I’m curious - since you advocate reading the religious text with an open mind and praying in order to find out “the truth”, have you yourself done this for EVERY religion, past and present, on the planet?
See what I meant above by “never say never?”
But if there are inconsistencies, wouldn’t you want to know about them? Especially in matters that may concern your “immortal soul”?
Search all the available information, not just “Church-Approved” sources. Find out about things that have either not been released to the membership of the church, or have been glossed over by “faith promoting” stories. Would you buy a new car by only reading the literature from that manufacturer? No? Why not? Because the manufacturer has their own best interest at heart. If you’re smart, you’d look at sources that look at the car objectively. You’d want to hear other points of view.
And that “good feeling from God”, or as LDS puts it, the “burning in the bosom,” the last time I felt that I was at a Rolling Stones concert. Mick Jagger was singing “Angie,” a song that meant a lot to me as a teen-ager, and my “bosom burned” with the fire. Does that mean that God revealed to me that the Rolling Stones are the one and only true rock group? NO! It means that I had an emotional response to the music I was hearing.
What LDS are asking for is an emotional response to their truth. If they can get you to feel strongly enough about what their saying, and any good salesman can do that, you WILL feel the emotional response. When that happens, you’re told it’s from God, when it’s simply your emotions.
In the book of Proverbs, over and over again it says that we are seek out wisdom and knowledge. It does not say we are to get a good feeling. Prov 1:7 says, “The fear of the Lord is the beginning of knowledge: but fools despise wisdom and instruction.”
In other words, we are not to rely on feelings because our feelings are neither right nor wrong, they’re just feelings.
And don’t even get me started on all the inconsistencies in the LDS religion, such as The Book of Abraham, or Joseph Smith “going like a lamb to the slaughter,” or the polygamy issue. I can hear it now, the cry of “Ancient History, Rico - what are we doing now?” And my answer is, the LDS church has wonderful morals and teachings. But when it comes to your chance for eternal life, are you willing to risk everything on your emotions and feelings?
I’m not.
just wanted to second what Rico said.
I swore I wasn’t going to get involved in so incendiary a thread, but I did have to jump in regarding something said earlier.
When I lived in Salt Lake City, I used to go down to the Utah Lighthouse Ministry. I’ve talked with the Tanners on many occasions. Despite what has been said in the thread above, the Tanners strike me as honest folk, and extremely good researchers. They do NOT rely on ellipsis and out-of-context statements to make their points. If you think so, you’ve never read their books, which are hefty tomes. If anything, the Tanners quote much more material than they need to. They have always shied away from questionable material.
Which brings me to the matter of the claim that the Tanners “heklped out” the LDS Church in the matter of the Hoffman forgeries. This isn’t really true. What happened is that Jerald Tanner wrote a pamphlet saying that he thought the Hoffman documents were forgeries long before everyone else questioned them, including, significantly, the LDS Church. It was partly a case of the Hoffman documents being “too good to be true”, but more because he could identify where the quotes were coming from. He turned out to be justified in this belief. I was closely following the Hoffman scandal when I lived out there, and I admit that I was taken in, too. The fact that Tanner publicly protested the Hoffman documents well in advance of anyone else despite the fact that the Hoffman documents bolstered the Tanners’ case shows the intellectual honesty of the Tanners. They had printed a number of books using the Hoffman documents to bolster their case. After this point, they withdrew them.
I’ve been to their house/bookstore. Anyome who says they have an economic motive in discrediting the Mormons has a screw loose. They’re not getting rich from this, and they’ve had to fight against the antipathy of the LDS establishment in a state that is largely LDS-influenced. Theirs is a labor of conviction and love. Sandra Tanner, BTW, is a descendant of Brigham Young.
That said, I have to note that, as an agnostic, I don’t agree with everything the Tanners say. They push a conservative protestantism, and when thety publish books attesting to the literal truth of parts of the Bible I protest their interpretation – but note that they DON’T fudge the facts.
I think the Tanners and the ULM can actually be useful to LDS folks, if only because they print things that are possibkly disturbing, yet well-documented. I heard about one LDS teacher who went to them because it was easier to get unedited copies of early Church documents through them than through other channels. The way to respond to criticism and one’s dirty laundry is to face it head on, openly. The LDS Church will outlast the Tanners. Other faiths (and lack-of-faiths) could use critics that are as astute.
CalMeacham, if you’re going to address points that I alone raised, you might as well call me by name.
