Viewpoint on Mormonism Archives
Blogroll
- 365 Reasons
- Apologetics 315
- Ensign vs. The Bible
- Heart Issues for LDS
- Heart of the Matter
- I Love Mormons
- Keith Walker
- Latter-day Saint Woman
- Mark Cares
- Mormonism Investigated UK
- Mormonite Musings
- Mormons are Christians… aren't we?
- Musings on Mormonism
- Of First Importance
- Share the Son Ministries
- The Mormon Chapbook
- The Religious Researcher
- Utah Advance
Links
Subscribe
Join the Discussion
Check out our comment policy.Categories
Afterlife Authority and Doctrine Baptism for the Dead Bible Book of Mormon Brigham Young Christianity Coffee Beans D&C and Pearl of Great Price Early Christianity Early Mormonism Forgiveness Friendship, Interaction, and Evangelism General Conference God the Father Gospel Grace Great Apostasy Jesus Christ Joseph Smith King Follett Discourse LDS Church Marriage and Singlehood Misconceptions Mitt Romney Mormon Culture Mormon History Mormon Leaders Mormon Missionaries Mormon Scripture Mormon Temple Multimedia Nature of God Nature of Man Nauvoo Personal Stories Polygamy Priesthood Prophets Salvation Truth, Honesty, Prayer, and Inquiry Uncategorized Viewpoint on Mormonism Virgin birth Worthiness
Evangelical Christians Could Be Wrong
This entry was posted in Truth, Honesty, Prayer, and Inquiry. Bookmark the permalink.
151 Responses to Evangelical Christians Could Be Wrong
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Appropriate or not, at least it best describes a Religion that puts substance before spirituality, Revelation is dead, God speaks no more, and there cannot be any more scripture, hence we have a Church that runs on, converts on, preaches on, and indoctrinates on Substance only. Faith has become meaningless unless one first can support any and all scripture and doctrine with the see able. Ridicule us Mike and David as the Church of Feeeeeeelings and you actually unwittingly criticize us with a semblance of truth, but instead of Feelings, why not be more accurate and state we are the Church of Revelations. Hmmm, has a nice sound doesn’t it?
Interesting, but sadly true.
Richard.
The attempts of Mormon apologists to defend this false religious system takes on a fairly typical scenario and speaks to the desperation of the church to hold on to a membership that is flowing out the door at break-neck speed. The church’s attempts to defend a losing proposition are much like those of a lawyer attempting to defend a clearly guilty client. So with fairly typical and predictable tactics, those defending this false religious sect will:
1. Attack the credibility and character of witnesses against the client/church. The defenders try to present a picture of the witness as being unlikable. They try to emphasize any possible bias that the witness might have against the defendant/church.
2. The defenders try to create a theoretical-possible, though highly improbable, scenario to explain away the evidence. They try to create reasonable doubt and if that can’t be done they try to make unreasonable doubt sound reasonable.
3. They avoid spending time actually dealing with the solid evidence against the client/church. They try and find some possible weak piece of evidence and pound against it with the hidden implication that this is representative of the entire evidence.
An old sage lawyer gave some advice to a younger associate that’s followed by those trying to defend a clearly guilty client, the Mormon church:
“When the law is against you pound the facts; when the facts are against you pound the law; when both the law and the facts are against you pound the table!”
Mormon apologists are clearly holding a bad hand. The only thing they can do to overcome the bad cards they have been dealt is try and bluff. They are naive enough, however, to think that the wide assortment of low numbered cards they are holding is really a great hand.
Hmmm, very interesting that the Church of Scholars would bend to plagiarizing from a source that is not given credit or referenced as their source of criticism. Most LDS conduct themselves with integrity and are disturbed when they observe others cheating.
Cheaters also cheat themselves of any real knowledge. Unless your source is resolved my Creedal Christian friend, we will have to warrant you a F Grade , failure to abide honestly using ones own research and efforts to debate on a level playing field. You now have the opportunity to confess a failure to acknowledge your source as a unrealized mistake, or you can deny that you plagiarized at all. Hmmm, what would the honest Christian do? Your silence will be noted. I did not mention any names, so as not to embarrass. But if this is to be a standard practice, we as LDS will have to out our culprit.
Source not listed.
http://www.mormoncurtain.com/topic_farms.html
Within the scope of the above video dealing with a range of admitting to the possibility of being “wrong” to a clear admission of being “wrong”, here are some quotes by Stephen M. Veazey president of the Community of Christ (formerly RLDS). The attitude of the leader of this Mormon sect and his honesty stands in stark contrast to the Salt Lake Ciry Brighamites and their closed and defensive posture relative to the history, practice and beliefs of the religion.
“Another example is how we have viewed the origin of celestial or plural marriage in the early church. There is no doubt the early Reorganization (his sect) endeavored to distance Joseph Smith Jr. from the doctrine and practice of plural marriage. Such separation was viewed as critical to church identity and survival. However, during the past fifty years or so, RLDS/CoC historians cautioned us not to be so certain in our conclusions. Unfortunately, many ignored their findings. Even worse, some attacked their integrity and harassed them and their families. The vast majority of church historians have persuasively concluded that Joseph Smith Jr. was involved prominently in the doctrine and practice of celestial or plural marriage. There is also some evidence that shortly before his death, Joseph approached William Marks, Nauvoo Stake president, and said that he (Joseph) had ‘been deceived’ in the matter of plural marriage and that every effort must be made to rid the church of the doctrine. Unfort6unately, he was killed before anything could be done.
So, where does this leave us? The Reorganized Church has always said that plural marriage in the early church WAS WRONG (my emphasis) regardless of its origins……..it would be good to say how sorry we are for the hateful actions of some toward those who sought to bring uncomfortable historical information to the church’s attention.”
I applaud Mr. Veazey and his admission in hopes of taking a path of healing and reconciliation.
More quotes from Stephen M. Veazey, president of the Community of Christ Mormon sect.
“……we have had a tendency to write church history in a way that placed the church and its leaders in the most favorable light possible….Unfortunately, one outcome of this approach is that we do not always hear ‘the rest of the story’ that may include information that is not as favorable. If we have placed our faith in a person or institution based on a polished version of history that is eventually found to be incomplete, we can become anxious or fearful that our faith has been misplaced.”
