OK, no, it’s not. That is the single most inaccurate statement about the LDS religion on this thread, it’s that wrong. Sorry, vanilla, but no way. The whole point is that Heavenly Father has in no way closed the canon of scripture (heck, the BoM isn’t even complete, two-thirds of it wasn’t translated). Thus, if Heavenly Father has given inspiration for scripture to others yet unknown, we want to learn from it. The Bible, Doctrine and Covenants, Pearl of Great Price–all contain knowledge not found in the BoM. And we do not consider ourselves to have all scripture yet; the canon is still open. We look forward to more someday.
[calm down…breathe…] OK. You may be thinking of the quote that says that the BoM is the most correct book on the earth, and that a man may get closer to God through following its precepts than any other way. But that is not at all the same statement as what you said.
Ah. Yes. Your link, which I only say the bottom part of, has the quote at the top of the screen.
Can you not see that that is a different statement than “All the knowledge we need is in the BoM”?
a good link of the temple ceremony
gold plates: htp://www.mrm.org/articles/how-heavy.html
Also, their real feelings:
http://www.mrm.org/articles/attack.html
We are required to learn as much as we can about everything good that we can. We are to study literature, history, languages, geology, agriculture, medicine, astronomy, mathematics, and anything else we can think of. Heavenly Father wants us to know as much as possible, not what is contained in one book, though that book and the other scriptures are the most important ones to study.
I’ll try to calm down now. It may not be easy.
Here, have a nice cup of lukewarm tea
What is your opinion on Galatians 1:8,9.
I feel and others do also, that it refers to BoM, and D&C.
Ok, now I’m even more upset. Everyone, please read what I have to say before clicking on vanilla’s links.
The temple ceremony is one of the most sacred parts of the gospel. I realize that you out there do not feel that way about the temple, and you not necessarily feel that reading about it is a problem. However, I want you to know that doing so is a disrespectful thing to do. The temple is private, and we do not talk about what goes on there–even amongst ourselves, usually. To publish the proceedings is an act of great disrespect and even hostility. These are not nice people. You have already seen in the above posts how they try to distort LDS teachings for their own ends. The description may be extremely biased, it may contain untruths, it may be twisted. I do not know, since I am not going to look. It hurts me to see it. I would never go into a Moslem mosque and describe to others what goes on there, for I know that Moslems would take it as an act of disrespect and desecration. I think it’s too bad we can’t all have respect for one another’s wishes about what is to be private and public.
You may now make your choice, with full knowledge of how the people who participate in this ceremony feel about it being published. Perhaps I have only made it more temptingly forbidden–but the temple is not exciting or scandalous, it is only deeply symbolic and sacred.
Galatians 1:8-9? What about it? False prophets are bad, yes. However, since we feel that Joseph Smith and the modern prophets since are preaching his word, we do not feel that they are false prophets, but true ones. You don’t agree–I guess we’ll all find out who’s right someday, no? (Or perhaps not, if the atheists turn out to be right. ;))
GENIE, in case you were unaware, VANILLA is a fairly fundamentalist Christian who has all of the problems with Mormonism that such people generally have. In addition, and as you may not know, she has personal issues with the church that make her rather bitter about it and IMO unreasonably hostile to it. She can dispute this if she likes; I’m not trying to misrepresent her or insult her, but that is the impression several of the “old-timers” here on the Board have, based on her history as we know it. I am not trying to get in VANILLA’s business or resurrect old stuff, but I don’t want you, GENIE, to get unduly upset that people might take her perfectly seriously. In this regard, speaking only for myself, I do not, because this is her one serious and IMO irrational sore point.
None of this is some big secret, but neither is it my intention to allude to things that I suspect are painful to another poster, so I’ll say no more. I would have e-mailed you this rather than post it, but you don’t list your e-mail. You can e-mail me if you want, however.