[cue spit-take]
Did you read the cites I listed above? How they documented that the Tanners did precisely that? I’m comfortable judging their work based on reading their work, rather than meeting them in person.
Non sequitur. I never claimed they were getting rich. They do, however, derive their income from bashing the LDS church (however meager or grand that income might be). Hence they do have economic incentive to attack Mormons’ beliefs.
I wanted to expand on the car-dealership analogy.
If a car dealer says his cars are the best, ALL other cars don’t work, I think that would bear some finding out firsthand.
Also, if some had bought his cars, found they didn’t work very good, they would be the ones to listen to, not the dealer who has a vested interest in promoting his cars.
No. I have not. I’ve perused the Tao Te Ching and I found it to be very insightful, but I don’t agree with all of the ideas. I assure you, though, that before going out and telling Muslims they’re fools for believing the Qu’ran I would read it with an open mind and I would ask God about it. It makes sense, doesn’t it?
A common misconception is that since Mormons believe the Book of Mormon is “the most correct book” and that our church is true, it means we think all other religions and their books must be false. In fact, we believe that all churches have truth and virtue. All people are equipped with the light of Christ; it’s just that we believe that our church contains the most truth.
What inconsistencies? I have yet to hear a convincing argument. The lack of evidence of gold plates isn’t an inconsistency. It’s lack of evidence, which doesn’t prove anything. Plus, I don’t believe God ever intended indisputable proof of the truthfulness of his gospel to exist. IMO He wants His children to accept Him on faith.
Then you’re misinformed about the foundation of your religion, my friend.
18 My object in going to inquire of the Lord was to know which of all the sects was right, that I might know which to join. No sooner, therefore, did I get possession of myself, so as to be able to speak, than I asked the Personages who stood above me in the light, which of all the sects was right (for at this time it had never entered into my heart that all were wrong)and which I should join.
19 I was answered that I must join none of them, for they were all wrong; and the Personage who addressed me said that all their creeds were an abomination in his sight; that those professors were all corrupt; that: they draw near to me with their lips, but their hearts are far from me, they teach for doctrines the commandments of men, having a form of godliness, but they deny the power thereof. (Pearl of Great Price, Joseph Smith-History Chapter 1, italics mine)
Either you’re LDS, or you’re a member of a corrupt organization that is an abomination in the sight of God. From your own scriptures.
The Book of Abraham. Supposedly translated from scrolls of papyrus, and declared to be a record of the prophet Abraham. The scrolls were found in 1967 and studied by Egyptologists. A study of the papyri shows that this was originally a vignette belonging to an Egyptian funerary text known as the First Book of Breathings, dating to the first century B.C. Not even close time-wise! Casts doubt on Smith’s translating claims!
The Kinderhook Plates. “Discovered” on April 23, 1843 near Kinderhook, Illinois. In Smith’s own words:
“… I insert fac-similes of the six brass plates found near Kinderhook, in Pike county, Illinois, on April 23, by Mr. Robert Wiley and others, while excavating a large mound. They found a skeleton about six feet from the surface of the earth, which must have stood nine feet high. The plates were found on the breast of the skeleton and were covered on both sides with ancient characters.
I have translated a portion of them, and find they contain the history of the person with whom they were found. He was a descendant of Ham, through the loins of Pharoah, king of Egypt, and that he received his kingdom from the Ruler of heaven and earth.” (The History Of The Church, May 1, 1843)
On June 30, 1879, W. Fugate of Mound Station, Brown County, Illinois gave an affidavit before Jay Brown, Justice of the Peace, that revealed the hoax. In his statement he swore under oath that Robert Wiley, Bridge Whitton, and himself conspired to make the plates. Although the affidavit was thirty-six years after the fact, Mr. Fugate describes with detail how the plates were made. He mentions that Wiley and himself “… made the hieroglyphics by making impressions on beeswax and filling them with acid, old iron and lead, and bound them with a piece of hoop iron, covering them completely with the rust”. He even mentions that the plates were made by Bridge Whitton, who had the resources and skill as a blacksmith (see History of the Church, Vol. 5, pg. 378, footnote, quotation from The Story of the Mormons, Linn, p. 87.).
Unlike the Book of Mormon “Golden Plates”, one of the Kinderhook Plates still exists and has been tested with modern equipment, showing that the surviving plate truly is of modern manufacture. Casts doubt on Smith’s translating claims!
