I did not expect to meet so many atheists when I moved to Utah seven years ago. But I should have known better: America as a whole is secularizing, and Mormonism itself has a “scorched earth policy.” My Mormon girlfriend in high school once essentially said, “If the LDS Church isn’t true, I don’t know that I could ever believe in God.” Mormonism already is a form of atheism: it denies the existence of an all-powerful, all-knowing, first, most high God, and instead teaches a kind of naturalism or materialism: everything is matter, even spirits, and everything is subject to eternal laws of ultimate nature, even the gods. It feeds its people conspiracy theories about the corruption of the Bible, and it scares the heck out of Mormons over non-Mormon churches: if you don’t stay with the One True Church, you’ll have to settle for an abominable evangelical church with a corrupt pastor who is a minister of Satan.
That is a colorful way of putting it, but you get the point.
It is depressing that so many people leave Mormonism only to become agnostics or atheists. Fortunately, atheists have a hard time staying atheists. Their children are probably much more open to the Biblical gospel than Mormons are. I suspect God is up to something — he has multi-generational plans we’ve never dreamed of. If giving people the truth about Mormonism’s history and the truth about the Biblical gospel of Jesus Christ statistically increases the odds of a person becoming a self-confessed agnostic or atheist, then so be it. God is sovereign and I am not here to be a social engineer or to play God. My job as an ambassador of Jesus is to preach the word of truth in love, and let the chips fall where they may. Fortunately, there is the fruit of ex-Mormon Christians to celebrate.
I used to be intimidated to talk to atheists. They are, in my experience, generally confident about their atheism and have tough questions. But over time I discovered that the average atheist hasn’t read a substantive book defending atheism or theism, and gets his intellectual prowess from… image memes and YouTube. Today, I like to start off conversations with atheists by asking, “Have you ever read a good book defending atheism or theism?” Usually they haven’t. “Have you ever heard any good arguments for the existence of God or the resurrection of Jesus?” Usually they haven’t. “What are the strongest arguments for theism or Christianity, and what about them do you find lacking?” Blank stare. “What do you think are some of the most difficult questions for atheism to answer?” Ughhh…
These are great introductory teaching moments. “Would you mind if I shared a few good arguments for the existence of God and for the resurrection of Jesus?” What an awesome opportunity, especially when it culminates in a presentation of the most beautiful (and true) story in the world: God, yes, God, became a man, suffered with us and for us, and paid our penalty on the humiliating and shameful cross, and showed us the best display of sacrificial love there has ever been, simultaneously vindicating the righteousness of God, raising three days letter, showing us that the Lord Jesus Christ has all authority under heaven and earth and infinite power to keep his promises.
My favorite argument for the existence of God is the “moral argument for God.” I push it really hard:
1. If there is no God, there are no objective moral values or duties.
2. There are objective moral values and duties.
3. Therefore, God exists.
The really interesting thing about this argument is that atheists disagree with each other and don’t know it. Some affirm both premises and simply haven’t followed them through to the conclusion. Some affirm premise #1 and disaffirm premise #2, others disaffirm premise #1 and affirm premise #2. Call me a rascal, but when I’m being dog-piled by atheists, I love to get them arguing with each other. The argument is a great way to simultaneously engage someone’s intellect, spiritual intuitions, and suppressed presuppositions, all at the same time.
You can hear more about the moral argument for God here. But don’t let YouTube suffice: read a good book. Some of you are, like me, at times utterly sick of reading about, thinking about, and discussing Mormonism. Take the opportunity to read some good literature that both engages atheism and supports the basics of Biblical Christianity. The ironic thing is that you can take what you learn and share it with not only your atheist neighbors, but also your Mormon neighbors. I dare say that all of the evidences, arguments, and Biblical declarations that atheists need to hear are things that Mormons equally need to hear. Mormons are atheists in embryo. As Mormons are, ex-Mormon atheists once were; as ex-Mormon atheists are, Mormons may be. To quote The Dark Knight Rises out of context: “There is a storm coming.” Mormon parents need to stop asking themselves, “Will my children remain in the LDS Church?”, and start asking, “When my children leave the LDS Church, will they believe in Jesus?” Not if, but when. It’s happening in Utah, and it’s happening fast. Mormons have a hard time imagining what being a Christian theist would be like outside of Mormonism. I want to help start this process of imagination.
Addendum: Ten Discussion Questions for Atheists and Agnostics
- Is there anything you reasonably believe to be true, yet can’t empirically demonstrate?
- Are there any objective moral values or duties?
- Is torturing babies for fun morally objectively wrong?
- Does atheism have a ‘problem of evil’?
- Does every effect have a sufficient cause?
- Do you trust your cognitive faculties?
- To what extent and why?
- Is an infinite regress possible?
- Is it possible that God exists?
- Is truth important for its own sake?
- Is the question of God’s existence important?
- Do you feel angst or sorrow over the absurdity of life?
- What do you think of the person of Jesus?
- Have you ever heard of the “trilemma”?
Philosophical discussion important, but secondary and supplemental to direct preaching. People are not only emotional and spiritual beings, but also intellectual beings, so I consider it a respectful and loving thing to engage a person intellectually.
We are all fools for something. I choose to be a fool for Jesus. “If any of you think you are wise by the standards of this age, you should become ‘fools’ so that you may become wise.” (1 Corinthians 3:18) Be a “fool” with me and preach the ridiculous gospel of Jesus Christ. Self-confessed atheists are no different than the rest of us inadvertent “practical atheists” who sin as though God does not exist. We need to repent of trusting ourselves and cry out to Jesus in brokenhearted, child-like faith.
God is good, and Jesus has risen,
Aaron
fightinglee,
“Would it be more correct to say that members/teachers or whoever lied to you about these subjects, more so than the church?”
Absolutely not. I know that faithful LDS members refuse to admit that their church leaders could ever be wrong on something or can ever lead the church astray. I have read so many testimonies of ex Mormons and how is it possible for someone in another State or even another country to have been taught the same exact thing as me? How is that possible? Where does all of the denial about polygamy or the hush hush no mention of Joseph Smith practicing polygamy come from? The teachings of Blacks being less valiant, etc. If it was just in my area then you may have a point, but it is International. I don’t think I will allow you to blame members for false teachings.
Your church (leaders) lie, that’s the truth. Pres. Hinckley lied in Time magazine about God once being a man, then stood up in General Conference and did damage control. I will let you research that on your own. He also lied on Larry King Live about polygamy and the LDS belief in polygamy.
Pres. Hinckley also lied about Mountain Meadows. The only think I knew about Mountain Meadows was what I was taught at church, long story short, the Mormons were trying to bring peace between the Indians and the Baker-Fancher party and were acting as go betweens trying to save the Christians. When it was clear that wasn’t going to be the case because of the Indians, the Mormons stood with their guns but where unable to shoot anyone so they laid down and the Indians shot and killed them. A few years ago my Mom asked me to research Mountain Meadows because my brother had seen a movie about it and did his own research and found out the truth and told her. I was sick at what I found. I also ran across articles about the September 11, 1999 memorial the LDS church did at Mountain Meadows. Pres. Hinckley had the perfect platform to apologize for that horrible thing. He didn’t do it. In fact later on Larry King Live he blamed the Indians. There was an article in the Salt Lake Tribune stating that the Church apologized for Mountain Meadows (http://www.sltrib.com/lds/ci_6862682) Read it and tell me if you think it’s an “apology.”
Fglee said Falcon, from your point of view you may see the bible as an enemy to mormons, the lds view of the bible was actually one of the primary points that drew me into the church and I have found that to be true for several friends of mine. I find the lds interpretation of the bible to be the most correct. You disagree. Mormons themselves see the bible interpretation of thier church to be a very strong selling point to their faith. For instance the fact that you cannot find any teachings of the trinity in it is just one example.
