The grand council of atheist Mormon bishops have met and codified the Creed of Practical Mormon Atheism, a list of things that both atheists and Mormons can largely affirm together:
- Even if Mormonism is false, it is still worth believing and ought not be refuted.
- Faith is ultimately irrational.
- Even if you don’t believe in God, you should still stay on the membership rolls and consider yourself a Mormon.
- If the LDS Church isn’t true, there is no God.
- How you live your life is more important than what you believe.
- I can’t believe in a God who demands worship.
- It doesn’t matter if it’s true. What matters is whether it is official.
- I proudly mentally disassociate from the content and implications of my belief system.
- I know the Church is true. I have no idea what that means.
- There was a conspiracy to fundamentally corrupt the Bible. It is untrustworthy and we look elsewhere for truth.
- Apart from Mormonism, I have no good reasons to believe that Jesus rose from the dead.
- The existence of my personhood is not owing to any god.
- Everything is matter and nothing is immaterial.
- There is no ultimate personal being who is the ground of all other being.
- There is no first cause.
- There are impersonal eternal laws that govern everything.
“So say we all.”
On a serious note, this is why I ask Mormons questions like,
- If the Church wasn’t true, would you still believe in Jesus?
- Are you the kind of Mormon that would still believe in Jesus, even if you left the LDS Church?
- If you weren’t a Mormon, what religion do you think you’d be?
- What reasons do you have to believe in the resurrection of Jesus that are independent of Mormonism?
- Is your belief in Jesus on the foundation of your belief in the Church, or is your belief in the Church on the foundation of your belief in Jesus?
The religion of Mormonism is thinning out. The numbers increase on the exterior (although even that is in jeopardy), but on the interior there is a mass-apostasy going on, intellectually and mentally speaking. People are leaving the LDS Church without leaving the LDS Church.
Without asking probing questions, I can’t assume any Mormon I talk to even believes in the existence of God or the resurrection of Jesus. Even the Mormons that aren’t closet-atheists are largely latent atheists (or agnostics) without knowing it. Since evangelism, I take it, is partly to engage the conscience and the depth of one’s heart, I want to reach them where they are really at, even if they don’t quite understand what is going on.
Are you reading this blog to better understand how to evangelize your LDS neighbors? Are you feeling inadequate because you don’t know much about Mormonism? How about this for a start: Step through ten reasons to believe in the resurrection of Jesus, ten reasons to trust the Bible, and even ten reasons to believe in the existence of God. Even if a Mormon doesn’t think they “need” to hear it.
<"I have the evidence of the spirit, which is the only evidence I need."
Spiritual witnesses don't always support truth. Even Joseph Smith was afraid of being deceived by evil spirits. People have spiritual witnesses to do many things. I had a spiritual witness to leave the Church. Both can't be right. So spiritual witness are not the only evidence you need.
<"Well, what evidence do you have that, say, Jonah wasn’t a false prophet? What about Elijah, or Elisha? You can’t even provide evidence that these men existed, let alone are prophets. So why do you accept them? I would venture to guess that you accept them on faith, because such evidence is impossible to find."
Yes, faith. And reason. I had to build my faith from the ground up. First I had to establish that I believed in God. Then I had to establish what God would be. He would be greater than anything I could imagine. I decided He had to be fair and loving. He had to be the greatest moral teacher because there is no way that I could be better than him. I looked around and found Christianity. I found that the teachings of mainstream Christianity coincide what I have always known in my heart God to be. The Bible has a long history, with prophecies coming true, and people and events that can be historically validated. I take on faith the things that can't.
<"Well, what evidence do you have that, say, Jonah wasn’t a false prophet?"
The evidence that I have is that Paul's teachings and Mormon teachings don't coincide. It is a different gospel. You'd be receiving an epistle from Paul right now if he was on the earth. You can't find the complete Mormon faith anywhere in history. You might be able to find a gnostic here and there that believed something similar. You might be able to find some strange fringe practice in history somewhere that seems to be similar to LDS practice. But finding Mormonism in history is like finding the missing link to prove macro evolution. I am not going to follow a man where the Bible has warned of such men. I know Joseph Smith is a false prophet because not all of his prophesies did come true. I know he is a false prophet because there is no verse in the Bible that states that we should await this Restoration. I know he is a false prophet because he puts himself on an equal level as Christ in terms to getting people to life with God. The way to the Father in Mormonism is by Christ and Joseph Smith. If Joseph didn't restore LDS gospel, Christ's sacrifice would have been in vain. All was lost to Mormons without Joseph Smith. No one would have life with God. You owe him your hope for living with God as much as you owe Christ. LDS say, "well it didn't have to be him." I don't care. Whoever it would have been, would be in that position. By LDS thought it didn't have to be Christ either. If Christ didn't do it some other spirit child would have.
<"Now, I also have the evidence of the Book of Mormon, which would have been impossible for him to have written without divine aid."
Sorry, not evidence. Even B.H. Roberts agreed that Joseph Smith could have wrote it. Joseph Strang wrote scripture. Muhammad wrote scripture. There is a guy claiming to write scripture write now that says he's Mormon and is writing is at an impressive rate. No one uses the Book of Mormon for any historical value except maybe a LDS apologist.
<"I have the evidence of the church."
???What does that even mean? I have evidence of the Church. A Church that links itself straight to the apostles.
< "However, every one of these can be reasoned away by those lacking faith and the evidence of the spirit."
I'm not trying to reason away Mormonism. Trust me, when I found out it was fake, I wanted it to be true. I tried to prove itself true to me. I don't have to reason it away. There is no logical, historical, or reasonable reason to believe in it.
<"I agree, because it is false and has never been taught by any leader of the church. But, if you want to see apostasy, all you really need to do is look at the behavior of the people involved."
Behavior of men does not does not change God's revealed word. Okay so lets look at your statement. Brigham Young was all sorts of scandalous. Mountain Meadows Massacre was some pretty bad behavior and covered up by the LDS Church. To let you know, this event didn't destroy my faith in the LDS Church, because I realized that men do bad things even in the name of God. You can't say "that was their opinion" or "they aren't perfect." And then turn around and claim apostasy because people were acting badly in another faith. You can't make both arguments.
<"I understand that the Jews claim they have preserved their religion, but no one who actually accept the New Testament can honestly believe that. "
The first Christians were JEWS. They preserved their faith as they had always done. So I believe that the Jews that preserved their faith became Christian and continued to preserve their faith.
Shem,
<"I understand that the Jews claim they have preserved their religion, but no one who actually accept the New Testament can honestly believe that."
This statement is ridiculous. The first Christians were Jews so they did preserve their faith. The Jews that couldn't accept Christ kept believing all the same things except the things that led to Christ. In the beginning, Christianity wasn't looked at as a separate faith. It was a sect of Judaism. Many of the traditional practices of Orthodoxy are old Jewish practices.
<"Well, what evidence do you have that, say, Jonah wasn’t a false prophet?"
I had to build my faith from the bottom up. I had to decide if there was reason (not just a good feeling) to believe in God. I decided that there was. I then tried to decide what God would be like. I decided he had to be greater than anything that I could ever imagine. I decided he had to be just and loving. He had to be the greatest moral teacher because there is no way I could be better than Him. I found Christianity. The Bible has been painstaking preserved as God's word for thousands of years. Events and people can be validated. I have to take on faith the one's that can't. Based on my thoughts above, I believe Christ is God Incarnate. He verified that the Bible is true by constantly quoting from it. Biblical prophesies came true.
As for why I don't believe in Joseph Smith. He teaches a different gospel. He started out okay and then got to Navuoo and got weird. Paul would be writing an epistle to Mormon Headquarters right now if he was on the Earth. Not all Joseph's prophesies come true. There is no scripture that leads us to expect a Restoration. Joseph Smith puts himself on equal terms as Christ in terms of bring people to life with God. Under LDS thought, you can't be with God unless you believe in Christ AND in Joseph Smith. You can't say I believe and serve Christ with all my heart but don't accept Joseph Smith and expect to live with God. Christ said "no one can come to the Father except by me." You need Joseph Smith and His Ordinances to get to the Father. There is no reason we should believe those ordinances come from Christ. You can't find Mormonism in the history. You might find a similar practice here or there by some gnostic group or some ancient Egyptian practice but you can't pin point one period of time that looks like Mormonism. It's like looking for the missing link to prove macro evolution.
"I have the evidence of the spirit, which is the only evidence I need."
I have the evidence of the Spirit that led me out of Mormonism. Who's right? Some have had spiritual experiences lead them to Islam. That can't be all you need. Even Joseph Smith was aware that spiritual experiences could be brought be evil spirits and you could easily confuse the too.
<"Now, I also have the evidence of the Book of Mormon, which would have been impossible for him to have written without divine aid."
A book with absolutely no historical value or validation. Even B.H. Roberts, an apostle, said Joseph could have wrote it.
<"I have the evidence of the doctrine and covenants."
Not sure how this is evidence.
<" I have the evidence of the church."
???I'm not even sure what this means. I have evidence of the Church. I have a faith that has preserved itself up to the time of the apostles. You can actually look at ancient documents showing liturgical practices and see that they have preserved the worship through the centuries.
<"However, every one of these can be reasoned away by those lacking faith and the evidence of the spirit. So, again, they do no good."
I didn't want the LDS Church to not be true. I poured my life into it. I tried to go to great lengths to convince myself it was true. I'm not trying to reason away anything, there's just no reason to believe in Joseph Smith. I have faith and Christ and I have evidence of the spirit.
<"all you really need to do is look at the behavior of the people involved."
I think you can find some pretty bad behavior in the LDS Church in regards to its leaders. You can't claim apostasy in another faith by men's behavior and then claim, "our leaders are just men, they aren't perfect." You can't have it both ways.
Sorry, I didn’t mean to post this response twice. I didn’t see that it got posted to I rewrote it. Please disregard the first one.
Jaxi
“I’m not trying to reason away Mormonism.”
That is exactly what you are doing now. You have taken everything I said and attempted to reason it away. You may, at one time, have wanted to believe, but you don’t want to now, and you are engaged in reasoning it all away.
Now, I really don’t care. You don’t seem to understand what I am saying. I am not going to argue any of these points at this time because this thread is not concerned with them and I am not in the mood. The point is that you cannot prove any of it, and neither can I. We both take our religions primarily on faith. You can list all your reasons why you believe what you believe, and I can list all the reasons I believe what I believe. In the end it doesn’t matter because none of those reasons are able to prove anything.
Again, I have reason to believe in Christ. We know through Roman records He did exist and was crucified. We have a testimony and record of his teachings through his Apostles, which started a Church and produced a Bible. Oral tradition is looked on by many historians to be reliable and self correcting. The Church was an organized body of believers, given the Holy Spirit at Pentecost. The early Church Fathers were to preserve the scriptural interpretations and traditions passed onto them by the Apostles. There has not been a break in apostolic succession. If a leader got off base, which did happen at time, the other leaders would have to meet, be guided by the Holy Spirit, and correct the error. That is one reason I believe Roman Catholicism got off base, because it removed itself from any correction. I have reason to believe in Old Testament prophets because I believe in Christ and he validated the Old Testament. I have no reason to believe Joseph Smith. I don’t have to reason something away when there was no reason to begin with. I reason away Mormonism to the same extent that I reason away Jehovah Witness’ or Islam.
Jaxi
I never said you don’t have evidence. I said it doesn’t prove anything, and it doesn’t.
“I reason away Mormonism to the same extent that I reason away Jehovah Witness’ or Islam.”
And I am willing to bet that you put a whole lot of reason into all of them. If you don’t have the need to reason away Mormonism then why did you feel the need to explain why you don’t accept the reasons I gave? The simple fact is that you do reason it away, as you have proven.
Shem,
If what you are saying is true than I guess I also reason away the Easter Bunny, mermaids, and alien abductions. There is a difference between reasoning away something that is true because you don’t want to believe it and reasoning something that there is absolutely NO REASON to believe to begin with. I am saying Mormonism is in the latter category.
Jaxi
There is plenty of reason to believe it. Just ask the millions who do believe it.
Shem,
I am specifically asking why believe Joseph Smith? Why believe that the “one and only true church” is restored through him? Why believe he is anything more than a false prophet? Why believe that the LDS Church set up is immune to apostasy and the early Church wasn’t? If the original Church started by Christ was such a failure, why can’t the LDS Church be one too?
I get why people like Mormonism. They like the way they feel. They like the community. They like the family values. Some like that they believe they are divine and will become gods. I know many women that believe just because they believe they will raise their lost children after the resurrection. People believe because of their heritage. People believe because they feel that Mormonism gives them more information. There are reasons that people believe that have absolutely nothing to do with truth. People believe in Mormonism because they want to and they will find and twist any scripture and history to their liking to support their beliefs.