I’m familiar with the history, thanks, Jodi, so we don’t need to talk about it, I agree. I am just not sure about whoever may be reading this. I don’t usually engage her, but OTOH, I have a hard time letting such inaccuracies and vicious things like the mrm site go unchallenged, in case someone takes it seriously.
You know, vanilla, telling someone to calm down when you intentionally post something you know is hateful (the link is) and will most likely cause that person to not be calm is…well, let’s just say it’s not all that nice.
Going all the way back to the OP:
IMO, it’s kind of silly. I personally think the founder was probably a bit of a fraud. I deplore any religion (so not just LDS) that treats men and women unequally.
That said, any LDS people/mormons who follow their religion with the main aim of being kind, loving and good people - then good luck to them, I think that’s a wonderful thing.
Also - re the clothing thing - I pretty much find any religion that prescribes clothing/external trappings etc pretty stupid. When you compare it to eg traditional Aboriginal people running about half-naked (by our standards not theirs) in the desert, worshipful of the sky and earth and ancestor spirits - their gods, in so far as the things that are most important and sacred to them - the idea that God, or any god, could care less about all-in-one undergarments, beards, long/short hair, veils, funny bits of hair over the ears, hats, whatever - is, IMO, rather insulting to God, and certainly incompatible with my concept of a deity.
PLD’s recent post was interesting (the 7 point one) and no-one has gotten around to answerwing what I think the thrust of his basic questions were, and I’d be interested in seeing what LDS members have to say:
Is it LDS* doctrine/teaching that:
A) The writing on the gold plates became the Book of Mormon?
B) Joseph Smith’s transcription/translation was accurate?
C) Joseph Smith’s transcription/translation was more than accurate: it was divinely guided, thus infallible?
Fenris
*Do you prefer LDS or Mormon? Do you care?
No, please see a few of the posts already in this thread. The teaching is that the gold plates actually are the Book of Mormon and that Joseph Smith Jr translated the text on those plates with divine help.
Translation. Yes. It’s that divine help bit that the church says Smith had.
Divine help provided. There’s also the bit about “if there are any errors here, they are mine and not the Lord’s.” That’s not a direct quote because I don’t recall exactly where to find it. Maybe one of the other LDS (or someone familiar with it) can find out where.
Firstly, there is no claim that the Book of Mormon is an inerrant record. Nor is there a claim that the translation was without mistake (people, even inspired ones, can make mistakes). There is an explicit note of this in the title page of the book:
Secondly, the physical claims the book makes are few. The primary objections I’ve seen critics of the LDS church make are about horses and steel (that the Book of Mormon refers to them, yet the critics claim there is no archaeology to support those references). Typically, the claims our detractors make are strawman arguments–they make stronger claims than we do and then “prove” them false.
I do believe the Book of Mormon to be a record of ancient peoples who inhabited the American continent. Nothing (as pointed out earlier in the thread) claims that they were the only inhabitants. Also, pldennison’s claim about New York state is overstated–there is only one thing we claim to have happened in New York, and that was the burial of the plates in the hill Cumorah in upstate New York.
While I would expect there to be some imperfections in the Book of Mormon, I wouldn’t expect there to be significant error in the reporting of the events, including claims about the physical world. Keep in mind, however, that some of those claims include a man rising from the dead, an enormous earthquake in the Americas at the time of Christ’s death, and a curse on the land which seems to have directly affected metals. My limited investigations into the archaeology suggest that there has been limited archaeological investigation done in the Americas–far less than in the old world. I expect the claims of the Book of Mormon to be entirely validated at some point, or at least for any apparant contradictions to disappear. Groups like FARMS, spearheaded by Hugh Nibley and others are pursuing the physical record, and have yet to find anything to break the faith.
Nibley and FARMS are clearly biased–they are presupposing the conclusion, and looking for anything to prove it. However, their research (AFAIK) doesn’t simply ignore the physical record, but seeks to understand it in detail. Again, what I’ve read (both by FARMS and by critics of LDS) has not raised any issues that worry me about the Book of Mormon.