Excellent point Mr. Veazey. His attitude stands in stark contrast to that of the Salt Lake Brighamites and the adherents to this sect as evidence by the postings we read on this site. The SLC sect members twist themselves into the ground trying to spin the very clear facts regarding the statements, practices, and beliefs promulgated by the SLC prophet-wolves past and present. The desperation of these members of this false religious sect, to try and justify the unjustifiable is truly pathetic.
The words of the president of the CoC shows a very healthy attitude. In confronting past errors and making the admission of being “wrong”, he sounds like a mature adult and not a sniveling, petulant child as is exhibited by the Brighamites.
consider the Biblical precedent of Levirate marriage, the lack of Jesus ‘clarifying’ or denouncing this practice, and the fact that the scriptures do not repeal Deut 25:5-10.
How is it that this practice can be considered “wrong”…yes, it is currently, in this jurisdiction, illegal..but legality does not always determine morality.
So, while the Ev post above gives kudos to a “sect” that would admit wrong where no wrong exists, i believe it is more revealing that a sect would make such a PR move to appease a fantasy.
When “wrong” myself, as well as the LDS church, would readily admit such an event. However, the example mentioned above is a mere parlor trick meant t oconfound the weak minded.
Hank,
Have you ever been in a Charismatic or Pentacostal church? There are many views on modern day revelation among modern Protestants and your post does not reflect this – it is dishonest. I know you must believe that every Protestant shouts – we have a Bible (meaning we do not need anything else), but it simply is not true. You accuse others so often of mischaracterizing Mormonism yet Mormons here (including you) have more than once brought up this red herring.
Hank, it really is simple. My mind, my heart, and my feelings tell me Mormonism is dead wrong. The Holy Spirit has revealed this to me and you do not want to accept it. “Ev’s” have feelings too and those feelings matter but we normally do not fall back on those when the chips are down in an interfaith dialogue. We deal with evidence here because evidence is transferable. Honestly, are you going to leave Mormonism because I tell you the Holy Spirit spoke to me that Mormonism is wrong?
Hank,
You must be very unhappy.You resort to sarcasm
and such, this is unfortunate. Hank, you seem to
go on and on, it’s not easy tracking with you
sometimes.Now you use the word ” ridicule”
towards me, why? Where have I ridiculed you?
In the recent past I have made my thoughts about
you plainly; I believe you have a love for God
and a desire to serve Him. When I examine the
teachings of Mormonism, I do so because of the
Scriptural counsel to do so.[ 1 Thess.5:21; ]
but I try to do this in the way 1 Peter 3:15
instructs.
I realize that the Holiday’s can be very stress-
ful for many.( my wife’s father died a few years
ago and her mother does’nt do well this time of
year). Perhaps you might consider taking a brake
from this blog etc. In any event, let’s keep the
dialog respectful.
Sub,
What is your point with the levirate marriage thing? It seems like a canard is developing.
Polygyny, not just levirate marriage, is not outright condemned in the Bible. It does seems to violate the one flesh principle though. OT saints practiced polygamy, both levirate and the regular kind, and so did 19th century Mormons. 19th century Mormons practiced regular polygyny and the instances of levirate marriage could be counted on two hands if not one. If you are going to defend 19th century Mormon polygamy then you got to do more than bring up levirate marriage as most of those marriages were not of that kind.
Mike, I apologize to you, actually you have been a very even headed and straight forth poster, please except my apology.
r. đ
Plagiarism at it’s worse. This is what the Church of Scholars has dwindled to. Lazy and useless borrowing falsely the thoughts and points of another persons research, how can we find some who post her creditable at all. Makes you wonder visitors and guests at what some will do to promote some kind of agenda
Borrowed talking points and research at http://www.mormoncurtain.com/topic_farms.html#pub_1284567477
(1) Attack the credibility and character of witnesses against the client. Try to give the jury reason to find the prosecution witnesses unlikable. Try to play up any possible bias against the defendent on the part of the witnesses.
(2) Try to create a theoretically-possible, though highly improbable, scenario to explain away the evidence. This goes to creating “reasonable doubt.” Where there is no room even for “reasonable doubt” try to elevate “unreasonable doubt” to the status of “reasonable” in the minds of the jurors.
(3) Avoid spending time actually dealing with the solid evidence against your client but find some weak piece of evidence that has been presented and pound against with the hidden implication that this is representative of the prosecution’s case.
Actual copy and paste without reference or source or web site.
1. Attack the credibility and character of witnesses against the client/church. The defenders try to present a picture of the witness as being unlikable. They try to emphasize any possible bias that the witness might have against the defendant/church.
2. The defenders try to create a theoretical-possible, though highly improbable, scenario to explain away the evidence. They try to create reasonable doubt and if that canât be done they try to make unreasonable doubt sound reasonable.
3. They avoid spending time actually dealing with the solid evidence against the client/church. They try and find some possible weak piece of evidence and pound against it with the hidden implication that this is representative of the entire eviden
Hank,
Thanks for bolstering the validity of the “Church of the Tards” title. đ
Some belong to the Church of Scholars, and some to the Church of Plagiarism, how bad can it get.
What happened to honesty, integrity, and good Christian principles.
Once you commit plagiarism you loose all credibility, do you not agree?
R.
Hank,
Who committed plagiarism? Honestly, your whole sale cut-n-paste jobs are not much better than plagiarism even if you do give credit.
“What happened to honesty, integrity, and good Christian principles.”
Given the church you belong to are you sure you want to open that can of worms?
I believe plagiarism is for material that carries a copyright. I’m not aware that my taking the points made by a poster on The Mormon Curtain would violate copyright law. I generally try to attribute anything I write to a source or author when used however if it’s some comments made by someone who doesn’t provide a name, I feel free to use the material as I wish.
What’s kind of funny about this is our Mormon poster is using one of the tactics pointed out by the material that was posted. That is, attack the person but don’t deal with the points that were made.
falcon
“use or close imitation of the language and thoughts of another author and the representation of them as one’s own original work”
is the most common definition of plagiarism
Usually this is applicable to academic and intellectual endeavours, because its presence tends to degrade the integrity of such an endeavour.
For example, considering the “plagiarism” seen in your previous posts, the bulk of your posts are now diminished. A bad apple(s) in your “bunch”.