This all matters a great deal. Christianity was here first, it has nothing to prove to Mormonism. Mormonism has everything to prove to Christianity. Mormonism is making some big claims. They claim to be the only way. But also Christians are told to be careful of false prophets. The Christian people that are rejecting Mormonism are doing so because of faith in God and in the Word. This is a very personal matter to me because my faith in God, the true God, is the most important part of me. The LDS faith says that because I don’t have faith in Joseph Smith and what he did, I don’t have the Spirit, I don’t have an eternal family, I don’t have an eternal marriage, and I will never ever live with God. People may say it’s not faith in Joseph Smith, it’s faith in Christ’s Church. I have faith in Christ’s Church. The original Church, given to the first Christians and organized by the apostles. It is a faith that has survived close to 2,000 years. A man comes out of no where and claims to have all this authority and knowledge from God. Why believe him over any other man that said he spoke with God or wrote scripture? There have been others, not just Joseph Smith. What is it that the LDS Church has that the original Church didn’t and doesn’t have? Why is the Church started by Christ so much weaker than this new one started by Joseph Smith? How come Joseph Smith could establish Christ’s Church but Christ couldn’t? If you truly believe in Christ over the man Joseph Smith than these questions should be answered with ease.
Jaxi
I’ve had a similar ‘debate’ with Shem over Christ establishing His Church & to be honest it’s a complete waste of time. His confirmation bias makes him incapable of understanding what you are saying. He will tell you that Christ established His church but men failed. If you read through the last 15 posts or so on the topic
“I Love Talking To Ex-Mormon Atheists” you will see his arguments or as I prefer to say, non-arguments. I finally gave up discussing the subject as he can see nothing beyond what his leaders teach & his insistence on using LDS definitions makes logical debate impossible.
I suppose the kindest thing anyone could say about Smith is that he is completely irrelevant to Christianity. There was no ‘Restoration’ because there was no total apostasy, & it would save a lot of arguing if the LDS started at the beginning. Before claiming that Smith was a prophet perhaps they should prove there was a total apostasy because if there wasn’t the LDS has no case.
I guess that will be the cue for Shem to come in & tell me I don’t understand what apostasy means.
Jaxi
I gave reasons, and in typical fashion you made a great effort to explain them away, which is the exact point that I was making. Nothing you mention in your latest rant was part of anything that I said previously, and is not as common as you seem to want to believe.
There are reasons to believe in Joseph Smith that have everything to do with the truth, but since you will only explain them away, as you have done on more than one occasion, listing them becomes pointless. They can’t prove anything, and you will always find some way to dismiss them.
Old Man
Once again we see your double standards in discussion.
“his insistence on using LDS definitions makes logical debate impossible”
Of course, your insistence on using what you call “Christian Definitions” only makes logical debate easier, right? I mean, when you alter the English Language, like you did in altering the definition of missionary so that you could try to hide your insults; that just makes logical debate flow off the tongue, doesn’t it.
Of course, using LDS definitions when discussing LDS doctrine, that just ends all debate right there. After all, we can’t allow the LDS to actually articulate their doctrine. It’s your right to tell us what we believe, and when we try to actually explain our doctrine, you can’t have that, can you.
Shem
I think it’s time we sorted something out. The definitions I use are those generally accepted so let’s have a look at the two words you claim I misuse & then we can put the matter to rest.
Apostasy:
Dictionary definition: Abandonment of one’s religious faith, a political party, one’s principles, or a cause.
Mormon definition: Loss of Priesthood authority.
Missionary
Dictionary definition: A person sent on a religious mission, esp. one sent to promote Christianity in a foreign country.
Notice that it doesn’t say ‘the Baptist Church, ‘the Lutheran Church’ etc. it simply says ‘Christianity’
Mormon definition: A person sent on a religious mission to promote the LDS Corporation.
Now show me where I have altered the English language. Show me where I have used ‘Christian’ definitions. It isn’t me who is altering the English language it is you who does that because it’s the only way you can make any kind of case.
As for explaining your doctrine I’ll just say this, Christian doctrine has a solid foundation, that of Christ. Your doctrines have no solid foundation, they are built on the sand of Joseph Smiths ‘restoration’ & they constantly change over time. That fact alone makes them impossible to defend. You may well try to defend a particular doctrine now but in a few years time you will be telling us that it wasn’t doctrine at all, it was just a prophets opinion.
Shem,
You act as though I have some agenda against Mormonism. There is no agenda. Mormonism stands and falls on there being an universal apostasy. I keep asking this question but never getting an answer. What makes this new “restored” Church immune to apostasy? Why was Christ’s original Church not immune to universal apostasy and not the LDS Church? This is a sincere question.
Jaxi
The mere fact that you are on these sites proves that you have an agenda against the church. I don’t know it you even see it, but to be so active in fighting against something is impossible without an agenda against it.
As to Apostasy, the members of the church are no more immune to this than at any other church. However, God has promised that he will not allow the leaders to lead the church as a whole into apostasy. He has allowed this in the past, but He will not do so in this day, as it is now that He is preparing the world for his Second Coming.
Now, whether you accept this answer is up to you, but this is the answer to your question.
Old Man
Where are you getting your definitions from. Missionary has no definition in any dictionary that I know of in which it is limited to one religion.
The Oxford English Dictionary
“A person sent on or engaged in a religious mission abroad. Also: a person engaged in evangelical or humanitarian work at home. Freq. with distinguishing word, as foreign missionary”
We put a distinguishing word when we say Mormon Missionary. No where is this word restricted to being missionaries from your faith.
Dictionary.com gives the following seven definitions
“1. a person sent by a church into an area to carry on evangelism or other activities, as educational or hospital work.
2. a person strongly in favor of a program, set of principles, etc., who attempts to persuade or convert others.
3. a person who is sent on a mission.
adjective
4. pertaining to or connected with religious missions.
5. engaged in such a mission, or devoted to work connected with missions.
6. reflecting or prompted by the desire to persuade or convert others: the missionary efforts of political fanatics.
7. characteristic of a missionary.”
You may note that the term Christian is not mentioned even once in all seven definitions, though the general terms of religions or churches is.
There is not a single one of these seven definitions that does not apply to the LDS missionaries. So, you are not using generally accepted definitions, as your definition does not appear in the dictionary.
However, even using what you post you prove that the term applies to the LDS just as much as to anyone else. You posted “esp. one sent to promote Christianity in a foreign country.”
First of all, it says especially, meaning that it is a term most commonly used in reference to Christianity, not that it is only used in reference to Christianity.
Second, you make a very good point when you say “it doesn’t say ‘the Baptist Church, ‘the Lutheran Church’ etc. it simply says ‘Christianity’” Since the LDS are Christian it applies to us either way. Only by altering the definition of Christian are you able to make this definition even remotely work in your favor. After all, the Oxford English Dictionary defines Mormons as a Christian sect. Now, if you want to claim we are not of the same type of Christianity as you are, then you will get no argument. But to say we are not Christian is a flat out lie that only becomes true when you alter the definition of the term Christian.
Oh, and read my reply to you on apostasy, given in the thread in which we discuss it. You will see that what you claim is my definition is not exactly accurate.
Shem,
I am trying to share the truth about Christ. If the LDS Church had the truth I wouldn’t have anything to say. I am hear because I do believe in absolute truth and I appreciated it when someone shared that truth with me. So my agenda isn’t against anything, my agenda is for Christ. If you stand on the wrong side of the line, so be it.
And how do you know God allowed leaders to lead the Church into apostasy in the past and that he won’t ever do it again? Was it from the prophet that needed there to be an apostasy in the first place to be a prophet? You trust the men that say God will never lead them astray because they said it? Thanks for answering the question, but I dont believe it. There is no outside validation for this answer. Its like saying Im not a false prophet because I said so. I believe Christ over Joseph Smith.
Shem
”As to Apostasy, the members of the church are no more immune to this than at any other church. However, God has promised that he will not allow the leaders to lead the church as a whole into apostasy. He has allowed this in the past, but He will not do so in this day, as it is now that He is preparing the world for his Second Coming.”
You tell Jaxi that God will not allow the leaders to lead the church (presumably this means the LDS) into apostasy but He has allowed every other Church to fall into apostasy? What you are saying makes no sense at all. Would you pleases explain this apparent contradiction in the nature of God, why would He allow the Church established by His Son to fall into apostasy & yet keep the LDS immune from it? Please don’t tell me that it’s because we are living in the last days as that also makes no sense. Paul said we were living in the last days & preparing for the second coming but still (according to you) the Church fell into apostasy.
You would do well to remember that unlike your man made Mormon God our God is immutable, we can depend on him not to change His mind according to changing circumstances.
“Oh, and read my reply to you on apostasy, given in the thread in which we discuss it. You will see that what you claim is my definition is not exactly accurate.”
I have read it, several times in fact & try as you may you cannot change your definition because you’ve been called out on it. You continually insult with me such terms as ‘You alter the English language’ or ‘you have no understanding’ You make great play of the fact that you use the Oxford English Dictionary as if that in some way makes you superior to everyone else in here. So once again let’s compare the definition of apostasy found in the Oxford English dictionary with yours.
Apostasy:
Dictionary definition: renunciation of a belief or faith
Your definition: “ loss of the power of the priesthood, and the resulting loss of the ordinances of salvation.”
Why don’t you, even if it’s just the one time, come up with a plain understandable answer to the issues that are raised? A lot of people in here are rather tired of your constant word games
Jaxi
If what you say were true you would not be spending so much time trying to prove others wrong. Rather you would be focused on proving yourself right, and that is not the focus of this blog.
Oh, and I believe it because God said it, not because any man said it.
Old Man
I couldn’t care less if you believe or not. I stated truth. Reject it at your own risk.
Oh, and you were the one that first used the Oxford English Dictionary, thus holding it up as a standard that I have chosen to use. If you don’t like it maybe you rethink your use of it.
As to what I said, I really can’t help it if you can’t understand plain English. I don’t know anyone else that would have a difficult time with this. But then I don’t know anyone else who has their own version of the language either, so that may be the problem. Let try to put this more simply, using smaller words this time.
Apostasy: Noun: Abandonment or renunciation of one’s religious faith or moral allegiance.
Great Apostasy: Noun: A doctrine of the LDS church which teaches that “after the deaths of the Savior and His Apostles, men corrupted the principles of the gospel and made unauthorized changes in Church organization and priesthood ordinances. Because of this widespread apostasy, the Lord withdrew the authority of the priesthood from the earth.” (http://www.lds.org/topics/apostasy?lang=eng) However, because this was a corruption and not a destruction of the gospel, remnants of the true faith remained on the Earth, even though the power to lead men to God was no longer had among men.
Now, first notice that these are two different terms that are being defined. I never said that the term Apostasy meant of loss of the priesthood. I said the Great Apostasy was characterized by a loss of priesthood. Get this strait before you make any more false accusations.
Shem,
I don’t need to prove anything to myself. I already know what I believe. I usually say what I think is wrong and then say what I believe. People have to confront their own falsities in order to see the truth. If I was attacking Mormonism for the sake of attacking, I would just attack and make no statement on what I believe. I think I very often say what I believe as being true.
You believe God said it because a man told you God said it. If I believed what everyone said that they said God said, I would have very confusing faith in deed. And I believe Mormonism is a very confusing faith. The Mormon God changes His mind a lot, or is it what men are saying that God said, and men are changing their minds a lot.
The priesthood has never left the earth. There has always only been one high priest. Christ is the high priest of his Church. Through union with Him, we take part in his priesthood. Christ established His Church, His body on the earth. He promised to never leave us orphans. He said the gates of hell would not prevail. We take the Eucharist to have His life inside of us. We are the temple of God and hold his Spirit. There is no need for physical temples to commune with God. The Church does have organization and is still organized to this day. How do you know that men made unauthorized changes? How do you know that the LDS Church isn’t making unauthorized changes? You believe that because a man said he could talk to God. You don’t even have a prophet anymore. The LDS prophet can’t even make a statement without it being approved. He can’t make revelation on his own like he used to. The only reason Brigham Young was prophet was because of a vote and because he said that he could make the same kind of revelations as Joseph. He did that, and many of his revelations are no longer popular, so they are no longer believed. Mormon prophets have been shown to teach false things from the pulpit, so now what they say goes through an approval process, which wasn’t always so. Joseph Smith never needed approval for anything he said. When he was opposed, men were excommunicated. The original Church, started by Christ, has always worked its problems out through meeting together and being guided by the Holy Spirit to make statements. The Church leaders came from all different areas to council together. You believe that Holy Spirit couldn’t guide these men, that it wouldn’t. But you believe that it does so now. This is ridiculous. Christ would not start His Church, form His body, just to forsake it and start it again with the foundations on a man. He came into flesh Himself so that His Church could be forever founded on Him. Joseph Smith took all this priesthood stuff from the Bible misapplied it and went on a power trip. I think anyone can see he was on a power trip. He was governor, general, prophet, and king of the world all at one time. His arrogance got himself killed.
Shem
So, you have now taken it upon yourself to educate me, well my friend the only way you will succeed in that endeavour is if you twist what I say & then carry on to deny what you say.
