I’ll be at the Capstone Conference today and tomorrow at Calvary Chapel SLC. I will try to live-blog some of the sessions here. If you are in the SLC area and would like to come, please do. The conference is free! Be sure to check out the agenda and location.
Viewpoint on Mormonism Archives
Blogroll
- 365 Reasons
- Apologetics 315
- Ensign vs. The Bible
- Heart Issues for LDS
- Heart of the Matter
- I Love Mormons
- Keith Walker
- Latter-day Saint Woman
- Mark Cares
- Mormonism Investigated UK
- Mormonite Musings
- Mormons are Christians… aren't we?
- Musings on Mormonism
- Of First Importance
- Share the Son Ministries
- The Mormon Chapbook
- The Religious Researcher
- Utah Advance
Links
Subscribe
Join the Discussion
Check out our comment policy.Categories
Afterlife Authority and Doctrine Baptism for the Dead Bible Book of Mormon Brigham Young Christianity Coffee Beans D&C and Pearl of Great Price Early Christianity Early Mormonism Forgiveness Friendship, Interaction, and Evangelism General Conference God the Father Gospel Grace Great Apostasy Jesus Christ Joseph Smith King Follett Discourse LDS Church Marriage and Singlehood Misconceptions Mitt Romney Mormon Culture Mormon History Mormon Leaders Mormon Missionaries Mormon Scripture Mormon Temple Multimedia Nature of God Nature of Man Nauvoo Personal Stories Polygamy Priesthood Prophets Salvation Truth, Honesty, Prayer, and Inquiry Uncategorized Viewpoint on Mormonism Virgin birth Worthiness
It’s been disproven, just read the posts you neglect to read. That is what I am sure those that visit do, so they will understand the rhetoric used.
And you must not have been reading too closely (as usual) Janet, because you missed Bill’s point entirely. Here is the entire quote:
Bill is showing that if pure gold is ‘too soft to make useful plates’ then how did the Jaredites do it, when their 24 plates were made of pure gold?
Again, you attempt to mislead, saying Bill said these were the Nephite records. He only says the Nephite Records could be pure gold because the Jaredited records were.
So now the guests and visitors can understand why I use the rhetoric I do with you. Perhaps if you would read what people say, instead of glossing over material, your pathetic defense would be more viable.
So what exactly is “The doctrine of the BoM.” What does the BoM say about the nature of God? What does it say about polygamy? Has the SLC LDS church embraced the doctrine of the BoM?
I have a chart here of three groups or sects of Mormonism and their beliefs. Guess what? They all have different doctrines not to mention the FLDS which is the closest to Bringham Young Mormonism as one could get.
So I suppose we could ask, “Which group has true Mormonism?” They all can’t be the true restored Mormon church because they don’t agree on the most fundamental of doctrines.
Let’s see, celestial marrage; Church of Christ-No, Community of Christ-No, Utah LDS-Yes. Baptism for the dead, Church of Christ-No, Community of Christ-No, Utah LDS-Yes. Polygamy, Church of Christ-No, Community of Christ-No, Utah LDS-still on the books. Man to become a God, Church of Christ-No, Community of Christ-No, Utah LDS-Yes. God was once a man, Church of Christ-No, Community of Christ-No, Utah LDS-Yes.
Obviously, some group didn’t get the memo. With a little checking, I think we could find where the BoM teaches a traditional view on the nature of God. So, in reality, the BoM is pretty useless in teaching doctrine. The reason of course is that everything is subject to change in the Utah LDS church. Doctrines can be cast aside or changed on a moments notice. All changes are considered “progress” so past teachings and practices can never be considered wrong. There “use by” label simply has an expiration date.
Ah, you have to be able to think Mormon to keep it all working. Mormons are like very bad jugglers except they don’t see that they’re constantly dropping the balls and the balls are rolling around on the stage. The audience sees it, but the Mormon jugglers aren’t aware of it. They just keep chasing about retrieving balls and throwing them up in the air, dropping them, chasing them, throwing them in the air…………….
But again, for the TBM none of it matters because an explanation can be formulated to explain anything away. Thus is the mind set of the true believer. Everything can be made to fit the belief system template.
