Mormon Coffee

It’s forbidden, but it’s good!

Purchasing Documents to Protect the Image of the Mormon Church

August 20, 2007

By Aaron Shafovaloff

This movie requires Flash Player 8

This movie requires Flash Player 8

This movie requires Flash Player 8

51 Comments so far

  1. Steve on August 20th, 2007

    There is an interesting book about Mark Hoffman called “The Poet and the Murder.” A very good read about his doings and the actions of the Mormon Church.

  2. Rick B on August 20th, 2007

    If Mark could do all that and deceive all those people, why is it so hard to believe JS could not do that. Rick b

  3. Interested on August 20th, 2007

    “Although Hofmann embraced atheism while in his teen years, he was raised in a devout LDS family. His grandmother, Athelia Call, had been the wife of a Mormon polygamist. His family’s reluctance to discuss its involvement with plural marriage became an early source of Hofmann’s resentment toward Mormonism. Like many young LDS individuals, Hofmann spent two years as a Mormon missionary. During his time as a missionary, he worked in Bristol, England and became intrigued by many of the local antique bookstores in the area. He appeared outwardly devout”

  4. Ruthie on August 21st, 2007

    One of my favorite pictures of Mark Hoffman appeared in the LDS Church News. In it, Mark Hoffman was showing a document to then-Prophet, Seer, and Revelator President Spencer W. Kimball. Surrounding them both was 1st counselor N. Eldon Tanner, 2nd Counselor Marion G. Romney, Apostle Boyd K. packer, and then-Apostle Gordon B. Hinkley. President Kimball “inspected” the document while looking through a large magnifying glass.

    Yep, Mark Hoffman fooled them all–a past LDS President and the current LDS President!

    A question I’m pondering is “All the people that Mark Hoffman baptized and laid hands on while he was on his mission, do they have a valid priesthood or not? And if not, what about the people they have since ‘passed down’ the priesthood to? However, if they have a valid priesthood despite Mark Hoffman’s embrace of atheism, then how did this priesthood ’skip’ one link in the chain to become valid to the recipient?”

    Funny thing–Mormons constantly tell me that their religion makes logical sense. Does it make sense to you?

  5. amanda on August 21st, 2007

    ruth, of course they have valid priesthood. we don’t believe that man will be punished for adam’s transgression..neither will any man be punished for anothers transgression. how is it “logical” to think that after mark hoffman leaves the church, that somehow someone else suffers that consequence.

    i’m not sure where the confusion is ruth. maybe i misunderstood you?

    amanda

  6. amanda on August 21st, 2007

    rick b. how is your comparison to joseph smith valid? joseph smith was a prophet of god who translated ancient plates under God’s direction…he was never paid, in fact, he was murdered for his valiant effort to restore the church. there really was nothing in it for him- except the blessings of the gospel, nothing temporal. he suffered most of his adult life and his wife suffered too, the three witnesses who left the church never recanted their original testimony of the book of mormon and its’ validity.

    this mark guy was a conman who conned not only the church but the FBI. He had much to gain, he actually CHARGED for his forgeries. making money off of them

    if the book of mormon was a forgery, and joseph smith a conman, why didn’t joseph smith attempt to profit from his doings? no, he didn’t, he was persecuted…yet he still stood by them as holy scriptures…and was still persecuted, and he STILL stood by them…come on rick. give me ONE documented reason how joseph smith stood to gain superficially/temporally/monetarily from what he claimed was the truth….(and don’t spout off a million and one bible verses…when i want to read the bible, believe me, i won’t need your input.)

  7. Aaron Shafovaloff on August 21st, 2007

    if the book of mormon was a forgery, and joseph smith a conman, why didn’t joseph smith attempt to profit from his doings?

    Amanda, have you ever heard of Joseph Smith’s “prophetic” attempt to sell the copyright of the Book of Mormon?

    My friend, once you go down the rabbit hole, things just get crazier and crazier.

    “The economic situation of the Smith families was so desperate at this time that Joseph tried to sell the copyright of the Book of Mormon. Hiram Page wrote with bitterness years later that the prophet heard he could sell the copyright of any useful book in Canada and that he then received a revelation that “this would be a good opportunity to get a handsome sum.” Page explained that once expenses were met the profits were to be “for the exclusive benefit of the Smith family and was to be at the disposal of Joseph.” Page indicated that they hoped to get $8,000 for the copyright and that they traveled to Canada covertly to prevent Martin Harris from sharing in the dividend. Smith evidently believed that Harris was well enough off while his own family was destitute. When Page, Cowdery, and Knight arrived at Kingston, Ontario, they found no buyer. Martin Harris apparently learned of what was done, and Joseph guaranteed him in writing that he would share in any profits made from the subsequent sales of the book. In the spring of 1830 Harris walked the streets of Palmyra, trying to sell as many copies of the new scripture as he could. Shortly after Joseph Smith and Jesse Knight saw him in the road with books in his hand, he told them “the books will not sell for nobody wants them.”

    David Whitmer, one of the three witnesses, wrote:

    “Joseph looked into the hat in which he placed the stone, and received a revelation that some of the brethren should go to Toronto, Canada, and that they would sell the copyright of the Book of Mormon. Hiram Page and Oliver Cowdery went to Toronto on this mission, but they failed entirely to sell the copyright, returning without any money. Joseph was at my father’s house when they returned. I was there also, and am an eye witness to these facts. Jacob Whitmer and John Whitmer were also present when Hiram Page and Oliver Cowdery returned from Canada.”

