sleeping, and bread 6[ . . . ] for my dwelling; the vision and also [ . . . ] entered into the gathering of the giants 8[ . . . ] 6Q8 [ . . . ] Ohya and he said to Mahway [ . . . ] 2[ . . . ] without trembling. Who showed you all this vision, [my] brother? 3[ . . . ] Barakel, my father, was with me. 4[ . . . ] Before Mahway had finished telling what [he had seen . . . ] 5[ . . . said] to him, Now I have heard wonders! If a barren woman gives birth [ . . . ]

...

Thereupon his fellow Ohya declared and said to the giants, 13 I too had a dream this night, O giants, and, behold, the Ruler of Heaven came down to earth 14[ . . . ] and such is the end of the dream. [Thereupon] all the giants [and monsters! grew afraid 15 and called Mahway. He came to them and the giants pleaded with him and sent him to Enoch 16[the noted scribe]. They said to him, Go [ . . . ] to you that 17[ . . . ] you have heard his voice. And he said to him, He wil 1 [ . . . and] interpret the dreams [ . . . ] Col. 3 3[ . . . ] how long the giants have to live. [ . . . ] After a cosmic journey Mahway comes to Enoch and makes his request. [ . . . he mounted up in the air] 4 like strong winds, and flew with his hands like ea[gles . . . he left behind] 5 the inhabited world and passed over Desolation, the great desert [ . . . ] 6 and Enoch saw him and hailed him, and Mahway said to him [ . . . ] 7 hither and thither a second time to Mahway [ . . . The giants awaig 8 your words, and all the monsters of the earth. If [ . . . ] has been carried [ . . . ] 9 from the days of [ . . . ] their [ . . . ] and they will be added [ . . . ] 10[ . . . ] we would know from you their meaning [ . . . ] 11[ . . . two hundred tr]ees that from heaven [came down. . . ] Enoch sends back a tablet with its grim message of judgment, but with hope for repentance.

Common elements? None. The names are very different (Mahijah and Mahway), and the stories resemble each other in no way, shape, or form. In The Book of Moses, Enoch just has a very brief, commonplace conversation with an ordinary man. In The Book of Giants, Enoch has a rather fantastic pair of conversations with a mythological creature.

The Mormon argument is a case of grasping at straws.

Are most Mormons in favour of legalising polygamy?

Common elements? None.

they did contain many of the same letters. and even a couple of the same words. like 'the' and 'my' and 'father'.

maybe they get a few points for trying?

Are most Mormons in favour of legalising polygamy?

Nope, you got to realize this is a culture thing. It is against the U.S. culture. My wife would never want that to happen. I don't want it either. I cant imagine trying to support two women much less deal with them emotionally too.

I think the only people that will push legalizing it would be those that want to justify their lack of morals when it comes to leaving sex inside marriage. They think that polygamy will let them marry, and get to have sex as much as they want. I don't think that's how it works.

However in many other countries of the world, polygamy is part of their culture. I was in Iraq and I saw many guys that had two wives.

The Optic

Nevermind, I found it. It seems that the Book of Giants was left out of the Ethiopic version of Enoch, which explains why the example is purported to be alien to Smith. That portion of the Mormon claim appears to be true.

So now we have to investigate the two references side by side, and see if there are any parallels worth discussing. I will quote both references to this "Mahijah" character in their entirety.





Common elements? None. The names are very different (Mahijah and Mahway), and the stories resemble each other in no way, shape, or form. In The Book of Moses, Enoch just has a very brief, commonplace conversation with an ordinary man. In The Book of Giants, Enoch has a rather fantastic pair of conversations with a mythological creature.

The Mormon argument is a case of grasping at straws.

Common Elements, both sent to Enoch to question him. I've talked to linguists, the names are almost identical considering the languages they've passed through. The Dead Sea Scrolls are known for the fantastical. The Jews loved to exagerrate (see Old Testament) and Joseph Smith was recounting it as it ACTUALLY happened, not what later Jewish mysticism came up with.

