Arthur Conan Doyle vs. Mormons?

Great Debates
41

[I had to have my previous posting deleted, as I may or may not have slandered someone in the process of replying.]

While we’re on the subject of wickedness, why don’t we talk about Governor Boggs’s extermination order, or the massacre at Haun’s Mill, or the murder of Joseph and Hyrum Smith in cold blood by an angry mob? Fact is, the only reason the Mormons were in Utah to begin with is because no one would tolerate their different beliefs, and they were driven from town to town, sometimes tarred and feathered, raped, murdered, etc. So if some of the early Mormons were a bit militant and overprotective of their territory, I can hardly blame them. I do condemn the actions of those at the Mountain Meadows Massacre, however. I’m just saying that a persecuted people with their backs against the wall tend to be a little touchy when it comes to defending what was taken away from them so many times: their freedom, their lives, their right to worship as they pleased. So don’t talk to me about “Mormon wickedness.” The wickedness of the citizens of the good old USA in days of yore against the Mormons far exceeded anything the Mormons did.

I won’t be replying further to this thread.

42

I truly am not trying to slander the LDS church. But it is not slander to present the non-LDS-sanitized version of history. While Joseph Smith is considered a great martyr for his religious beliefs, the truth is far more complex. He came to Missouri, claiming that the land was ordained for the Mormons by God. His followers, the Danites, terrorized the original inhabitants and legal landowners of the area as well as terrorizing Mormons who were opposed to the new principles of polygamy and various prounouncements of the prophet Smith. It is entirely understandable (though not justifiable) that the fearful “gentiles” turned on Joseph Smith and his followers who publically advocated driving out “gentiles” and taking their property, and who clearly demonstrated their intentions by terrorism.

The Southern Baptists several years ago fully acknowledged their sin of racism and repented of their actions. They recognized the need for honest assessment of their organization. The Germans have faced their part in WWII Holocaust and have tried to make amends. A foundation built on lies, deceit, and half-truths cannot stand. That’s why it is so refreshing that the Mormon church has finally acknowledged the Mountain Meadows Massacre. I hope one day they will be able to stop trying to whitewash the rest of their past and accept the unpalatable truths along with the many good aspects of their religion.

Check out his site for historical perspective on the persecution of Mormons in Missouri-the Danites, the burning of the Expositor Press, the prophesies of Joseph Smith that Missouri was the inheritance of the Mormons and the call to expell the “Gentile” inhabitants. http://www.xmission.com/~country/reason/legacy1.htm

In one of his revelations Joseph Smith revealed that Independence was the “center place” of Zion: “Wherefore, this is the land of promise, and the place for the city of Zion. And thus saith the Lord your God… Behold, the place which is now called Independence is the center place; and a spot for the temple is lying westward, upon a lot which is not far from the courthouse.” (Doctrine and Covenants 57: 2-3)
In another revelation Joseph Smith quoted the Lord as saying: “And thus, even as I have said, if ye are faithful ye shall assemble yourselves together to rejoice upon the land of Missouri, which is the land of your inheritance, which is now the land of your enemies.” (Doctrine and Covenants 52: 42)
In still another revelation we find that those who opposed Mormonism would be “plucked out.” “And the rebellious shall be cut out of the land of Zion, and shall be sent away, and shall not inherit the land. For, verily I say that the rebellious are not of the blood of Ephraim, wherefore they shall be plucked out.” (Doctrine and Covenants 64: 35-36)
David Whitmer, who was one of the Three Witnesses to the Book of Mormon, wrote the following: “The main reason why the printing press was destroyed, was because they published the Book of Commandments. It fell into the hands of the world, and the people of Jackson county, Missouri, saw from the revelations that they were considered by the church as intruders upon the land of Zion, as enemies to the church, and that they should be cut off out of the land of Zion and sent away. The people seeing these things in the Book of Commandments became the more enraged, tore down the printing press, and drove the church out of Jackson county.” (An Address to All Believers in Christ, by David Whitmer, Richmond, Missouri, 1887, page 54)
Some other sites of interest:

The Mormon Church hides its true history http://www.exmormon.org/disease.htm

Covering up polygamy http://www.exmormon.org/lying.htm

Blood atonement http://www.exmormon.org/bloodatn.htm

43

Touché!

44

Touche, my butt! :wink:

I seem to remember a biblical passage where God commanded the Israelites to move in on the Canaanites, to kill every man, woman and child, and to take their land. But of course that was just a metaphor or something…God would never actually take someone’s land away from them or favor the righteous over the wicked, hmmm?

And what about the Indians? Seems to me that those very Missourians you’re defending had to have taken their land from the Indians. (Correct me if I’m wrong.)

And BTW, I’m not posting as “Snark,” as I promised not to. :wink:

45

Gee, Snark; I thought the “touche” was in response to my comment about the addition of the Gospel of John after the Book of Revelations. But that could just be because I’ve quit reading anything smilingjaws has to say on this issue. After all, SJ just posted a bunch of links to the same site–some anti-mormon propogandist site, of course.