Copyright infringement is legal issue, plagiarism is really an ethical issue…in school it is called academic dishonesty, or cheating.
David W
my point with the levirate marriage was to illustrate that “wrong” is a subjective quality. The call for LDS to admit they are “wrong” on any particular point is subsequently a subjective expectation. That is to say, why would i admit i am wrong, if there is no evidence supporting and i do not consider myself “wrong”.
So, David W, do you believe in modern revelation? if yes, then at what capacity?
p.s. i would not mind opening “that can of worms”, because i have myself a pretty good fishing spot and the fish sure are biting.
Just caught the last few posts (have been pretty busy at work with New Years stuff) and had to laugh about Hanks’ outrage at so-called plagiarism. What about JS’s wholesale copying from the Bible throughout the D&C and claiming that those were the words spoken to him by Jesus Christ. Writers of scipture are “moved” to speak by the Holy Spirit, but use their own words, writing style, analogies, etc. based upon their personal experiences, culture, audience, etc. JS tossed all kinds of “biblical” language into his “revelations” by copying the words of former prophets and apostles from the KJV of the Bible without citing where he obtained those statements. Why would Jesus give JS the exact English translation of the words of former writers that we find in the KJV of the Bible, instead of giving him revelation and letting him put it into his own wording, so the people of his culture would understand what was being conveyed?In the NT we see the writers giving credit to others when they use prior prophecies in their writings. I have pointed out before that the BoM, D&C, etc. is consistently interspersed with exact phrases taken from the KVJ, often completely out of context, and in the case of the BoM, anachronistically. Why would a Jew living 600 years before the Greek texts of the NT were written use the exact phrases we would find thousands of years later in an English translation of those writings? Answer? He wouldn’t. Why not hold ol’ Joe to the same standards Hank? It seems like a prophet of God would be the first to use honesty, integrity, and good Christian principles in his writings.
Falcon is correct. Just because something is borrowed from another writer does not mean that what is borrowed is not true. How about dealing with what is asserted by the writer, or copyer, and attack the issue, not the issuer? Answer? Because you can’t.
Sub,
âwrongâ is a subjective quality
I would want to see you flush this out fully before we continue further. To borrow from the post-modern dialectic . . . this seems like an attempt at a power-play, or rather an attempt to thwart a legitimate one; it seems like a “poisoning the well” of any objective truth.
Honestly, right and wrong being subjective sounds OK in such a sterile environment but in real life such a view often leads to homicide on a mass scale due to a lack of any over-arching system of morality. The phrase “I could be wrong” is right in that it pre-supposes right and wrong do exist. I have to ask a question that I have asked before here, but – would anything be a problem for your belief system?
“Yes” I believe modern revelation is possible and has probably taken place. I believe revelation is on a continuum and I am farther to the right on it than most Mormons but not that much farther. I believe Mormonism (including its founder) has errored on this subject as it has historically viewed other religions, especially competing Cristian sects, as being totally devoid of any modern revelation. This may be true for some denominations but it is not true of all, even ones that were present in J. Smith’s childhood locality. I would add that since the mid to late 1800’s the largest Mormon sect has not had any new revelation on the scale that took place during its first two decades.
I will be forthright in that your Church’s history with polygamy has been one of deception, obfuscation, and out-right lies on polygamy. Your church issued an official statement in 1835 denouncing polygamy and acussing non-Mormons of inventing the accusation to besmirch your church’s reputation. The historical record tells us plainly that your church practiced polygamy before and after that statement. For decades it remained in the D&C while church members (including GA’s) practiced polygamy.
I must admit, I’m generally not as strict with myself writing here on MC then I would be if I were writing a Journal article, a scholarly paper/thesis, or a book. I do try to make a general attribution in most cases but I don’t use something like the APA style. It’s a different venue here so I cut myself “some” slack and do the same for other posters.
The Wide World Church of God was another organization, much like the RLDS/CoC that were not afraid to say they were “wrong” in regards to their religion. Interestingly, the WWCG had many of the same beliefs as the Utah Brighamites. When Herbert W. Armstrong died, the leadership of the WWCG did some soul searching and came to the conclusion that their doctrines and beliefs were indeed heretical.
Armstrong died in 1986 and the leadership realized that what he had taught did not correspond to the Bible. Much of the church’s doctrine was seen to be in error. The leadership began a process of change that caused splits in the denomination. Joseph W. Tkach,Sr. became the head of the group. Among other things he realized that many of the prophetic speculations of the group/Armstrong couldn’t be proven by Scripture.
Starting in 1991 it was announced that certain doctrines would no longer be taught. Among these: that men could someday be gods. I 1993 the doctrine of the Trinity was accepted. The church also said that, contrary to what Armstrong had taught, that the Cross was not a pagan symbol. In 1994 the church jettisoned the dietary requirements it had held to, it announced that the old covenant laws like weekly and annual Sabbaths did not need to be kept.
In 1995 the church rejected the doctrine that Anglo-Saxons descended from the tribes of Israel.
Today the church considers itself part of mainstream Christianity. It is a member of the National Association of Evangelicals.
They admitted they were wrong an underwent a reformation.
(see On Doctrine:Discerning the truth from error)
Writers of scipture are âmovedâ to speak by the Holy Spirit, but use their own words, writing style, analogies, etc. based upon their personal experiences, culture, audience, etc
So, you admit that JS’s writings are valid, thank you.
So obviously you consider Matthew or Luke invalid because of what they borrowed/sourced from Mark? me thinks you might be heretic. And what about book of Hebrews, most likely this was handed down to Paul, is his work invalid?
you end your post contrary to your begining, very confusing.
David W
yes, murder is a problem in my “belief system”.
But we are talking about subjective wrongs, like polygamy (practiced in parts of the world today), racism (which was the way everyone/global thought for centuries), and other assorted social aspects that are intensely subjective.
How does modern revelation “fold” into canonized doctrine for you?
Sub,
Those things you mentioned are not “subjective wrongs” – they are just plain wrong. If they were subjective then they would not be wrong . . . at least to the people doing them. Just because a practice is cultural acceptable or widespread does not make it right. “Murder” is a label put on unjustified homicide. In many cultures someone has the “right” to take the life of another for various reasons. What about killing is so clearly wrong (not subjective) but almost everything else is up in the air?