I really find what you said so hard to believe and here is why, Mormons take issue with the fact that since they claim they cannnot find teachings of the trinity in the Bible to them thats evidence that the Bible is false.
So if thats the case, lets use your logic and show me the Mormon teachings of these things from both the Bible and the BoM. God is an Exalted Man, or God “organized” the worlds rather than creating them, or, “Intelligence’s” are eternal, or Marriage for eternity, or three degree’s of glory, or Negroes are denied the priesthood, or many other Mormon doctrines?
You find the LDS interpretation of the Bible the most accurate, but how is that possible? JS said the German version was/is the most accurate, so why are you not using that?
Or LDS teach the Bible is not translated correctly, so if thats true, how can you trust what you read?
Or how come no Mormon prophet has “Corrected” these verses? If you say JS did in the J.S.T of the Bible, then why do Mormons Not use that version? If you say, we do, then thats not true either. When ever Mormons on this blog quote the Bible or post verses they are not J.S.T. Bible verses.
So these are only a few reasons I find it hard to believe what you said.
The Trinity is taught in the Bible. It’s the very nature of God.
I love this video that Aaron posted on YouTube. I’m especially drawn to these former Mormons who were, for lack of a better term, hardcore believers in Mormonism.
Mitz Nelson, the presenter, is entertaining, funny and very blunt. Her story, for me, is interesting because she uses a lot of Mormon cultural and religious lingo giving an inside view of someone who has been there. “There” meaning the process of being hardcore Mormon and going through an awakening. Very exciting. Excellent for you Mormon readers who are asking questions.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j2I9LpDF708
Fightinglee
A comment on an earlier post concerning reformed Egyptian
Joseph Smith claimed to have translated a “modified form of Egyptian” for a very simple reason; he was implying it was a language that only he could translate. Yes I’m aware that no one could accurately translate Egyptian until the discovery of the Rosetta stone but that fact simply made it easier for Smith to fool people. I also have done my research, but I will not copy & paste a list of the things I’ve found, I would rather, in this case, use common sense. I’m aware of the arguments put forward by the Maxwell institute from which you quote & as usual they do not use established or recognised academic sources but rather so-called experts on the periphery of that field. As Rick pointed out, no such language has ever existed & no matter what apologists come up with to explain it away, or whether Smith used that description to describe a “modified” version is neither here nor there, it remains a historical fact. To say that the Egyptian language was modified over a period of time in order to justify the nonsense that Smith supposedly revealed is deliberately misleading, not perhaps by you but certainly by apologists. ALL languages, including the one that you & I are using right now have been modified. Language is not static, you read the King James Bible & you see that for yourself. My speech is different to someone from the 16th century because it has been modified but do I speak in Reformed English? Of course I don’t, there is no such language.
Allow me to present a logical argument; Let’s assume for a moment that the Book of Mormon peoples actually existed. Obviously they would have been Jews, devout Jews at that, so I think it’s fair to assume in that period of history they would have used Aramaic as their first & almost certainly their only language. Why therefore would a devout Jew write anything in the language of a people they hated with a passion? To a devout Jew anything “Egyptian” was a byword for everything corrupt & evil. The argument that the Book of Mormon was written by Jews in a previously unknown form of the native language of a people they hated is stretching the imagination a little too far don’t you think?
A final thought on this, if, as we are told in the Book, a population numbered in untold millions existed in the Americas, why hasn’t a solitary example of their language ever been discovered? Apart that from a fictional record on gold plates that conveniently disappeared there is nothing, absolutely nothing. It stands to reason that if that language had ever existed one would expect the American Indians to speak a modified version of it?
“Moroni states that the egyptian had been reformed further by the nephites. So reformed doesnt sound like all that bad of a term to describe exactly what it was
With respect Fightinglee, please don’t use circular arguments; you cannot use the Book of Mormon to prove the Book of Mormon
Kate,
Wilford Woodruff recorded that a few years after the massacre when Young visited the site he said, “Vengeance is mine and I have taken a little.”
This is a smoking gun that gives us the answer who was responsible. It was Brigham Young.
Old Man,
It goes deeper than that. Jews would not have even written the Torah on gold plates. They had a specific tradition of how and on what they could write it on, and a purification process that did not allow for gold plates. This is why even though there was a copper “scroll” found with the dead sea scrolls, it wasn’t scripture, it was a treasure inventory/map. Also, the law had to be “rolled up” and they could not do this with metal plates, although they tried it with the copper scroll, because it was obviously sacred to them. Joseph Smith did not account for this, rather he has devout Jews writing the law on metal plates in a language that was not sacred. Unlikely at best.
Kate,
This is the trend for most ex-Mormons who believe in God after leaving it. The vast majority of Ex-Mormons I know who still believe in God are non-denominational and place their trust in Jesus and His word alone.
grindael,
I have read that by Wilford Woodruff and have even had a conversation with a Mormon about this topic. Mormons will deny that Brigham Young had anything to do with it, he sent word to let the Baker-Fancher party pass through but dang it, it got there too late. What Mormons don’t realize is that nothing happened in the Utah territory without Brigham Young knowing about it. He had the Indian telegraph as well. I am convinced from the mountains of evidence that Brigham Young ordered the Massacre and then blamed the Indians. Sad day for Utah history.
“This is the trend for most ex-Mormons who believe in God after leaving it. The vast majority of Ex-Mormons I know who still believe in God are non-denominational and place their trust in Jesus and His word alone.”
For those of us who are multi generational Mormons, it’s really hard to trust a denomination. We’ve been lied to our entire lives. The LDS church is our life and we don’t know anything outside of it. We lose our identity. I think it is different for us than for converts. We don’t know anything else and our world literally falls apart. I’m so glad to be on the other side of that now and I feel for people who are just starting the process. It’s a very hard, steep climb.
I was a convert Kate, and it was no different for me. Atheism at the time seemed like a logical path after leaving Mormonism. I know this is true for many ex-Mormons.
Hey old man,
I love the fact that you decided to stay, also I find it funny, I was working on a reply and you said much of what I was writing, maybe are words are different and style is different but still in many respects we said the same thing. Keep up the good work.
Now back to you fglee.
Fglee said
Can your provide Evidence of this? I really have a hard time just taking Mormons at there word since many come here make claims and thats all they do, is make claims.
Fglee said
So your saying The BoM is a translation, I never disputed that, JS translated it from the golden plates. I said, the Language that was written on the golden plates was reformed Egyptian and that, that language does not exist and there is no evidence for it.
Then you said
So your saying JS used the word reformed Egyptian? But if your saying we dont know the actual term used by the nephites then how can you trust JS to know what he was talking about? Then add to that, the BoM says
falcon,
I just finished watching Mitz Nelson. I really felt for her while she was talking about losing her child and wanting to be the one to raise her in eternity. Did you notice the way the LDS church plays on a woman’s emotions with this? Oh if you aren’t righteous and go through the temple, she will be given to someone else to raise. How cruel.
Kudos to her husband for sticking it out with her and helping her to the true and living Christ. I’ll bet she’s glad to know that she really doesn’t need to depend on her husband to call her from the grave 🙂
As she was explaining how God “led her to the desert and completely emptied her so that he could fill her” that struck a nerve with me. It explains my experience, I just never had words for it before! Thanks for posting the link.
gridael,
I’m not belittling or trivializing any ex Mormon’s experience, I hope I didn’t come across that way. I know it’s hard for everyone who falls into the Mormon cult. I was just thinking that those of us who are born into it don’t know life any other way, converts (especially if they join as an adult) have life experience outside of Mormonism. I have a nephew and a few friends who are in the process of leaving and are turning to Atheism, it seems that they are doing that more out of anger at the LDS church than anything else, any thoughts on this?
