Rico, if you provide the link, you can have shorter quotes.
The statements about seeing the plates in the Spirit are entirely consistent with LDS theology. Your quote provides the reference directly, when he says, “for no man can behold the face of an angel, except in a spiritual view, but we were in the body also, and everything was as natural to us, as it is at any time.” See Moses 1:11 as one example of teachings that mortals and heavenly beings don’t mix very well unless the mortal is protected and enhanced for the duration (though Whitmer may have been a bit confused on the point–it may only apply to deity).
The three witnesses say they saw a vision (during the daytime–it wasn’t a dream) of an angel presenting the plates, and heard the voice of God testify about it. The eight witnesses didn’t have the vision, but saw and handled the plates directly. Yes, many of the 11 did become estranged from Joseph Smith and the LDS, but not one of them ever denied it, even though they left the core group, and were persecuted for their testimonies.
No, that isn’t proof of the Book of Mormon. But it does mean that you can’t discount their witness out of hand.
My efforts here are not to prove to anyone that the Book of Mormon is true and you have to accept it. I firmly believe that the only way to know that is through direct revelation from the Spirit–no person is going to convince you into heaven :). The only reason I take on these threads is to dispell the misinformation and falsehoods which anti-Mormons continue to spew about the LDS.
So please don’t tell me that I don’t have proof–that’s not my objective. But don’t tell me that I’m an idiot for believing what I believe, or that the evidence is overwhelming against Joseph Smith, because I’m not, and it isn’t.
That much is obvious. Your lawyer friend sounds like he’s sacrificing material gain to do something he believes in, which is generally considered good. I have no complaint there. That does not change the fact that he has financial incentive to practice law.
I think my statement is coming across as a stronger accusation than I intended. It is true that the Tanners derive their income from the publication and sale of anti-Mormon literature. If they did this in their off-time, I wouldn’t object as strongly to them as a source. However, because their living depends on attacking LDS beliefs, it is unlikely that if they ran across something that jeopardized their publications that they would print it.
I think it’s clear that Rush Limbaugh enjoys trashing liberals, and that he’d do it for significantly less pay than he gets now (indeed, that was the case when he got started). It’s a work of love as well as money. Granted, I’m confident his income is better than the Tanners (okay, that’s a significant understatement–he’s loaded, more so than most people in the US). The point is, if he were to come across something that might convince him that his opinions are fundamentally flawed, he’s more likely to gloss over it because of the possible ramifications of looking at it carefully.
Does it bother any of the Mormons here (or nons either) that you have to pay to go to church?
Meaning, you cannot go into the Temple unless your tithes (105 of all yearly imcome) are paid?
Most LDS want and consider it necessary for Heaven and blessings to go to the Temple.
Yet you cannot until you have paid!
Think about it.
I go to church, have gone to many churches, and didn’t have to pay. Yet I receive all the blessings and information(and have the preisthood) for free!
A free gift from God.
I know, you will come up with some doubletalk about how God requires it, etc. yada yada…you have to justify it.
MrMcPlad, it’s customary here on SDMB to attribute quotes to whoever wrote them. It avoids the confusion that results when you quote two different people in the same post.
As for what you say above, I think it’s a strawman argument. I don’t believe anyone called you a “fool”, so your statement that you would do x, y and z before you call anyone a fool isn’t relevant. You say you “don’t agree with all of the ideas” in the Tao Te Ching, but then admit you have not yet read it with an open mind. Yet you challenge those who don’t agree with Mormon ideas to read the Book of Mormon WITH an open mind. Don’t you think you are being hypocritical?
I wasn’t making any judgments on your beliefs vis-a-vis the “correctness” of your religion. I was merely pointing out that you seem to want others to abandon skepticism when evaluating YOUR religion, when you are obviously unwilling to do the same for OTHER people’s religions. Shouldn’t what is good for the goose be good for the gander?
I’m not here to defend the Mormon religion, but I don’t know of ANY sects of Christianity that don’t ask for money. Yes, it bothers me quite a bit that you have to pay to go to church. It also bothers me that you seem to think it’s something peculiar only to the Mormons.
Really? None of the churches you went to had an offertory? What did you do when they stuck that bowl in your face, get up and go to the bathroom?
One doesn’t have to pay to go to church, vanilla. I’m sure you already know this. Going to church and going to temple are two different aspects of the religion.