How about BoM Alma 11 where it says that The Son of God is The Eternal Father, and there is no other? That’s not LDS doctrine, is it? Or Mosiah 11:2 where King Noah is called “abominable in the sight of the Lord” for having many wives? Or, as we call it, polygamy? Or Mormon 7:7, which states that “…unto the Father, and unto the Son, and unto the Holy Ghost, which are one God…”. That’s not LDS doctrine!
I’ve got quite a few more, but it would not only incur the wrath of the mods for a longer post, it would not convince a true LDS, because there is always some “supernatural” or “inspired by God” explanation.
And before you ask, I’m the black sheep of an otherwise all LDS family, sealed in the temple. I’m a returned missionary. I was raised in the LDS Church. I had a testimony. I went through the temple before the “bloody oaths” about being killed if you revealed what you learned in the temple were removed from the ceremony. And I can say without any uncertainty (no, I am NOT going to say “with every fiber of my being” - an inside LDS joke) that I do not believe any of Smith’s claims and do not believe the LDS Church is the only way I’m going to gain eternal life.
But in the same breath, I can say that if you have found your way in the LDS Church, I’m happy for you. It does not work for me, my mind inquires too much. And that’s why we all keep logging on to this board, to inquire and learn.
Rico, you have a lot to learn yourself. Since when does wrong equate to nothing right? Reaching back to academia for examples, I turned in many answerss which were wrong, but yet largely right. This is a false dichotomy.
As for the Book of Abraham, I refer you again to Jeff Lindsay’s site. See the (lengthy) responses to the objections to the BoA here, here, and here.
The brief response on the BoA is that the scrolls were lost, and presumed destroyed in the Chicago Fire. Later, 11 fragments of papyrus were found, some of which are very similar to the facsimiles in the BoA. However, to claim that those fragments are the entirety of the scrolls ignores several accounts of the scrolls. Basically, it’s a strawman argument. Go to the urls for the detailed account.
As for the Kinderhook plates, you should know better than to repost more anti-LDS material without checking it. Yes, the phrase “I insert…” and “I have translated…” but those were not actually written by Smith. See here for details. The quotes are actually from the journal of William Clayton, but the first-person pronouns were used in History of the Church because that was the custom of the time.
(Interestingly, the Kinderhook fiasco should be a lesson to LDS. The members of the time were so excited for proof of the BoM that they latched onto anything that might fit the bill, without carefully validating it first.)
So, if Joseph Smith translated the Kinderhook Plates as you contend Rico, where is the translation? If the fraud wasn’t revealed for decades, why don’t we have any record of an actual “translation?” It wasn’t until the 20th century that [destructive electron microscope tests](http://library.lds.org/library/lpext.dll/ArchMagazines/Ensign/1981.htm/ensign august 1981.htm/kinderhook plates brought to joseph smith appear to be a nineteenthcentury hoax.htm) on the plates clearly showed that they were fraud. Why was Joseph such a dupe to claim that he’d translated the Kinderhook Plates, yet so smart that he didn’t actually provide a translation? Fascinating.
So you haven’t read the cites I listed but you don’t believe their claim?
:rolleyes:
One of the links very laboriously compares the actual text of the original document vs. the Tanners’ twisted interpretation of the self-same document. It is very clear proof that they do in fact use deceptive techniques to make sources appear to support their false claims.
Are you having trouble with the simple truth that when you receive income from doing something that you have a financial incentive to do it? Baseball players have a financial incentive to play baseball well. I have a financial incentive to write good software. The Tanners have a financial incentive to attack anything and everything about the LDS.
I actually have a financial disincentive to defend the LDS church. I’d get a 10% raise (well, actually 11%, but you get the idea) if I left the LDS church. I wouldn’t spend so much time doing things for other people. None of my income depends on other members of the LDS church, so I wouldn’t lose any financial arrangements if I split.
Do you understand this simple concept?
So Emarkp you’d agree that a lack of evidence for something strongly suggests that it is bunk, would you?
So you haven’t read the cites I listed but you don’t believe their claim?
:rolleyes:
One of the links very laboriously compares the actual text of the original document vs. the Tanners’ twisted interpretation of the self-same document. It is very clear proof that they do in fact use deceptive techniques to make sources appear to support their false claims.
Are you having trouble with the simple truth that when you receive income from doing something that you have a financial incentive to do it? Baseball players have a financial incentive to play baseball well. I have a financial incentive to write good software. The Tanners have a financial incentive to attack anything and everything about the LDS.
I actually have a financial disincentive to defend the LDS church. I’d get a 10% raise (well, actually 11%, but you get the idea) if I left the LDS church. I wouldn’t spend so much time doing things for other people. None of my income depends on other members of the LDS church, so I wouldn’t lose any financial arrangements if I split.