Didn’t think you were Kate. I was just clarifying, and I mentioned what I did cause even us “converts” had those same feelings. I was definitely angry. When I got past the Churches lies about Adam-god while I was at BYU and found out that what the Fundamentals were saying about it was absolutely true, and went and spoke with more than one General Authority who lied to me and told me to mind my tongue, I was pretty mad. Their answer to Adam-god was to give me the Peterson book “Adam — Who is he? which is a complete joke, and full of lies. The fact that these men could so blatantly lie was what angered me the most. And the attitude of my Stake President was the worst. He just ignored the whole issue. After spending two years preaching Mormon lies to innocent victims of my naive sincerity, I was mortified, and heartbroken. I know why many turn away from God after Mormonism. It’s a traumatic thing to invest so much of your life into a total sham. But the Father draws his children to Him.
And all of that came about because I was touring around Utah looking for old Church History books and ran into some Fundamentalist Mormons at a used bookstore.
fightinglee,
I do want to say, that most of the things you have brought up, they have been brought up in ensigns and general conference talks actually. It is a big criticism that the church hides stuff, but for instance, Dieter Uchdorf just gave a talk about the seer stones in the april 2009 conference. It has been mentioned more than a few times, so I dont agree about the lies of omission.”
All the LDS church is doing now is damage control. The damage has been done and they are scrambling to get in front of the eight ball. They know these issues and the church’s dishonesty and lying by omission are the reasons Mormons are leaving in droves. In the past, the church could control information because who’s to know? They couldn’t predict the Internet and the impact it would have on “sensitive” LDS information. Please don’t tell me that the LDS church doesn’t try to control information, all you have to do is research Mark Hoffman. Of course they are introducing these things now, but I think they are a day late and a dollar short.
gridael,
“And all of that came about because I was touring around Utah looking for old Church History books and ran into some Fundamentalist Mormons at a used bookstore.”
God does work in mysterious ways 🙂 I’m curious, was this the beginning of the end of Mormonism for you? What started your process out? If you don’t mind me asking…
Kate, i think it is unfair to say because the church does not focus on church history and controversial subjects that they are lying to you. If you go to a catholic church do they spend an hour talking about the crusades, witch hunts, suppression of information, changed bible texts, etc? No. They are going to focus on what will make the individual better.
As far as damage control, they have had these things in the ensigns on the seer stone and such stuff for the last 60 years!! You can find entries from nibley in many many ensigns about a lot of the issues you bring forth. Even if you wanted to ignore all that, so what is wrong with the church trying harder now. If they do nothing they are hiding it and if they try harder, its just damage control? Its a double standard that has no positive for you.
Rick, there is ample evidence. I shared several volumes with you and you can easily google them. Why are you not capable of doing google searches on the information i presented. You could google Demotic Egyptian. Do you want me to google it for you? I could give you book references, but are you going to go read them if you cant even google the word Demotic?
Do you have any idea how a translation works? Or what an egyptian character looks like, Rick? Do you believe that the egyptians actually wrote the word reformed? A tranlsator can pick from several words, but in any tranlsational process, it is ideas that you are translating, not just words. For instance, I speak portuguese. I might say in portuguese, Sinto saudades de ti. But there is no direct literal translation for this. I am saying, I miss you, that is the feeling that is conveyed. I might use, I have a longing for you, or I miss you, or my heart is heavy, or a numerous other amount of words or phrases. The word reformed refers is an adjective. So moroni says, “we used a language we call reformed egyptian” now we might as well say, “We used a language that is modified egyptian, or we have changed the egyptian, etc.” In translation of any language, adjectives are the most altered and changed words from versions to versions, wether it be spoken or written translation. Because mose languages use several words as descriptors.
The idea conveyed is, we use a language that has been altered by us. Is that really so unbeilavable to you that languages are altered by different people? Any study of language, especially a language removed from another, shows swift modifications. Thus we see the difference in many spellings between england and us, as well as slang. In portugal and brazil we see massive amounts of variations of pronunciation, grammar, spelling, etc. Not only that, but it sounds like moroni is saying that the alterations were partially on purpose.
So, in the case that you cannot go study up on demotic on your own, here is a wiki entry and its source. It took 12 seconds.
Early Demotic (often referred to by the German term Frühdemotisch) developed in Lower Egypt during the later part of the 25th dynasty, particularly found on stelae from the Serapeum at Saqqara. It is generally dated between 650 and 400 BC as most texts written in Early Demotic are dated to the 26th dynasty and the following Persian period (the 27th dynasty). After the reunification of Egypt under Psametik I, Demotic replaced Abnormal Hieratic in Upper Egypt, particularly during the reign of Amasis, when it became the official administrative and legal script. During this period, Demotic was used only for administrative, legal, and commercial texts, while hieroglyphs and hieratic were reserved for other texts.
–Betrò, Maria Carmela (1996). Hieroglyphics: The Writings of Ancient Egypt. New York; Milan: Abbeville Press (English); Arnoldo Mondadori (Italian). pp. 34–239. ISBN 0-7892-0232-8.
Johnson, Janet H. (1986). Thus Wrote ‘Onchsheshonqy: An Introductory Grammar of Demotic. Studies in Ancient Oriental Civilization, No. 45. Chicago: The Oriental Institute.
Old Man –
To say that demotic does not fall under the description of reformation is getting pretty silly now.
to reform – Make changes in (something, typically a social, political, or economic institution or practice) in order to improve it.
I dont know how else to give you references than to reference print books which i doubt you are going to go buy. here you go though:
hlomo Yeivin, “A Hieratic Ostracon from Tel Arad,” Israel Exploration Journal 16/3 (1966): 153–59.
In it, there is a discussion about discoveries during excavations at the southern Judean site of Arad, a number of ostraca were found. Most of the documents were written in Hebrew and dated to ca. 598–587 B.C.16 One, however, dating “to the seventh century B.C.,” was written in Egyptian hieratic.
or this
More significant, however, was an ostracon uncovered at Arad in 1967. Dating “toward the end of the seventh century B.C.,” it reflects usage from shortly before 600 B.C., the time of Lehi. The text on the ostracon is written in a combination of Egyptian hieratic and Hebrew characters.
“Linguistic Implications of the Tel-Arad Ostraca,” Newsletter and Proceedings of the Society for Early Historic Archaeology 127 (October 1971): 1–5,
this is also in abbreviated form in “The Language of My Father,” New Era (May 1971): 19.
It is also quite noted from the many sources we have that heiratics were used by hebrews for weights and measure and numerals:
A quite famous one such example of egyptian written with underlying aramaic is the papyrus Amherst 63, a document written in Egyptian demotic and dating to the second century B.C. Raymond Bowman of the University of Chicago realized that, while the script is Egyptian, the underlying language is Aramaic. Bowman managed to translate portions of the text, but it did not become the object of serious study until the 1980s. Among the writings included in the religious text is a paganized version of Psalms 20:2–6. Here, then, we have a Bible passage, in its Aramaic translation, written in late Egyptian characters.
here are a huge number of sources for info on the papyrus.