Monty, I’ve never been to a Christian church that didn’t “pass the p;ate”, since all churches have bills to pay. But I know what vanilla means. It is my understanding that Momons believe that in order to get into the highest kingdom of heaven (the Celestial Kingdom, I think), you must first receive Temple Endowments. In order to do this, you must receive a Temple Recommend from your Bishop. In order to do this, you must tithe. Correct? All churches have expenses to meet, but I’ve never heard of another one that insists you can’t receive the fullest blessings of heaven unless you not only pay, but pay a particular percentage of your income.
Peace to all
Norine
I did not admit that I read the Tao Te Ching with a closed mind. In fact, I tried to be as open-minded as I could as I read it. I intended my remark, “No. I have not.” to refer to the fact that I have not done so with EVERY religious text. Thus we see, I am not being hypocritical.
I intended my comments for the antagonists of the LDS church who do in fact believe (and most advertise quite loudly) that it is foolish to believe the words of the Book of Mormon, but who have never taken the challenge issued by Moroni seriously.
Just wait 'til vanilla finds out about the Law of Consecration!
In our church, salvation is more important than anything in this world. Thus, we should (in theory) be willing to give everything we have for exaltation. See Alma 22:15
But tithing is a commandment. Remember the widow’s two mites? And Malachi 3:10?
If tithing is a commandment, and we need to be doing our best to be keeping the commandments in order to enter the temple (since what we mainly do there is make more covenants to keep more commandments that ask more of us than 10% of our income), then it makes sense. It’s Heavenly Father’s anyway, that he gave to us. That doesn’t apply just to money, but to our time and resources. We’re supposed to be willing to give of ourselves to build up the kingdom of God. If you don’t have income, the Church will help you out, it’s not as though they’re asking for what we don’t have.
And we also believe, as in Mal. 3:10, that we are blessed beyond the price of what we give when we tithe.
If you don’t like it, that’s OK, but it’s not extortion. There’s a good reason behind it.
Also, we hope that lots of people will be in the Celestial Kingdom, not just people who were endowed, tithe-paying Mormons during their lives.
If only it were that easy. Firstly, the only required ordinance for the Celestial Kingdom is Baptism. That’s it. However,
Marriage in the Temple does require the other ordinances first. But there’s a lot more to it. You have to have faith in Jesus Christ. You have to continually repent throughout your life–to endure to the end. People make a big stink about tithing, but it’s just one commandment among many–all of which are important. Also, MrMcPlad’s comments about consecration are right on the money (forgive the pun :))–tithing is the lesser law.
Additionally, you could just lie and go to the temple if you wanted. If you don’t believe in the doctrine, why would you want to go? If you do, why would it bother you?
For some reason I cannot open the second link critical of the Tanners that you cite. The first one, though, the David Charles Pyle section from Google, does open. It does not make a good case.
Pyle’s arguments are directed toward page 154 of the Tanner’s magnum opus, Mormonism: Shadow or Reality, which is in a chapter called “The First Vision” that runs (in my edition) for 23 pages. The greater portion of this is devoted to contrasting accounts given by Joseph Smith himself of this first momentous vision, and showing significant differences. Pyle’s criticisms address none of this, but concerns itself with the way the Tanner’s quote others regarding this event.
Regarding the quotation from Brigham Young, he says:
Pyles’ statements about the Tanners’ “emphasis” is weird, because when they quote Brigham Young – at much greater length than Pyle, and with no elipses, they do not emphasize any words at all! The entire quotation is in bold print on p. 154. It reads, in part (I eliminate the first two sentences that the Tanners reproduce):
“The Lord did not come with the armies of heaven, in power and great glory, nor send His messengers panoplied with aught else than the truth of heaven, to communicate to the meek, the lowly, and the youth of humble origin, the sincere enquirer after the knowledge of God. But he did send his angel to this same obscure person, Joseph Smith, jun., who afterwards became a Prophet, Seer, and Revelator, and informed him that he should not join any of the religious sects of the day…”
Despite what he says, the Tanners have emphatically not skewed the meaning by misplaced emphasis, because they use no emphasis at all. It is Pyles who has placed emphasis and skewed the meaning, because anyone reading the entire passage comes away with the clear meaning that god told Joseph Smith this through the angel.