I think history demonstrates that there is no clean way that revelation “folds” into canonized works (doctrines?). I am still pleasantly amazed at the wide acceptance the Tenach had in the first century A.D. Also, one must keep in mind that for some individuals and belief systems, not all scripture is on the same level – “scripture” is on a continuum.
For me, I see new books having a tough fight in any belief system and they often accompany the emergence of a new one. I would rather error on the side of caution and call something non-scripture when it is then the opposite. I am open to continuing revelation and possibly (though less likely) new books being written or rediscovered. Don’t you see how this view, one that is quite widespread in Protestant circles, is at odds with the traditional LDS paradigm of evangelicals?
Sub, I was simply pointing out that Hank has a problem with Falcon copying another writer without giving the source, but seems to have no problem with JS copying passages verbatim from the Bible without giving the source. My comment was in no way intended to give credibility to JS as a prophet that actually received revelation from God.
You would have to give me specific examples of Matthew and Luke borrowing from Mark, and based upon your past interpretations of scripture I doubt I would agree with you, but it might be an interesting learning experience.
Another member of the Church of Scholars has spoken up:
“Had to laugh about Hanksâ outrage at so-called plagiarism. What about JSâs wholesale copying from the Bible throughout the D&C and claiming that those were the words spoken to him by Jesus Christ. JS tossed all kinds of âbiblicalâ language into his ârevelationsâ by copying the words of former prophets and apostles from the KJV of the Bible without citing where he obtained those statements”.
Hmmm, interesting and very unwittingly stated. So we have the accuser who claims Joseph Plagiarized which all Evangelicals claim is abhorrent and completely unacceptable, versus one of their own whom they defend and find no fault with. Wow, then we have the Plagiarizer himself who now admits all is well in la la land where anything goes since copyrighting is different then just borrowing someone else’s thoughts and ideas. Problem, big problem, because when do we know or do we ever know what is his own person and original thoughts, that could be very problematic. As for me and most likely many of our guest and visitors, one will never know if the facts and evidence is produced by the critic or someone else, or even if it is sound since we have no way of debunking or proving the source, the author, or the claim.
It is nice to know though, that he has admitted to the deed, which now clears up most of his other post for me. Is it intellectual property or the property of an intellectual, hmmm, again problematic.
Hank,
Rather than Ad Hominem and accusations of plagiarism (an attempt at deflection?) can you deal with the substance of the argument? Why do we see unique KJV renderings in the BoM?
You know, I got to thinking about this charge from our Mormon poster that I’ve never had an original idea. There might just be some truth to this. Let me explain. I have three college degrees, one undergraduate and two graduate. I have additional graduate work that led to a professional certification. And “just for fun”, I picked-up a diploma from the Liberty Baptist Home Bible Study program-a two year program I finished in eight months. In addition to that I’m a voracious reader of all sorts of material.
So with that in mind, I’m obviously a product of everything I’ve ever learned. Another point is, that over the years I’ve become a pretty good researcher so I’m always looking things up.
So an “original” thought, I don’t know? I’m pretty much a product of everything I’ve ever learned.
Benjamin Bloom suggested a hierarchy of learning. At the entry level is “knowing”, then moving up the hierarchy is “understanding”, “applying”, “analyzing”, “synthesizing”, and finally “evaluating”. With analysis we take apart that which we know and then with synthesis we put it together in creative ways. Finally when we are fully competent we can evaluate.
“Original”, I don’t know. I think the only original was Elvis!
But I do know that more than any other Christian poster on MC, I’ve probably got the greatest ability to get under the skin of our Mormon posters. I must admit, it’s one of my guilty pleasures!
genius,
Before you mention my name in connection with plagiarism, please be aware of your facts and don’t make comments like ‘I think grindael did this’.
As I recall I quoted a scripture that you said had different applications TO YOU, and that I spoke from experience. There was no plagiarism involved. If it is another instance please produce it. I do try to put sources from all my quotes.
Hank Saint,
You’re vapid responses about casting doubt on what all people here who take an opposing view to smithism seems to be what you are best at. Anything to change the subject or divert from the real issues. It is obvious to all what you are doing and why.
falcon
your ego is showing.
so, the bulk of your resume, as presented, shows that you value accomplishment over achievement.
8 months to do what shoul take 2 years?, did you learn or did you just pass?
I am reminded of professor that once told our class that there are two ways to pass his class…learn the material or memorize the materials.
Given your supposed wealth of knowledge” and all you could do is “cut-n-paste” from mazeministry (a for profit site), on those grounds alone i believe your resume is suspect.
Frankly, your resume, or even my resume, is meaningless here…the substance of the posts are what determine quality…not parchments on the wall. And plagiarism has soiled yours.
i have known several people that parade their “certificates” and “qualifications” around like a Pavo Cristatus. Though they are rather more like a diltante or dabbler.
Good luck to you falcon, with your degrees, certifications, book writings, voracious reading, thesis defenses, etc…how you find the time to post here is admirable.
2 Timothy 3:2
2 Peter 2:18
1 Cor 13:4
grindael
my apologies. i was referring to a posted defintion of a greek word from another discussion. i will heed your advice and not name anyone unless absolutely sure. Again, my apologies.
David W
“I think history demonstrates that there is no clean way that revelation âfoldsâ into canonized works (doctrines?).
The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints demonstrates a “clean” way.
David, you may have to clarify your meaning of “continual revelation” because it does not seem that you believe it exists, can you provide an example? (one from a non-LDS perspective of course)
Just because a practice is cultural acceptable or widespread does not make it right.
does not make it wrong either, which is my point.
and murder/killing is forbidden by God, polygamy is not.
To our visitors and guest it may seem we are overly nitpicking our good friend and member of the Church of Plagiarism, and to others it may seem that not all the fact have been fully explored just yet. My disappointment comes as a surprise, I was getting kind of fond of Falcon’s post, they were always interesting even though fully agenda driven. I was impressed with his use of the english language with a hint of sarcasm which I do appreciate and find humorous at the same time. Now I find out that some, or maybe a great deal of his post could be borrowed thoughts and ideas without credit or reference and that could almost be copied and pasted verbatim. Slight changes have been made, enough to claim that he is only using researched ideas and data, but if that was true why would we find the paragraphs to be almost verbatim word for word.