My copy of the Dead Sea Scrolls reads Mahujah and no, it's not LDS. If you want more parallels compile all writings of Enoch extant and compare to Book of Moses. I've done this with several. Then do that with the Book of Abraham and the book of Jasher and all extant Abraham apocrypha and the Old Testament.

For Enoch comparisons I recommend Nibley's book Enoch the Prophet which contains many collections of similarities without commentary.

Hello, I actually read through this whole thread, and it started out great, until people started trying to prove mormons wrong. The point of the thread was to ask questions about what we believe. I'm LDS, currently at school in Baltimore, and just received a mission call to Milwaukee Wisconsin.

Hello, I actually read through this whole thread, and it started out great, until people started trying to prove mormons wrong. The point of the thread was to ask questions about what we believe. I'm LDS, currently at school in Baltimore, and just received a mission call to Milwaukee Wisconsin.

well, we are still asking questions. the questions are just more along the lines of "how do mormons explain the existence of so much in their religion that is completely and totally factually wrong or outright and obvious fraud?"

Common Elements, both sent to Enoch to question him. I've talked to linguists, the names are almost identical considering the languages they've passed through. The Dead Sea Scrolls are known for the fantastical. The Jews loved to exagerrate (see Old Testament) and Joseph Smith was recounting it as it ACTUALLY happened, not what later Jewish mysticism came up with.

My copy of the Dead Sea Scrolls reads Mahujah and no, it's not LDS. If you want more parallels compile all writings of Enoch extant and compare to Book of Moses. I've done this with several. Then do that with the Book of Abraham and the book of Jasher and all extant Abraham apocrypha and the Old Testament.

For Enoch comparisons I recommend Nibley's book Enoch the Prophet which contains many collections of similarities without commentary.

I see. All the differences are the result of the unreliable Jews. The only accurate thing in the Dead Sea Scrolls is the one vague, vague coincidence of slightly similar names -- which also happen to be similar to names in the Old Testament.

And Nibley is an unbiased source. :rolleyes:

The only accurate thing in the Dead Sea Scrolls is the one vague, vague coincidence of slightly similar names -- which also happen to be similar to names in the Old Testament.

exactly. except for that old testament part. there are no similarities to that whatsoever. none at all.

I see. All the differences are the result of the unreliable Jews. The only accurate thing in the Dead Sea Scrolls is the one vague, vague coincidence of slightly similar names -- which also happen to be similar to names in the Old Testament.

And Nibley is an unbiased source. :rolleyes:

Nibley is a biased source but in that book all he does is put together several sources most people can't get their hands on. By the way, I've never met someone unbiased on anything, why should Mormonism be any different. There are TONS of similarities. Read the sources. I'm tired of this. Bye.

Common Elements, both sent to Enoch to question him.

Eh? Funny how Smith left out the part about Mahijah being sent by anyone. Or being a giant. Or begging for dream interpretations. And Enoch leaves off the "where are you from?" bit. Mahway seems to already know who Enoch is and where he's from. They even know what he does for a living. They seem well acquainted.

I ask questions of people, too, but this doesn't make me Barbara Walters.

I've talked to linguists, the names are almost identical considering the languages they've passed through.

More unreferenced assertion. Who are these linguists, and what is the basis of their conclusion?

The Dead Sea Scrolls are known for the fantastical.

But the Bible and Book of Mormon aren't??

The Jews loved to exagerrate (see Old Testament) and Joseph Smith was recounting it as it ACTUALLY happened, not what later Jewish mysticism came up with.

And you know what actually happened because...?

My copy of the Dead Sea Scrolls reads Mahujah and no, it's not LDS.

Well, I'm home now, so I've got my copy of Vermes. And he translates it Mahawai... which is linguistically similar to my aforementioned Mahway, and still not very much like "Mahujah." If you know anything at all about the scrolls, then you know Geza Vermes is pretty much the recognized expert in English translation. So who are you referencing? The biggest reason I was having trouble finding the relevant Enoch quote was because when you put "mahujah" into your search, all you get is LDS commentary, and no straight English translations of Enoch. I finally stumbled upon an LDS forum poster who used the word "mahway" instead, and when I put that into a search instead I got several Enoch translations.