If there is one thing you have in abundance it’s the ability to belittle people, I remember not so long ago you accused me of being arrogant, I very much doubt if there is a more arrogant person on this site than you. If by denying what you clearly said, you hope to demonstrate your superior intellect then it’s fine by me. Ultimately prople will see through you.
“Now, first notice that these are two different terms that are being defined. I never said that the term Apostasy meant of loss of the priesthood. I said the Great Apostasy was characterized by a loss of priesthood. Get this strait before you make any more false accusations.”
For the last time, this is what you said
“As to your supposed contradiction, you simply do not understand what the apostasy is. You are making the false claim that apostasy means a loss of all faith, or basically, anything connected to the truth. This is a false understanding. Apostasy is the loss of the power of the priesthood, and the resulting loss of the ordinances of salvation.”
Ok, let’s look at the way you manage to twist things to your advantage. In the first sentence you say ‘the apostasy’ As that is a term peculiar to Mormonism don’t expect others who are ‘less intelligent’ than you to understand what you’re talking about. Second sentence, after giving a definition that only you would understand you seem to think that you can then use my lack of understanding as an excuse for personal abuse in the mistaken belief that you will impress people. Following that you said
“You are making the false claim that apostasy means a loss of all faith, or basically, anything connected to the truth.”
By saying that you are telling me that the Oxford English dictionary is wrong. & you follow it by giving me your own definition.
Now I know what you said to me in another post to defend your position & I can accept your explanation but only up to a point. The fact remains that you used a term only you & other Mormons would understand & having done that you attempt to make me look a fool. If you meant apostasy to be something other than the dictionary definition perhaps you should qualify what you say, after all, you’re constantly accusing me of altering the English language.
I’m happy to debate anything with you Shem, I may tell you that what you say is nonsense but unlike you I do NOT resort to personal attacks on your intelligence.
Jaxi
What do you believe about the gospel that you did not hear from a man? Honestly examine that question, and if you can tell me one thing that you did not need men to teach you, then you will have an argument. Otherwise, your comments about men claiming God said it is hypocritical.
Old Man
“perhaps you should qualify what you say,”
I did qualify what I said, in three different threads. I even apologized for any confusion my original words may have caused. All I got in return is accusations of back stepping, twisting words, and insulting you. Then you say that my explanation doesn’t make sense, and that you except it to a point simply because I explained a doctrine unique to my church. If that is all I am going to get from you you can understand why I might get a little riled over your comments.
Now, you also made the claim that saying “you have no understanding” was an insult. I have no clue how this is an insult. It is merely a statement of fact, and is only an insult you your own pride refuses to let you acknowledge that you don’t know everything about the church.
More to the point, is saying that you don’t understand our doctrine is an insult, than you saying that my words are not understandable or confusing is just as much of an insult, and so your claim that you don’t resort to personal attacks is false.
Maybe a simple statement that you are confused by my words would be more conducive to honest discussion. Rather than just telling me how horrible I am at explaining things, maybe you could ask me to clarify.
Shem,
This is a long response to your question, “What do you believe about the gospel that you did not hear from a man? Honestly examine that question..” At the risk of you accusing me of ranting, here is the honest examination…
I never believe “a man,” unless that one man be Christ Himself. I do trust the several men that testify of Christ because they knew Him. But Mormonism trusts in one man, Joseph Smith.
No man made me believe there was a God. I have through looking at science and thinking about the existence of morality been drawn to believing in a God. Through reason I determined that the origin of life, the sequence of events causing more events, has to spring from a single source. I believe that the single source would have to be an all powerful, all knowing God. No one told me that I had to believe in one God. I determined that for myself, through reason, logic, and faith. After I determined that there was a God, I had to ask myself what he/she would be like. I knew that if there was something that was all powerful, and all knowing, it had to truly be that. It would be outside of the laws of nature. It would rule matter and science, and not the other way around. For God to truly be all knowing, He would have to be outside the sequence of time. He would be outside all space and time. I knew God could not be a man or woman as I am, because I know that I am flawed. I cannot be greater than God, and I cannot be God. I cannot be God because I am stuck in the linear sequence of time. I know I have a beginning and without God, I also have an end. I have not existed in a state of perfection for all time and all eternity, but God must have. I came to this realization, all by myself without any help from “a man.”
Now this all happened after discovering that Mormonism is deeply flawed, historically and doctrinally. At this time, I didn’t think I was going to be Christian because I very much had this idea of Heavenly Father being a white bearded man in space somewhere. Little did I know that this wasn’t Christian doctrine at all. I was pleasantly surprised to find out that Christianity had the God that I had truly believed in my mind and heart all along.
I looked deeply at why humans are moral creatures. I determined that God would have to be the epitome of moral perfection, because again, I knew being moral was good, and there is noway I could be better or more good than God. What or Who was the standard? Christ to me has always been the standard. So learning that Christianity believed in a Heavenly Father that made sense, and realizing that Christ was who I had always aspired to be, I decided to give Christianity a chance, not knowing that Mormon doctrine was so different than Christianity. It was beautiful discovering a faith that wasn’t complicated and that made so much sense, to my mind, heart, and soul all at the same time. All of a sudden the pieces fit and I wasn’t shoving a square peg in a circle hole anymore.
Now, no man told be to believe in the God that I had determined to be true. However, I do concede that the reason that I know of Christ is because of men. Several men who preserved their sacred writings and history over thousands of years. Men who recorded prophecies that came true hundreds of years after the recording. I know Christ lived because even the Romans recorded him in their history. I have the recorded testimonies of the men that walked the earth with Him. I have to take on faith that what they recorded was true. But I believe that oral tradition was a valid way to record history at the time and it is self correcting. I believe that it makes sense that God lowered himself to become man, in order to raise us up to Him, because he loves us so much. As my sister once said, “It seems like we are trying to make God in our image.” I think the LDS faith does just that.
So yea, you could pull any atheist arguments out of a hat and try to say, something to the effect of “believing the Bible and those men is silly and this is why… So you can’t make fun of my faith being silly because you are silly too.” The problem is that Mormonism is either separate from Christianity or it isn’t. If it is separate, then yes, go believe this silly idea about passwords to get into heaven and that you are going to become God. Gnosticism taught it. The New Age Movement is doing it now too. The heresy is not new. Mormonism in its complete form is entirely new, but its blasphemies here and there are not new. But if Mormonism is separate, it needs to stand on its own too feet. It needs to drop the Bible. But every Mormon knows that if LDS drop the Bible, they lose all their credibility. The Bible is the only thing that makes your faith slightly believable. So since we know that Mormons can’t drop the Bible, they are linking themselves with Christianity. So the burden of proof, that your prophet isn’t false that you actually have a real record of Christ, is on you. Because YOU are the one teaching a different gospel and slapping Christ’s name to it. Christianity was here first. It has faithfully been guided by the Holy Spirit and kept its teachings. Don’t believe that? fine, don’t be a Christan. One can stand on the outside and say my faith is silly. But you can’t base your faith off mine and make up silly things and say, “don’t rag on me, you’re silly too.” Go be silly by yourself.
Your right, that I have had to take some things on authority. I put my faith in one man, Jesus Christ. I have trusted what other men have said about Jesus Christ; but it was several men testifying of the same thing. The Old Testament also testifies of Him. Many events and people are historically verifiable. I do not have all evidence. I do have faith. But in Mormonism, you are putting all your faith about who God is and who you are in one man, Joseph Smith. It’s all faith, with no evidence. I think Christ likes some evidence. The scriptures testified of Him, John the Baptist testified of Him and prepared the way, and Christ’s works testified of Him.
This is the only place I can find Joseph Smith in the Bible,
Matthew 7:15
Beware of false prophets which come to you in sheep’s clothing but inwardly they are ravening wolves. .
Matthew 24: v 4-5
And Jesus answered and said unto them, Take heed that no man deceive you.
5 For many shall come in my name, saying, I am Christ; and shall deceive many.
Mark 13: v 21-23
And then if any man shall say to you, Lo, here is Christ; or, lo, he is there; believe him not:
22 For false Christs and false prophets shall rise, and shall shew signs and wonders, to seduce, if it were possible, even the elect.
Romans 16: v 17-18
Now I beseech you, brethren, mark them which cause divisions and offences contrary to the doctrine which ye have learned; and avoid them. For they that are such serve not our Lord Jesus Christ, but their own belly; and by good words and fair speeches deceive the hearts of the simple.
Galatians 1: 8-10
But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed. As we said before, so say I now again, if any man preach any other gospel unto you than that ye have received, let him be accursed. For do I now persuade men, or God? or do I seek to please men? for if I yet pleased men, I should not be the servant of Christ.
1 John 4:1
Beloved, believe not every spirit, but try the spirits whether they are of God: because many false prophets are gone out into the world.
2 Peter 2:1-3
But there were false prophets also among the people, even as there shall be false teachers among you, who privily shall bring in damnable heresies, even denying the Lord that bought them, and bring upon themselves swift destruction. And many shall follow their pernicious ways; by reason of whom the way of truth shall be evil spoken of. And through covetousness shall they with feigned words make merchandise of you: whose judgment now of a long time lingereth not, and their damnation slumbereth not.
2 Corinthians 11:13-15
For such are false apostles, deceitful workers, transforming themselves into the apostles of Christ.
And no marvel; for Satan himself is transformed into an angel of light. Therefore it is no great thing if his ministers also be transformed as the ministers of righteousness; whose end shall be according to their works.
2 Timothy 3:1-7
This know also, that in the last days perilous times shall come. For men shall be lovers of their own selves, covetous, boasters, proud, blasphemers, disobedient to parents, unthankful, unholy, Without natural affection, trucebreakers, false accusers, incontinent, fierce, despisers of those that are good, Traitors, heady, highminded, lovers of pleasures more than lovers of God; Having a form of godliness, but denying the power thereof: from such turn away. For of this sort are they which creep into houses, and lead captive silly women laden with sins, led away with divers lusts, Ever learning, and never able to come to the knowledge of the truth.
2 Timothy 4:2-5
“Preach the word; be instant in season, out of season; reprove, rebuke, exhort with all longsuffering and doctrine. For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but after their own lusts shall they heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears; And they shall turn away their ears from the truth, and shall be turned unto fables. But watch thou in all things, endure afflictions, do the work of an evangelist, make full proof of thy ministry.”
I am a Christian. I take very seriously these warnings. Christians are not going to forsake their God, for a false prophet. If he is not false, he needs to prove it. We are not called to believe a man because he said he speaks to God. We are told to believe the words of scripture and to follow the gospel preached by the Apostles. Christians are called to share and preserve the faith, not search around for a new gospel.
So the question truly remains, how do I know that Joseph Smith isn’t a false prophet, other than he said so, or he said God said so?
Jaxi
You are right, that was way too long.
Now, I did not read everything, but this is the impression I got. Through the reasoning of men (namely you) you came to a conclusion of who God had to be. Then you sought out a religion that taught the same belief, as supported by the testimony of other men. In other words, you have failed to show how anything you believe did not originate from men.
Now, you make a lot of claims concerning the LDS church, most of which really make no sense. Honestly, your claim that we drop the Bible is actually quite humorous, considering how much we believe in it and use it, and the fact that we believe in and worship Christ, whom the Bible was written to testify of. We don’t keep the Bible to keep our credibility, as you claim. We keep it because it is a record of scripture, inspired by God, and profitable to us for our learning.
Now, you also claim that “in Mormonism, you are putting all your faith about who God is and who you are in one man, Joseph Smith.” This is where you are truly in error. I notice that in all your explanation you talk about reasoning, and reliance on the testimony of men, as well as the records that those men actually existed. Yet I see no declaration of any communication from God himself. You make no claim that your faith is actually based on any witness of the Holy Spirit, which the Bible declares is the witness of all truth. You can claim that all we know is based off Joseph Smith, but I can testify that what I believe has not only been testified to by men who were called and inspired of God; but also that I have felt the testimony of God himself as His Holy Spirit has spoken to my spirit to tell me the truth of things.
“how do I know that Joseph Smith isn’t a false prophet, other than he said so, or he said God said so?”
You don’t, until God himself declares to you personally that Joseph Smith is a prophet. Of course you can’t really know that anyone in the Bible were true prophets without this personal witness either.
Shem,
<"Through the reasoning of men (namely you) you came to a conclusion of who God had to be."
Your telling me you didn't use the faculties God gave you to determine any of your beliefs about God? You are telling me that I can't trust my reason but I should trust only spiritual witnesses? Even though, many people have been deceived by relying on spiritual witnesses. People that dabble in the occult get lots of those and many of the spirits and voices appear friendly. You should totally look into the New Age Movement. It's all about good feelings and spiritual witnesses.
<" In other words, you have failed to show how anything you believe did not originate from men."
I believe in what originated from Christ and I think I talked about how it didn't come from one man, it came from several testifying of the same experience. And also came from men testifying of Christ in the scriptures before He came. Joseph Smith is one man testifying of something completely different, that can't be supported historically or scientifically at all.