Raymond A. Bowman, “An Aramaic Religious Text in Demotic Script,” Journal of Near Eastern Studies 3 (1944): 219–31. -S. P. Vleeming and J. W. Wesselius, “An Aramaic Hymn from the Fourth Century B.C.,” Bibliotheca Orientalis 39/5–6 (September–November 1982): 501–9; S. P. Vleeming and J. W. Wesselius, “Betel the Saviour,” Jaarbericht van het Vooraziatisch-Egyptisch Genootschap 28 (1983–84): 110–40; Charles F. Nims and Richard C. Steiner, “A Paganized Version of Psalm 20:2–6 from the Aramaic Text in Demotic Script,” Journal of the American Oriental Society 103 (January–March 1983): 261–74; Richard C. Steiner and Charles F. Nims, “You Can’t Offer Your Sacrifice and Eat It Too: A Polemical Poem from the Aramaic Text in Demotic Script,” Journal of Near Eastern Studies 43/2 (1984): 89–114; Richard C. Steiner and Charles F. Nims, “Ashurbanipal and Shamash-Shum-Ukin: A Tale of Two Brothers from the Aramaic Text in Demotic Script,” Revue Biblique 92 (1985): 60–81; Richard C. Steiner, “The Aramaic Text in Demotic Script: The Liturgy of a New Year’s Festival Imported from Bethel to Syene by Exiles from Rash,” Journal of the American Oriental Society 111/2 (1991): 362–63; and Steiner, “Northwest Semitic Incantations,” 191–200; “Bible’s Psalm 20 Adapted for Pagan Use,” Biblical Archaeology Review 11/1 (January–February 1985): 20–23; Ziony Zebit, “The Common Origin of the Aramicized Prayer to Horus and of Psalm 20,” Journal of the American Oriental Society 110/2 (1990): 213–28. See also John Gee, “La Trahison des Clercs: On the Language and Translation of the Book of Mormon, ” Review of Books on the Book of Mormon 6/1 (1994): 96–97 n. 147.
fightinglee,
It IS lying when that church history, such as Joseph Smith placing a rock in his hat to translate the BoM, is portrayed as something else. I should have known that’s how he “translated.” Instead the church likes to put out faith promoting pictures of him sitting with the gold plates right there and he is writing. That’s not lying or deceptive? In lessons about the translation of the BoM have you ever been told that it was by a rock in a hat? Aren’t church classes where we are supposed to be taught about Mormonism?
“As far as damage control, they have had these things in the ensigns on the seer stone and such stuff for the last 60 years!!”
Are you are talking about the Urim and the Thummim (which I have been taught about) or the magic rock Joseph Smith found in a neighbor’s well? The same rock that he used to con his neighbors and was arrested for it? This goes straight to his character. Not disclosing this truth about Joseph Smith is lying by omission. The LDS church has “cleaned up” the character of Joseph Smith, and that my friend is dishonest.
As far as the Catholic church goes, they don’t deny or try to “soften” the crusades, witch hunts, or even the inquisition. It’s a part of their history, they are sorry for it, but they don’t try and twist or spin it. It is what it is. I would have more respect for the LDS church if they would just lay out the truth and be done with it. For some reason they can’t or won’t do that, so Mormon members are left to twist, spin and try to soften Mormonism. Your prophet is pretty quiet on all of this. I have said on this board a few times that all of this could be laid to rest if Pres. Monson would just get up at General Conference and reveal what Mormons believe. Church history isn’t all that is lied about.
” If they do nothing they are hiding it and if they try harder, its just damage control? Its a double standard that has no positive for you.”
You are missing the entire point. They should have been upfront and honest in all things from the beginning. Don’t they represent God? God says the father of all lies is Satan. Look at the FLDS, they don’t lie, deny, twist, or spin any of the same history they share with you. They proclaim it loud and proud. That’s the difference between the FLDS and the LDS. The LDS church has backed itself into a corner with all of this dishonesty, cover up and lies, hence the comment “They are a day late and a dollar short.” They are behind the eight ball and yes it is damage control. Wouldn’t it be nice if the Internet were never invented? The LDS church wouldn’t be in this predicament.
Read grindael’s comments to me about general authorities lying to him. Your leaders are not honest with church teachings or church history and that is something you are going to have to come to terms with.
Fgee,
First off, I have to agree with Kate, I have asked many Mormons over the years about JS sticking his face in a hat to translate the golden plates. Countless numbers of MM and Mormons in general Denied that was how JS translated the golden plates. It got to the point where I had to purchase the actual LDS approved book showing it saying this was how JS translated the golden plates. So tell me, Where did all these MM and Mormons get their info? It was from your Church and leaders, so why were they not honest?
Then Again countless numbers of MM and Mormons told me I was crazy when I said their was/is over 4,000 changes to the BoM, This was about 15 years ago when Computers were first so large only school or companys had computers, Laptops and the massive use of them did not exist. So it was hard to prove all these changes and the Mormons were adiment they did not exist and people like me made up stories. Now it is pretty much admitted to by Mormons aand now they just make excuses for all the changes.
Strange how these things are possible if the Mormon leaders are not lying. Now when you said to me,
Yes I can easily google these things, But why is it when we Christians say stuff you guys demand quotes or evidence, How hard is it to Google it? It seems you can ask us to back things up but we cannot ask you. As far as translation goes. I understand how it works. I understand if I am spanish, and I am translating German for example into my language, their will be differences. I have been to Israel, and here in the U.S. we have one word for love, that is Love. I can say, I love My wife, I love pizza, I love cars, well my wife knows I dont love her the same as I love cars or pizza. But over in Israel they have different words for love.
My point is, You cannot take some fake language and translate it into your own language, and somehow have some words come up as your modern day currant language, and yet also have some words come up as K.J. English.
I cannot take for example English, translate it into Hebrew and have some words come out in Hebrew, and then some words come out in German. Some how JS managed to translate Reformed Egyptian Language into His modern daily Language, but then also had many passages in the BoM come up as word for word phrases from the KJ version of the Bible, and it was so bad, that when compared to the Bible, even the punctuation came up exactly the same. So either we have bold and blatant plagurism or we have a really strange explainable miracle from God. Care to explain. I can and will provide verses of this later. I am running off to have a friend who designed My website help me out with it.
Fightinglee
“To say that demotic does not fall under the description of reformation is getting pretty silly”
Please show me where I said that!
Most of your quotes come from apologetic organizations such as the corporation funded Maxwell institute. They often use the apologetic works produced by, to give one example, John L Sorenson who happens to be, surprise surprise, employed by BYU in the role of professor of anthropology. His work in the defence of the Book of Mormon has been thoroughly discredited by more knowledgeable academics. However, it matters not one iota what documents are produced in an attempt to bolster belief in the above mentioned book, they simply don’t stand up under the close scrutiny of a peer review. You rubbished Ricks assertion that Reformed Egyptian does not exist yet he was telling the truth, it doesn’t. As is normal in conversations with Mormons it is almost impossible to pin anything down, whatever is said, whatever is obvious, there is always an escape clause written into their conversational laws. Perhaps one day I’ll discuss these things with a Mormon who won’t wriggle.
Anyway, suppose you could somehow prove that Rick was wrong, could you then prove that I was wrong when I say that not a single example of the language you claim to have been spoken by millions in the Americas exists. There’s nothing, not even among the make believe descendents of this make believe nation of American Jews? Let’s move on, suppose you could disprove what I have said, could you then go on to prove Grindael wrong concerning the information he gave us about the way the Jews would sacred writings? (Thanks Grindael, I was unaware of that) I could go on ad infinitum but facts are facts my friend & no matter how much you or the corporation apologists distort them, facts they will remain
As Kate rightly says, the corporation has a long history of deception & whether it be by commission or omission is irrelevant, is it so far fetched then to say that apologists are expected to, & indeed do, “follow the leader”
Actually, for my money, the Catholic scholars who study Church history, are top notch. I’ve been watching a show on the Catholic Channel called “Genesis to Jesus” and I’ve got all I can do to stop from jumping up and shouting “Amen brother” . It’s really that good.
Mormons don’t have scholars. What they have are a bunch of guys who have to try and shape, mold Mormon myth to somehow make it relevant but they’re totally ignorant.
For example, they’ll claim all this nonsense about apostasy and the death of the apostles and the various councils and it’s all jibberish. I could see how in JS time he could con people because there just wasn’t information as readily available as it is today. Mormons who buy this ferry tale are without excuse.
There is no basis for a restored gospel. I remember Andy Watson walking one of our former regular Mormon poster right back to the second century showing what the Church Fathers were saying about the nature of God and Jesus. It was documented and the exact opposite of what the LDS taught this Mormon.