Mosiah 21: 27.
27 And they brought a record with them, even a record of the people whose bones they had found; and it was engraven on plates of ore.
Pure Gold, natural occurring gold is never pure, it usually is a natural alloy of gold, silver, copper and various mixes of other metals. By the time gold was melted and cast, extra copper and silver started to be added to change the gold’s color and increase it’s hardness.
Therefore, whatever the weight of the plates, it must be considerably less than 235 pounds.
While we can’t determine just how much the plates weighed, we can come up with a reasonable estimate. Since we have calculated the volume of the plates based on the dimensions given in the question, the procedure is to 1) multiply this volume by the percentage that represents the actual metal in that volume; this allows for the air spaces between the plates, and 2) calculate the weight based on the likely material composition of the plates. Following this procedure yields:
From above,
8. Vp = 336 in3
Taking Putnam’s 40 percent9 figure as the percentage of the plate volume actually occupied by metal, we calculate a reasonable estimate for the volume of the metal in the stacked plates:
9. Vm = (0.4)(336 in3) = 134 in3
Using the weight of the most likely range of tumbaga alloys, we obtain
10. W8-carat = (134 in3)(0.368 lb/in3) = 49.5 lbs
11. W12-carat = (134 in3)(0.603 lb/in3) = 81.0 lbs
Therefore, based on the largest estimate of plate size, they weighed between 50 and 80 pounds. If Joseph Smith’s estimate of 6 inches by 8 inches by 6 inches is used in the above calculations, the resulting weight is between 40 and 70 pounds. Both sets of weight calculations are in good agreement with estimates made by those who hefted the plates.10
Source http://shields-research.org/42_Questions/ques31.html
One poster asked, “So what exactly is “The doctrine of the BoM.”
“To the convincing of the Jew and Gentile that JESUS is the CHRIST, the ETERNAL GOD, manifesting himself unto all nations.”
Wherefore, it is an abridgment of the record of the people of Nephi, and also of the Lamanites–Written to the Lamanites, who are a remnant of the house of Israel; and also to Jew and Gentile–Written by way of commandment, and also by the spirit of prophecy and of revelation–Written and sealed up, and hid up unto the Lord, that they might not be destroyed–To come forth by the gift and power of God unto the interpretation thereof–Sealed by the hand of Moroni, and hid up unto the Lord, to come forth in due time by way of the Gentile–The interpretation thereof by the gift of God. An abridgment taken from the Book of Ether also, which is a record of the people of Jared, who were scattered at the time the Lord confounded the language of the people, when they were building a tower to get to heaven–Which is to show unto the remnant of the House of Israel what great things the Lord hath done for their fathers; and that they may know the covenants of the Lord, that they are not cast off forever– And also to the convincing of the Jew and Gentile that JESUS is the CHRIST, the ETERNAL GOD, manifesting himself unto all nations–And now, if there are faults they are the mistakes of men; wherefore, condemn not the things of God, that ye may be found spotless at the judgment-seat of Christ.
Pingback: Sunday in Outer Blogness: Reporting Live Edition! | Main Street Plaza
So who is the Jesus, Father and Holy Ghost proclaimed by Mormonism. Is it the orthodox view held by the apostles and the early Church Fathers? The god of Mormonism is a man who through his works progressed to becoming a god. The Jesus of Mormonism is the offspring of this man who progressed to becoming a god and one of his goddess wives. The Mormon Holy Ghost is a limited personage of spirit. Contrary to Mormon doctrine, the Mormon Holy Ghost is a god who got to be one despite the fact that he was never a man. Just another one of those troubling little inconsistencies in Mormon doctrine. And the Mormon Holy Spirit is a force like electricity. Curious business this Mormonism.
Now Mormonism does it’s best to hide who the Mormon god is. This Mormon god/man has no power to save people from their sins. In fact in Mormonism men pursue a vanity of becoming gods themselves.
This is not the Gospel of Jesus Christ proclaimed in the Bible. It is a false gospel, proclaimed by a false prophet Joseph Smith. Incidentally, the original Book of Commandments that expanded Smith’s false BoM was also altered significantly when he did one of his patented redos into Doctrine and Covenants.