<"your claim that we drop the Bible is actually quite humorous.We don’t keep the Bible to keep our credibility, as you claim"
It's humorous to me that you think so. You only use it if it supports Joseph Smith and his teachings. Anything else in it is believed to be misinterpreted or mistranslated. In what ways do you worship Christ? I never felt like I was worshiping Christ when Mormon. I had also wanted to. Finally, once I left and walked into an Orthodox sanctuary, I experienced true worship.
<"Yet I see no declaration of any communication from God himself. You make no claim that your faith is actually based on any witness of the Holy Spirit,"
I did speak of my mind, heart, and soul finally finding peace. Everything finally made sense. This perfect clarity and peacefulness I described was a spiritual witness. But you are right that I did not bring it up as such. The reason is because you claim a spiritual witness. So do I. Who is right? We both can't be. So who should people believe, the one that has some reason and logic or the one that just talks about feelings?
I am still making the point that Mormonism must prove itself to Christianity. Christ did not come to the Jews and say, "How do I make you feel?" He used scripture and His miraculous works to testify of Himself and the Father. Only by following the teachings of Joseph Smith do Mormons reach the Father. Christ only gets you to the bottom kingdom. I wonder why this wondrous man that can bring you to life with the Father was not prophesied of in the scriptures? Oh, yea, He was. It was Jesus Christ though, not Joseph Smith.
Jaxi
“You are telling me that I can’t trust my reason but I should trust only spiritual witnesses? Even though, many people have been deceived by relying on spiritual witnesses.”
No. I am saying you need a combination of both. Your reasoning should lead you to conclusions, but then you should seek out God himself to confirm them. People love talking about how unreliable a spiritual witness is, citing all kinds of religions and beliefs and myths. What does this prove? Nothing, except that people can be deceived. But then, our own reasoning can deceive us, as is seen in the many people who have reasoned in their own minds that God doesn’t exist. Those who have reasoned a progression to the Gospel that shows that Jehovah was merely a tribal God, and that it was through the Zoroastrians that they acquired their beliefs in the afterlife and all that. Human reason has led to just as many errors as false spirits have. So, to rely on that alone is just as reckless as relying on Spiritual witnesses.
“it didn’t come from one man, it came from several testifying of the same experience.”
But it still all comes from men, which it the point. Nothing you claim to believe in is not traced back to the testimonies of men.
Now you can claim all you want that only Joseph Smith testifies to the truth of this Gospel, but such a claim is false, and you know it. Twelve others have testified to the existence of the gold plates, four of which testified to seeing the angel Moroni. Dozens have testified to visions and other miracles performed in this church, which Christ declares is the sign of the faithful. I have many more men than just Joseph Smith to testify of the truth.
“You only use it if it supports Joseph Smith and his teachings. Anything else in it is believed to be misinterpreted or mistranslated.”
Misinterpreted, yes, but very little is actually mistranslated. However, a claim of misinterpretation is hardly objectionable, as you make the same claim about anyone who disagrees with your doctrine. We use all the Bible; we study it in depth; we learn its lessons and follow its commands. Anyone who claims otherwise does not know our doctrine (and just because you were once a member does not mean anything). We worship Christ is our songs, in our prayers, in church meetings, and in the ordinances of the gospel. All of it points us to Christ, the rock of our Faith, and the only one who has the power to save us.
“The reason is because you claim a spiritual witness.”
Your right, I do claim this. I also have no reason not to claim it; especially when it is directly asked for, as I asked you. So, now you have something to base your first argument on, as you can claim something beyond men. However, you have also admitted that I can make the same claim, even though earlier you tried to claim that I “believe God said it because a man told [me] God said it.” Thus you have admitted that this early claim is false. Thank you.
“He used scripture and His miraculous works to testify of Himself and the Father.”
Yes, and very few people actually believed he was the Christ. All this evidence, all the miracles and the scriptures, did almost nothing to convince the Jews of who he was. Miracles cannot produce faith. They are the result of faith, not the cause of it. It was not until after Christ’s ascension, when Peter preached to the Jews and “they were pricked in their heart” (Acts 2: 37) that people started to believe. In other words, it was not until the Spirit testified to them that they gained faith. Even those who did believe in Christ while he was still in mortality did not believe because of the miracles or the scriptures. They barely understood the scriptures. No, it was through spiritual witness that they believed, as Christ declared when he said to Peter “flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven.” (Matthew 16: 17).
Now, on a final note, anyone who tries to claim that Christ only gets you too the bottom does not know the doctrine of the church. Christ gets all men to the bottom, except those who blaspheme the Holy Ghost. It is also through His grace that men are brought up to the very highest heavens, to inherit all that is the Father’s. It is not through Joseph Smith or any other man, except in so far as we are required to accept their testimonies.
Let me ask you a question that I have asked others. If a person told you that he reject Paul as a true teacher of the gospel, and thus rejected everything he wrote, to that was written about him, could that person still claim salvation through Christ? What if they rejected Peter, or John, or the Old Testament prophets?
This is grossly incorrect. Many of the people in Jesus time had FAITH, for example,
This is only a few of them. Jesus had less than a three year ministry among the people. He had a very active Jewish Government opposed to him, which made it difficult for anyone to follow him. As time went on, Jesus was increasingly in danger and had to stay hidden, or avoid the Jewish Hierarchy. His miracles DID convince a lot of people, but it also did not, for lots of reasons. That there was GREAT FAITH in Him that came from those that believed him, is demonstrated over and over again in the accounts left by his apostles. It did not take the Holy Spirit to “prick their hearts”, because they had GOD THERE WITH THEM and he PROVED he was GOD. The actual ACCOUNTS show that you perception of events is skewed, and this is only to downplay the importance of Christ’s miracles, of which he himself said,
Shem,
<"No. I am saying you need a combination of both."
No, I am saying that. I am saying I have used reason on many different levels (nature, science, philosophy, human nature, history, scriptures) and came to conclusions that were similar. I fasted and prayed and received a witness from the Spirit. You are the only one talking about spiritual witnesses only.
< "Twelve others have testified to the existence of the gold plates, four of which testified to seeing the angel Moroni. Dozens have testified to visions and other miracles performed in this church, which Christ declares is the sign of the faithful. I have many more men than just Joseph Smith to testify of the truth."
Yea, I know all about the witnesses and their seeing things with their spiritual eyes, and seeing it as though they were looking through a mountain, and Joseph Smith prewriting their testimony. How convincing. I guess I should believe all those people that testified of being abducted by aliens and shared the same experience. I guess I should believe the witnesses of James Strang too. Many Mormons went to follow him at the split.
<"the only one who has the power to save us."
Power to give you a new body, but not power to save you from all consequences of sin no matter how repentant the person. LDS Christ is limited in His power to save. Only a combined belief in the teachings of Joseph Smith and Jesus Christ truly saves an LDS person.
<"However, you have also admitted that I can make the same claim, even though earlier you tried to claim that I “believe God said it because a man told [me] God said it.” Thus you have admitted that this early claim is false. Thank you."
Ok, so you believe a man and have a spiritual witness. You still have not answered my original question on your reasoning. What reason would anyone have to believe Joseph Smith is not a false prophet? You are claiming I don't need any reason I should get a spiritual witness and just rely on that. That I should completely abandon my mental faculties. I'm asking for reasoning, actual thought processes that led you to the conclusion that he is not a false prophet. Reasons why I should believe that Christ would withdraw His Spirit from the early Church (willingly) and found His church on another man, other than Himself, and that we should believe He will never again withdraw his spirit. What reason do you have to believe these other the teachings that came from the mouths of the people that started it. Christ had a complete history of scripture that foretold of him and prepared people for his coming. I don't care if not everyone believed it. But he did it, it was well thought out, and he did it will reason and purpose. Why would he not do the same to prepare the world for Joseph Smith and the supposed Restored Church? There is no outside support for the claims made by Joseph Smith.
<" It is also through His grace that men are brought up to the very highest heavens, to inherit all that is the Father’s."
I mean if what you say is true, than I guess I'm good. I love God and accept His grace. So I can tell my crying mother that I'm still going to live with God and we can still be together with God and our family for eternity. That is good news that I need nothing else but Christ and His grace to be with God.
<"Let me ask you a question that I have asked others. If a person told you that he reject Paul as a true teacher of the gospel, and thus rejected everything he wrote, to that was written about him, could that person still claim salvation through Christ? What if they rejected Peter, or John, or the Old Testament prophets?"
I leave salvation completely up to Christ. If someone rejects Paul but says they follow Christ, only Christ would know if they truly follow him. He will make the call. I would say that if you know Christ, He would likely lead you to believing what Paul said. All I can hope is that they love God and love their neighbor and God will make the call. But the extra doctrines given by Joseph Smith don't lead me to Christ. There is nothing going on in the temple that drew me to him. It was only outside the LDS Church that my love for Him and His sacrifice and my personal worship was able to grow. I am better off spiritually by leaving, yet you claim I am not joined to Christ (claim made in a different post). I know by this very statement that you do not truly know Christ because if you did know Him you would never make such a presumptuous statement.
And they also claimed to see them with “spiritual eyes”. All of the “witnesses” who saw the plates were closely related to each other, four from Smith’s own family. They did not see the plates all at once, but Smith did them in easily controlled groups. Their stories are all wildly different, and there is evidence that they didn’t see anything at all with their “natural” eyes. For example David Whitmer when asked in 1880 for a description of the angel who showed him the plates, he replied that the angel “had no appearance or shape.” Asked by the interviewer how he then could bear testimony that he had seen and heard an angel, Whitmer replied, “Have you never had impressions?” To which the interviewer responded, “Then you had impressions as the Quaker when the spirit moves, or as a good Methodist in giving a happy experience, a feeling?” “Just so,” replied Whitmer. – Whitmer interview with John Murphy, June 1880, in Early Mormon Documents 5: 63.
The Times and Seasons published this poem about Oliver Cowdery,
Times and Seasons in 1841 (vol. 2, p.482)
On April 15, 1838 Stephen Burnett wrote a letter to explain why he decided to leave the Church. The letter was addressed to Lyman E. Johnson, a man Burnett thought was one of the Twelve Apostles. Johnson had actually been excommunicated two days before this, but the news had not yet reached Stephen Burnett. The text that follows is taken from Burnett’s letter.
Harris’s recantation, made during a period of crisis in early Mormonism, induced five influential members, including three Apostles, to leave the Church. His later statements, when he reversed himself and said he saw the plates with his “natural eyes” and “handled them” were all gotten out of him by Mormon Interviewers. Brigham Young’s brother, Phineas, wrote to Brigham on December 31, 1841, from Kirtland, Ohio, saying, “There are in this place all kinds of teaching; Martin Harris is a firm believer in Shakerism, says his testimony is greater than it was for the B. of M.” (Martin Harris — Witness and Benefactor of the Book of Mormon, 1955, p. 52). More than sixty people testified concerning the Sacred Roll and Book of Shakerism, which taught “Christ has made His second appearance on earth, in a chosen female known by the name of Ann Lee.” Martin Harris could not believe both that and the D. & C. 49:22, which says, “the Son of Man cometh not in the form of a woman.” In his old age, Harris rejoined the LDS Church and was brought to Utah where he died. But, there is no record of Harris ever renouncing his “greater” testimony for Shakerism.
In 1859, Brigham Young stated:
There is much more that I could relate. The Witnesses to the BOM are not without their problems. They are not a good criteria to judge whether there actually were “gold plates.”
Jaxi
“I am saying I have used reason on many different levels and came to conclusions that were similar.”
I have said this myself on numerous occasions. I can’t help it if you don’t remember them. I have never once said that all we need is a spiritual witness. I have said that once God has declared something than there is no more need for reasoning it out, and that is true. But I have also declared that God does not usually declare anything until we have already tried to reason it out ourselves. We need both, but we should never let our reason cause us to ignore the testimony of the spirit.
“How convincing.”
I know you reject the evidence that I accept, even though there is no credible reason too. You have, on more than one occasion, shown your determination to reason away anything that even remotely supports a belief in this church. It doesn’t really matter. It does not allow you to claim that I do not have evidence beyond Joseph Smith on which to base my faith. You cannot claim that because you do not accept a persons testimony that it is irrelevant to the faith of another.
“Only a combined belief in the teachings of Joseph Smith and Jesus Christ truly saves an LDS person.”
This is simply wrong, and anyone believing or teaching that this is the doctrine of the church is believing or teaching a lie.
“You are claiming I don’t need any reason I should get a spiritual witness and just rely on that.”
No. I am saying that without such a witness no amount of reasoning is ever going to convince you, as you have proven over and over again. As I said, you have chosen to reason away all the evidence, and there is plenty there. But since you have already chosen not to believe you will always find a reason to reject it.