But I guess I’m strange–I don’t see any significant contradictions in the Bible (wrt itself or the Book of Mormon).
genie: that site has been up for years and thousands of people have read it.
Their opinions, whatever they are, shouldn’t change your holiness feelings about it.
I, and the people who make the site, feel that the truth must be known.
Its no person vendetta, I’ve also explained to people that the JW’s are not chrsitian. I suppose anyone who ever speaks against a religion can be called biased, but then someone’s gotta be telling the truth.
Why not tell it?
I feel I must. (for free)
No one can disprove what they have on their site.
If, as you say, God keeps changing His mind on rules and Gods’ Word, how can it ever be true?
One day, this is so, next year, God says no temple marriage is needed.
Gods truth never changes.
The Bible says it doesn’t.
So…just take the parts of the Bible that you agree with, use them; call the stuff you don’t agree with-not translated properly.
Anyhoo, I’ve made my point.
There are lots of exMormons, someday you may be one of them.
Galatians 2:16:
Man is NOT justified by works of the law, but by faith in Jesus."
Hmm, but the Bible doesn’t seem to agree with itself in some places; doesn’t that cause you a problem?
The very same arguement can be said by Jews about Christianity (and more effectively IMHO). How is this any different?
Some years ago I was sitting at home relaxing and doing some reading when a couple of smartly dressed young men arrived at my door. Their name tags indicated their respective names and indicated that they were “elders” despite the fact that neither of them could have been more than 20. I knew they were Mormons and I held nothing against them for that. I simply saw it as an opportunity to expand my knowledge.
I let them in and we sat down for a time discussing religion, doctrine, and faith, one of them was drawn to the book I had been reading when they arrived. I mentioned that I could get him a copy of the Q’uran if he was interested in reading it. He declined my offer and asked if I was a Muslim, my reply was that I was an Agnostic and was simply studying Islam.
On our first visit they basically told me that they thought that they practiced the one true religion and that Joseph Smith was a true prophet. They were surprised that I already knew quite a bit about their history and beliefs. They were nice guys and I told them they could return the next week to continue our discussion. They offered to leave me The BOM and POGP but I let them know I already owned them.
The following week they arrived and I told them that I had spent a good amount of time refreshing my memory on the beliefs and history of the LDS. They asked if I had any questions…
I started by asking them if they were familiar with Deuteronomy 18:21 which reads:
“And if thou say in thine heart, How shall we know the word which the Lord hath not spoken? When a prophet speaketh in the name of the Lord, if the thing follow not, nor come to pass, that is the thing which the Lord hath not spoken, but the prophet hath spoken it presumptuously…”
I then asked how they could know of and believe in this verse yet also profess that Joseph Smith was a true prophet, considering that Smith made a number of prophecies that never came to pass.
Some examples of Smith’s prophecies and their outcomes:
Sept 22-23, 1832. D&C 84:2-5, 31 Zion will be built with its temple at Independence, “in this generation”. This generation shall not all pass away until the temple will be built upon the spot. Orson Pratt in 1870 reiterated the prophecy (JD 9:71, 10:344, 13:362) and insisted that it will come to pass within the generation living in 1832.
Jan 4, 1833. HC 1:315-316. Joseph Smith says “by the authority of Jesus Christ” that “not many years shall pass away” before the wicked “of this generation” will be swept from off the face of the land and the Lost Ten Tribes will be gathered to Missouri, and that “there are those now living upon the earth whose eyes shall not be closed in death until they see all these things, which I have spoken, fulfilled.”
The Mormons were driven from Missouri in 1839, the temple has never been built, and the ten tribes have never gathered in Missouri unless they did it without anyone seeing them gather.
September 1, 1842. D&C 127:2. Joseph Smith prophesies that he “shall triumph over all my enemies.”
Joseph Smith was killed by his enemies less than two years after this prophecy. I also believe he prophesied that he would live some 70 plus years yet died at the age of 39.