Now if he was to actually post the source or reference, there would be no need for criticism on my part, since we all love to copy and paste the thoughts and ideas of others who can usually articulate and formate it more suitably. Just a suggestion to Falcon, be honest, don’t pretend, and lastly be proud of what you personally research and discover on your own.
Regards, Richard.
I too thought of the same thing as liv4jc. Joseph Smith borrowed heavily from the KJV Bible in the Book of Mormon and attempts to pass it off as a Newly Revealed Ancient Scripture translation – written long long ago in a culture far far away – and yet it is about 1/3 KJV Bible text – written in the exact syntax and 1600s English. Strange. This plagiarism for the purpose of foisting this newly “translated” Scripture upon the public is apparently accepted by our Mormon posters – and yet when Falcon uses text from another blog comment and does not properly credit the writer it is some kind of nefarious plot wherein HankSaint cannot properly respond to the arguments given without knowing who indeed wrote them. Not that I don’t think people should always try to credit their sources when it is not original, but I think we need some context.
Let me contrast the two cases:
Joseph Smith – borrows from existing literature and claims it is a DIVINELY INSPIRED NEW TRANSLATION OF A NEWLY REVEALED ANCIENT WORK. Supposedly operating under the power and influence of God to miraculously translate this incredible “find,” Joseph Smith produced large sections of the KJV Bible written (or should I say copied) in a style of English from a bygone era.
Falcon – borrows from a little read blog some text for the purpose of elucidating how best to understand Mormon talking points and arguments and does not credit the writer.
Which is the greater fraud? If you hold Falcon accountable for this small infraction I cannot see how Joseph Smith is not in an incredibly worse situation.
âAppropriate or not, at least it best describes a Religion that puts substance before spirituality, Revelation is dead, God speaks no more, and there cannot be any more scripture, hence we have a Church that runs on, converts on, preaches on, and indoctrinates on Substance onlyâ âHankSaint, January 1st, 2010. Posted at Mormon Coffee WITH HIS USUAL VAPIDNESS.( emphasis MINE).
There are so many things wrong with this statement it would take me too long to tell them. But I will make a few points, which will not be brief genius, so if you want to, opt out now. Once again, the Vapidness comes out. This âmodern revelationâ that genius mentioned (with much less vapidity) is one of the modern smithian myths. How so? Well, letâs go to the words of Gordon B. Hinckley. He claimed to be a prophet, seer, and REVELATOR. He did, didnât he? (Do I need to post a source for this?) Aw heck, here is one instance:
Q: You are the president, prophet, seer and revelator of the Mormon Church?
A: I am so sustained, yes. (Laughter) -San Francisco Chronicle April 14, 1997
Now, Hinckley is asked about receiving âDIVINE REVELATIONâ:
DR: As the world leader of the the Church, how are you in touch with God? Can you explain that for me?
Gordon B. Hinckley: I pray. I pray to Him. Night and morning. I speak with Him. I THINK He hears my prayers. As He hears the prayers of others. I THINK He answers them. â David Ransom & Hinckley, Compass Interview, Austrailia 1997
Here the man who has the keys to the oracles of God (so sustained) THINKS God hears his prayers. This would be an appropriate response for say, someone like me. I have FAITH that He does, so yes I THINK so. I have FAITH in the REVEALED WORD (a Bible, a Bible yes I do have a BIBLE) and that Jesus is my Saviour. But I was not ordained a prophet (and donât claim to be) hence I donât KNOW so. Not FACE TO FACE knowledge. Not the kind smith & Young & Taylor & Woodruff claimed. I donât know about the rest…
…except Joseph F. Smith who claimed he NEVER received a revelation from God except his testimony that it (the church) was true. â( Reed Smoot Hearings) and just what was a prophet for??? Oh yeah the big CORPORATION thingy!
What comes next is crucial, because it has nothing to do with WHAT smith, young, etc. claimed (remember they KNEW the mind of God â no âI thinksâ with them). when they receive CHURCH REVELATION:
DR: But more than that, because youâre leader of the Church. Do you have a special connection?
Gordon B. Hinckley: I have a special relationship in terms of the Church as an institution. Yes.
DR: And you receive–
Gordon B. Hinckley: For the entire Church.
DR: You receive?
Gordon B. Hinckley: Now WE DONâT NEED A LOT of CONTINUING revelation. WE HAVE A GREAT BASIC RESEVOIR OF REVELATION. But if a problem arises, as it does occasionally, a vexatious thing with which we have to deal, we go to the Lord in PRAYER. We discuss it as a First Presidency and as a Council of the Twelve Apostles. WE PRAY ABOUT IT AND THEN COMES THE WHISPERINGS OF THE STILL SMALL VOICE. And we know the direction we should take and we proceed accordingly.
DR: And this is a revelation?
Gordon B. Hinckley: This is a revelation.(-Compass Interview, quoted above)
And HOW is (what they are calling divine revelation) done EXACTLY?
Hinckley claimed when Kimball had his ârevelationâ on the priesthood they did that exact thing. Thought about it, prayed about it, felt good about it and voted on it. There is that thing with the âstill small voiceâ, but as far as I know, every Christian claims that. (I posted the source for this on another thread).
smith once said & this is paraphrasing: âI wish I could rip the veil in two so you could see for yourselvesâŚâ Well according to Hinckley there is not much of that going on in smithâs church today. There is NOT MUCH NEED FOR CONTINUING REVELATION, they got a bunch already.
Reminds me of Monty Pythonâs quest for the grailâŚ.The Frenchmen âalready hadâ a grail⌠Go to the Smithians and ask for a REVELATION and they will pull the âstandard worksâ and tell you it has to be in there somewhere, otherwise we need to pray on it and get a feeling it is right. âWe already got one.â Sounds like regular guys to me.