Take, for example, your complaint of Joseph Smith writing the testimony of the three. Why should this matter if the three accepted the words that he wrote and testified that they accurately described their experience? They signed the statement, thus legally and morally binding themselves to the honesty of the words; and none of them ever denied it. So what does it matter when the words were written, or by whom? It only matters because you want to reject their testimony, and it allows you to do so.
“That is good news that I need nothing else but Christ and His grace to be with God.”
You really don’t understand our doctrine, do you? I am not going to discuss this issue now, as it takes us off topic, but I have yet to see you say one thing about it that was accurate.
“If someone rejects Paul but says they follow Christ, only Christ would know if they truly follow him. He will make the call.”
This would make you fairly unique among Christians, as most would say that in rejecting over half of the New Testament a person would not be able to know who Christ was.
So, is it your opinion that it is possible for a person to reject all the prophets of the Bible, claiming them to be false prophets, and yet still have genuine faith in Christ and be saved? Is this possible? If it is than what is the need for any scripture?
Shem,
<"But I have also declared that God does not usually declare anything until we have already tried to reason it out ourselves."
I agree. I am saying that I can find no reason to believe Joseph Smith. And despite there being no reason to believe Mormonism was true I still fasted and prayed on it for months. You act like I wanted Mormonism to not be true. I loved being Mormon. I love my life more now, but I didn't I would at the time. I took a big risk leaving, and I had no other motives to leave other than seeking truth. I don't have to reason away Mormonism. I tried to find reason to believe that actually made some sense.
<"We need both, but we should never let our reason cause us to ignore the testimony of the spirit."
But we should test to see if the testimony of the spirit was from God or a deceiving spirit. The LDS Church used good feelings I had that came from thinking on Christ, and family, and other Christian teachings, to make me believe other things that I never had a spiritual witness of. I never felt good about polygamy, blacks not receiving the priesthood, or the weird endowment ceremony, or other things. But because I felt good or had a spiritual witness about a few things, I was taught that everything else taught by the LDS Church must be true too.
<"I know you reject the evidence that I accept, even though there is no credible reason too."
I would say there is no credible reason to accept.
<"This is simply wrong, and anyone believing or teaching that this is the doctrine of the church is believing or teaching a lie."
Please explain how this is wrong? “Only a combined belief in the teachings of Joseph Smith and Jesus Christ truly saves an LDS person.” Can someone have life with the Father without believing the teachings of Joseph Smith?
<"So what does it matter when the words were written, or by whom? It only matters because you want to reject their testimony, and it allows you to do so."
Again, I did not want the LDS Church to not be true. My husband and I had made tremendous sacrifices for the LDS faith that we were willing to continue to do until our dieing day. Leaving the LDS Church was probably one of the hardest things I have ever done. The easy way, would have been to stay. But I believe in God, and I believe that there is real truth to be known about Him and the LDS Church does not have that truth.
To answer your question. Yes, it matters. People are sometimes pressured or tricked into signing statements. People have confessed to crimes they didn't commit. So a written testimony in their own words of the experience would have been better. A prewritten statement by the man that needed it to validate himself is sketchy. And when we do hear about how they described the experience in their own words, we get talk about spiritual eyes and seeing things like looking through a mountain or impressions.
<"You really don’t understand our doctrine, do you? I am not going to discuss this issue now, as it takes us off topic, but I have yet to see you say one thing about it that was accurate."
That was in response to this statement made by me, "“That is good news that I need nothing else but Christ and His grace to be with God.” You will go off topic on other stuff but when it comes to sharing the doctrine on how one obtains life with God you don't want to discuss it. I would think that would be one of the most wonderful things to share in a faith. I am happy to declare to people how they obtain life with God.
<"So, is it your opinion that it is possible for a person to reject all the prophets of the Bible, claiming them to be false prophets, and yet still have genuine faith in Christ and be saved? Is this possible? If it is than what is the need for any scripture?"
If you believe Christ than you will also believe the Old Testament because He validated it. So if someone says I believe Christ but not Moses, than they are lying to themselves because they are rejecting what Christ taught. If you believe Christ you will also believe His Apostles, because he chose them. If you accept Christ but not His Apostles, you are again not accepting what Christ was teaching. Now some people don't believe Paul was an apostle. Personally I think it is hard to not believe he was an apostle because he was accepted by the Apostles and if you believe that Christ gave His Apostles the Holy Spirit than you would also believe that they would be able to determine who was preaching Christ and who wasn't. But Paul says some hard things if taken out of context and if people read those things and can't get around them and believe in Christ and that He is their Savior and they follow His teachings, I don't know their fate. But only God will know if they truly follow Him. So I think it would be a hard case for someone to accept Christ but reject His prophets and Apostles in the Old and New Testament because they are all linked. But God is all powerful and He will save who He will. But Joseph Smith isn't linked to anything. I don't feel any pressure to accept him as a prophet.
Jaxi
“You act like I wanted Mormonism to not be true.”
I make no comment on your past motivations or desires. I was not present at the time and can make no such judgment. I can, however, make a judgment on your words as presented to me now. I don’t know what you wanted then, but as of right now you act like you want Mormonism to not be true, and are thus seeking reasons to believe this.
“I tried to find reason to believe that actually made some sense.”
The funny thing is that nothing else has ever made sense to me. There is no other Christian denomination whose doctrine is so clear and simple to my mind; so logical and reasonable in they presentation by members, leaders, and scripture; and none that are so in agreement with the Bible. You say you wanted a reason that made sense. To me there is no reason that doesn’t make sense.
“The LDS Church used good feelings I had [of a few things] to make me believe other things that I never had a spiritual witness of.”
I have never understood these claims by ex-members. The church has never forced me to believe anything, and I can’t think of anyone that I am personally acquainted with that has ever been forced to believe anything.
“I would say there is no credible reason to accept.”
Of course you would. You don’t want to accept them.
“Can someone have life with the Father without believing the teachings of Joseph Smith?”
As I pointed out, you can’t know Christ without first accepting the witnesses of him and his life. You are trying to claim that we place Joseph Smith as more important than the ancient prophets. He may be special to us, as he is the prophet of our dispensation, but accepting his teachings is no more important than excepting the teaching of Peter, or John, or Paul, or Isaiah, or Moses, or any one of the prophets of the Bible. Stop trying to make it out that we treat Joseph Smith any differently.
“Yes, it matters.”
No it doesn’t, and you know it. Yes, sometimes people make false claims, but until the claim can be demonstrated false there is no credible reason to reject it. This would require them to later deny it, or if something they later say contradicts it. Neither of these ever happened, and so your complaint has no credible foundation.
“You will go off topic on other stuff but when it comes to sharing the doctrine on how one obtains life with God you don’t want to discuss it.”
I would love to discuss it, if I thought it would do any good at this time. As I highly doubt it enhance the current discussion I choose not to discuss it at this time. I feel it better to keep the discussion as focused as possible.
“So if someone says I believe Christ but not Moses, than they are lying to themselves because they are rejecting what Christ taught.”
This is the exact same thing we believe concerning Joseph Smith. He was a prophet, and like all other prophets, to reject him is to reject the one who called him. For you to claim anything else is for you to try and teach false doctrine as what we believe.
Oh, and since Joseph was called by God, ordained to the priesthood by the apostles, and given the Keys of the Kingdom, he is just as linked to everyone else.
Shem,
<" I don’t know what you wanted then, but as of right now you act like you want Mormonism to not be true, and are thus seeking reasons to believe this."
Are you saying that belief is simply a matter of desire? I believe in fairies, I believe in fairies…. Don't tell me otherwise. I am only seeking information that supports this belief.
<" You say you wanted a reason that made sense. To me there is no reason that doesn’t make sense."
And yet you still haven't shared those reasons on why it makes sense to you other than you just say it does.
<"I have never understood these claims by ex-members. The church has never forced me to believe anything, and I can’t think of anyone that I am personally acquainted with that has ever been forced to believe anything."
Example, of me as a child. "Mom, I just found out that Joseph Smith and Brigham Young married lots of women. That doesn't make sense. It just doesn't feel right. Are you saying that God wanted men to marry lots of women? That just gives me a sick feeling." (You could do this with blacks not receiving the priesthood as well or other things) The reason given back to me is always "we don't understand God's ways." "We just have to have faith." "We don't have all the answers but we know Joseph Smith was a prophet so it must be true." So I was told to accept something that made me feel uncomfortable and sick inside just because if Joseph Smith was a prophet and he said it, it must be so. If I wanted to continue my LDS journey I would just have to accept those things as true and move on.
"but until the claim can be demonstrated false there is no credible reason to reject it."
You make me laugh Shem. I should accept every single thing someone claims as credible until I can prove them false. Those 7 guys that were abducted by aliens all passed lie detector tests. I guess I should be a believer in alien abduction now.
<"I feel it better to keep the discussion as focused as possible."
Because all this other stuff being talked about it is focused on Mormonism and atheism.
<"Oh, and since Joseph was called by God, ordained to the priesthood by the apostles, and given the Keys of the Kingdom, he is just as linked to everyone else."
Ok, Moses testified of Christ and Christ supported Moses. linked. Christ called his apostles and his apostles testified of him. linked. Paul testified of Christ, and the Apostles who lived and knew Christ confirmed his calling. linked. Man says God spoke to him and now everyone should do what he says even though there is no scripture supporting his call or history of his teaching that can be found. Not linked. He is only linked by linking himself. There is no outside support from anyone with any authority. You only have to take his word for it that someone with authority came to him.
Christ is visibly linked with all the people I mentioned except the last man, Joseph Smith. So to deny any of those men you would be denying what Christ taught. Because anyone who knew him would know he supported his Apostles and anyone who knew him knew he quoted from the past prophets. Now Joseph Smith is teaching a gospel different from anything that has ever been seen in history. You might find a similar practice here and there but you can't find the whole thing anywhere. Now I support the prophets and apostles and believe Christ, because of the visible link. I do not support Joseph Smith and his invisible link. Christ and Paul never taught anything like Joseph Smith. Neither did the early Church Fathers. I reject his teachings. And because I do, LDS doctrine teaches that I can never be with God. The only thing holding me back from life with God, according to LDS, is Joseph Smith. You can deny he is of equal importance to Christ all you want. But without him, Mormons were screwed. No one could ever be with God unless Joseph Smith restored the gospel. The Good News of LDS is not just Christ Risen, it is that Priesthood authority is back on the earth through Joseph Smith. Even though scriptures clearly teach that the one high priest is and will always be Jesus Christ. In the LDS faith, no one gets to God without accepting Joseph Smith as prophet. You have to accept his extra teachings to get to God. If he didn't teach what he did would you be able to have life with God? The truth is salvation is through a person, and that person is Jesus Christ.
I like how your question was a trap to make a case that I must accept Joseph Smith like all the other prophets if I truly know Christ. There have been lots of other people that have claimed to be prophets, should I believe all of them just because they said so? Some of them even had witnesses. As, I said before there must be a link, a two way link. I fail to see a two way link between Joseph Smith and Christ. If you noticed I did say that if someone did reject Paul as an Apostle, that there still may be salvation (life with God) for that person, it would ultimately be God's call. I am just saying that they would have a hard case to make. I feel very comfortable with my case against Joseph Smith. Christ has given me no reason to believe Joseph Smith and many more reasons not to.
I think there is much more evidence that Joseph Smith was playing with the occult and received visitation from evil spirits. If anyone looks at some of the New Age practices and occult practices they get visitations, from spirits that many times seem benevolent. That can be very deceiving. I think I am going to stay within the safety of what can be shown that Christ taught, rather than trust a man that very well may have been interacting with demons.
Jaxi
“Are you saying that belief is simply a matter of desire?”
In a way, yes. I am saying ones acceptance or rejection of evidence is frequently a matter of desire. One rejects what seems to contradict a belief they want to hold onto, but accepts that which affirms their faith.
“And yet you still haven’t shared those reasons on why it makes sense to you other than you just say it does.”
Actually, I have, and you have reasoned them away, just as I said you would at the time. Go back on this very thread. In post 49 I give a list of reasons. Post 51 is you reasoning them away.
Don’t say I don’t share my reasons when I have done so frequently.
“Example, of me as a child.”
We have different experiences, which I never denied. As a child I honestly never found this confusing in any way. It made sense then, and it makes sense now. I never felt forced to accept it, or anything else.
However, I would also ask at what time you are talking about; what decade. If it was during the time when manuals and other material of the auxiliary organizations was not standardized then much of what was taught in local wards was not officially from the church. That is why the church standardized the lesson manuals; to prevent these kind of things from happening.
I was born after they were standardized, so I have never had to deal with that problem. In my experience I have never felt forced to accept anything, and I don’t know of anyone else who has.
“I guess I should be a believer in alien abduction now.”
Not necessarily. But you should believe that something happened to them, if their stories never changed and they never denied them. I don’t think aliens are among us. But I do believe these men experienced something, and they believed it to be aliens.