    “Well, we were all in great trouble; and we asked Joseph how it was that he had received a revelation from the Lord for some brethren to go to Toronto and sell the copyright, and the brethren had utterly failed in their undertaking. Joseph did not know how it was, so he enquired of the Lord about it, and behold the following revelation came through the stone: “Some revelations are of God: some revelations are of men: and some revelations are of the devil.” So we see that the revelation to go to Toronto and sell the copyright was not of God, but was of the devil or of the heart of man.”

  8. amanda on August 22nd, 2007

    for every point you make in your post there is a counterpoint(refer to url below) but let’s just assume that joseph smith did actually, in fact try to sell the copyright…he failed in that attempt..and still did not gain, but still stood by the authenticity of the book of mormon- rendering your argument useless.

    AND, i might add that david whitmer and oliver still considered joseph to be an ordained Prophet of God. please read the url, they say it better than i can.
    http://www.jefflindsay.com/LDSFAQ/FQ_prophets.shtml#canada

    also, the bible says in Matthew 7:16
    “ye shall know them by their fruits…”

    joseph smith’s difficult calling was that of persecution and hardship–he lost most of his children, and suffered much more…yet, the fruit of his labor is evident:

    1840: 2 missions, 11 stakes
    2007: 344 missions; 13 million members; 124 temples; 27,475 congregations; Humanitarian Cash Donations Since 1985: $201 million; Value of Humanitarian Material Assistance Since 1985: $705 million; Languages Church Curriculum Available: 178.

    these numbers don’t lie, but opposition to the LDS faith has been known to stretch the truth on more than one occasion.

  9. Aaron Shafovaloff on August 22nd, 2007

    Amanda, you earlier asked, “why didn’t joseph smith attempt to profit from his doings?” The evidence is overwhelming: Joseph Smith did attempt to profit from this. Whether he was successful in this is another issue. The intent reflects the heart.

    That Oliver Cowdery and David Whitmer still believed Smith was a prophet doesn’t change that fact. In fact, they seem like really gullible men, believers in “second sight“, and visionaries. Not men to be considered credible witnesses.

    Like other cult leaders, Smith took unusual sexual liberties (even with 16-year-old Fanny Alger), audaciously tampered with scripture (cf. Genesis 50:30-33 of the JST), made grandiose exertions of power, and thought way, way too highly of himself. Unlike the apostle’s lives and words that lend to credibility, Smith seems like (no offense) just another charismatic cult leader.

    “In conclusion, though it is possible that Joseph had some marriages in which there were no sexual relations, there is no explicit or convincing evidence for this (except, perhaps, in the cases of the older wives, judging from later Mormon polygamy). And in a significant number of marriages, there is evidence for sexual relations.” - Todd Compton, In Sacred Loneliness, p. 15

    “I have more to boast of than ever any man had. I am the only man that has ever been able to keep a whole church together since the days of Adam. A large majority of the whole have stood by me. Neither Paul, John, Peter, nor Jesus ever did it. I boast that no man ever did such a work as I. The followers of Jesus ran away from Him; but the Latter-day Saints never ran away from me yet.” (Joseph Smith, History of the Church, Vol. 6, pp. 408-409)

    Praise to the Son of Man,

    Aaron

  10. amanda on August 22nd, 2007

    there is nothing i can say to persuade you otherwise, you seem confident that your perception of joseph smith is accurate. i happen to know Joseph Smith was a prophet of God. how do i know? the spirit has witnessed it to me.

    i find it useless to refute already biased comments..your interest is not to approach the matter with humility but with hastily formed opinions based on false accusations.

    it doesn’t surprise me that Joseph Smith still faces opposition to this day. if he was so irrelevant, why is he still so controversial? another more important figure in our history had and still has a similar impact, our Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ. you might say that i don’t believe in your Jesus–and i’m starting to agree. the Jesus Christ i believe in knows Joseph Smith was ordained of Him. i will go to my grave with my testimony.

  11. Aaron Shafovaloff on August 22nd, 2007

    Amanda, if you have any specific evidence to counter the corroborated claims that Joseph attempted to make money off of the sale of the copyright to the Book of Mormon, I would be glad to see and consider it.

  12. amanda on August 22nd, 2007

    i accept your challenge, and look forward to doing so. thank you for your interest :)

  13. amanda on August 22nd, 2007

    well, the link i provided above is a reliable resource in LDS answers to common questions. there is a specific section discussing the reliability of david whitmer’s account of that very situation…

    i will look for more

  14. Arthur Sido on August 22nd, 2007

    Amanda,

    there is nothing i can say to persuade you otherwise, you seem confident that your perception of joseph smith is accurate. i happen to know Joseph Smith was a prophet of God. how do i know? the spirit has witnessed it to me.

    i find it useless to refute already biased comments..your interest is not to approach the matter with humility but with hastily formed opinions based on false accusations.

    Here is the rub. I once had that same testimony and then was shown by God that Smith was a false prophet by examining His Word and the damning evidence of Smith’s dishonesty. So one of the parties here is reading the Spirit wrong, or perhaps asking the wrong question of Him in the first place.

    You approach this conversation with the presupposition that Smith was a prophet, which is every bit as stubbornly dogmatic as you accuse Aaron of being. I can assure you that from what I have seen of Aaron’s work, his opinions are well thought out, over a long period of time, and not ‘hasty’.

    If the Spirit allegedly testifies to you that Smith was a prophet, and I and others assert that we have no such testimony after sincere prayer, then perhaps you should look at Smith objectively for who he was, rather than how the lds church portrays him. I can attest that in doing so, if you truly seek the answers, you will see Smith as history will remember him, a shyster and scoundrel who used religion to advance his own megalomaniac agenda.