On the next page of their book they go on to cite Hugh Nibley as saying that “A favorite theme of Brigham Young’s was the tangible, personal nature of God, which he never illustrates by any mention of the first vision.”
Pyle notes that the Tanners correctly quote John Taylor, but provides other quotes that appear more in line with Church policy. I’m not familiar with the material, but it seems that, at worst, the Tanners can be accused of sloppy scholarship. Pyle claims that they did not read things in the correct context. Yet he himself ignores the Tanner’s context when they quote Heber C. Kimball.
But the Tanners didn’y mis-use ellipsis. As even Pyles’ quote shows, they did not uses ellipsis at all, but properly separated the quotes, stating that there was material between. Their point was that Kimball was saying that at no time did God come in person to Joseph Smith, so the fact that this does not refer to the First Vision particularly is irrelevant 0-- it’s a blanket statement.
At the beginning of the piece Pyle says:
You, too, make the charge that the Tanners are not regarded by historians. But I see from publications I got from them that they are cited by the Westyminster Theological Journal and The Journal of Pastoral Practice. How many F.A.R.M.S. publications are cited by non-Mormon journals?
Regarding the link I couldn’t open, the Tom Nibley comment on the Tanner Book The Black Hole of Mormonism, I’lll simply link to the Tanners’ reply:
What I had not realized was that, in the time since I left Salt Lake City, things had changed. When I left, I had the impression that relations between the Tanners and the Mormon apologists were, if not cordial, at least civil. After all, Jerald Tanner had come down squarely against the reality of the Hoffman documents (and well before anyone else, in or out of the Church, had). But shortly thereafter, they published The Black Hole of Mormonism, and the response was apparently a renewed hostility, evidenced by an unprecedented seventy five pages of review in Review of Books on the Book of Mormon.
Now, apparently, even favorable references to the Tanners’ work is seen as evidence of one’s being hostile to the LDS Church. Hence, apparently, the virulence of the scorn for the Tanners shown in this thread. But they don’t deserve it. They are, as I show above, careful in their quotations. One Mormon critic accused them of saying that there was no religious revival in Palmyra in 1820, and ignoring the possibilities of revivals nearby. Yet the Tanners devoted six pages of M-SoR to precisely this issue, at least twice mentioning revivals elsewhere in New York in 1820, and even citing a pro-LDS author to that effect. They simply aren’t the sloppy, ellipsis-obsessed hate mongers they’re made out to be.
They are gadflies, and gadflies can be useful, because in refuting them you come to a greater understanding of your subject, and they force you to see things you might otherwise not notice. The claim that they do this for profit makles even less sense to me now that I’ve had a chance to think about it – the Tanner’s disagree with you fundamentally and philosophically, emarkp. They’d gladly criticize you for free.
O.K., fair enough - I went back and read your other post, and you did specify that you were referring to “antagonists”. So I guess you’re sort of saying “don’t criticize me until you walk a mile in my shoes” kind of thing. I take it your comments were directed only at Mormon-bashers, but not at those who simply disagree with your beliefs.
Yes, my comments were directed at Mormon-bashers. And to those who simply disagree, I politely ask that you consider taking Moroni’s challenge. It might be good for you. I can even get you a free copy of the Book of Mormon.
Please show me where I made this claim. I can’t find it in the thread (though I may have overlooked it).
This is a stupid question, and I thought you’d be smart enough to see why. How many religious groups are pro-Mormon? How many are not? Whenever you divide groups into “A” and “not A”, you’ll likely find more in the “not A” category.
I did check back and noticed that I screwed up on the second link that was a review of “Black Hole”. Apologies for that–how can I expect you to read a link I broke? Here’s the corrected link.
And responses to the Tanners response in their Answering Mormon Scholars: A Response to Criticism of the Book “Covering Up the Black Hole in the Book of Mormon” by: Matthew Roper John Tvedtnes
(Note that the if articles are locked, you can sign up for a free 60-day membership.)
As for the Google link, the author explicitly states that he’s working from the 1972 edition of Mormonism: Shadow or Reality. Is your edition the same one?
Then why don’t they? Why don’t they get jobs as clerks or laborers or software engineers or something, and then write their work in their off-time, like many of the LDS apologists do? (John Tvedtnes specifically claims that he received no remuneration for his work, for instance.) This would remove my legitimate (and obvious) claim that they get paid to attack Mormons.