The same is true of the three witnesses to the Book of Mormon. You have no credible reason to say they did not experience something, and that they did not see what they say they saw. You may not agree that it was an angel, but there is no credible reason to say it never happened.
Oh, and the comparison with alien abductions is not quite right. After all, those people were alone when they experienced what ever happened. The three witness were not alone, and all told the same story; none contradicting the others. Another good indicator of honesty.
“Because all this other stuff being talked about it is focused on Mormonism and atheism.”
No. Because until we come to a mutual understanding of one subject diversion to others is only going to hinder discussion of the first. Though I actually can’t quite grasp what it is we are discussing here. I think it started with the fact that neither one of us has any more proof then the other that we are right.
“I like how your question was a trap to make a case that I must accept Joseph Smith like all the other prophets if I truly know Christ.”
You really don’t get it. This was never my intention. My intention was to point out that your belief in the requirement of accept ancient prophets is no different than our belief in the requirement of accepting modern prophets. I am not trying to trap you in anything, except your own ignorance as to our doctrine concerning prophets.
“I feel very comfortable with my case against Joseph Smith.”
Of course you feel comfortable. It is the case that you want. That doesn’t mean it is right.
“Christ has given me no reason to believe Joseph Smith and many more reasons not to.”
Christ has given everyone reason to believe in Joseph Smith. It is just that people reject those reasons and turn from Christ, all the time being deceived that they are really turning towards him.
Oh, and speaking of your links, your reasoning has no support. What link did Moses have when he spoke to Israel and delivered to them the Law? Christ had not yet come in support of his words. So, by your reasoning the ancient Israelites that rejected him were perfectly justified, as there was no two-way link.
Beyond that, all your links bring us right back to the old point that you only have them because a man told you they were there. You accept that Christ called his twelve apostles because they say that Christ called them. You base your faith in Paul on what these men claim. Again, everything you have is based on men.
So, we have Joseph. Just like Moses, during his own lifetime he did not have what you would call a link to Christ. But we do not believe this a cause for rejecting him, and that link will be proven at the second coming. Just like the apostles he has only his testimony that he was called. But we do not believe this is cause for rejecting him, but see the evidence of his claim in the miracles he performed, the life he led, and testimony that he bore of Christ.
Shem,
<"One rejects what seems to contradict a belief they want to hold onto, but accepts that which affirms their faith."
And yet that didn't happen to me. I wanted Mormonism to be true but it simply wasn't. I didn't have some other belief I was holding onto.
<" In post 49 I give a list of reasons."
I didn't regard any of them as sensible reasons. They were all reasons that required a spiritual witness to believe to begin with.
<"In my experience I have never felt forced to accept anything, and I don’t know of anyone else who has."
Good for you. But I know lots of people that have. I use the polygamy example because that is one of the most common things. Many women feel forced to accept that polygamy was commanded of God. I'm not sure how one can be Mormon and not accept that polygamy was a commanded practice.
<"After all, those people were alone when they experienced what ever happened. The three witness were not alone, and all told the same story; none contradicting the others. Another good indicator of honesty."
Actually, the seven people I am referring to I believe were all together.
The following were taken from mormonthink.org
"On November 5, 1975, seven men witnessed a spacecraft from another world hovering silently between tall pines in the Apache-Sitgreaves National forest of north-eastern Arizona. One of those men, Travis Walton, became an unwilling captive of an alien race when the other men fled in fear.
There were seven witnesses to this event. They all passed lie-detector tests and none of them have ever recounted their story. This was even made into a movie called 'Fire in the Sky' with James Garner playing the sheriff who investigated the story. "
How about the Shaker's?
"We, the undersigned, hereby testify, that we saw the holy Angel standing upon the house-top, as mentioned in the foregoing declaration, holding the Roll and Book.
Betsey Boothe.
Louisa Chamberlain.
Caty De Witt.
Laura Ann Jacobs.
Sarah Maria Lewis.
Sarah Ann Spencer.
Lucinda McDoniels.
Maria Hedrick. "
How about all all the Book of Mormon witnesses, except Oliver Cowdery, following James Strang who turned out to be a fraud? To me it shows how easily they can be duped.
<"My intention was to point out that your belief in the requirement of accept ancient prophets is no different than our belief in the requirement of accepting modern prophets."
Again, there's a big difference which I talked about above. About a two way link.
<"Of course you feel comfortable. It is the case that you want. That doesn’t mean it is right."
Again with this want thing. I don't want to believe one day I will die, yet I believe I will. Sometimes you believe things even when you don't want to. And at the time I left Mormonism, I didn't want him to be a false prophet. Life is what it is and Joseph Smith was a false prophet, whether you "want" to believe it or not.
<"Oh, and speaking of your links, your reasoning has no support. What link did Moses have when he spoke to Israel and delivered to them the Law? Christ had not yet come in support of his words."
Jesus Christ himself said, “For if you believed Moses, you would believe Me; for he wrote about Me”
He is saying right there that Moses wrote of Christ.
“The LORD your God will raise up for you a Prophet like me from your midst, from your brethren. Him you shall hear, according to all you desired of the LORD your God in Horeb in the day of the assembly, saying, 'Let me not hear again the voice of the LORD my God, nor let me see this great fire anymore, lest I die.' And the LORD said to me: 'What they have spoken is good. 'I will raise up for them a Prophet like you from among their brethren, and will put My words in His mouth, and He shall speak to them all that I command Him. And it shall be that whoever will not hear My words, which He speaks in My name, I will require it of him'.” (Deuteronomy 18:15-19, NKJV).
Like Moses, the Messiah would be a leader, a prophet, a lawgiver, a deliverer, a teacher, a priest, an anointed one, a mediator, a human and one of God's chosen people (a Jew) performing the role of intermediary between God and man—speaking the words of God—and like Moses, the Messiah would offer himself to die for the sins of the people. Both Moses and Jesus performed many miracles validating their message. As infants, both their lives were threatened by evil kings, and both were supernaturally protected from harm. Both spent their early years in Egypt. Both taught new truths from God. Both cured lepers (Num 12:10-15; Matt. 8:2-3) and confronted demonic powers. Both were initially doubted in their roles by their siblings. Moses lifted up the brazen serpent to heal all his people who had faith; Jesus was lifted up on the cross to heal all who would have faith in Him. Moses appointed 70 elders to rule Israel (Num. 11:16-17); Jesus appointed 70 disciples to teach the nations (Luke 10:1, 17). And there are many other parallels between the lives of Moses and Jesus.
To read further on more prophesies given by other prophets that were fulfilled.
http://www.christiananswers.net/dictionary/messianicprophecies.html
The prophets taught to expect a Savior. Christ fulfilled the prophesies and validated their words. Two way link.
<"Beyond that, all your links bring us right back to the old point that you only have them because a man told you they were there. You accept that Christ called his twelve apostles because they say that Christ called them."
You forget that these men lived with Christ. They taught about His actual dealings with people. If they came out and said "we were His Apostles" and that wasn't true, His true followers would step in and counter that. But many of the people that Christ healed continued to follow him and stayed with the Apostles. This is what I mean by oral tradition being self correcting. If one man says, that lady was healed by Christ and she wasn't, she would say that she wasn't. We are talking about many many people witnessing the same things and staying together. If the Apostles were telling false stories, people would have said, "no it didn't happen that way." Many of the first followers were witnesses. Pentecost had many witnesses. We can actually find the real historic places that the events in the Bible happened. We know from Roman records the Christ lived and was crucified.
So please don't think you can seriously argue that my faith is the same as yours. I have outside validation. Scriptures testified of Christ, Christ confirmed scripture. The people that witnessed Christ became his disciples and followed His Apostles. Romans document His existence. Places in the Bible can be found. What you have is a man who was known for telling tales, and using seer stones to look for treasure. A man that was always convincing people that they were seeing treasure jumping from one place to another underground. A man who was involved in folklore. Who's witnesses were seeing things with there "spiritual eyes." A man who wrote a book and passed it off as actual history, and yet nothing in that book can be validated using history or archeology. I stand by what I said earlier. If one actually looks at what people do when then dabble in the occult and New Age Movement stuff they come out with some really bizarre experiences, with visitations and everything. They see and experience things that are so vivid and real they describe them as their past lives. Knowing Joseph Smiths history with divining rods and seer stones, folklore, and so on. I wouldn't be surprised if he and his followers were receiving visitations, but I don't think they were from God. And there is nothing from God, scriptures or spiritual witness wise (and you need both) that would lead me to believe what he experienced came from God. If Christ really only wanted us to rely on spiritual witnesses he would have sent prophets to prepare the way for the Savior. Christ wasn't merely another prophet, he was the end all end all. We don't need additional revelation on how to get to God, Christ is the Word and He showed the way.
<"Christ has given everyone reason to believe in Joseph Smith. It is just that people reject those reasons and turn from Christ, all the time being deceived that they are really turning towards him."
You see, I know I follow Christ because I feel Him in my life everyday. And my closeness with Him grew when I left the LDS Church. But thank you for typing out that last statement. I'm actually quite grateful to you Shem. When I was on my why out of the Church I started looking for LDS comments to some of the issues I was having with the Church. I remember you from those sites. I think one was from like 6 years ago. I watched the dialogue go between you and some other poster. And man, some of your comments really made me think. "Do I really believe that?" And that above comment would have been one of them. You do more service to those leaving the LDS Church on this site than you know.
Sorry this is typed wrong from my last comment, “If Christ really only wanted us to rely on spiritual witnesses he would have sent prophets to prepare the way for the Savior.”
I meant, If God really only wanted us to rely on spiritual witnesses alone He would NOT have sent prophets to prepare the way for the Savior.
Just a short follow on from Jaxi’s excellent post
Shem said
“Christ has given everyone reason to believe in Joseph Smith. It is just that people reject those reasons and turn from Christ, all the time being deceived that they are really turning towards him.”
The problem I have with that claim is where do I look for these reasons? I’ve looked in Scripture but can’t find even a hint from Christ concerning Joseph Smith.
Shem said
“So, we have Joseph. Just like Moses, during his own lifetime he did not have what you would call a link to Christ. But we do not believe this a cause for rejecting him, and that link will be proven at the second coming. Just like the apostles he has only his testimony that he was called. But we do not believe this is cause for rejecting him, but see the evidence of his claim in the miracles he performed, the life he led, and testimony that he bore of Christ.”
Now I’m really confused, what miracles are we talking about here?
“the life he led, and testimony that he bore of Christ.”
Hmmm, the life he led was one of constant fraudulent claims, it was a life of adultery, polygamy & polyandry, that’s some testimony.
Jaxi
“I didn’t regard any of them as sensible reasons. They were all reasons that required a spiritual witness to believe to begin with.”
And thus you prove my point once again. You are willing to dismiss anything that doesn’t agree with you.
“Again, there’s a big difference which I talked about above.”
And as I pointed out, that link didn’t exist when the ancient prophets were first called.
“He is saying right there that Moses wrote of Christ.”
Did I ever deny that Christ said this? The point is that the Israelites that lived at the time of Moses did not have the words that Christ would speak several centuries later. The link you claim did not exist at the time of Moses, and thus all those who accepted Moses as a prophet did so without anything more than what we have today in accepting Joseph Smith.
In other words, using only the Five Book of Moses, show the link that you are arguing.
“You forget that these men lived with Christ. ”
I don’t forget anything. The fact still remains that it is men that you are relying on.
Oh, and I love your logic on believing oral tradition. By this logic I have even a stronger case for believing in Joseph Smith, as we have the testimony of several that he was called of God; that he performed many miracles of healing; and many other things. So, if your oral tradition can be held true after two-thousand years, even more so can ours be held true after two-hundred.
Oh, and I never once said that we had the same faith. I said that if you were honest in your evaluation you would understand that your accusations of following men and the like are unfounded, false statements that have no real place honest discourse.
“We know from Roman records the Christ lived and was crucified.”
Actually, all that Rome documents is that a man named Jesus lived around that time, was a religious teacher, and was crucified for treason. The idea of him being the savior, or Christ, actually has no corroboration outside the Bible.
“If God really only wanted us to rely on spiritual witnesses alone He would NOT have sent prophets to prepare the way for the Savior.”
I never said he only wanted us to rely on His spirit. He gave us our powers of reason, and has invited us to reason together with him. Stop misrepresenting what I say.
“I know I follow Christ because I feel Him in my life everyday.”
I have no doubt Christ is in your life. He loves everyone, and his spirit strives with them in the hopes that they will eventually turn towards him. But Christ is in this church, and no other. It is only through his appointed church that we can ever hope to truly grow close to him. No man can truly claim to follow Christ and yet not obey his commands, and he has commanded that all men come and be baptized into the Church that he has established; and that all men live by the law that he has revealed.
I seek Christ every day, and only in the church do I ever find myself growing close to him. Truly, I have never felt closer to Christ then when I entered the temple and partook of those most sacred ordinances. When I participate in the ordinances of the Gospel I feel his presence, and I feel his approval; and by this I know that what I am doing it right, and that what I believe is right.