  15. Falcon on August 22nd, 2007

    I knew an elderly woman years ago who had decided to buy a hearing aid through the mail (not a good idea). It required that she take her own ear impression (a doubly bad idea especially for an elderly person). When I questioned her about it she said, “I FEEL this is something I should do.” I guess she, was in a way, bearing witness to a deeply held conviction. I knew I couldn’t change her mind. Evidence and facts don’t have much of a chance against emotions and religious zeal.

  16. David on August 22nd, 2007

    Of all the people who bought into Hoffman’s deception (including the LDS Church), the Tanners were one of the few (or the only) who did not. Hoffman approached them and he was sure they would buy into what he was selling, but the prudence of the Tanners vindicated them. Also note, at one point in the video you see then Apostle Gordon B. Hinckley with a magnifying glass in hand looking at a Hoffman document. Other LDS leaders are there, as well as Mark Hoffman. If Hinckley really is a prophet and seer he would have figured out the deception that law enforcement officers using natural means figured out. Hoffman fooled the entire LDS church including its living prophet.

  17. amanda on August 22nd, 2007

    arthur,

    most people i have known who fell away from the church, usually had something in their life they either needed to repent of or justify by finding fault with the church and it’s prophets.

    if you are the exception to this rule, then your experience has little to do with me.

    falcon, i do not apologize for being zealous…however if you think i should apologize, perhaps every evangelical on this website should apologize as well. you pretty much solidified in my mind that you haven’t received a true witness of your faith, otherwise, you would understand how someone could base a large part of their faith on strong feelings outside of themselves.

    david, gordon b. hinkley was not the prophet at the time, even if he was, are prophets infallible? they are still human, they aren’t God. God works through them. they often make mistakes. the standard you have for a man called of god is ridiculous. read this quote from http://www.jefflindsay.com

    Having the Spirit of God move you from time to time does not make you perfect. Being a chosen and ordained prophet does not make every opinion true, nor does it make one superior in every area of knowledge. Reverend J.R. Dummelow (not LDS) described the authors of the Bible in terms that ought to be applied, in all fairness, to Joseph Smith as well:

    “Though purified and ennobled by the influence of the His Holy Spirit, these men each had his own peculiarities of manner and disposition - each with his own education or want of education - each with his own way of looking at things - each influenced differently from one another by the different experiences and disciplines of his life. Their inspiration did not involve a suspension of their natural faculties; it did not make them free from earthly passion; it did not make them into machines - it left them men.

    “Therefore we find their knowledge sometimes no higher than that of their contemporaries…. “(J.R. Dummelow, One Volume Bible Commentary, p. 85)

    Amanda, please familiarize yourself with the Mormon Coffee Comment Policy and make an effort in the future to conform to the rules. Thanks.

  18. amanda on August 22nd, 2007

    i’ve read them, please enlighten me on how i have abused my privileges…and i will be happy to make those changes. :)

    In the particular comment which prompted the request for you to familiarize yourself with the Comment Policy you posted a link without the required summary of the site’s key arguments. Since this has happened before, as well as you posting back-to-back comments, it seemed you may not have been previously aware of the Comment Policy. Thanks for your willingness to comply.

  19. Jeff on August 22nd, 2007

    Amanda - “you would understand how someone could base a large part of their faith on strong feelings outside of themselves.”

    Question. Are those feelings really outside of yourself? I thought when the holy spirit witnesses to you it is felt as a burning of the bosom.

    This whole blog proves the point of “People make decisions largely on emotion, rarely upon logic.” I applaud you, Amanda, in your unwavering faith, regardless of all the evidence and facts your church has against it. Theres absolutely no historical evidence your church has and its littered with inconsistency. It would be at least interesting for me to see Joseph’s magic rock and his hat, but I don’t even know if thats on display anywhere.

    If the LDS church didn’t attach its theology to the Bible, this religion wouldn’t be half as successful in membership. The unfortunate thing is though that the LDS church DID in fact attach itself to the Bible, but simultaneously disassembled it, taking away its authority and Joseph Smith thought it necessary to add to it.

    Amanda, I don’t see anyone attacking you yourself. If I were to call you fat and ugly, that would be attacking you. All I see from this site is honest Christians pointing out rather serious problems with the church and its leadership itself. If you consider yourself the LDS Church or a part of Joseph Smith/Brigham Young, etc., then yes I can see how you would interpret that as a personal attack..

    Lets face some facts here. In this world, the faith of a person will constantly be challenged. When something is challenged, it either becomes stronger and more experienced, or it becomes weaker or dies off. Thats the risk any LDS member makes when coming onto this site. Your religion IS put under a microscope here.