When Smith supposedly obtained the plates, he ‘ran’ into a bit of trouble. This was the same Smith that had the bum leg, had a limp for the rest of his life and used a cane because of it. Even if the plates were 60 pounds, it reads like an episode from the Twilight Zone:
To show that Smith repeated the story to others, here is an account by Willard Chase, who Smith stole his peep-stone from:
Whatever they weighed, and it is unclear from my posts above, the plates were heavy. Take this statement by Smith’s sister:
Joseph’s sister Catherine, while she was dusting in the room where he had been translating, “hefted those plates [which were covered with a cloth] and found them very heavy.” (H. S. Salisbury, paraphrasing Catherine Smith Salisbury) -I. B. Bell interview with H. S. Salisbury (grandson of Catherine Smith Salisbury), Historical Department Archives, the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.
The same claim was made by Martin Harris’ daughter:
“My daughter said, they were about as much as she could lift. They were now in the glass-box, and my wife said they were very heavy. They both lifted them.” -Martin Harris, Martin Harris interview, Iowa State Register, August 1870.
Some Young men on YouTube got together 50 pounds of weights and tried to run with them while being chased.
Here is the result of their experiment:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=08wRRff8x0k&feature=channel_page
Joseph did not claim any superhuman strength divinely bestowed upon him nor any angelic help, so how could this have happened? If we accept this account, as Mormons teach in church as factual, then It seems obvious to all but the mopologists that there’s something wrong with this story reportedly told by Smith & “if he can’t be trusted with the little things, how can he be trusted with the big things?”
Imagine a boy carrying a 50 lb. weight and some man attacking him to get them and the boy perhaps being able to knock him down, would that man just give up and then walk away? Then the 2nd man attacks the boy and walks away. Then a 3rd man attacks Smith & merely walks away as well?
It’s a big stretch to imagine a boy not getting completely exhausted traveling through the woods with such a weight, fighting off attackers and somehow still be in any sort of shape to keep his property from being taken by repeated attacks, especially after dislocating his thumb in the last attack.
What about the attackers, would they not join forces or did they merely each walk away in a different direction silently and not alert the other(s)? And how did they each know to look for Joseph in those woods in the first place at the same time yet not be together?
If I was determined to take these plates & had a gun, it would be easy. How could he possibly escape me carrying 60 lbs. of gold plates?
Also, one of the men according to Lucy “gave him a heavy blow with a gun”. How could a such a man with a gun not be able to be able to rob Smith, who was unarmed, of his treasure?
The real point of Janet’s posts is to divert from the real issue here, this Twilight Zone episode that Smith obviously made up. Regardless if the plates are 60, 70 or 100 lbs, Smith’s tall tale doesn’t stand up to scrutiny, and all the mopologist reasoning in the world can’t change that.
So the doctrine of God revealed in the BoM is what?
Is it the same God that was revealed in the Book of Commandments which was significantly changed as Smith became more creative in the “revelation” known as Doctrine and Covenants? And how does Smith’s god differ from the God revealed in the Bible?
In order to keeps Smith’s myth going in their minds, Mormons have to surrender their integrity to a degree that quite frankly, they come across as fairly looney.
Here’s the serious problem with Mormonism. Having made a decision to follow a false god, Mormons have surrendered any hope of eternal life. Following a god of their own choosing, they have rejected God. Pride is at the core of all of the seven deadly sins. This Luciferian pride of Mormonism, that men will become gods, is a defiance of God. Dressed up to look pretty on the outside, Mormonism is a white washed tomb. Full of spiritually dead bones. Mormons are tossed about by every wave of doctrinal fad that proceeds, past and present, from their false prophets.
So, again, is this doctrine of the BoM the same doctrine as the Mormon Book of Commandments or the Mormon Doctrine and Covenants or the King Follet discourse? Is the God that is revealed in the doctrine expressed in the BoM the same God as revealed in the Bible? Did the God of the BoM get replaced by another god? Is the god of the SLC LDS the same as the Mormon sects Church of Christ and Community of Christ.