Shem,
<"And thus you prove my point once again. You are willing to dismiss anything that doesn’t agree with you."
I looked at the very reasons you gave while I was a believing Mormon. I had no other beliefs at that time other than Mormonism, yet I still rejected that reasoning. I think you are the one that dismisses anything that doesn't agree with you.
<" and thus all those who accepted Moses as a prophet did so without anything more than what we have today in accepting Joseph Smith."
You are actually comparing the exodus and all the miracles that happened at the time of Moses with Joseph Smith. Seriously? And the thing is, all the people that lived and died before Christ were not saved. They lived by the law and died by the law. They were not redeemed until after Christ's atonement. That is why Christ went down to Hades to preach to them and to pull the souls up with him. Those that didn't accept the prophets, had the opportunity to accept Christ then.
This is a description an Orthodox icon that demonstrates the event, "Beneath them tumble two wooden doors, the gates of hell, broken down in Jesus' victory. Christ extends his right hand toward a man, Adam, who is rising out of a tomb, while behind Adam prophets and martyrs of the Old Testament await salvation."
<"By this logic I have even a stronger case for believing in Joseph Smith, as we have the testimony of several that he was called of God; that he performed many miracles of healing; and many other things. So, if your oral tradition can be held true after two-thousand years, even more so can ours be held true after two-hundred."
I hope that anyone using logic can see that an entire community witnessing the events of Christ's life and preserving them is very different from a man with an agenda, with shady witnesses, followed by believers that were duped into believing their story. I am talking about an entire Christian community of witnesses, not a man and some witnesses that signed a prewritten document by that man who practiced folklore and used seer stones and the witnesses only saw things with their spiritual eyes. And I am not saying that no miracles happened to the Mormon people, or still happen today, miracles happen in all faiths. God loves all people whether they are in His Church or not. But I haven't heard of any miracles done by Joseph that would make anyone believe he was a prophet. Certainly nothing in any way comparable to Moses or other Old Testament prophets.
<"Actually, all that Rome documents is that a man named Jesus lived around that time, was a religious teacher, and was crucified for treason. The idea of him being the savior, or Christ, actually has no corroboration outside the Bible."
I used this to demonstrate that we know of the existence of Christ. In Eastern Orthodoxy there were many traditions passed on about the lives of the people that were in the community of believers that witnessed Christ's miracles, His teachings, death, and resurrection. Some of these are not in the Bible. For example it is believed in Eastern Orthodoxy that the early church father Ignatius was one of the children whom Jesus took in his arms and blessed. I am saying this to demonstrate that this entire community (and I'm going to keep saying those words because I'm not sure that you comprehend what I am getting at), witnessed Christ's life. We are not talking about a few men making claims. This community would be passing on what happened for generations. If Christ lived (which Roman records show he did), and a few men started making up stories that weren't true, then Christ's family and friends and others would have countered what they said. But what we see is that many of the people that knew and experienced Christ's teachings and works, continued to follow the Apostles, supporting what they were saying. Many of the first believers (the community, not a few men) weren't believers because a man told them so. They were believers because they actually met Christ. So it isn't too difficult to conclude logically, as well as spiritually, that what the Evangelists wrote about Christ was accurate. There is nothing that can validate Joseph Smith's claims whatsoever, unless you want to believe the testimonies of the few people that saw things with their spiritual eyes. And if that's the case, why not believe the Quakers testimony, or the other testimonies I mentioned? So like you, I do have to believe the testimonies of men. But unlike you, I don't rely solely on a spiritual witness to tell me the testimonies are true, I also use logic. I can't find any logic in Joseph Smith's claims. To top it off, there is also Old Testament scriptural support for Christ and His mission. But nothing to support Joseph Smith's mission.
Don't you feel the slightest bit strange casting doubt on the Apostles and the Evangelists. I mean many people determine the LDS Church is completely false but they still want to seek out God. So your tactic is, "if you don't believe us, you can't possibly believe them." This is the very reason why many Mormons become atheist or agnostic, because of the damage LDS apologists do to the traditional Christian faith. You mentioned in another post how you would rather someone be atheist or agnostic by being unsure of what they believe rather than be like me. You can bet that most of the people that leave the LDS Church and become atheist or agnostic are not unsure that they believe the LDS Church is false. But some maybe unsure on what they believe about God. You might think you are doing the work of God, but when you cast doubt on the people that gave us Holy Scripture, even to make a point that your Church is true, than Lord have mercy on you. You will probably deny what I have said but really think on this statement made by you, "The idea of him being the savior, or Christ, actually has no corroboration outside the Bible." I am arguing that there is corroboration outside the Bible and you are arguing there is not. One day you will feel the full weight of what this argument does to those that are unsure of their faith.
<"He has commanded that all men come and be baptized into the Church that he has established;"
I have done that.
<"I seek Christ every day, and only in the church do I ever find myself growing close to him."
Me too.
<"Truly, I have never felt closer to Christ then when I entered the temple and partook of those most sacred ordinances."
That's interesting. I never felt closer to him until when I decided to leave the LDS Church.
<"It is only through his appointed church that we can ever hope to truly grow close to him."
I agree. But I don't agree that the LDS institution is that Church.
Jaxi
“all the people that lived and died before Christ were not saved. They lived by the law and died by the law.”
Wow. So Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Moses, Elijah, Isaiah, and all the other great prophets weren’t saved, but were cast out into Hades until Christ came. Sounds like a rotten deal for people of such great faith. Honestly, your the first person I have ever heard say anything like this.
Of course, the truth is that these men lived by faith, and thus were justified by God. When they died they went to dwell in the paradise of Abraham’s Bosom (see the parable of the rich man and Lazarus). There they waited until the great day of the atonement, culminating in the resurrection, when they would finally be resurrected and freed from the captivity of being without a physical body.
“a man with an agenda, with shady witnesses, followed by believers that were duped into believing their story.”
Which is basically what the Pharisees said of Christ. But, I would like to know how it is that your oral tradition is so spotless perfect after 2000 years, and yet you think you can logically claim that ours is so corrupted after only 200.
“But I haven’t heard of any miracles done by Joseph that would make anyone believe he was a prophet.”
You know, I haven’t heard of any miracle performed by anyone that make another believe they were a prophet. Even the miracles of Christ were not sufficient to produce faith in anyone. Just look at the many Jews who saw all the signs of the Old Testament and New Testament prophets, and yet did not believe. Miracles cannot produce faith; they can only confirm it.
“But unlike you, I don’t rely solely on a spiritual witness to tell me the testimonies are true, I also use logic.”
Unlike me? You have to be kidding. When have I ever said that I rely solely on that witness. I said it was the greatest evidence to me, yes, but not the only one. I have looked at what you have said, and what you claim as logic makes absolutely no sense. Your doctrine is not logical, and your oral tradition is unfounded. You may have a tradition that Ignatius was a child blessed by Christ. But where is the logic in excepting that that tradition is true. It is just as logical to conclude that people, several years after Ignatius was dead, wanted to give his words more credibility, and thus spread a tradition of his origins that had no basis in fact. There is no logic in accepting this tradition as being true.
Honestly, I have seen little logic in what you have said; rather I have seen you reasoning things to the conclusions that you want.
“Don’t you feel the slightest bit strange casting doubt on the Apostles”
I have no intention of casting doubt on anyone. On the contrary, these men were prophets and seek to bring all people to read their words and find the truth of God in them. What I don’t want is people making unfounded claims about their words, or the words of anyone else. I don’t feel strange at all when I compare the lives of ancient prophets to those of modern prophets. They are all called of God to direct his church on Earth. But they are all men, and as such are not the final authority on truth. That honor belongs to God and God alone. Thus, while these men bear a powerful testimony and we can learn great things from them, we must also seek out the Spirit of God and learn for ourselves the truths that they teach us. Why would I feel strange in trying to bring people into a personal relationship with God, having no one between them; not modern prophets and not ancient prophets, and definitely not the traditions of men who were not prophets at all.
“I am arguing that there is corroboration outside the Bible and you are arguing there is not.”
Actually this is technically not true. I am arguing that the historical records of the Roman Empire at the time of Christ do not provide corroboration. Of all the records from that time period that we have none of them corroborate anything other than a religious leader named Jesus was executed for treason.
However, I have, and always will argue that we have corroboration outside the Bible. It is found in the Book of Mormon, the Doctrine and Covenants, and the Pearl of Great Price. Three fantastic works of scripture, separate from the Bible, but still witnessing to Jesus’ role as savior and redeemer of the world. These witnesses, from different lands and different times, work together to prove the divine nature of the Son of Man, and draw all people to him.
“I have done that…Me too.”
So, you are a baptized member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints, and you attend meetings regularly to feel his spirit and be closer to him? If you are claiming anything else than you have not done what I have spoken of.
Shem ,
<"Wow. So Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Moses, Elijah, Isaiah, and all the other great prophets weren’t saved, but were cast out into Hades until Christ came. Sounds like a rotten deal for people of such great faith."
"He descended into Hades” is a teaching of the early Church that is traditionally called “the harrowing of hell.” It is the belief that Jesus, at some point between his death and resurrection, went to the abode of the dead, the place that the Old Testament writers call Sheol (Hebrew) and the New Testament writers call Hades (Greek). Hades has been rendered in many English translations as “hell.”
That word “hell” conjures up images of fiery eternal torment which are consistent with Gehenna, the other Greek word appearing in the gospels which is also translated as “hell.” Because of these associations, many are led to think that “He descended into hell” means that Jesus descended into a place of punishment where he continued to suffer even after his death. That would seem to contradict what Jesus said to the thief on the cross, ““I tell you the truth, today you will be with me in paradise” (Lk 23:43). So to many Protestants, the harrowing of hell is a teaching that seems, at best, puzzling and unnecessary, and at worst, unbiblical.
Not so for the Eastern Orthodox. For Orthodox believers, the harrowing of hell plays a key role in their understanding of what Christ accomplished through his death and resurrection.
In the Orthodox view, Jesus did not descend into hell to suffer the consequences of human sin. He entered hell as a triumphant conqueror to break the chains of those who, since the time of Adam, had been faithfully waiting and hoping for God’s promised salvation. "
excerpt taken from http://www.ubfriends.org/2011/04/23/he-descended-into-hades/
Scriptural support
1 Peter 3:18-20:
"For Christ died for sins once for all, the righteous for the unrighteous, to bring you to God. He was put to death in the body but made alive by the Spirit, through whom also he went and preached to the spirits in prison who disobeyed long ago when God waited patiently in the days of Noah while the ark was being built."
Go to site for more information on where the belief comes from.
You said, "sounds like a rotten deal." It's the same deal that we have all been given. No one can get to the Father without the Son. No amount of works or ordinances can be done. And even though the prophets were holy and faithful men, they were not without sin. They had lost their inheritance as we all have. Only through Christ's atonement can that inheritance be restored. The righteous men that had died were awaiting the Savior just as much as everyone else.
<"I would like to know how it is that your oral tradition is so spotless perfect after 2000 years, and yet you think you can logically claim that ours is so corrupted after only 200."
You have no oral tradition. That was my point. You have one man making claims, that's it. And a few people seeing things with spiritual eyes. How can you compare that to all the people, the community, that saw Christ with their physical eyes? The fact that you are comparing the two is ridiculous.
" I have looked at what you have said, and what you claim as logic makes absolutely no sense. Your doctrine is not logical, and your oral tradition is unfounded."
There was no Bible for hundreds of years after Christ. How do you think the Church survived? Through it's traditions, through oral tradition. People memorized everything. Did early Mormons, memorize the Book of Mormon? Many historians acknowledge the accuracy of oral tradition. The Bible was put together by the Church. To disregard the Churches oral tradition is ridiculous. It was there, before the Bible. There are other documents held by the Church other than the Bible, that although not regarded as scripture, are documents that support the traditional Christian faith. To have no faith in the early Church, is to have no faith in the Bible, because the early Church gave you the Bible. You don't think the early Church was doing things right in the first few hundred years, than drop the Bible, as I have said all along. It didn't fall out of the sky or come out of the ground as LDS scripture claims theirs did. It was preserved and put together by the Church.
<"Why would I feel strange in trying to bring people into a personal relationship with God, having no one between them; not modern prophets and not ancient prophets, and definitely not the traditions of men who were not prophets at all."
This is so silly. I have a personal relationship with God. The only reason your Church says I don't is because I don't claim Joseph Smith to be a prophet. I would say by your own standards, he is between me and God. How is Holy Tradition standing in the way of God?
<"Three fantastic works of scripture, separate from the Bible, but still witnessing to Jesus’ role as savior and redeemer of the world. These witnesses, from different lands and different times, work together to prove the divine nature of the Son of Man, and draw all people to him."
This is not corroboration. To even believe any of these are true you have to have a spiritual witness. Again, all your support is solely founded on spiritual witnesses.
<"So, you are a baptized member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints."