  20. Lancaster on August 22nd, 2007

    The Mormon Church approaches the question of priesthood authority in a binary manner, sort of like power of attorney: you have it–regardless of the conditions under which it was obtained and exercised–until it’s taken away. Unlike the evidentiary chain of custody in a criminal trial, a bad link doesn’t taint the chain. This is the product of necessity, if nothing else. Otherwise, in a rigidly hierarchal organization, any priesthood holder from a mere missionary to a general authority getting excommunicated would hopelessly corrupt too much of the underlying structure. You could say that the church is following Shakespeare in this regard:

    Henry V (Act 4 Scene 1)
    “[T]here is no king, be his cause never so spotless, if it come to the arbitrement of swords, can try it out with all unspotted soldiers . . . . Now, if these men have defeated the law and outrun native punishment, though they can outstrip men, they have no wings to fly from God[.]“

  21. amanda on August 22nd, 2007

    that comment i made about people attacking me was out of context, i’d explain but it’s not that interesting.

    the lds church did not attach itself to the bible to gain some kind of sales pitch to investigators. the book of mormon and bible go hand in hand because they are both testaments of Jesus Christ. if you believe one of the books, then the other is validated.

    your assumption that the church wouldn’t be half as successful, with all due respect, is a pretty wacky assertion. there are 13 million members, and the large part of that number, who are converts, joined only because we managed to shove the bible in there as a one-time limited offer?

    no.

    i wonder if it is the bible that evangelicals worship rather than God-this is not meant to offend, honest question. God decides where God’s word is. the 8th article of faith states that 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.

    you think that joseph smith mutilated the text of the bible? well, he wouldn’t be the first…how many different versions of the bible are there? do you trust in the infallibility of man, that somehow after thousands of years they maintained every word and every meaning of every book? no, certainly not–some books aren’t even included. revelations wasn’t the last book to be written…and on top of all of that we are supposed to read and come to certain conclusions about the meaning within the verses? with that in mind, there is a possible purpose to the joseph smith translation…and real purpose in the translation of the book of mormon, the book of mormon acts as a tool to understanding the bible better, and vice versa.. you guys are really missing out, honest!

  22. M2 on August 22nd, 2007

    Dear Amanda,

    In Evangelical Christianity as it is called, we never affirm that God couldn’t reveal more books to us. That would be limiting omnipotence which is a theological fallacy. What we do affirm is that the revelation has to cohere with the previous revelations. There are many reasons that we reject the BOM as being a legitimate revelation for such reasons as modalism (Alma 11:38), historical issues: windows did not exist(Ether 2:23;3:1), neither horses and chariots (Alma 18:9-12), or steel swords and cimeters (Ether 7:9; Alma 2:12), etc.

    And in reference to the reliability of the Bible, there are thousands of manuscripts that have been recovered: Uncials 307, Minuscules 2,860, Lectionaries 2,410, Papyri 109, =5,686 Greek Manuscripts. Other languages Latin Vulgate 10,000 , Ethiopic 2,000 , Slavic 4,101, Armenian 2,587, Syriac Pashetta 350 , Bohairic 100, Arabic 75, Old Latin 50, Anglo Saxon 7, Gothic 6, Sogdian 3, Old Syriac 2, Persian 2, Frankish 1 = 19,284 Grand total more than 24,970. Church Fathers of the 2nd to the 4th century made some 36,289 citations from the NT, including every verse except 11. Chester Beatty Papyri, Vaticanus, and Sinaiticus date from between 250-350 AD and the Isaiah A scroll from 100BC. These all date to before the time of the ‘Mother of Harlots” came into existence. I think we have very good reason to believe that the Bible hasn’t been corrupted. But Mormon Apostle Orson Pratt said, “The Hebrew and Greek manuscripts of the Bible from which translations have been made are evidently very much corrupted…This uncertainty, combined with the imperfections of uninspired translators, renders the Bibles of all languages, at the present day, emphatically the words of men.”

  23. amanda on August 22nd, 2007

    well, i respect your view that omniscience is not limited…not many evangelicals i have spoken with seem to agree with you, however.

    and i still stand by the ample opportunities over thousands of years that corrupt religious leaders took advantage of the laymen.

    you don’t seem very sure though, “i THINK we have a very good REASON to BELIEVE…” too many variables in there. but i don’t expect you to be sure, that’s my whole point. but at least you can understand from an LDS doctrinal perspective why the JST exists–and why many misperceive us to not believe in the bible.

  24. M2 on August 22nd, 2007

    P.S. The reference for the Orson Pratt quote is “Eight Pamphlets on the First Principles of the Gospel” p.71 #23

  25. M2 on August 22nd, 2007

    Dear Amanda,

    The reason I said ‘think’ was only because I was speaking from a general, notice what I said, “I think [we] have very good reason to believe that the Bible hasn’t been corrupted” (brackets added for emphasis). Personally I have confidence in the reliability of the Old and New Testament. I’m going to assume that the ‘too many variables’ are the ones that you have as full caps. You’re going to have to explain why REASON and BELIEVE are words of insecurity. Belief/Reason, only without warrant, would be constituted as being, at least, only unjustifiable. This by no means that the belief or reason is incorrect.

  26. M2 on August 22nd, 2007

    Dear Amanda

    you said:
    “and i still stand by the ample opportunities over thousands of years that corrupt religious leaders took advantage of the laymen.”

    I would not doubt that this has happened (JWs’ NWT). But this response does not negate the fact that all of those manuscripts haven’t been recovered and can’t be checked out today. And what you said no way implies that the manuscripts do not cohere. For if they cohere then that means that we have a legitimate Bible for today. And Scholars from many backgrounds agree that there is more than a 99% coherence. Even a Brigham Young University NT scholar, Dr. Richard L. Anderson, acknowledged that “there is more reason today, the, to agree with them [Sir Frederic Kenyon] that we possess the New Testament, ‘in substantial purity’ and to underline that ‘the variations of the text are so entirely questions of detail, not of essential substance.”