If you want more parallels compile all writings of Enoch extant and compare to Book of Moses. I've done this with several. Then do that with the Book of Abraham and the book of Jasher and all extant Abraham apocrypha and the Old Testament.

Why don't you just give us the highlights? Hopefully you've got something better than Mahijah.

For Enoch comparisons I recommend Nibley's book Enoch the Prophet which contains many collections of similarities without commentary.
In my search for the elusive Mahijah reference in Enoch, I came across Nibley's name many times. Usually it was scathing criticism. You should have a look at some of it.

I ask questions of people, too, but this doesn't make me Barbara Walters.

haha, nice

I'm not sure this is the appropriate sentiment to be used in the examination of any religious topic. Mainly, I think it's ignorant of the basis of religious belief, but I also think it overlooks the relativity in history and even in interpretation. I mean, from the viewpoint of a sophist, one could claim that just because you believe the Mormon religion/religious history/religious translations (or whatever) to be a lie, doesn't mean it is a lie.

It's quite simple why Mormons don't have the trouble sleeping at night you expect them to: because they don't see things the way you do. If they come into contact with these historical investigations you present as "proof" that the religion is a fraud and don't quit the religion then it would seem only 2 things could be happening. First, they could interpret which sources are accurate and not on different grounds than you, and, thus, come to different conclusions. (I'm not sure that they are wrong in doing this--either in claiming that it's justifiable for them to interpret history in any way they desire, or in claiming that the way they interpret history is accurate)

Or second, they might just not be assigning the importance of historical information that you are. Most Mormons believe in the Mormon religion based on personal experience which have built their testimony in the church, typically relating to reading the Book of Mormon. They rank duty to their conscious realm (and the spiritually interpreted events in their conscious realm) higher than duty to another (you or any other) trying to prove to them that they are factually incorrect. In a way, even if it were "definitively proven" that the Book of Moses were wrong, quite a few Mormons would remain unfazed, because their faith in the religion isn't based on historical evaluations of them; it's instead based on a direct relationship between them and their religion (or perhaps the religion's depiction/interpretation of God).

Back to the relativity of historical and other "facts": I imagine that if one were to borrow this attitude (I wonder how Mormons sleep at night) and apply it to other disagreements over history, one would be curious how liberals/conservatives sleep at night, too. One would wonder how Europeans/Americans sleep and night. One would wonder how Ohioans/Michigan-dwellers sleep at night. On would always wonder why a group which feels/interprets differently than you can exist (or sleep at night) if you feel that your feeling/interpretation is somehow more right than another's.

To think that people who believe differently, or interpret evidence differently than you, are somehow less right than you are is a form of cultural/religious/ideological ignorance. Just because I cheer for OSU when they play against Michigan, and just because I have lots of good reasons why OSU's better, doesn't mean I can't recognize that Michigan fans have lots of good reasons for their team being better, too--and that they feel just as justified in cheering for their team as I do.

To be honest, I DO question the ability to 'ignore facts' that many seem to be able to display. Perhaps it just isn't a skill I acquired.

For me, the similarity would be if it became common knowledge that the bible was written by an ape, randomly banging on keys until a book was formed. I don't know how that would be proved NOW, it being so long ago... but, if it were to be - those who STILL chose to cling to the bible 'as is' would be a source of confusion.

Believing in 'god' is one thing... believing in the SPECIFIC incarnation of 'god', as delineated in just ONE text, is another matter... and if that text is proved to be a fake - well, how can an honest mind JUSTIFY continuing to support that SPECIFIC approach?

To me - the logical thing to do, would be to think... "oh, so it appears that Joseph Smith may have taken some elements of Christianity, and 'embellished' it a little"... and then investigate another 'sect' of the same basic faith (that being 'Christianity') and see if that faith had a similar message, but without the stigma of being based on forged texts.

Either the average Mormon has never heard that Smith was a fake (and I can understand why their own 'movement' would supress such information), or there is a wilfull display of deliberate avoidance of reality.

Being ignorant of the truth is one thing. There being evidence, KNOWING about the evidence, and STILL finding ways to justify it to yourself - that's something that is just beyond my capacity to understand.