Even with it right there in front of him, that the LDS church was flat out lying, this Mormon just let it slide. There’s always an excuse or some clumsy explanation not worthy of an adult with at least average intelligence.
The problem, I have found, is that these Mormons have had what they believe was a spiritual experience and it trumps reality.
I was watching GodTV the other night and I was thinking that Mormons ought to tune that channel in about any night and watch as these folks talk about visions and revelations and words from the Lord that they have had and are having. The reason I say that Mormons ought to watch is because it would shut-down any notion that they have that Christianity is not spiritually tuned in to God Almighty.
Whether these folks on GTV actually are being led by the Spirit or their own imaginations is for the listener/viewer to determine, but it kind of blows several Mormon notions out of the water.
That’s why we here on this board are people of the Word. Having God’s Word as a guide and a few basic principle of Biblical interpretation operational, keeps folks well grounded. Interestingly enough one of the GTV preachers made a point of saying to always be guided by the Word. Don’t get me wrong, I think a lot of these people get way too creative sometimes but at least they acknowledge the Word as the standard by which to be guided.
The Word is the greatest enemy of heretical and aberrant cults and TV preachers who stoke emotions and call it spiritual.
Well Kate,
Since you like the videos I post and also sometimes send you, I think you’ll appreciate this one. I used to watch Shaun on his TV show and always thought he was different in his approach but right on the money. The call in portion of his shows were my favorite. I remember this Mormon calling in pleading and crying, “Shaun won’t you just come back to the church?” Shaun of course said, “Now how can I do that.” He meant, of course, how could someone who didn’t believe in Mormonism go back to the LDS church? Maybe that wouldn’t be so odd since we know there are all kinds of people who are basically social Mormons.
I think these type of Mormons just can’t phantom someone not being “in the one true church”. They are sincere, I’ll give them that. However they are lost and their sincerity, piety and devotion to “the church”, the religious system, won’t save them.
Anyway, the unique aspect of this video is that he’s being interviewed by John Dehlin for Mormon stories.
Again, for any Mormon who comes here wondering about the path out of Mormonism, a video like this one provides just one more perspective.
My prayer is that those Mormons who are fed-up with religion, that they give Jesus consideration. He thought enough of you to give His life for you. He is the pathway to the Father not a religious system that doesn’t even recognize Him for who He is.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=md1q8h8oOoI
Fglee,
This goes along with the translation issue. I believe JS plagiarized the Bible, I know LDS dont believe that, but can you explain these verses?
There are at least 50 of these, but I dont think I need to post every single one of them to make the point.
Honestly I suspect you will have some answer and explain why this does not bother you. But if it was simply one or two I would think nothing of it, But at least 50 of these, and they are in perfect K.J. English, to me that shows they were plagiarized.
The problem with demotic is the Book of Mormon itself. It says,
“We have written this record according to our knowledge, in the characters which are called among us the reformed Egyptian, being handed down and altered by us, according to our manner of speech. And if our plates had been sufficiently large we should have written in Hebrew.”
Writing in demotic would have occupied more space than writing in Hebrew. Way more.
From a recent article.
“If atheism is true, it is far from being good news. Learning that we’re alone in the universe, that no one hears or answers our prayers, that humanity is entirely the product of random events, that we have no more intrinsic dignity than non-human and even non-animate clumps of matter, that we face certain annihilation in death, that our sufferings are ultimately pointless, that our lives and loves do not at all matter in a larger sense, that those who commit horrific evils and elude human punishment get away with their crimes scot free — all of this (and much more) is utterly tragic.”
So, would it be better to be a Mormon than an atheist?
Both Mormons and atheists are separated from God and without hope of eternal life.
Being an atheist would be cheaper, far less time consuming and ultimately life would be uncontrolled by a central organization.
Former Mormons who are atheists don’t have to defend Mormonism which I guess (defending Mormonism) gets tedious.
I’ll think of a few more!
Fglee,
we currently have a mormon posting on this blog who claims to be the smartest person on this blog, yet is unable to answer almost every question we asked of him. Now me on the other hand, I never claimed to be the smartest person in the bunch, So let me ask you something, You said
The part that says, (In order to improve it). So here is what I want to ask, are you saying, (Reformed Egyptian) Was simply a made up term to say the original language before it was translated was not as good? If thats is correct, it would be like saying, I am translating German into Hebrew and will call it Reformed Hebrew since it is better than the original German.
Now I want to add also, that your prophet JS, not me or one of his follower’s said the German Bible is far Superior, Thats my paraphrase of what he said, so if the German is better than the K.J. English, why did he not ask or tell his people to use an read that one?
Also I can show word for word exact quotes of Bible verses as I did, and entire Verses from the Bible are in the BoM. If (Reformed Egyptian) Is better as you say, why would we have K.J. English in only some select verses get transferred over when LDS to this day state the Bible is translated incorrectly?
Funny how incorrectly translated verses would be found and translated into supposdly the most correct book ever, if it is the Most correct book and it has incorrectly translated verses how can it be the most correct? When JS was supposdly told by God to (Correct) the Book and he came up with the J.S.T of the Bible?
If your correct and reformed means in order to improve upon, why then did JS simply not call his new bible the reformed K.J. Bible? He seems so arrogant that he named it after himself.
Now I suspect you will have answers for all of this, but these are just a few reasons why I believe Mormonism is fake. And even if you have answers, I have seen LDS try and answer questions like these, the answers make no sense and it’s like they are making things up in order to believe what they want.
falcon,
I have seen this interview of Shawn McCraney and John Dehlin, I t was really good. I have seen most of the episodes of Heart of the Matter, that show was huge in my exit from Mormonism. I loved the call in portion as well. Isn’t it sad that some Mormons would rather have you stay (even though you don’t believe a word of it) instead of being happy that you found Jesus? I don’t get that part. If Mormons are truly Christians then it wouldn’t matter if you left as long as you still had Jesus in your life right? Before I left I read a site called Stay LDS, I was shocked at the entire thing especially the part about the temple interview. It’s a long page and worth the read but I kept asking myself through the whole thing, “Where is Jesus in any of this?” I would rather be honest with myself and leave the church than to do what this site recommends. I will post the link for those who aren’t aware of this site and it’s recommendations.
http://staylds.com/docs/HowToStay.html
Rick
We do think alike & we all know to whom your referring, I have no wish to speak ill of the dead (for that in a sense is what he is) but when he isn’t dissembling he’s mocking, when he’s not mocking he’s dismissive & arrogant & when he eventually sees that he has no answers he simply ignores what’s being said.
I am not for a moment suggesting that fightinglee is anything like that obnoxious person, but at the same time, & I’m trying to avoid being offensive here, the method used is typically LDS. Dissemble take verses of scripture out of context & quote from obscure & discredited sources. For them it works, for us it’s a clear indication of a refusal to accept reality
Kate
Your comment
“If Mormons are truly Christians then it wouldn’t matter if you left as long as you still had Jesus in your life right?”
Reminds me of a comment I made a while back, I believe it was on a previous topic. Anyway I basically said the same thing as you only in reverse. Why does the Mormon corporation call its salespeople missionaries? Surely the purpose of a missionary is to spread Gods word, what difference does it make if that person is Methodist, Baptist, Lutheran or any other Christian Church, as long as he/she follows Christ?
Jason,
I have no idea what you said that was removed or what was said to you in reply as I never saw either reply. I will say this though, In many cases I dont agree with threads being shut down or posts being removed with out warning of some type.
And it is rare that I ask to see people banned. Generally I hold the belief that if your removing posts you have something to hide, or you cannot answer questions. I do not in any way endorse this because I feel if we cant answer a question, then simply be honest enough to say so, or leave it for some one who can.