46

Jaws does seem to heavily favor anti-Mormon web sites, doesn’t he? Well, nobody’s perfect. I hope that someday he finds the truth.

47

I think a posting of mine here was misunderstood. God’s command in Deuteronomy was “you must not add…”(my emphasis.) The Israelites were commanded not to interpolate their own writings onto the Scriptures; it didn’t mean there would be no more Scripture! Evidence of this is shown early on in Luke, when Jesus read from the scroll of the Prophet Isaiah–the 61st chapter. This would indicate that Isaiah’s book, written some 700 years after Deuteronomy, was canonical Scripture. (Incidentally, no part of the “Apocrypha” is cited anywhere in the New Testament.)
The latter part of Revelation, which includes the other prohibition against uninspired additions to the Bible, includes many citations from the “Old Testament,” particularly the last chapters of Ezekiel; and the very last book written, the Gospel of John, likewise cites liberally the Hebrew Scriptures.
In The Book of Mormon, 3 Nephi 20:23-25 copies the spurious text at 1 John 5:7, 8 in the KJV “in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and there are three that bear witness on earth”; this phrase, according to all modern authorities, appears in no good Greek text. (The Alexandrine manuscript, which doesn’t carry the interpolation, arrived in England too late for it to be used in assembling the Greek text prepared about 1585 for the “New Testament” volume of the Authorized or King James version. I bet that if the Alexandrine manuscript had arrived in time, and the phrase in question therefore omitted from 1 John in the KJV, it wouldn’t have appeared in 3 Nephi either.)

48

Hey, I’d be glad to post from pro-Mormon sites if they didn’t constantly edit and change the original texts! Most of these sites post the words of YOUR prophets and leaders, not mine!

Hope you guys one day find the truth :slight_smile: Don’t be too disappointed when you don’t get your own planet–it’d be a lot of work to develop your own laws of nature, physics, etc, anyway (she said with a wink and a smile)

49

Sure, SJ; so long as you’re not too disappointed when you’re denied entry into whatever paradise you postulate. Or is the expression “Judge not lest ye be judged” no longer the words of Scripture?

50

Can someone clear up a pair of running themes for me, so I can be straight on them?

  1. Anything supportive of the LDS church is “the truth,” and anything critical of the LDS church is “anti-Mormon propaganda.” Is that a fairly accurate assessment?

  2. “Judge not, lest you be judged” applies only to the person being addressed, not to the speaker; and applies only to negative judgements and not positive ones. Is that a fairly accurate assessment?

"I prefer shows of the genre, “World’s Blankiest Blank.”

51

PL

  1. Yes
  2. Yes (and I do it, too, I’m ashamed to say. I’m sorry. Thanks for calling it to my attention. :slight_smile:
52

“Anti-Mormon propoganda” would be those web sites that use logical fallacies, loaded words, sensationalistic declarations that aren’t true, etc.

For instance, take a look at Smilingjaws’s post above, where s/he quoted an anti-Mormon web site: it mentions one of the LDS church leaders not as “Elder Heber C. Kimball”, but as “the unspeakable ‘prophet’ Heber C. Kimball.” Straw men galore, such as anti-Mormons saying, “Mormons teach that Adam was God” (which they don’t), “therefore they are in error.” Non sequiturs abound, such as “Joseph Smith was a mason, therefore all LDS temple rituals are based on freemasonry,” etc., etc., etc.

There is a difference between criticizing the LDS church because of legitimate differences of religious opinions, versus trying to break down, distort, and outright lie about it, using any and all methods, whether they are scrupulous and honest or not. Smilingjaws claims that s/he is not trying to slander the LDS church with his/her quotes, yet s/he tends to only quote from anti-Mormon web sites.

53

Oops, there should have been a new paragraph in my post above, starting with “Straw men galore…” I accidentally made it look like I was still quoting Smilingjaws’s web site, when actually I was just mentioning some popular negative propoganda.

54

Sorry, Snark(berry) I’ll repeat, again, I am not trying to be disrespectful to the LDS church. The LDS church has many positives–I know the Republican Party would be lost without them! Lots of people enjoy the feeling of superiority that comes from thinking they are the only chosen people. Lots enjoy the secret ceremonies that heighten the worship experience. Lots enjoy the structure of having many activities like home teaching, family night, etc.
I would love to cite the official LDS sites, but they don’t contain anything that isn’t faith promoting, i.e. historical documents, texts of former prophets, court transcripts, etc., that might contain anything negative about the LDS church. As I pointed out before, the LDS church excommunicated historians for writing about church founders using academic standards rather than editing the material to present the church in a postive light. Why indeed would I trust anything that comes from people who work so hard to supress historical records and documents? I’m not going to look on a Republican web site for unbiased information on Watergate. I’m not going to look on a Democratic web site for unbiased information on Clinton & paramours.
The Tanners site has the material available in an easy to access format. The same sort of material is available on many other sites–I just picked the easiest one for me to access. The LDS sites don’t have the material. End of story.