Do you understand this simple concept?
For my part emarkp I understand your simple concept. I would perhaps describe it more as “simplistic” than “simple”.
As the last couple of paragraphs of your post show, people are quite capable of being driven by motivations other than financial motivations. They may choose a particular path based on what they see as the truth, and they may (in doing so) have scant regard to financial considerations.
I have a friend who is a lawyer like myself, but instead of working in commercial practice as I do, he works for an indigenous legal service, which pays a pittance. According to your “simple concept”, because my friend receives his income from doing what he does, he has a financial incentive to do it. If he didn’t do the work he does, he’d have no income and he’d starve. But anyone who would suggest that financial considerations are what drives my friend to do what he does would clearly be a fool. His motivation is obviously not financial, he is a very principled person who believes it appropriate to help indigenous people, and he could earn quadruple what he does by taking a commercial position.
Your simple concept is so simple as to be complete bunk.
So unless you are going to come up with some evidence that the Tanners’ work is so financially rewarding that money is clearly their prime motivation, I think perhaps you’d better deal with their arguments rather than slander them with your “simple concept”.
Come on Princhester, that’s weak. (Talk about taking things out of context.) I would agree that looking at all the available evidence is important, including in this case the fact that Smith did not in fact make the statement attributed to him, even though it’s in the first person, and that if he was translating other things (BoM, BoA, etc.) why would he claim to have translated it and yet not produced the translation.
Come on emarkp, that’s weak. (Talk about taking things out of context.) I would agree that looking at all the available evidence is important, including in this case the fact that the witnesses did not in fact physically see the golden plates, even though they signed a statement to that effect, and that if he had the golden plates why would he claim to have them and yet not produce them to independant witnesses?
Cite, please. And if it’s a standard anti-Mormon site, please at least do some searching for a response.
Oh, I don’t know. Maybe because he was specifically forbidden to do so? You may complain about this, but it is internally consistent.
Allow me.
http://www.exmormon.org/file9.htm
And David Whitmer said in a later interview:
from
Mormon Fortress
But the real question, whether they imagined the plates or not, is the fact that I could go out in the streets of Los Angeles and find twelve people who would glady attest to the fact that aliens had landed on earth and had performed experiments on their bodies. Does this make it true? More true than the Book of Mormon, because I have one more witness?
Witnesses can be found for any point of view. And some make up their testimonies. Ask any lawyer. We must examine the testimonies and determine the truthfulness of them for ourselves.
One assumes that the Mormons, like most religious organizations, have helped many, many people come to a better spiritual understanding of who they are. But it’s important for Christians, Muslims, Jews . . . whoever . . . to draw the line at supporting aspects of established religion that aren’t central to faith in God, which is what it’s all about. Maintaining things are absolutely true which unbelievers have good reason to suspect aren’t true undermines faith.
The Mormon faith may very well be useful, but the BOM has difficulties. Ignoring them just holds faith up to ridicule.
“. . . the three men who originally claimed to have seen the “golden plates”-Oliver Cowdery, David Whitmer, and Martin Harris-all later abondoned the Mormon church, denounced Joseph Smith, and were excommunicated. 6 Eight other men also once claimed to have seen plates, “which have the appearance of gold…the appearance of ancient work,” and which were the product of “curious workmanship,” but many of these people also later left the church and worked actively against it . . . .”
www.rockofinspiration.org/Documents/camormon.htm
Yes, I’m sure if one looked in some cleverly couched Mormon site one could see a “definitive” refutation of this.
Most major religions agree to draw up differences on the basis of select items of disagreement. This isn’t the case with the BOM. It isn’t “just another interpretation”. Mormons, if you can find official Catholic, Jewish or Islamic sites that defend the BOM, then cite them. Don’t just quote your own rhetoric.
Thanks Rico.
And as to your second point, emarkp, internal consistency is of course no evidence of anything at all.
My personal belief is that I am presently totally surrounded by pink elephants. They are invisible, odourless, tasteless, are formed of matter that does not interact with normal matter (such that you can’t touch them) and they are presently being very very quiet. Of course, there is no evidence that they exist. But my beliefs are, you will no doubt find it very convincing to learn, internally consistent.
As to Smith being specifically forbidden to reveal the plates, all I can say is that if Smith every had to do any repairs to his roof, he’d have no need of a ladder. He’d just have to reach down, grab his own boots, and lift himself up…