But Jason, in your case, I am happy to see you banned, removed, or simply go home. And the reason is, you are unable to answer any question asked of you, you ignore every and I mean every question, I honestly recall you answering a single question in the last week. I have only asked a few select LDS to be removed or banned, and the reason I asked was because they do the same thing as you, they refuse to answer questions, And I dont mean they come here and say, sorry I dont have an answer, I dont know what to say. They simply come here, do what we call drive by’s, They ask a question or toss out an accusation and we never see them again.
This is exactly what you are doing, I’m all for people who want to have an honest debate, but you show yourself unable to do that, and it is not just me, or me and one other who say this about you, it is every single Christian poster here that says this about you, and add to that as proof of this, You cannot even reply to us and say, this is not true, I have answered your questions Here, here and here. You cannot even prove you did, so for this reason if you get banned or just go away, I say, GOOD.
Jason said
I agree there are many people asking questions and there are many topics and replies. Out side of that, you dont answer questions so dont lie about that, Every single person here as far as Christians has said this to or about you. You are the only LDS person ever on this blog where every christian has said this about, in general I do call LDS out all the time for dodging questions, But with you, it has been everyone, not just me. So yes your a lair.
Rick, really? I was asked again and again to post the high probability evidence I feel we have for the authenticity of the BoM. I made multiple posts and they were extensive. I have answered other questions as well so you are clearly up in the night.
I’m sure once you go back and read my BoM posts you will back away from your statement right?
Jason said I’m sure once you go back and read my BoM posts you will back away from your statement right?
No Jason, I stand by what I said.
jasonrae
Stop trying to pass your arrogance off as confidence, it wont work & please dont climb back on that tired old horse of high probabilty, Rick isn’t the only one whose questions you refuse to answer, I’ve lost count of the time you have avoided mine. I dont think it’s really a case of refusing to answer though, the real reason is because you can’t answer. If you want us to accept the BofM as anything other than a fraud then provide this high probabability evidence you talk about so much but which never seems to appear. Just present your evidence & we’ll present ours.
Hay guys,
I’m still waiting for Jason to enumerate what exactly he’s doing to become a god. I kept asking and he kept avoiding the question. I also wanted to know how a Mormon would know when they’ve done enough to get deified. So yes, he avoids our questions and merely rambles on in search of a cogent thought which he has yet to achieve.
On another topic; over the years it’s interesting how often Mormon posters will seek out atheists and quote them in their vain attempts to attack orthodox Christianity. I’ve always found that to be quite strange but it makes sense; birds of a feather and all that.
Old Man,
If you want us to accept the BofM as anything other than a fraud then provide this high probabability evidence you talk about so much but which never seems to appear.
This is like posting in the Twilight Zone. “never seems to appear” Old Man? Really? I posted pages of it. I just mentioned that in the post you referenced. I just told Rick it’s all there, go back and look at it – but to you, it “never seems to appear”. But hey, if you stick around long enough maybe you’ll become a moderator and you can just delete the posts that obliterate your points.
Rick, you have been posting the exact SAME thing for YEARS on this board. It never changes. You accuse every LDS poster of “never answering questions”. It’s old and tired. A quick Google site search reveals that you have been making this claim going back years.
But yet – you actually made this statement:
Now I suspect you will have answers for all of this, but these are just a few reasons why I believe Mormonism is fake. And even if you have answers, I have seen LDS try and answer questions like these, the answers make no sense and it’s like they are making things up in order to believe what they want.
You actually say you “have seen LDS try and answer questions” but that the answers “make no sense” and that they are “making things up”. So WHICH is it Rick? LDS NEVER answer questions or as your counter-self says they do answer but they make no sense?
What a mass of confusion it must be living with yourself. My suspicion is the LDS DO give you answers (as I did) but you just don’t like the answers. Clue in Rick, most people don’t have time to do your research for you.
Falcon, you were plainly told more than once, in reference to another thread, if you explained how you obtained your salvation I would answer your question. You refused. And you still avoid the question.
Jason is no longer welcome here. That was his last comment.
grindael,
“Jason is no longer welcome here. That was his last comment.”
Thank You!
Even though Jason is no longer welcome here and thats fine with me, I still want to reply to him.
Jason, You might have answered a question by us here, but you refused to answer questions like, How can you claim to be saved, yet follow a false Prophet as Gal 1:8-9 says.
You claim I harp on Morons for not answering questions, I never denied that, But you quoted scripture to us saying, Give an answer to every man that asks. But if we say that to Mormons they cannot answer us or will not.
Then Mormons answer what I call easy questions even from me, It’s the questions like, If the Bible is corrupt like LDS teach, why has a prophet never went before the Lord and Received the correct version? So this is where they answer it, but it makes no sense. They will say as Shem did, JS did go before the Lord and He told JS to make the J.S.T. So Now a mormon can say, I answered Rick.
But Rick will say, That reply is a lame answer and it’s not a matter of it’s lame because I said so, but because the part you cannot or will not answer is this, Why then dont LDS quote the J.S.T? I never see Mormons on this blog quote that Book. It’s questions like this that you guys either partly answer, so then you can say we did answer, or you simply ignore, and honestly I get rather annoyed since you guys keep claiming you have on going Revelation and thats evidence for your church. Well what good does on going revelation do when you never use it to get answers to our questions?
Jason, Laugh while you can because after you here Jesus say, I never knew you, then you will be smoked and smoking for all of eternity, But no one will be laughing then.
No Jason, The God you reject in Favor of your false prophet that you defend, you believe all his lies and cannot answer questions to save your life, all the while crying that we are being mean to you pointing out that you are unable to stand up against the truth.
Jason,
Can’t say I’m sorry to see you go. You’re a sad case.
You got your ticket pulled from that website you played “let’s push the agree button” and have been proven a fraud in a multiple of ways.
If you’re the best Mormonism has to offer, I can see why they can’t hold on to members or defend the fairy tale.
I guess this is fitting end to Jason’s visit here, as he uses a quote by a Michael P. to try and prove
something , but what ? I had a strange statement from a Mormon apostle ( Orson Pratt) ready to
use in the same way that Jason used Michael P’s quote , but I chose to refrain because it would be
just silly as Jason’s reasoning above and what he has exhibited throughout the last several days
he’s been here . The one thing that I will glean from Jason’s visit is that it causes me to appreciate
what a normal exchange with Mormons is like , and what has indeed took place many times ,
because of their attitude being so different from his . This is’nt an easy ministry , but it is a vital
one because the Mormon people are predominately a good and decent people striving to serve
God , but just like Jesus forewarned would happen in the latter days with false prophets who
would detour sincere people away from the simple saving gospel that His apostles had preached,
so the Mormon people need today a voice that can help them step back and take time to evaluate
the claims of their latter day prophets in the light of God’s word . False prophets can seem rather
convincing since they can dress well and be polite men who preach about living a moral lifestyle
hence the importance of Jesus’ warning for all of us to Beware . The Mormon people deserve to
know the truth about their prophets —– in the spirit of 1 Peter 3:15 .
Jason said
This again is one of those things where Mormons deny the Bible, and also the BoM since the BoM teaches eternal everlasting hell. Yet How can you say, I am a christian, I believe what you guys believe, then turn around and deny everything we believe?
Then you make up reasons or cannot answer the question, that goes back to what I said before, when you either never can answer the question, or you make up stuff that makes not sense. You give answers that dont really answer the question so you can claim you answered me since you said something, but the answer does not really answer the question.
Jason,
I’ll leave it! There are Mormons who come here and post who aren’t trying to make a spectacle of themselves. It’s obvious that this has been all about you. It’s been a continual flow of mocking, bearing false witness and just plain fraud.
You are a very poor representative of the LDS church though I doubt very much that they’d approve of your activities.
You’re just playing games and not a serious person.
Before the axe fell on Jason he said something to me that I would like to reply to on the assumption that he’s still reading what’s being said.
My words, which you quoted
“If you want us to accept the BofM as anything other than a fraud then provide this high probability evidence you talk about so much but which never seems to appear.”