They got enough SUBSTANCEâŚas for spirituality, who is to say? If I was hanksaint I would say none there either, but I am not so vapid. I canât draw that conclusion. What I can do is see that these men are just like ALL OTHER MEN who are NOT PROPHETS. They DO NOT SPEAK FOR GOD. THEY DO NOT KNOW GOD. If they did, they would not have had a former prophet telling them it was Adam. They have faith in their system of âmany godsâ and they are sincere in it.( I would hope so, anyway) If Brigham Young had KNOWN God, he would not have taught adam-god now, would he? If Spencer Kimball HAD KNOWN GOD he would have been able to say, God REVEALED TO ME HE IS NOT ADAM. Instead, Kimball simply said it is not scriptural. (If I were vapid, I would put a HMMMMMM in here) Because that is whatâŚcome on now, you know the answerâŚ.the EVâs do with the Bible!
What the deniers and twisters of the facts do is tell EVâs they do not believe in âmodern revelationâ and point to smith. Well how about how your prophets receive ârevelationsâ today? I tend to believe THEM, a lot of that reasoning is because Young & Smith claimed the mind of God and wow what whacky thoughts they came up with! At least the current leadership has the presence of mind not to fall into that trap.
But are they perpetuating a MYTH? Yes. WHY? Because they donât CLAIM the mind of God anymore, just pray and wait for a good feeling. No genius, nothing wrong with that. But donât tell the EVâs you have a better system. Your system produced Adam-god, to the destruction of how many? (Just like you claim with the EVâs over many, many Christian Blunders)
Why donât you deniers get off your high horse and stop saying EVERYONE ELSE IS WRONG. Only YOUR BAPTISM is authorized. YOU MUST get married in the temple. YOU MUST believe in polygamy. (that has nothing to do with PRACTICING it ), although the Fundamentalists are more true to it than smithians are. They believe what smith wrote that ‘to all it was revealed to must practice it’.
Woodruff took a look at the US Army and had a âfeelingâ he better stop the practice. Nothing wrong with that feeling, and I would have felt âgoodâ about it too. Was it from God. Nah. Because God would never have told smith to lie, cheat on his wife and practice it in secret TO BEGIN WITH! Nor would he have TOLD Young he was actually Adam and all the **** that went along with it.
What smithians are doing is following an idea. That smith was a âgreat prophetâ and saw all kinds of angels and gods and beings of light, yeah, he met Peter and Paul and a host of others⌠But all that STOPPED. Just like the EVâs claim it did at the time of Christ. (I feel another HMMMMMM coming on)Oh, the vapidity, the vapidityâŚall cults are vapidity.
Now you deniers, you know that all Christians who post here believe in ârevelationâ from God. We believe that the Holy Spirit speaks to us. Christ promised us the Comforter and we have it. How that is done is unique to every individual. What smithians claim as the process of receiving ârevelationâ (NOW)is not too different from every other Christianâs experience. Do Christians ignore those promptings? Violate them? Yes. I have made my share of mistakes, and all men sin. But that is not the point here.
smithians teach that the âprophetâ has the keys to the oracles of God, & can obtain the actual MIND of God at any time. What âqualifiesâ smith to smithians is that he said he had a whole bunch of visions, that he had the second comforter (the continual presence of Jesus at his beck and call â and that all the 12 âshouldâ too, – it was made a ârequirementâ of the calling by Oliver Cowdery.)
But alas, all that is gone. What we are left with is a bunch of old men who pray and if they feel good, they do it. (shades of Popedom)
smith and young claimed to âgetâ revelation from God âpersonallyâ. But the smithians have had problems with the prophets that did admit to these things. Young taught Adam was God. smith taught polygamy & a host of other unscriptural doctrines, and said he was a god to his people to boot. No, no still small voice with smith and young. Though they claimed that too. You bet.
So tell me, deniers, what is so different about smithâs cult now? Maybe the fundamentalists are right and there was an apostasy of the Church after young. Just like the GREAT apostasy smith claimedâŚWhoa!. Maybe there will be apostasy until Christ comes⌠like he said there would be. It all depends on who you believe now, doesnât it? Iâll stick with Jesus and the Bible.
And for the record, it was said that: âSo we have the accuser who claims Joseph Plagiarized which all Evangelicals claim is abhorrent and completely unacceptable, versus one of their own whom they defend and find no fault with.â (ANTOHER VAPID STATEMENT by HankSaint at Mormon Coffee, Jan 1st, 2010. Emphasis MINE)
If you read the post, Scholar Saint, liv4jc DID NOT say Falcon was faultless. It was merely pointed out that WHAT he quoted, from WHATEVER SOURCES, was not necessarily untrue because he did not list a source. Did you know Libel is as much a crime as Plagiarism? Just a suggestion Your Vapidness, be honest, donât accuse without evidence, and lastly find sometthing research and discover on your own.
HANK, CAN YOU EXPLAIN THIS?
Hank Saint â Jan 03, 2008. (MRM COFFEE)
Lautensack,
In the words of one eminent historian, âChristianity did not destroy paganism; it adopted it. The Greek mind, dying, came to a transmigrated [new] life in the theology and liturgy of the Church.â (Will Durant, The Story of Civilization, 3:595.)
THOMAS JEFFERSON, THOUGH SURELY NOT A CLERIC, WAS A GREAT STUDENT OF CHRISTIANITY. EVEN HE ACKNOWLEDGED THE LOSS OF THE ORIGINAL GOSPEL AND SAID THAT HE LOOKED FORWARD TO âTHE PROSPECT OF A RESTORATION OF PRIMITIVE CHRISTIANITY. (emphasis mine, now see below)
Where oh where are the prophets and apostles, where did they go. Where is the authority to act in the Name of God? Where is his Priesthood. Do the Catholics have it, the Baptist maybe, no let check the Methodist, EVâs do they have it? Lost, or was lost and restored in itâs fullness, The Church of Jesus Christ of LDS.
âThere are some things in them that are hard to understand, which the ignorant and unstable twist to their own destruction, as they do the other Scriptures.â 2 Peter 3:15-16
Man made concept of a Triune Trinity, The Nicene Creed, not found in any scripture but left to the laity in the supposed Church of the time. Left up in the air is the principle of Baptism not being essential to enter the kingdom of God, because you would have to accept works, and The EVâs cannot accept that because faith alone is all that is required. Wow, where or where are the prophets, and apostles?
*************
From:
http://en.fairmormon.org/Apostasy/Patristic_evidence_of
WORD FOR WORD:
âThomas Jefferson, though surely not a cleric, was a great student of Christianity. Even he acknowledged the loss of the original gospel and said that he looked forward to “the prospect of a restoration of primitive Christianity.â
NO SOURCE. Hank, did you make a mistake too? Looks like someone has been hoisted by their own petard.