Common Elements, both sent to Enoch to question him. I've talked to linguists, the names are almost identical considering the languages they've passed through.

And which languages would they be?

Hebrew and/or Aramaic for the Book of Enoch... what about the Book of Moses?

Smith's version of 'Egyptian'? (Which would be a curious language for a biblical patriarchal text, don't you agree?)

This leads me onto a thought, though...

If the two characters ARE supposed to be the same character... why would Smith spell it differently? He interprets the name Moses the same as the received version...

Also - would Smith not have mentioned something as important as the fact that the Enochian character is the half-breed offspring of one of the rebel angels?

Being ignorant of the truth is one thing. There being evidence, KNOWING about the evidence, and STILL finding ways to justify it to yourself - that's something that is just beyond my capacity to understand.

it's my understanding that a number of mormons who took up archaeology as a means to prove the claims of the book of mormon got quite discouraged and eventually gave up belief in pretty much anything smith had to say. but they stay in the religion due to social pressures and a belief in the general goodness of the belief system.

it's my understanding that a number of mormons who took up archaeology as a means to prove the claims of the book of mormon got quite discouraged and eventually gave up belief in pretty much anything smith had to say. but they stay in the religion due to social pressures and a belief in the general goodness of the belief system.

I can appreciate HALF of that answer... staying with the 'church' for the sake of social pressure... but how can you believe in the general goodness of the belief system... when the belief system is fundamentally alike to another belief system... but with some fictional bits added.

To me - the fiction harms any 'good' that you might see...

I can appreciate HALF of that answer... staying with the 'church' for the sake of social pressure... but how can you believe in the general goodness of the belief system... when the belief system is fundamentally alike to another belief system... but with some fictional bits added.

To me - the fiction harms any 'good' that you might see...

ah, but you see, you weren't raised mormon. mormons are a bit strange even without the made up nonsense. that's bound to have an effect on people.

ah, but you see, you weren't raised mormon. mormons are a bit strange even without the made up nonsense. that's bound to have an effect on people.

I have an ex-Mormon friend... he IS a little strange. :)

You think that's why?

I believe there is a prophesy that says, before the Second Coming, the Church will form its own independant nation. However, it does not give a time, nor is it pursued -- it would probably happen becuase the church was forced to because of attack and/or severe persecution.

this si very innacurate, though i can understand his misnderstandings. it does state in church doctrine that a nation called zion would be formed and that no others would dare rise against it, however, all of the muslims on earth may consider themselves a nation, as well as jews, and other nationalistic sects. however, it also states in the doctrine and covenants that the meddling of religion and politics is basically evil and should not occur.

Wow...that's all I have to say to this whole thread. o.O I actually sat here and read this whole thing from the first post to the last. My conclusion? People will believe what is convienent, that's how religion generally functions. This doesn't necessarily have to be negative, just true.

From a personal standpoint, I was raised in an unorthodox jewish household (many branches of my family are practicing, we choose not to). I shudder at the thought of anyone 'baptising' one of my family members because someone somewhere decided to do them the favor. To their statement of "you can choose not to in the afterlife", the fact that the person chose not to in life should say enough about how they feel on the subject. Upon seeing this, I plan on making an amendment to my living will to exclude all religious ceremonies after I die. =P While I myself do not practice any form of religion, I find it offensive that someone would force their beliefs on the dead, which is held sacred by most cultures. I just can't believe anyone can try to reasonably explain such desecration to the dead.

Wow...that's all I have to say to this whole thread. o.O I actually sat here and read this whole thing from the first post to the last. My conclusion? People will believe what is convienent, that's how religion generally functions. This doesn't necessarily have to be negative, just true.

From a personal standpoint, I was raised in an unorthodox jewish household (many branches of my family are practicing, we choose not to). I shudder at the thought of anyone 'baptising' one of my family members because someone somewhere decided to do them the favor. To their statement of "you can choose not to in the afterlife", the fact that the person chose not to in life should say enough about how they feel on the subject. Upon seeing this, I plan on making an amendment to my living will to exclude all religious ceremonies after I die. =P While I myself do not practice any form of religion, I find it offensive that someone would force their beliefs on the dead, which is held sacred by most cultures. I just can't believe anyone can try to reasonably explain such desecration to the dead.