  27. amanda on August 22nd, 2007

    i said those were words with too many variables…not incorrect, just variability.

    and i have to admit, my comment was more light-hearted…purely based in semantics, i didn’t think my comment would lead to a very compelling discussion.

    and i too have quite a bit of confidence that the bible is reliable, i mean, joseph smith didn’t scrap it, and the prophets reference it as often as they do the book of mormon. it’s taught in seminary, sunday school, over the pulpit. the only point i was trying to make is that there may be a few inaccuracies, there are several versions, and several interpretations within the “christian” community (that apparently i’m not a part of). but yet, even though christians themselves disagree on the meanings, they know for sure that the bible most definitely condemns the book of mormon–why? because the idea of the book of mormon actually being true turns them all on their heads? but i certainly don’t understand why they reject it wholeheartedly–if they truly believe in God’s word.

    this is why i have come to the conclusion that it is more common for the “christian” community to worship the bible (with its’ possible flaws) than it is to actually worship God and seek out his word, wherever He has written it. and if the book of mormon isn’t His word, then whose word is it? satans? well, i find it hard to believe that satan would author a book that would lead millions to the savior. unless it was like a HUGE mistake on his part and now he’s like, “crap, why did i experiment with reverse psychology on THIS one” …

  28. Robert on August 23rd, 2007

    I just have to comment on the last post by Amanda…

    You said: and i too have quite a bit of confidence that the bible is reliable,…

    That’s different from what the Christian believes. We believe that the bible is inerrant, infallible, and without error, on the topics it addresses. The bible itself says that it’s “breathed out by God.” We affirm that statement.

    As for your statement about a few inaccuracies; could you please note them? There are none. Please don’t point out any supposed “paradox’s” which is “perceived contradictions that are able to be reconciled.”

    As far as versions go: yes…many versions…I have probably 50 of them…they all agree…just in case you were wondering why there are “versions” I’ll tell you. Language is constantly undergoing changes; what was once common English is now hardly understood, etc. Bible versions come into existence also because of the “target audience” and their language and idioms.

    But saying that their are different versions as a way to say that the text of the bible is disputed? That’s being dishonest or uninformed.

    Remember, we have copies from within 15 years of Christ’s death available to us now…in fact…I have the text of it right on my computer…I can check it against modern copies any time I want, so the inference of the “many translations” doesn’t wash here.

    Your last statement about who’s word the book of mormon could be? You fell back on the old “I find it hard to believe…”

    I’m sure you do. As has been pointed out here on this thread many times…your mind is shut tight. The bible would say that “the god of this world has blinded your eyes.”

    The points you bring up are easily dealt with and you could have done the research on your own.

    The bible says that “none seek after God” and we see it here in your comments. You are not truly seeking, and that doesn’t surprise me.

    We are not here to attack you, on the contrary, we love you and would pray that God saves you.

  29. M2 on August 23rd, 2007

    Dear Amanda,

    you said,
    “and i too have quite a bit of confidence that the bible is reliable, i mean, joseph smith didn’t scrap it, and the prophets reference it as often as they do the book of mormon. it’s taught in seminary, sunday school, over the pulpit.”

    Yes, I am familiar with the fact that the Bible is used in all those areas. The problem that see is when an Evangelical Christian points out a contradiction between the Bible and Mormon Theology, the MM always says something to the extent of “well that wasn’t translated correctly.” Do you believe the Bible to be reliable enough to form your theology?

    you said:
    but yet, even though christians themselves disagree on the meanings,

    I need to know what essential meanings you’re talking about. Orthodox Christianity affirms the Virgin birth, Vicarious Atonement of Jesus on the cross, Triune God, the Incarnation, Salvation by Grace alone, The Second Advent of Jesus, and His bodily Resurrection.

    they know for sure that the bible most definitely condemns the book of mormon–why? because the idea of the book of mormon actually being true turns them all on their heads?

    These aren’t the reasons that Evangelical Christianity rejects the BOM. Like I noted before, the reasons that Evangelical Christianity rejects the BOM I’ve stated before (but not all): Modalism, lack of Historical reliability, significant changes from the 1830ed-1981ed, plagiarism of major portions of the 1611KJV in Elizabethan English, lack of evidence that the BOM existed before the 19th century, etc.

    you said,
    but i certainly don’t understand why they reject it wholeheartedly–if they truly believe in God’s word.

    We reject it whole heartedly because of the lack of coherence in all of the areas that I pointed out above. Yes, we truly believe in the Word of God (we do not worship the Bible=bibliolatry). We just believe that the BOM, POGP, and D&C are not the Word of God.

  30. Jeff on August 23rd, 2007

    Glad to see your still here Amanda!

    This is my own personal thought, and it may be shared by many Christians or not; I haven’t really asked.

    I believe that men do have their own free will or agency, but I also do believe that God will protect His word. It seems as though all the texts and manuscripts we have are evidence of God working to keep the Gospel in the Bible pure.

    Think about this. For someone to come along and change the words/doctrine of the Bible today (even if it happened over the next 200 years), people would still remember/practice Christian doctrine that we have today. If someone DID come along and completely flip the major doctrine we have (Salvation, identity of God, etc.), then that would in turn create a whole new religion. That is what we have seen with the LDS Church. However, they not only contradict the traditional teaching in Christianity, they created more scripture to reaffirm those theological ideas.

    Amanda, if you have the time, would you please answer Roberts following question?

    Robert said - As for your statement about a few inaccuracies; could you please note them? There are none. Please don’t point out any supposed “paradox’s” which is “perceived contradictions that are able to be reconciled.”

  31. Shelli on August 23rd, 2007

    Amanda said:

    you think that joseph smith mutilated the text of the bible? well, he wouldn’t be the first…how many different versions of the bible are there?