Cheers & Regards đ
grindael, David, et.al.
The falcon is truly touched by your insights and conclusions regarding my involvement in plagiarism-gate. As I was writing that post, I was running through my little mental decision making grid as to whether to attribute the writer or not. I made the decision to not attribute. I won’t bore you with my reasoning because it will come out sounding too much like a lame alibi and I’ll sound like Adam responding to God “The woman whom Thou gavest to be with me, she gave me from the tree, and I ate.” And Eve with the original Flip Wilson “the devil made me do it” response, “The serpent deceived me, and I ate.”
So anyway, our Mormon posters will spit and sputter and act indignant and all personally offended and jump up and down. When folks do this it makes me wonder if such behavior isn’t in some way to cover something up and defect from their own personal behavior.
I think, grindael, your “Word for Word” quote above confirms this. What’s that line (?) “Me thinks the lady doth protest too much.”
Anyway, I’ve said all I will on the topic and will now get back to my usual posts that tend to set the Mormon posters’ hair on fire.
In an open letter titled “Forgive Us Our Trespasses” published in the March/April 1996 Plain Truth, David Tkach then president of the Worldwide Church of God made a stunning admission of how their organization had been “wrong”.
He said that the church:
*”….has changed its position on numerous long-held beliefs and practices during the past few years. At the heart of those changes has been an acceptance that salvation is by grace through faith. While this was preached in the past, it was always coupled with the message that God owes us a reward for our works that build holy, righteous character.”
*”The Scriptures speak to us with fresh meaning, and we rejoice daily in the personal relationship we have with our Lord and Savior.”
*”The Holy Spirit is working today in the body of Christ to heal historic wounds and restore good relations between offenders and offended. It is my painful responsibility to acknowledge that the Worldwide Church of God has been among the offenders.”
*”Our flawed doctrinal understanding clouded the plain gospel of Jesus Christ and led to a variety of wrong conclusions and unscriptural practices. WE HAVE MUCH TO REPENT OF AND APOLOGIZE FOR.” (Emphasis mine)
*”We imposed on our members a works-oriented approach to Christian living. We required adherence to burdensome regulations of the OT code.We exercised a strongly legalistic approach to church government.”
*”We overemphasized predictive prophecy and prophetic speculation, minimizing the true gospel of salvation through Jesus Christ.”
*”THESE TEACHINGS AND PRACTICES ARE A SOURCE OF SUPREME REGRET. WE ARE PAINFULLY MINDFUL OF THE HEARTACHE AND SUFFERING THAT HAS RESULTED FROM THEM.” (Emphasis mine)
*”…..we didn’t recognize the spiritual path we were on. Intended or not, that path was not the biblical one.”
(to be continued)
(continued)
*”As we look back, we ask ourselves how we could HAVE BEEN SO WRONG. (Emphasis mine)Our hearts go out to all whom our teachings have misled in the Scriptures. We don’t minimize your spiritual disorientation and confusion. We earnestly desire your understanding and forgiveness.”
*”We make no attempt to cover up the doctrinal and scriptural errors of our past. It is not our intention to merely paper over the cracks. We are looking our history squarely in the face and confronting the faults and sins we find. They will always remain a part of our history, serving as a perpetual reminder of the dangers of legalism.”
*”We stand today at the foot of the cross-the ultimate symbol of all reconciliation.”
Joseph Trach concludes by saying:
*We desire to meet there with anyone we may have injured. It is only by the blood of the Lamb and the power of the Spirit that we can put the hurts of the past behind us and move forward toward our common goal. So to all members, former members, co-workers and others-all who have been casualties of our past sins and mistakes of doctrine-I extend my sincerest heartfelt apologies. And I invite you to join us in proclaiming the true gospel of Jesus Christ around the world.”
Now I think we can all see how this could have been written by Joseph Smith or any of the other prophet-wolves regarding the errors and deceit of Mormonism. They have misled countless numbers of souls and stand in condemnation for their deceit. I don’t know if this is what Grant Palmer, author of “An Insiders View of Mormon Origins”, had in mind when he said that the LDS church was in need of reformation, but all that is written by Joseph Tkach could be applied to the Mormon church both past and present. Literally thousands of LDS have begun their own personal reformation by leaving the Mormon church and seeking a new path. We can only wish them God-speed and pray that they will find new life in the Gospel of Jesus Christ.
Sub,
The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints demonstrates a âcleanâ way.
Hardly. The bringing forth of the standard works was not clean. I know the history of the BoM, PoG, and the D&C. There have been many changes from the original English versions. These kinds of changes are vastly different than the textual critical issues surrounding books of the Bible. Honestly, there is no way the Comprehensive history of the church can jive with the changes made to the BoM. Many non-LDS Mormons do not accept your books or have different versions of them. Can you honestly tell me that the written words of prophets both living and dead are as authoritative as say the BoM? There is an enormous range of views on this issue in Mormonism.
An example? I think some of the revelatory insights that Charismatic Christians have received are authentic.
Sub, you can do better than this – “does not make it wrong either”.
Brushing one’s teach is a widespread and cultural acceptable practice (dare I say “mandated”) but that has no bearing on if its right or wrong. Honestly, the whole “cultural” thing seems like deflection. If it is the written word that helps to guide our morality, and not culture, why bring it up.
Not exactly sure of your point, seems I attributed everything I wrote to a source. Hence Jefferson is mentioned by name, seems if this is the best you can do after checking the archives for hours and hours you have come up very short and very lacking in any credibility as to my personal copy and paste, as to Falcon it is blatant and obvious he uses the thoughts and ideas of others in a constant barrage of criticism that is hard to tell where he is speaking for himself or for another.
Suggestion, next time copy and past my whole post and not out of context.
Nice try.
Richard.
Hank,
Are you seriously alleging plagiarism for a blog post?
If this is not a case of deflection, I do not know what is. Do you care to deal with unique (and wrong) KJV renderings in the BoM?
Interesting, I went back to look at the 2008 post I made and by clicking on the source I gave,
Will Durant, The Story of Civilization, 3:595.)