To the first part of your statement, no, my beliefs are not convenient AT ALL. I wake up on sundays at 6:30 to go to church meetings, I don't smoke drink or do drugs, I don't curse, I live the laws of chastity, I give 10% of all my income to my church, and really that doesn't scrape the surface. That's not convenient at all. It is difficult. But I do it because I have faith in it, and I believe it's the right thing, not the convenient thing. To the second part of your statement, I understand your concern, but I disagree that if someone says no in this life they will be the same in the next life. I think (I'm not sure if this is doctrinal or not) that truth will be more obvious after we die, so it would really suck to realize after it's too late that you were wrong, so I think having the option to change after death would be appealing to most people. Again, when we baptize them they are not automatically members of our church, they must accept the ordinance for it to have any value. We're simply giving them more options! Also, we can't just baptize anybody, we baptize those in our own family line. I'm not gonna go baptize your grandfather, unless he's my grandfather. You don't have to worry about your family being mormon unless you or your children or a close relative decides to be mormon and do that work for his/her ancestors.

Believing in 'god' is one thing... believing in the SPECIFIC incarnation of 'god', as delineated in just ONE text, is another matter... and if that text is proved to be a fake - well, how can an honest mind JUSTIFY continuing to support that SPECIFIC approach?

-snip-

Either the average Mormon has never heard that Smith was a fake (and I can understand why their own 'movement' would supress such information), or there is a wilfull display of deliberate avoidance of reality.

Being ignorant of the truth is one thing. There being evidence, KNOWING about the evidence, and STILL finding ways to justify it to yourself - that's something that is just beyond my capacity to understand.

This illustrates my contention with the sentiment you've expressed. You're still suggesting that there is "the truth" to be ignorant of, and, more to my point, that you know it.

It's easy to say, "I know these things as the truth because of this, this, and this. Therefore, you're all wrong. How could you be so convinced of things that aren't the truth?" But is that statement really at all critically valuable? No. It's just plain naive to think that certain evidence--or portrayals of evidence--which convince you of something mean that that conclusion must be absolute truth, and that, subsequently, all who come to different conclusions are ignorant masses--wrong, and unable to sleep at night.

It's so amusing to me to think of the comparison here. Some mormons are doubtless thinking, as I type, "how can those non-mormons sleep at night without knowing the truth?" Meanwhile, many in this thread wonder "how can those mormons sleep at night without knowing the truth?" Neither understanding that the other is just as convinced that their viewpoint is the truth. I mean, one couldn't write better comedy.

This illustrates my contention with the sentiment you've expressed. You're still suggesting that there is "the truth" to be ignorant of, and, more to my point, that you know it.

It's easy to say, "I know these things as the truth because of this, this, and this. Therefore, you're all wrong. How could you be so convinced of things that aren't the truth?" But is that statement really at all critically valuable? No. It's just plain naive to think that certain evidence--or portrayals of evidence--which convince you of something mean that that conclusion must be absolute truth, and that, subsequently, all who come to different conclusions are ignorant masses--wrong, and unable to sleep at night.

It's so amusing to me to think of the comparison here. Some mormons are doubtless thinking, as I type, "how can those non-mormons sleep at night without knowing the truth?" Meanwhile, many in this thread wonder "how can those mormons sleep at night without knowing the truth?" Neither understanding that the other is just as convinced that their viewpoint is the truth. I mean, one couldn't write better comedy.

You are implying a fallacy here that the argument in favor of Mormonism is equal to the argument that Joseph Smith was a fraud. They are not equal arguments. The overwhelming balance of evidence supports the fraud theory. To believe otherwise is deliberate self-delusion.

There are people who still believe in Santa. There are people who believe in alien abductions and UFOs. There are people who believe in ghosts. There are people who believe GW Bush is a good president. People will believe in all sorts of foolish (and sometimes dangerous, such as in the Dubya case) nonsense, but that doesn't mean they are right.