Your reply
“This is like posting in the Twilight Zone “never seems to appear” Old Man? Really? I posted pages of it. I just mentioned that in the post you referenced. I just told Rick it’s all there, go back and look at it – but to you, it “never seems to appear” But hey,
if you stick around long enough maybe you’ll become a moderator and you can just delete the posts that obliterate your points.
“Obliterate your points” is that a joke? Jason my foolish & arrogant friend, your dismissive tones & the snide (look up the meaning) remarks directed by you at Grindael show merely that you are unable to comprehend what is being said to you.
You were asked to “provide this high probability evidence” & your response was to provide us with pages of high probability apologetic gibberish.
Hey guys, this 6 messages a day thing is pretty frustrating. Oh well.
So, I know everyone seems to have a comment about everything I write, but please understand, there is only one of me, and several of you, and I just dont have time to comment back to everyone. Nor do I really want to talk to people whose eventual response every time is, “Oh yeah, well you are going to hell. Ha. take that.” Its childish and below the argument we are trying to have.
So I started with trying to have a discussion with Kate.
Kate, I probably more agree with some of your thinking than I disagree. As far as grindael’s comments about church leadership lying to him, I am sure you will understand if I dont take them at face value. He could say anything he wants. I wouldnt expect him to believe any anecdotal evidence i would put forth either. Its ridiculous to have a conversation based on it with strangers over the internet.
Let me say thins, I think at some point, whoever was organizing the church lessons, the stuff we are taught in actual sunday school, made a choice to not include the seer stone and instead just “primaryize” (best made up word to describe it). So I undertsand your view that they “hid” it. I think its a mistake actually to not include it and the church is now going over the idea of those choices. It is well past time they looked at it. But better late than never.
However, I still think it is weird that you dont see the double standard with the lds church and the catholic church that has been set up by people who leave the church over “hidden” stuff. The truth is, the catholic church cannot deny the inquisition because they recorded it and thought they were doing the right thing. To me, to be so far off base, that you think that could be the right thing to do, shows complete and total removal from God’s path. They recorded these things and seemed happy about doing it. So no, they cant deny it, that would be silly, but they dont teach about it from the pulpit. If you want to learn about it, then you go look it up and learn about it. There is plenty written on the subject.
Likewise, there are things the church does not choose to teach from the pulpit. They have certainly never considered it right to focus on mistakes of past people. I wouldnt give a talk or lesson trashing the pope, nor would i get up and choose to trash Brigham Young. I will give a lesson on doctrine and policy, and i have never shied away from tough subjects. But I do not sit and focus my lesson on every controversial thing ever said in the church or against it.
So, lets just take the seer stone and folk magic in general though as an example of “hidden” stuff, and remember, I have partially agreed. I did a quick search around on how often it has been mentioned by general authorities to see, if indeed, it has been suppressed as something to hide and never speak of. This is what i found:
Joseph Smith is discussed as translating with a hat and seer stone in these references which you can look up easily. These directly describe the hat and seer stone process. The best ones are the 70’s and 80’s ones that lay it out very clearly. If you want, i can go copy and past the sections here, but it would take up a lot of room.
—Gerrit Dirkmaat (Church History Department), “Great and Marvelous Are the Revelations of God,” Ensign, January 2013
—Neal A. Maxwell, “‘By the Gift and Power of God’,” Ensign, January 1997
—Russell M. Nelson, “A Treasured Testament,” Ensign, Jul 1993, 61 (talks directly about the process of the hat and the seer stone)
—Neal A. Maxwell, Not My Will, But Thine (Salt Lake City, Utah: Bookcraft, 1988), 26.
—Kenneth W. Godfrey, “A New Prophet and a New Scripture: The Coming Forth of the Book of Mormon,” Ensign (Jan 1988)
—Richard Lloyd Anderson, “‘By the Gift and Power of God’,” Ensign (Sep 1977), 79
—“A Peaceful Heart,” Friend, Sep 1974, 7 (YES THE FRIEND. They even “hid” it in this childrens magazine)
—Richard Lloyd Anderson, “‘By the Gift and Power of God’,” Ensign (Sep 1977), 79
In 2005, Opening the Heavens was published jointly by the Joseph Fielding Smith Institute for Latter-day Saint History and Deseret Book. As part of this book, at least twenty-nine references to the stone (often with the hat) are included, from both friendly and hostile sources:
p. 112, 129, 130, 135, 136, 137, 138, 142, 146, 148, 149, 150, 151, 152, 153, 154, 155, 156, 157, 158, 164, 166, 168, 178, 184, 185, 187, 192, 193, 196.
Dallin H Oaks says talks about the treasure seeking and the seer stone and says that no man is infallible.
Dallin H. Oaks, “Recent Events Involving Church History and Forged Documents,” Ensign (October 1987)
The Brainbridge trials are discussed in the ensign and the accusations concerning the seer stone and lost treasure seeking.
Anonymous, “Highlights in the Prophet’s Life,” Ensign (Jun 1994)
Cannon discusses Cowdery and his divining rod
Jeffrey G. Cannon, “Oliver Cowdery’s Gift,” Revelations in Context, history.lds.org. (December 15, 2012)
Larry porter disccusses in the ensign that Joseph dug for money and that it was believed he could dsicern things invisible to the natural eye.
Larry C. Porter, “Joseph Smith’s Susquehanna Years,” Ensign (Feb 2001)
Dallin H. Oaks, “Recent Events Involving Church History and Forged Documents,” Ensign (October 1987)
Richard Lloyd Anderson, “The Alvin Smith Story: Fact and Fiction,” Ensign (Aug 1987)
Hinckley in the 80’s speaks about folk magic and superstition of the time and says that it was practiced
Gordon B. Hinckley, “First Presidency Message: Keep the Faith [from Young Adult Fireside 23 June 1985],” Ensign (Sep 1985)
Gordon B. Hinckley, “‘Lord, Increase Our Faith’ [General conference address],” Ensign (Nov 1987)
Joseph smith was asked if he was a money digger and his own response was “Yes, but it was never a very profitable job for him, as he only got fourteen dollars a month for it.” – ensign
—Joseph Smith’s own answer to the question, History of the Church Volume 3, p. 29
—————————————————-
I found these pretty fast with little trouble, and there is of course much much more written on the subject by mormon authors and scholars. Your parents may have hidden it from you, or may not have known. The same goes for your teachers. But if you have ever had a desire to study church history, or listen to conference or read the ensign, you would find a lot of info.
So do the brethren need to start each talk they give, every general conference with a breakdown of the seer stone to make some people happy?
Kate, the other part of your message besides the hidden stuff, was the reference to Joseph Smith’s character. You will again excuse me if i dont take at face value accusations by people that hate Joseph and his new religion at the time. Just the same, I dont take mormon mythology at face value by those that wanted Joseph to be more than a man.
Go look at what your references are for some of the allegations against Joseph. I have, and I ask myself, will I throw away everything I do know, over a few things I dont? I dont base my beliefs on third party testimony for or against the church, or in my career, or my view of people i know, etc. I dont find it helpful to walk around believing in everything everyone says that supports my belief or goes against it. I can research myself, and if the evidence for or against something is based on one persons testimony.
And that is the crux of Mormon history. All serious historians will note the complexity of trying to figure out just what we do or do not know. We have might have three or four contradicting testimonies, sometimes from the same person!
In any case, I thought you would find these things interesting from fold magic practiced in the OT.
Aaron had a magical rod (Exodus 7:9-12). Jacob also used magical rods to produce speckled offspring from Laban’s cattle (Genesis 30:37-39). We read that a priest could tell if a woman had committed adultery by seeing if her thigh swelled after drinking a special potion (Numbers 5: 11-13, 21). The Old Testament Joseph had a silver cup which he used to divine (Genesis 44:2, 5). Modern scholars refer to practice as “hydromancy” and explain that it was also practiced by the surrounding pagans. The casting of lots (known as “sortilege”) to choose a new Apostle (see Acts 1:26) was practiced by the pagans of Jesus’ day.