The bottom line, for the hard core SLC LDS none of it matters because while they will claim to be seekers of truth, in reality they are seekers of explanations to try and bolster a belief system that is not only anti Christian and anti Bible but doesn’t even fit in different Mormon groups or historical eras.
Yes, but that’s where personal revelation comes in. It’s the “all better blankey” that Mormons can wrap themselves in and fell warm, safe and cuddly from the realities of what Mormonism really is.
Janet said, What I would ask any guest is to read the BOM and pray over it. I find it amazing you attack the means, yet can’t prove the doctrine in the BOM false.
Funny how if we do read the BoM and pray about it, yet believe God spoke to us and said it was false, then we have lack of faith or were listing to Satan.
Then we have provide evidence that the BoM is bogus and the doctrine of Mormonism is false, yet many LDS here avoid the tough questions or avoid some topics. You Janet have done that. Like I said, I asked question about Adam God directed to you that you avoided. Rick b
One poster wrote: “So who is the Jesus, Father and Holy Ghost proclaimed by Mormonism. Is it the orthodox view held by the apostles and the early Church Fathers? The god of Mormonism is a man who through his works progressed to becoming a god. The Jesus of Mormonism is the offspring of this man who progressed to becoming a god and one of his goddess wives.”
Now if I was to compare that with the Triune Trinity God, I would most likely be shut down since this is a Mormon forum and to debate our differences is sort of taboo. So we will leave it to the TBE’s to continue to explain what is definitely not explained in the Bible.
Another favorite standard talking point is, “Now Mormonism does it’s best to hide who the Mormon god is.”
Now lets settle this for at least one TBM, Janet. I believe that God was once a man, I believe God lives close to Kolob, I believe a man or women can be come Gods, I believe that there are other Gods of other worlds. I believe we can be saved in accordance with Christ Plan of Salvation, so who is hiding what?
Janet
Janet said Now lets settle this for at least one TBM, Janet. I believe that God was once a man, I believe God lives close to Kolob, I believe a man or women can be come Gods, I believe that there are other Gods of other worlds. I believe we can be saved in accordance with Christ Plan of Salvation, so who is hiding what?
A few questions?
1. Where is this taught in the BoM?
2. Since it is not taught in the BoM how can we trust it?
3. Many LDS have said Mormons and EV’s believe the same thing, yet you prove that we dont, you clearly teach another Gospel, so how is it you are correct but yet many LDS either do not believe what you do, or they do not openly promote it. Rick b
The doctrine of the Trinity really isn’t that hard to understand, but since our God is completely unique it may be impossible to comprehend. Although word Trinity is not in the bible the identity of the Triune God definitely is. Despite the lies that have been passed down through history that the doctrine was invented at Nicea or Constantine ordered the creation of the doctrine, the Trinity was written about long before Nicea. Just because it wasn’t clearly defined and set down as doctrine prior to the defense against Arius’ heresy at Nicea doesn’t mean that it is not true, or that it is not found in the bible. Basically, all the doctrine states is that there is one Being called God, and within that one Being there are three coequal, coeternal persons: The Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost (or Spirit). The bible is monotheistic. There is only one God. There are three persons defined as God in the bible. The three persons are all described as being coequal and coeternal. The Father is God. The Son is God. The Holy Spirit is God. The Father is eternal. The Son is eternal. The holy Spirit is eternal. All three persons had a role in creation, so none of them are created. The Son has eternally proceeded from the Father and the Holy Spirit has eternally proceeded from the Father and the Son. Don’t ask me how three persons can exist in one being, but we know that they are complete unity, they are all omniscient and omnipresent (contrary to Mormon doctrine), the are also all unchanging, which means they are not progressing (contrary to Mormon doctrine). Man wouldn’t invent the doctrine of the Trinity. Why invent something you can’t comprehend. What existed before God? Nothing, but God. How long was God God before he created the universe? Who knows? God created time. It makes your head spin. It’s much easier to invent the doctrine that God is just like man, and that man can one day be God. It was much easier for Adam and Eve, too. They weren’t content with having everthing
grindael wrote
…wasn’t this also because she had a hand in the “translation”?