I was but I left that institution for the true Church of Christ, not the church of Joseph Smith's creation.
Shem, you are missing the point entirely. People can and did determine Christ is God without the Bible. They did for hundreds of years before the Bible. After the Resurrection the disciples were about 120 souls. 120 people that had witnessed the life of Christ. Actual physical witnesses, witnessing with their physical eyes. Many of the Jews had witnessed Christ's miracles and his death and they knew from Holy Scripture that Christ was the Messiah. Acts 2:36-37, "Therefore let all the house of Israel know assuredly that God has made this Jesus, whom you crucified, both Lord and Christ. Now when they heard this, they were cut to the heart," They were cut to the heart, not because of Peter's testimony (thought I am sure that helped) but because they understood and had been prepared by the Old Testament. Almost half of Peter's message before this scripture is a quotation of Old Testament Scriptures. Even Christ's words, "My God, My God, Why have you forsaken me?" points to Psalm 22. He fulfills Psalm 22. The evidence that Jesus fulfills the prophesies was overwhelming to the first followers. Three thousand souls were baptized that day. They read the prophesies and witnessed the life and death of the Savior. To them this was evidence, not just taking Peter's word for it. Now eventually you get to the point that people have to rely on testimony. But a large number of the early Church did not rely on testimony. My point is that there are many sources that you can look at to determine the truthfulness of the claims of the early Church. I don't use the reference to Romans records as THE source. I mention is as A source of many that help complete a big picture. In Mormonism, there is no evidence. No historical, archeological evidence. Not a good case for trustworthy witnesses. You got nothing, but your burning bosom. And because you have nothing but a burning bosom, you want to discredit or not acknowledge any supporting evidence of the early Church because you need traditional Christianity to exist on the same level as Mormonism. You need it to come down to feelings, because that it all you got.
Oh, I want to comment on this statement a little further too.
“I would like to know how it is that your oral tradition is so spotless perfect after 2000 years, and yet you think you can logically claim that ours is so corrupted after only 200.”
I believe Christ established His Church and fulfilled scripture by giving the Holy Spirit to all believers. I believe the Holy Spirit stays with and guides the Church to this day. Your church is corrupt because it doesn’t have the guidance of the Holy Spirit. It was started by a man that used the idea of an universal apostasy, to raise himself up as a prophet. Your Church is guided by a bunch of men in suits. The reason you can’t believe that the Church has been preserved all this time is because you lack faith in the power of the Holy Spirit. You believe the Holy Spirit couldn’t prevail, or wouldn’t, that God abandoned his people. But suddenly its back and won’t abandon the people again, a belief with no scriptural support. The coming of the Savior was supported by scripture, the Holy Spirit at Pentecost, supported by scripture. Yet, Mormonism doesn’t need scripture to witness of it. I wonder why? Maybe because it’s not true and has no foundations in Christianity other than using the Bible as way to bring it credibility.
I meant to comment on this as well.
<" You may have a tradition that Ignatius was a child blessed by Christ. But where is the logic in excepting that that tradition is true. It is just as logical to conclude that people, several years after Ignatius was dead, wanted to give his words more credibility, and thus spread a tradition of his origins that had no basis in fact. There is no logic in accepting this tradition as being true."
The point was that people had lives outside of the Bible. Not all the people healed or blessed by Christ just left and went on with their lives. They didn't just disappear. Many saw, witnessed, and believed and went on to be a part of the Church. There were traditions of those peoples lives that were passed on from generation to generation. How does spreading a false tradition that Ignatius was blessed by Christ as a child give him more credibility than he already had by being among the Apostolic Fathers and a student of John the Apostle? My point isn't to make you believe that about Ignatius. The point is that there has been certain scriptural interpretations, certain traditions of the lives of the early Christians that have been held and treasured by the Church just as the documents were that were used to form the Bible hundreds of years later. The point is that I don't have just a Bible. I have history and community that has it's roots in Christ himself. Why do I trust that this community has been faithful in its preservation of doctrine, scripture and worship? Because of God giving His Church the Holy Spirit. But I believe I made my point about that in the comment above. The LDS has tradition with its roots in a man, Joseph Smith. Christianity has its roots in the life of Christ.
I really don't feel like discussing this further with you. I believe I have made the points I want to make and I'd like to move on. I don't write any of this for you. Mormonism is just nonsensical from beginning to end. If I hadn't been born into it I wouldn't have given much thought to it at all. You said, "Honestly, I have seen little logic in what you have said; rather I have seen you reasoning things to the conclusions that you want." Your free to your opinions but I just want to point out that I didn't pick Eastern Orthodoxy because I wanted it. I didn't even know it existed or know anyone in it. I stripped away all my beliefs and started from scratch. I found it because reason, logic, and the spirit lead me there. If you can't see the logic, that's not my problem. But I never used reasoning to support an already held belief, I had no beliefs; I was searching for what I believed. I found Christ, His true teachings, and real worship.
Jaxi
Well, since you don’t want to discuss it any more, I will drop it. However, I do have to say a few things you have said regarding me.
“No historical, archeological evidence. Not a good case for trustworthy witnesses. You got nothing, but your burning bosom.”
As I have said before, I have a great deal of evidence; just as much, if not more than you, to support my faith. The problem here is not that the evidence does not exist. The problem is that you either ignore it, dismiss it, or find some way to reason it away, regardless of how illogical that reasoning is.
Yes, there is archeological evidence for the Book of Mormon, which I have taken time to look at and study. However, it is ignored by people like you because you don’t want there to be any. People make the most illogical claims about archeology, and think that it proves them right. The funny thing is that every ten years or so people have to come up with new arguments in this area, as new evidence constantly proves them wrong and Joseph Smith right.
Take, for example, cement. In the 1800’s this claim was ridiculed, as it was known that the natives of the American Continents did not have an understanding of cement. And yet today we have found ancient towns that have entire buildings made of cement, and of a quality to rival modern cement.
No, the evidence is there, for those willing to see it. But this evidence cannot generate faith. It is too easy for the reasoning of men to explain it away, as you have done.
“you want to discredit or not acknowledge any supporting evidence of the early Church”
Again you misjudge me. I have no desire to discredit anything. I only desire to not over credit it either. I never said that your tradition regarding Ignatius was wrong. I simply said that there is no more logic in accepting it that rejecting it, and that is perfectly true. Until you understand my intention in doing this you will never understand what my meaning is.
“I had no beliefs”
That would be impossible, and to not have beliefs is to not have thought, which would mean you didn’t exist. Whether you had accepted a particular religion, or even had decided what you believed was true, you have at least decided what you believed was not true, which you have already told me you concluded through your own reasoning while still in the LDS church.
As to logic, it is not a matter of seeing it. It simply isn’t there. Whenever I follow the doctrine of any other church to its logical conclusion I find contradiction upon contradiction. It is only in the LDS church that I have never found a contradiction when I follow the doctrine through to its logical conclusion. I know many claim that there is, but it has been my experience that they either do not know the full doctrine, or are trying to find logic in one doctrine as it might fit with the doctrine of other churches. Either way, incomplete or false information will always lead one to conclude contradictions exist, even when they don’t.
Not to prolong this, but I thought I would clarify as well. When I said I had no beliefs, I meant I had no beliefs about God. I started from scratch regarding that subject. I was still open to the LDS faith being true, but in starting with no beliefs about God I was not lead in that direction.
I do not find the contradiction after contradiction that you are speaking of within my own faith.
Jaxi
And I don’t find the nonsense you speak of in mine. This is partly my point. You make many claims about our religion, trying to pass them off as fact, and yet they are no more than your perception. This is the heart of the matter regarding both of our reliance on the testimonies of men. It is what is at the heart of most disputes between the LDS and other denominations. And it does go both ways.
My only point throughout this entire discussion has been that no one should try to pass off their perception as proven fact, regardless of the context or how firmly they believe in it. At least, not in a setting like this.
<"no one should try to pass off their perception as proven fact, regardless of the context or how firmly they believe in it."
And an athiest or agnostic would say the same thing. My point to anyone reading this is that there is real truth to be found. Look at all resources. Ask questions. Study everything. Don't be afraid to look. Truth can be found outside of feelings. I looked at athiesm. I looked at other religions. I looked at science and nature. I looked at people and why we are the way we are. I'm not trying to share a perception. I am trying to share the truth that is Jesus Christ. A truth that Mormonism has corrupted. Whoever reads this, don't take my word for it. Look for yourself. Shem will say his studies led him to Mormonism. Another person will say they are led to Buddhism. This does not mean that there are many truths. This doesnt mean one person is better than the other but it does mean that someone is believing something that is wrong. If something in your faith is making you feel strange, weird, uncomfortable, examine it. Don't be afraid to search for truth, it exists an can be found.
Hmmm. Joseph Smith died on June 27, 1844. According to Shem, NO one can pass this off as a fact (which I perceive to be true because it is a historical fact) because I FIRMLY believe in it. This is simply the wrong setting for such a “fact”. We just must throw out all context. Only inside of the Mormon Bubble are FACTS to be suppressed, they must have a “proper setting” (under strict Mormon control), and if a critic believes something to be a FACT, well then, it probably isn’t, no matter how much it is, and we must throw out all context. Got it. Perhaps those that don’t wish to discuss the FACTS in this setting should just move on. The only reason why Mormons in the Bubble want to say that our “perception” is not the same as the “facts” is because they have nothing to rebut the FACTS with, and can’t understand the context within which these facts dwell. The real FACTS then become only our “perception”. This is just another game they play in the Mormon Bubble. Guess what Shem? We don’t play in the bubble, we are in the REAL WORLD and you don’t get to dictate the terms of what anyone here discusses.
This is typical of those living in the Mormon Bubble. The Book of Mormon says,
They built cities of CEMENT? CITIES? They have not even found ONE BUILDING made entirely of cement. Here is what one Mormon “scholar” says about it:
He then tries to say that there could have been OLDER ones, but that hasn’t been Proven. And there is no proof that WHOLE BUILDINGS were made out of cement. Mormon “scholar” John Clark writes,
Yet Ethan Smith’s “View of the Hebrews” (1823) cites Alexander von Humboldt in discussing the existence of these items that Clark calls “foreign” to Joseph Smith’s day. Here we see in “View of the Hebrews” a citation to Humboldt noting the similarity of construction of the temples at Teotihuacan to ancient Egyptian methods:
The Book of Mormon talks of “houses of cement.” But “houses of cement” would crack and crumble. Cement only has strength as a binder for stone or brick. Cement, by itself, has no structural strength and is useless as a construction material, except as a mortar or grout between masonry, bricks or stones.
Jeff Lindsay admits that “The key to making cement is the conversion of calcium carbonate to calcium oxide (lime) in a process called calcination. It requires fire, and the ancient producers of cement in Mexico needed a lot of flammable material to sustain the cement industry.” In other words, you make cement because you have a lot of wood. If you don’t have a lot of wood, you can’t make cement. Yet “Helaman” said they made cement because they had no wood. Seems like Joseph didn’t know much about cement.
Judging from the numbers given elsewhere, there were hundreds of thousands of Nephites, so if they covered the whole land there must have been tens of thousands of houses. Even if most of them lived in tents, there must have been thousands of cement houses. Where are they? Mormons point to concrete roofs, not concrete houses, and certainly not cement houses. And all the examples come from centuries later, and from the south as well as the north. The only contemporary concrete buildings are great temples. Where are the cement houses?
Not one example of a cement house has been found. Joseph could have learned about mortar and cement from contemporary sources.
Jaxi
“My point to anyone reading this is that there is real truth to be found. Look at all resources. Ask questions. Study everything. Don’t be afraid to look.”
“I am trying to share the truth that is Jesus Christ.”
I say my “studies led him to Mormonism. Another person will say they are led to Buddhism. This does not mean that there are many truths. This doesnt mean one person is better than the other but it does mean that someone is believing something that is wrong.”
I couldn’t agree with these statement more. There is truth to be found, but it is not to be found, and I am trying to share that truth of Jesus Christ that all men need to know. However, since people are able to study the exact same facts and sources and come to such different and varied conclusions as to the truth then it is proven that these facts and sources are insufficient to determine what the truth really is. That is why we must seek out God ourselves, for only through him will truth ever be revealed to the minds of men.
Shem,
<"However, since people are able to study the exact same facts and sources and come to such different and varied conclusions as to the truth then it is proven that these facts and sources are insufficient to determine what the truth really is.That is why we must seek out God ourselves, for only through him will truth ever be revealed to the minds of men."
God led me away from Mormonism. Most people that seek God aren't led to Mormonism.
You have to claim facts as insufficient because in Mormonism, the facts are not on your side. That's why Mormon investigators are told to read this book and "tell me how you feel." It's all about feelings. That's all you got. Most people that dig around at the "facts" dig themselves right out of Mormonism.
Jaxi
I am done on this thread. You keep repeating the same false claims over and over, despite my constant corrections of them. Since this is all that seems to be coming from you anymore I think our time would be better spent on other topics.