Jesus’ healing of the deaf man by putting his fingers in his ears (Mark 7:33-35) and Jesus’ healing of the blind man by touching his eyes with spittle and clay were also common pagan practices.
So whats up with all that?? Well, the seers stone doesnt sound so strange in light of Joseph of the OT divining with a silver cup. I dont understand all of God’s ways. I dont know if He thinks were all weirdos or what. I do think God works through men according to their environment, intellect, language, and worldviews. I think it gives men faith to rely on objects at times, just as i think it gave men faith when Christ touched their eyes or applied his “salve”. I do not think Christ needed to use the salve, but he did it.
Seer stones were crazy popular in Joseph’s time, and honestly, I dont think a seer stone in a hat is any weirder than a breastplate with glasses, or a divining cup, or rod, etc. From a logical standpoint, i care more about the result than the method. Discussions about what someone said someone did, well, when its consistent and can be proven then fine, when its all over the place and inconsistent, i guess i move on with what i do know. My wife is an author, i have published more technical things. We both write a lot is my point, and I could not dictate that many pages a day. It would not make sense. I couldnt dictate an allegory of an olive tree for sure. That is not a case for faith, but it is a logical argument that is not so easily brushed aside. I like logical arguments. I am not an emotional person at all. ha.
Fightinglee
I respect your desire for amicable discussion & I sincerely hope we can have that, but amicable does not mean attempting to reach a consensus. The gulf between us, & I’m sure you understand this, is far too wide for that.
The Lds Corporation was founded in deception & has continued to practice deception to this day; to say otherwise is to deny many teachings of your prophets. One fact is clear & beyond debate, The God worshipped by Christians is very different to the god of Mormonism, try as the corporation may, that fact cannot be denied, all the evidence a person could need is right there in scripture. The God of the Bible is unchanging, something the LDS denies by its constantly changing doctrine, Oh, please don’t tell me that earlier prophets were speaking as a men unless you can give specific examples of where this occurs in Scripture. To illustrate what I’m saying let me show you a couple of things I came across on my Internet travels.
An extract from a speech by Heber Kimball, first counsellor to the presidency, made in 1857 Mormon men may find comforting, I’m not sure if the ladies will though.
“Supposing that I have a wife, or a dozen of them, and she should say, ‘You cannot be exalted without me,’ and suppose they all should say so, what then? They never will affect my salvation one particle. Suppose that I lose the whole of them before I go into the spirit world, but that I have been a good, faithful man all the days of my life,
and loved my religion and had favor with God, do you think I will be destitute then?
No, the Lord says there are more there than there are here. They have been increasing there; they increase there a great deal faster than we do here… In the spirit world there is an increase of males and females; there are millions of them; and if I am faithful all the time, and continue right along with Brother Brigham, we will go to Brother Joseph and say, ‘Here we are, Brother Joseph; we are here ourselves, are we not? With none of the property we possessed in our probationary state; not even the rings on our fingers.’ He will say to us, ‘Come along, my boys; we will give you a good suit of clothes; where are your wives?’ ‘They are back yonder; they would not follow us.’ ‘Never mind,’ says Joseph, ‘here are thousands; have all you want.'”
Now something I found on the late but not lamented Jasonrae site
From A tribute to women by Boyd K Packer, an LDS apostle
“While fathers and sons bear the burden of the priesthood, it was declared in the very beginning that it was not good for man to be alone. A companion, or “helpmeet,” was given him. The word meet means equal. Man and woman, together, were not to be alone. Together they constituted a fountain of life. While neither can generate life without the other, the mystery of life unfolds when these two become one.”………
Now a couple of things for you to consider
“The word meet means equal. Man and woman, together”
When were women ever equal to men in the LDS Corporation? & Surely he meant to say man and in the plural, women?
Unless of course the Mormon god has changed his mind yet again
Finally a short response to what you said to Kate. It’s all very well discussing Smiths character, whether he was a fit man to be a prophet, whether he was appointed by God etc, all of that is dissembling, & avoids the real problem that Mormons have. I’ve had this discussion with Shem on a previous topic & I’m still waiting for an answer that makes sense, this is the problem that you all attempt to avoid. Why would God appoint a latter day prophet if Christ was who he claimed to be? It makes no sense & if you can say that it does then you simply don’t know the Christ of the Bible.
Ps. I’m glad you say “New religion” because that’s exactly what it is, it’s new, it’s not a restoration of the original & it fits in very well with what can be read on the frontispiece of the BofM “another gospel of Jesus Christ”
Fightinglee
I respect your desire for amicable discussion & I sincerely hope we can have that, but amicable does not mean attempting to reach a consensus. The gulf between us, & I’m sure you understand this, is far too wide for that.
The Lds Corporation was founded in deception & has continued to practice deception to this day; to say otherwise is to deny many teachings of your prophets. One fact is clear & beyond debate, The God worshipped by Christians is very different to the god of Mormonism, try as the corporation may, that fact cannot be denied, all the evidence a person could need is right there in scripture. The God of the Bible is unchanging, something the LDS denies by its constantly changing doctrine, Oh, please don’t tell me that earlier prophets were speaking as a men unless you can give specific examples of where this occurs in Scripture. To illustrate what I’m saying let me show you a couple of things I came across on my Internet travels.
An extract from a speech by Heber Kimball, first counsellor to the presidency, made in 1857 Mormon men may find comforting, I’m not sure if the ladies will though.
“Supposing that I have a wife, or a dozen of them, and she should say, ‘You cannot be exalted without me,’ and suppose they all should say so, what then? They never will affect my salvation one particle. Suppose that I lose the whole of them before I go into the spirit world, but that I have been a good, faithful man all the days of my life,
and loved my religion and had favor with God, do you think I will be destitute then?
No, the Lord says there are more there than there are here. They have been increasing there; they increase there a great deal faster than we do here… In the spirit world there is an increase of males and females; there are millions of them; and if I am faithful all the time, and continue right along with Brother Brigham, we will go to Brother Joseph and say, ‘Here we are, Brother Joseph; we are here ourselves, are we not? With none of the property we possessed in our probationary state; not even the rings on our fingers.’ He will say to us, ‘Come along, my boys; we will give you a good suit of clothes; where are your wives?’ ‘They are back yonder; they would not follow us.’ ‘Never mind,’ says Joseph, ‘here are thousands; have all you want.'”
Here’s something I found on the late but not lamented Jasonrae site
From A tribute to women by Boyd K Packer, an LDS apostle
“While fathers and sons bear the burden of the priesthood, it was declared in the very beginning that it was not good for man to be alone. A companion, or “helpmeet,” was given him. The word meet means equal. Man and woman, together, were not to be alone. Together they constituted a fountain of life. While neither can generate life without the other, the mystery of life unfolds when these two become one.”………
Now a couple of things for you to consider
“The word meet means equal. Man and woman, together”
When were women ever equal to men in the LDS Corporation? & Surely he meant to say man and in the plural, women?
Unless of course the Mormon god has changed his mind yet again
Finally a short response to what you said to Kate. It’s all very well discussing Smiths character, whether he was a fit man to be a prophet, whether he was appointed by God etc, all of that is dissembling, & avoids the real problem that Mormons have. I’ve had this discussion with Shem on a previous topic & I’m still waiting for an answer that makes sense, this is the problem that you all attempt to avoid. Why would God appoint a latter day prophet if Christ was who he claimed to be? It makes no sense & if you can say that it does then you simply don’t know the Christ of the Bible.
Ps. I’m glad you say “New religion” because that’s exactly what it is, it’s new, it’s not a restoration of the original & it fits in very well with what can be read on the frontispiece of the BofM “another gospel of Jesus Christ”