    Well what about Joseph Smith and the German version of the Bible? Joseph Said in the King Follet Discourse:

    I will transpose and simplify it in the English language. Oh, ye lawyers, ye doctors, and ye priests, who have persecuted me, I want to let you know that the Holy Ghost knows something as well as you do. The head God called together the Gods and sat in grand council to bring forth the world. The grand councilors sat at the head in yonder heavens and contemplated the creation of the worlds which were created at the time. When I say doctors and lawyers, I mean the doctors and lawyers of the scriptures. I have done so hitherto without explanation, to let the lawyers flutter and everybody laugh at them. Some learned doctors might take a notion to say the scriptures say thus and so; and we must believe the scriptures; they are not to be altered. But I am going to show you an error in them.

    I have an old edition of the New Testament in the Latin, Hebrew, German and Greek languages. I have been reading the German, and find it to be the most [nearly] correct translation, and to correspond nearest to the revelations which God has given to me for the last fourteen years. It tells about Jacobus, the son of Zebedee. It means Jacob. In the English New Testament it is translated James. Now, if Jacob had the keys, you might talk about James through all eternity and never get the keys. In the 21st. of the fourth chapter of Matthew, my old German edition gives the word Jacob instead of James.

    Why Do the LDS not use it, if you say, I/we do not know German, Why do you not learn it, If your Prophet claim it was so good.

  32. Rick b on August 23rd, 2007

    Amanda said

    the book of mormon acts as a tool to understanding the bible better

    You said It so I challange you to back it up. Lets go with this, Bruce R. McConkie’s “Challange” http://mormonismreviewed.blogspot.com/2006/01/bruce-r-mcconkies-challange.html

    I bet you either will not or cannot take this challange. The Bible is Gods word, the BoM is a fictional story. Rick b

  33. Rick B on August 23rd, 2007

    Just an added PS, Amanda. As of yet not one LDS has taken this challange as Bruce laid it out and given me what I want. I honestly do not think any LDS will ever be able to do it because the BoM is pure fiction. Rick b

  34. JONATHAN on August 23rd, 2007

    JUST AN ADDED P.S. WHOEVER RICK B IS I DON’T KNOW,BUT I’VE LOOKED UP WHAT HE HAS WRITTEN AND IT’S ALL TRUE.

  35. Robert on August 23rd, 2007

    Rick B:
    Nicely done. Good questions and very clearly stated,and laid out.
    Having said that I’m going to make a prediction:

    No LDS person on this board will DIRECTLY ADDRESS YOUR QUESTIONS IN A STRAIGHTFORWARD MANNER.

    There will be innuendo, some statements thrown around, a few rabbit trails explored…

    BUT NOBODY WILL DIRECTLY ADDRESS THE QUESTIONS FROM RICK’S BLOG.

    The amazing Kreskin has nothin’ on me :)

  36. Rick B on August 23rd, 2007

    Robert, you are so true, No LDS can answer it, so they will reply in vague or avoid it all together. Rick b

  37. amanda on August 23rd, 2007

    M2, you said,

    “The problem that see is when an Evangelical Christian points out a contradiction between the Bible and Mormon Theology, the MM always says something to the extent of “well that wasn’t translated correctly.” Do you believe the Bible to be reliable enough to form your theology?”

    you assume there is a contradiction only because you INTERPRET (not translate) biblical scripture within the evangelical paradigm…i will read that same scripture and understand it differently based on theological beliefs.

    any issues with translation are reconciled with the book of mormon (because remember, my belief and faith in the book of mormon isn’t a subcategory to the bible, i believe it to stand alone in it’s validity and testimony of the Savior) and the JST.

    “real christians” interpret scripture differently. protestants, methodists, baptists…they are all part of the “christian coalition” or the “christian club” BUT they differ on biblical interpretation, why have different names and denominations? why not be ONE body.

    you said,

    “The reasons that Evangelical Christianity rejects the BOM I’ve stated before (but not all): Modalism, lack of Historical reliability, significant changes from the 1830ed-1981ed, plagiarism of major portions of the 1611KJV in Elizabethan English, lack of evidence that the BOM existed before the 19th century, etc.”

    well, i think it interesting that a person of faith requires proof like historical reliability. atheists use this same philosophical argument or proof against the bible and its’ spiritual validity. both the bible and the book of mormon were “written” (to atheists it is irrelevant who wrote it)…the question is whether that writing was inspired or not…and whether the contents within are valid to our existence here on earth. i’ve read both, and have experienced their validity in my life many times. and i haven’t found either to contradict in all of my years of study and pondering.

  38. amanda on August 23rd, 2007

    rick b. hmmmm…i’m not so sure your claim that no mormon CAN take on this challenge is accurate. i believe the correct perception is that no mormon is INTERESTED in taking on your challenge. i know that i’m not. and i guess that makes you, ROBERT, a prophet? a fortune teller? or is that blasphemous?

    in all seriousness, i wanted to note that i have read all of your comments, but i can’t respond to all of them and not get in trouble for posting back to back…so i’ll quickly and inadequately respond:

    Sherri: what? i’m not sure i understood what your point was, i should learn german because joseph smith discussed a more accurate german translation in parts of the bible?

    Rick, i said it and believe it, and i don’t need to back up my experiences…to “give you what you want”

    i don’t answer to you, but i am more than happy to share my beliefs about the book of mormon, but i won’t be taking any “TESTS” this evening.

  39. Jeff on August 23rd, 2007

    Rick! I know I can beat you up but I’m not going to fight you so uhh, I win… haha.

    Amanda - ““real christians” interpret scripture differently. protestants, methodists, baptists…they are all part of the “christian coalition” or the “christian club” BUT they differ on biblical interpretation, why have different names and denominations? why not be ONE body.”