It takes you to the full paragraph I copied and pasted for all to see the exact words printed therein. Hmmm, here is the site it takes you too, please knock yourself out trying to prove I plagiarized anything. đ
http://www.fairlds.org/Apostasy/Apostasy_Recognized_by_Reformationists.html
Even though the membership to the Church of Plagiarist might be taking on new members, I have so far decided not to join.
Regards, Richard.
David, Just suggesting that our benighted poster of infamous fame gets all the credit he is due. He has admitted to error, as far as the extent we do not know and I am not going to check all the archives to prove anything other then his current posts. Putting someone on notice only allows us to double check the claims and provides a source with a name and reference, this is close as we are going to get as to peer review.
Maybe you should let the topic drop, by commenting you only fuel the flames already burning.
Regards. Richard đ
Ah, the “Long and Winding Road” of the Mormon thought process. This is just priceless, classic, revealing and a perfect example of psychological thought bending. The mind of the cultist is a wonder to behold. We have a Mormon version of Mad Magazine’s Alfred E. Newman “Who Me?” routine. Come on boy, fess-up…deal with it, your fingers are in the cookie jar and everyone can see it.
So why won’t the Brighamites out in Utah ever give-it-up, clean the slate and reform the organization? Well there’s too much money on the table for one thing, and power. The boys at the top aren’t going to risk losing their rockstar status. Mormons, especially the up-and-comers are like the rich young ruler in the Bible. There are just too much worldly chips in their purses and greed and power corrupt absolutely.
The Worldwide Church of God took a tremendous membership hit when they decided to confess to their doctrinal errors and follow Jesus. There’s a price to be paid for following the Lord. The Community of Christ Mormon sect experienced the same thing. Coming to grips with the truth about Joseph Smith and the history of the Mormon church came with a price, but these folks and the WCG valued their integrity.
Does anyone want to start developing a list of all of the things the Bringhamites would have to confess to in order to set the record straight and get on course. The hardcore would be fleeing to the FLDS and would suddenly discover the truthfulness of the polygamy principle.
No, the future for LDS members will come as the flow out the door becomes so great that the coffers in SLC start shrinking. At that point, the boys who sit in the tall buildings and can’t even figure out that Mark Hoffman conned them, might wake-up; but I doubt it.
Hank, I find it really funny, you are accusing a poster or two of plagiarism, Yet many an LDS has posted on this blog things that they make appear as if the said it, then the Mods have busted them for not citing their sources and then pointing out where it was taken from. I also have seen Christians call out LDS posters for the same thing.
Then Me and other have posted exact quotes from LDS sources like the JoD and then you guys cannot call plagiarism, but instead you guys claim we simply dont understand what were reading.
Funny thing about telling us we dont understand what were reading, Some people own the entire JoD so we quote from what we read with our own eyes, yet I suspect many LDS who claim were clueless dont own it and never read it. Then your telling us you guys have the true church but never help us to see the truth, you simple say, Your wrong in your quote from the JoD, but you never explain why or how.
By not helping us to understand shows your dont care about us, your only following a man and trying to further yourself in the Mans organization. They say, Get in power, stay in power, increase in power.
I know what I say about the quotes from the JoD or other books are true because My blogging experience went like this, Many LDS would accuse me of lying or mis-quoting things, I would ask them to show me exactly where or how. Can you guess what happened? The LDS poster would leave and never come back. Wow, big surprise their.
Then when they would accuse me of mis quoting books guess what I would do, I would scan books then post the exact scanned copy for the to read, plus and added page before the quote and after the quote for context, Can you guess what happened next? They again left and never replied. If you think I am lying your more than welcome to go read over my blog and see for your self.
But I suspect you will simply decline or say your busy or even ignore my post because you know I’m telling the truth and would fail in trying. Rick b
Rick keeps fanning the fire, “Hank, I find it really funny, you are accusing a poster or two of plagiarism, Yet many an LDS has posted on this blog things that they make appear as if the said it, then the Mods have busted them for not citing their sources and then pointing out where it was taken from. I also have seen Christians call out LDS posters for the same thing.
Frustrating isn’t it, but then again our poster of the Church of Plagiarism is doing exactly what you should be doing, just ignore the problem and let it fade away, but by your constant complaining you are just adding fuel to the fire that I’m sure our guest and visitors have seen enough of. If you ignored the criticism, then maybe the subject would go back to the issues, but I do appreciate you keeping it front and center.
regards, Richard.
Hank,
Maybe you could begin by dealing with Joseph’s Smith’s “plagiarism” in the BoM? Why do we see unique and wrong KJV renderings of the Bible in the BoM?
Plagiarism is stealing an-others ideas and thoughts. According to you Creedal Christians who rely on the translations of men and not on the original writings, we find that the KJV rendering to be not totally correct. Leaving out the importance of Baptism as a crucial ordinance to membership in the Kingdom of God being one.
Regards. R. đ
HankSaint,
I took a look at your old post by searching “Thomas Jefferson” in the search box on this page. It seems your provided reference was for the first sentence and not the “Thomas Jefferson” sentence which appears to be your thoughts, and you cannot click on the reference given for the first sentence, so I don’t see how it would take you to the web page you provide here. Am I missing something? If you look on the link provided by both you and grindael in the comments here on this page the same Thomas Jefferson line is there, but your reference to Will Durant would require the purchase of a book to investigate I think? Is this quote from Will Durant? I am asking – because the web page you source does not credit him as the author, it credits the sentence before in exactly the same way you did – like you just copied and pasted it from the website without crediting where it came from.
Again, let’s put these things in context – which is greater, poor source references by Christians and Mormons here on a blog in back and forth debate -OR- Joseph Smith’s wholesale copying of sections of existing literature and crediting it a Newly Revealed Ancient Scripture translated by the power of God?
Hank,
This statement strongly implies a confusion between translation and transmission
“translations of men and not on the original writings”
We do not go by translations. Our camp (and yours) has men who can read the original languages and can thus produce accurate translations of those texts.
If the Comprehensive History of the Church is correct then why does the 1830 BoM have any incorrect readings? If J. Smith was not using the KJV to come up with parts of the BoM (if he did this goes against the CHotC) then why do we see errors exactly like the ones in the KJV? Many of these errors are particular to the KJV. If Joseph was a true prophet & seer of God should he not do better than mediocre 17th century scholarship?