I stand to be corrected if she did, but if so, it raises some intriguing questions. Primarily, why isn’t Emma named among the witnesses?
Was it because Joseph Smith, in his vanity, wanted to claim the credit for himself?
And, was the denial of Emma’s involvement the beginning of the end of her relationship with Joseph?
When a Mormon makes a declaration like the one that’s made above, that’s the end of the discussion. There’s no need to spend additional time witnessing regarding the nature of God or the means of salvation.
John 6:44-45 is applicable here.
I didn’t know this forum was for witnessing, maybe I need to review the rules again. The only reason I made my declaration is because a poster decided to make a blanket statement about all Mormons hiding behind their religion as to who God is, ” Now Mormonism does it’s best to hide who the Mormon god is.”
When you state Mormonism, you have to include all it’s members who have studied the Doctrine and share it with others. Nothing is hid, but the context is explained more fully, not like we see as a sensational talking point.
Janet
“But Emma had a vested interest in keeping the BOM myth alive…”
What is wonderful about this forum, is the fact we can all have opinions and speculate to our hearts desire.
A statement with a question, amazing bit of powerful proof and evidence of the workings of ones mind that no one has access to.
We call it speculation.
I speculate that Emma just might have read the BOM and found it to be true, using the test found in the back pages.
I speculate that Emma, was closer to Joseph Smith then any other person, and new the heart of this wonderful husband.
I speculate that Emma was a witness to many miraculous events.
I speculate, etc etc etc.
Nice job Janet.
Janet.
Yeah,
Mormons also call the Adam-god DOCTRINE ‘speculation’ and a host of other things. It’s ok for you to ‘speculate’ away and say ‘smith got it right’ when you fabricate that the plates were ‘tumbaga’ without a shred of evidence. Then you ‘speculate’ that Bill said the Nephite plates were the Jaredite plates, when that is not what he said.
I speculate Emma got duped by her Adulerous husband, and kept up the charade to protect her sons. Makes much more sense in the light of smith’s necromantic, magikal, stone-gazing past.
It ain’t speculation Smith was an ADULTERER. Commanded by God to be one. This ain’t opinion, it’s fact.
Janet, you accused a poster of not answering a question, I said you do the same thing, and yet again you did it again. Good job.
here what was said,
Janet said Now lets settle this for at least one TBM, Janet. I believe that God was once a man, I believe God lives close to Kolob, I believe a man or women can be come Gods, I believe that there are other Gods of other worlds. I believe we can be saved in accordance with Christ Plan of Salvation, so who is hiding what?
A few questions?
1. Where is this taught in the BoM?
2. Since it is not taught in the BoM how can we trust it?
3. Many LDS have said Mormons and EV’s believe the same thing, yet you prove that we dont, you clearly teach another Gospel, so how is it you are correct but yet many LDS either do not believe what you do, or they do not openly promote it. Rick b
Janet wrote
That’s OK Janet, but my usual “rule of thumb” is to establish what we can know before moving into what we can’t.
Perhaps someone else can dig up the documentation for it, but I recall that Emma was involved in the production of the BOM as a part-time scribe (in taking down Joseph’s dictations).
Given her proximity to the BOM, and her intimate involvement with the translation process, it seems odd that she was not named as a witness in the preface (why not?).
It seems that her relationship with the Mormon Church deteriorated. After Joseph Smith’s death, she was instrumental in creating a new sect, the RLDS, which moved in a different direction to the Utah sect (so much for church unity).
What is clear, though, is that there was no love lost between Emma and Brigham Young. The nature of the relationship between Joseph, Emma and Brigham can be gauged by Brigham’s statement to the 1866 General Conference
…ctd…
…ctd…
Brigham Young, The Essential Brigham Young, pp.188-189, as quoted on http://www.mrm.org
So, you’ve got Emma trying to poison her husband, twice (I believe she probably did); Joseph drinking coffee (he probably did, according to several accounts); and Brigham denouncing her in the strongest terms (he actually did, at General Conference, no less).
Not exactly a scene of domestic harmony, or even church unity.
Do you really want to throw your lot in with these guys?