    Could you do some homework for me and give some references as to what doctrine this effects? As far as I know, throughout traditional Christianity, most all of the different denominations have the same major doctrine. Feel free to list out little things as well about women not being able to be pastors. I would like some reference to your claim though please.

  40. Ralph on August 24th, 2007

    Robert,

    How can any one claim that the Bible has been translated correctly and is inerrant when we do not have any original manuscripts? The Old Testament has 4 different versions - the Hebrew manuscripts (the Jewish version), the Pentateuch (sorry about the spelling), the Septaugint (again sorry about the spelling) and the Dead Sea Scrolls. All show different translations/transcriptions of the scriptures and differ in content. Which is correct?

    As for evidence of mistakes in the Bible, the verse 1 John 5:7 has been shown to be an inclusion from somewhere between the 4th century and 15th century BC. If this has occurred once, how many other times has it occurred? Although we may have some sources close to the originals, we do not have the originals so we cannot say for certain that they are inerrant.

  41. Robert on August 24th, 2007

    Ralph,
    How can anyone claim it’s been translated correctly? Because God said it. Jesus believed it.
    My question is this: why would you think it’s not translated correctly? Why start with the assumption that it’s flawed?
    I will state this again…we have copies that were circulating within 15 years of Christ’s death…they match copies 1500 years apart 99.6%…with the differences being small scribal errors and some other small things. This level of accuracy can not be claimed of any other document in antiquity…none even come close.

    You state that the 4 manuscripts all show different transcriptions of the scriptures…can you site side by side what you are talking about? I’m not clear on what you are basing your information on.

    As for your “1 John 5:7″ claim. Site your references if you are going to state a mistake.

    And your other logical fallacy question: If this happened once, how many more times did it happen?” is not even good argumentation…you set up a straw man and then infer that there are more of the same without any proof.

    Please address these questions DIRECTLY AND CLEARLY for me…and provide references.

    thanks..
    bob

  42. Aaron Shafovaloff on August 24th, 2007

    I agree that the Johannine Comma is an issue and that words were clearly added to 16th century manuscripts. But what people should realize is that this is a salient, notable issue because it is a notable exception to a remarkably well-preserved Bible.

    Secondly, we know of the 16th century manipulation of this text because we have a long, rich manuscript history and a science called “textual criticism”. So it really doesn’t help the cause of Mormons who want to inject FUD over the Bible (something they must to in order to advance their non-Biblical doctrines). It’s just another example of the effectiveness of textual criticism in recognizing textual variants and reliably reconstructing what the original manuscripts said.

  43. Robert on August 24th, 2007

    Aaron,
    After posting I did some research and apparently this is very well known and documented. Thanks for your answer.

    Ralph,
    I will stand by my statement that you can’t go any farther than this 1st John siting without going into “logical fallacy” territory…the presence of one known variation doesn’t follow that their are more.

    If we were to use this reasoning, the BOM can’t be trusted either right?
    Who knows what could be wrong with the BOM??? Did Joseph Smith even write it???

    You wouldn’t automatically start thinking along those lines for the BOM would you?

  44. Kelly on August 24th, 2007

    My twelve-year-old daughter was able to figure out that Mormonism succeeds because of seven little words - as far as it is translated correctly (from the 8th Article of Faith).

    Mormonism succeeds because it introduces two things to the followers: 1. The Bible is not reliable. 2.The modern-day prophets are.

    In this manner the member withdraws his/her trust in the Bible and places it in a man they call a prophet. That man, with the member’s complete trust, now has full power to dictate whatever doctrine he pleases is from God, even if it contradicts the Bible, because . . . the Bible is not reliable. It’s genius, really.

    Can the Mormons posting here answer this question: How is it (in your doctrine) that the God of the universe had the power to orchestrate all events of human history so that the United States could be where it was, when it was, and have the all the freedoms it had, just so that a young boy could have the perfect scenario to bring forth the new gospel, BUT (huge but) that same God who orchestrated all those miraculous events did not have the power to preserve the integrity of His own book, the Bible, to the degree that He wanted to preserve it? It makes no sense.

    In one case God is in control, and in the other He has lost His all control to some scribe or to the whore of all the earth. You can’t have both Gods, just to suit your needs. Either God was/is in control and the Bible is what He wants it to be, or He’s not in control and . . . the Bible is not reliable (but then neither is the LDS church).

  45. Rick B on August 24th, 2007

    Amanda, you can say all you want that you simply do not want to take the challange, but that proves to many that you simply cannot. I say that because, it was YOU that said the Bible and BoM go hand in hand.

    Then It was not my or my challange, but Bruce came up with it, he claims he used the Prophets and presidents and their wisdom to find the info he needed. It’s funny also, you call us to account and ask us to prove what we say, but when the tables are turned, it’s a matter of, I don’t want to. That is so lame I simply do not know how you can live a lie. Then their are people reading all the replys but never posting, The LDS are not giving them hope that their Church is the only true church when they refuse to answer questions.

    Then you asked Shelli about the German Bible. You said, what version can we Trust? Joseph Smith said the German Bible was the most Accurate, so the Question was, Why do you not use the most accurate version, Why ask which version can be trusted when YOUR prophet already told you? Or do you ignore him when it suits you?

    Then the LDS are claiming the Bible cannot be trusted due to changes. What about the 4,000 plus changes to the BoM? Some are doctrinal.

    Ralph said

    How can any one claim that the Bible has been translated correctly and is inerrant when we do not have any original manuscripts?