55

Well, SJ, I’d suggest that if you can’t stay away from the anti-LDS sites, at least read the pro-LDS sites as well.

The message of Mormonism is a positive one: that Jesus lives, that He cares about us, that He speaks to us today through modern prophets, and that we can be saved in the kingdom of heaven by obedience to the laws and ordinances of the gospel. All this negative propaganda, therefore, is distorting the true message of the LDS church.

I wish you well in your quest to gain salvation. If we don’t see eye to eye, let’s just agree to disagree and move on past this ugliness. :slight_smile:

56

1)No; and you probably missed the many times I’ve responded in a similar manner to those who’ve posted bashings against Judaism, Islam, and Catholicism, to name just a few. Either that, or you’re deliberately ignoring it.

  1. No; and you probably also missed the posting in which I explicitly stated that I don’t discount the possibility that my faith, or any faith for that matter, is based on delusion. What I have done, and you, IMHO, are deliberately ignoring, is to state that particular bit of scripture and a couple of others from the LDS apply to me also. I have also, and you are now deliberately ignoring that, based my stance on the remarks posted which were based without evidence but based on prejudice. SJ’s admitted flat out that he (she?) won’t cite any of the faith-promoting sites. That’s a very one-sided stance and if you don’t realize that then you are being deliberately foolish. Of course the official church sites are posting faith-promoting material–that’s pretty much the same thing going on with other churches; do you see the Vatican site haranguing itself over the Inquisition or the Crusades? A final note; SJ posted links to separate pages of the same site, one owned by the Tanners, who have recently lost the court case in which they were sued for breaking the law. Isn’t that one of the things SJ and folks such as he (she?) have against the founder of the LDS: that they broke the law?
57

A few corrections here:

  1. The citation from 1 John 5:7 in the King James Version was "…the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one. And there are three…
  2. The citation from Titus was 1:16, not 1:6. It concerns those who ‘publicly declare that they know God, but disown Him by their works.’
  3. The citation from Journal of Discourse was 55, v. 77.
58

Jeez, every time some topic on the Mormon church gets started, it ALWAYS turns into an attack by Monty the minute someone starts citing the actual historical texts on the formation of the LDS religion. Then, Monty, you start yammering on and on about how YOU do not always believe what the official line of the mormon church says–example: homosexuality. Frankly, I am beginning to wonder if some of these topics on mormonism aren’t just veiled attempts by mormons who are fishing for converts–everything is all hunky-dory–only for as long as sweet nothings about how wonderful the LDS church is. The minute someone posts ACTUAL teachings of the LDS church or quotes from MORMON prophets, you go ballistic, unless of course, they make your faith look innocent and good. Sounds to me a lot like the old “milk before meat” practice. Which, of course, is offensive and immoral to anyone who believes that there is truth and that it is immoral to not present that truth. I’m not partial to the Mormon church–no mistake about that–I find many of your teachings heretical–but I’m trying not to be disrespectful. I’m merely pointing out that there are proven, historical documents that do NOT support the “pure and delightsome” public personification of the LDS church which the public relations agencies of the LDS church present. If you want to defend your church by attacking me, go ahead, but don’t expect those of us who believe that truth matters to be silent when mormons selectively present their history and currrent practices. If that means citing the Tanner site I will–and despite your selective reporting, they were sued over posting one of the LDS church documents and they promptly took it off their site. Guess the LDS church wanted the public not to be able to see it–gee, I think I see a pattern there.

59

Smilingjaws wrote:

Do you see Christians of other denominations going around telling people how bad their churches are? Of course the LDS church presents itself as (and actually is) wonderful. Your own religion, SJ, probably does the same. As do most, if not all, other Christian religions. It’s obvious to me that you have some sort of grudge against the LDS church.

Such as? That Christ is the Savior, and that He died for the sins of all mankind? Oooh, an ACTUAL teaching of the LDS church! Better jump on it now, lest it lead people astray!

Never mind the source of those quotes (frequently the Journal of Discourses) is not considered doctrinal, and that Mormon prophets are not infallible.

Yes, the abominable “milk before meat” practice, as taught by the apostle Paul in Hebrews chapter 5, which I quote:

Hebrews 5:12-14
"12 For when for the time ye ought to be teachers, ye have need that one teach you again which be the first principles of the oracles of God; and are become such as have need of milk, and not of strong meat.

"13 For everyone that useth milk is unskilful in the word of righteousness: for he is a babe.

“14 But strong meat belongeth to them that are of full age, even those who by reason of use have their senses exercised to discern both good and evil.”

That apostle Paul sure had some strange ideas, huh? < g >

60

I feel I got carried away and was a bit rude and arrogant in that last post of mine. I apologize for that. I often struggle with one of my biggest character flaws, arrogance. Please don’t think that all Mormons are that way–most of them aren’t. I can only say that I will try harder in the future to be less arrogant. Sorry.