This was just a few of the prophesies Smith made that never came to pass.
The missionaries had no answer for me on this question nor could they answer how two of the lost tribes had built a civilization in North America without leaving a trace and without ever being seen by the Native Americans who have been here for better than 9000 years according to our current knowledge.
They couldn’t answer these or any of my other questions and we arranged to meet the next week and sadly, they never returned. Actually, no other Mormons ever came knocking on my door after this. I suspected that my name and address must have been placed in the temple with a stern warning not to visit me… 
My opinion is that I don’t believe that the foundation that the Church of LDS is built on much of anything substantial as their founder and prophet, Joseph Smith, was not a true prophet by Biblical definition. By many accounts he was also a plagiarist, albeit a bad one. The original book of Mormon has been revised countless times and one would think that a relatively modern book written by a true prophet, IN the english language shouldn’t be rife with so many errors in translation.
Anyways, I like Mormons as much as I like Catholics, Protestants, Muslims, Buddhists and all the rest which is quite a bit. Religion works for some people and it doesn’t work for others. We can still get along with each other as long as we can agree to disagree in a peaceful manner.
What I have found is that I am always happy to discuss religion with the people who come knocking but they rarely ever make return visits.
I have wanted to reply to this for a while, but have been busy at other things. I couldn’t leave this last post with no response.
Re: the building of the temple at Indepencence.
The scripture you refer to is here. You read it as a prophesy, but I read it as a commandment. See verse 75. Furthermore, this commandment was given in Kirtland, where a temple was indeed dedicated on 27 March 1836.
I assume that ‘JD’ stands for Journal of Discourses. I can find no comments by Orson Pratt in JD 9:71 (there is a discourse by George Albert Smith from 1861 on that page, but it has nothing to do with any temple). JD 10:344 has no reference to Orson Pratt, but there are comments from George Q. Cannon (on page 345, not 344) which refer to a temple, specifically
This was spoken 23 Oct 1864. At that time, the LDS members had to abandon both the Kirtland and Nauvoo temples. The construction of the Salt Lake temple was underway (note that the SLC temple was completed in 1896, and that Wilford Woodruff was the man who dedicated it–and was there at Kirtland when the revelation in D&C 84 was given). Ah, finally we have in JD 13:362 the quote from Orson Pratt in which he does state
And I have two responses to it: that Orson Pratt was wrong, and that it says nothing WRT D&C 84. And I don’t have a problem with that. I thought you were talking about Joseph Smith?
Now, on to HC 1:315-316
Taking the entire quote as it was written, it’s not nearly as cut and dried as you suggest. For instance, the Civil War happend in that generation and was indeed a scene of bloodshed like none other. The events described “prepare the way” for the ten tribes, there is no indication that they will in fact arrive in the timeline presented. Finally, the statement is not unlike Matthew 24:34 wherein Jesus spoke about the end times, and said “Verily I say unto you, This generation shall not pass, till all these things be fulfilled.” Clearly he was saying that once those things began to happen, the rest would happen quickly. I suspect the same is true with Joseph Smith’s statement. As for his statement that “for there are those now living upon the earth whose eyes shall not be closed in death until they see all these things,” I point to the record in 3 Nephi 28, 2 Kings 2, and D&C 7 in which persons are changed and did not die (we refer to those people as Translated Beings). Hence JS could be referring to either one of those people, or that there were those who were mortal among the LDS who would be translated.
Firstly, there is no indication that JS believed he would triumph over his enemies in the flesh. We also say that Jesus Christ triumphed over His enemies, even though He died on a cross. Secondly, you are incorrect in your vague recollection of JS’ prophecy about his lifespan. You most likely are misremembering D&C 130:
Clearly, he is making no statement about how long he will live.
Again, apologies for the late reply, but it took me over an hour to compose all of this (check cites, etc.) and I had to reinstall my software to look up the references.