    We have the dead sea scrolls, we do not have the golden plates. So how does this apply to the BoM?

    God told Joseph smith to “correct” the Bible and he gave us the JST, So why not use that and get rid of the Bible. I know you say, we do use it, You quote more from the Bible than the JST, Why? Rick b

  46. Ruthie on August 24th, 2007

    Amanda,you wrote: “ruth, of course they have valid priesthood. we don’t believe that man will be punished for adam’s transgression..neither will any man be punished for anothers transgression. how is it “logical” to think that after mark hoffman leaves the church, that somehow someone else suffers that consequence. ”

    My point was simply there are several ways to lose authority in Mormonism, one of which is apostasy: D&C 85:11-12.

    Mark Hoffman admitted that he was not a TBM, so my question is: If Mark (or any LDS missionary) doesn’t believe Mormonism and considers himself an atheist (or an agnostic), is the baptism and the conferring of the priesthood on a convert a valid transaction?

    Sure, Mark was “going through the motions” but in his heart, he had long since apostized from the LDS Church. So, while he attended meetings and appeared to be TBM on the outside, on the inside he had apostized and therefore had lost his priesthood authority.

    Amanda, if you tell me that the baptisms & conferrings that Mark did are still valid, then I have a question for you: Why can’t any baptisms and conferring of priesthoods that I do to a convert be considered valid? Afterall, Mark and I would be in the same standing in the eyes of the LDS church: NON-BELIEVERS in that religion.

    Ruthie

  47. amanda on August 24th, 2007

    rick, i didn’t even go to your [filtered profanity or slur] website, so i have no idea what the challenge consisted of, i was merely uninterested.

  48. Ralph on August 25th, 2007

    Yes, I have only given one example of an included verse, but the logically, the question still begs “are there any more?” Just because I can’t point out another does not mean there is no other - doesn’t mean there is either.

    Most of the literature I can find about the Bible says that its considered “reliable” but not “inerrant” (ie without error). Here are some websites that say exactly that - the Bible translations are reliable but still have errors in them

    http://www.biblefacts.org/history/oldtext.html http://scriptorium.lib.duke.edu/papyrus/texts/manuscripts.html http://www.theopedia.com/Inerrancy_of_the_Bible http://www.fredsbibletalk.com/qa012.html

    They state that because we do not have the originals we cannot be certain. As for the ‘manuscripts’ that are dated to about 15 years after Christ’s death, there is only one and its 3 small fragments with half a dozen words on them from the gospel of Matthew. (see first website listed above) The oldest full version of the NT is from around the 3rd century AD.

    As for the 8th article of faith, it states that we believe the Bible as far as it is translated correctly -and we do. As for the Book of Mormon, it clearly states within the text that there are errors (a usual ‘flaw’ pointed out by most LDS critics). So once again - we believe the Book of Mormon to be the word of God knowing full well that the men that wrote it were fallible and made mistakes. So this atricle of faith was to make sure LDS knew that the Bible did contain errors despite what most Christians say - just as the Book of Mormon can contain errors but still be the word of God. So back to the beginning about the Bible being reliable (ie with error but still God’s word) but NOT inerrant (ie without error).

  49. Jeff on August 25th, 2007

    News flash! This just in! - You are ON an [filtered profanity or slur]/pro truth blog, would it really hurt to look at another one? Amanda, you accused me of “not doing my homework” with my statements that I made, but now you are acting hypocritically by making statements and not backing them up. All you have to do is take the test on Ricks blog. If you believe truth will prevail and you have nothing to hide, then why not take 10 minutes out of your blog posting to take the test?

    You can go ahead and refuse again, thats fine with me, but unfortunately the image that puts forth about the truth of Mormonism isn’t very solid. If you could “pass” the test, it would help a lot of us see more clearly what you hold as truth. But again, by refusing, it throws you into the ranks of people who can’t/don’t do it.

  50. Rick b on August 25th, 2007

    Amanda, it is ok, you dont want to hear the truth, you dont want to look at evidence you only want to hear what you want to hear, then as Jeff said accuse others of not doint research all the while not doing it your self. Then as I said, the Test is not my test, it is what what put forth in the Book Mormon Doctrine by Bruce Mc.

    He claims the test can be done and he uses the LDS prophets and presidents to support this test. So to say it is another Anti-site is a flat out lie, Unless bruce and your prophets are anti LDS and were false, Your Choice on the LDS prophets being anti or not.

    Then as Jeff said, if you can do it, then provide this evidence we all need to see to know the LDS church is the true Church. Also your the one that said, The BoM and the Bible complete each other and support each other, I did not say that you said that. The test will prove or deny this, do you care to retract your statement? Rick b

  51. Aaron Shafovaloff on August 25th, 2007

    It’s an unfortunate myth that “inerrancy” refers to something more than the original manuscripts. What we have today is a reliable reconstruction of the text, and unless we have reasons via textual criticism to doubt the preservation of a particular passage, we should simply take God’s word for what it says. You’re not going to find any significant textual variants, for example, changing the flow of Paul’s argumentation in Romans 1-8 (the doctrinal meat of the letter). There simply aren’t any significant Christian doctrines that pivot on the issue of manuscript transmission errors. They’re that reliable.

    The problem with traditional and popular Mormonism is that it grossly overstates the corruption of the text and exaggerates the problem of reconstructing the original manuscripts. As it has been said, this is to inject FUD so that it can advance its non-Biblical agenda and message. I’ll take Mormonism’s affront to the Bible more seriously when they can show me where one core doctrine of traditional Christianity is compromised.