Matt's Mormon Thread

[ironduck]

But, my point was that Smith made some prophecies, and it appears that some of them are testable. Now, either he made the prophecies, and they're true or not, or he didn't. It's all very confusing.

Yeah, the whole debt thing stood out at me.. quoting from what was pasted earlier:

5. Concern not yourselves about your debts, for I will give you power to pay them.

It seems pretty straightforward to me that we're talking hard cash here.

 

[Eran of Arcadia]

It would be a problem if we attempted to use argument to convince people to join. The fact of the matter is that 'all this is true' is as plausible as 'no its not', even if it sometimes seems unlikely or plausible. People join our church if they think, based on a spiritual level, that it is what God wants. We don't say 'the evidence indicates we are right, so you have to join' and conversely, even if parts of our doctrine seem hard to accept, that doesn't affect wheter they are true. And having been a missionary, I can say with some confidence that those who say that doubts such as the Book of Abraham really have other doubts that are on a spiritual level.

And the 'debts' thing - are you expecting that God would show up with a bag of cash? He just said that a way would exist that they would be paid - which they were (eventually, but then He didn't put a time limit on that one anyways).

 

[ironduck]

But Merzbow suggested that the reason god went through this whole plates-angel-papyrus-fireworks procedure was to make things more interesting for us humans. In other words, god knows we're going to put some weight on it (because that whole shenanigan is interesting). Well, I'm putting some weight on it alright, the adventure did pique my interest. But it seems to me that Joseph Smith didn't have the things he claimed to have. So the result is that I lose interest. If god really wanted me to become interested he'd not make it look like a fraud.

That's my logic.

 

[ironduck]

People on these forums who say they're christians say that god arranged for them to miraculously receive money when they needed it the most. So yes, it sounds like they expected god to bury a treasure in someone's back yard. Another user here talked about getting a letter full of dollar bills in the mail with no sender address and he's convinced it's from god.

 

[Eran of Arcadia]

I think, though of course I could be wrong, that your real reason for not being able to accept Mormonism (or investigate it on a spiritual level) has nothing to do with plates or papyrus; even if they do, you are in the minority. We invite people to consider what we teach and believe on a spiritual level and then ask God themselves if it correct.

And even if some people expect money from God to come in an envelope with no return address or what have you, that doesn't mean that it is the only method God has for getting debts settled.

 

[ironduck]

Since I'm more likely to investigate something if its founders don't seem to be obvious frauds, then it follows that I'm not going to get spiritually involved either.

Scientology is a good example. Not to compare mormonism with scientology (I consider scientology an evil organisation, not so with mormonism), but to show how if something immediately strikes you as an obvious fraud you're much less likely to be interested in opening to it spiritually.

 

[Eran of Arcadia]

It doesn't strike me as an obvious fraud, it strikes me as having some suspicious circumstances that may or may not be proof that it is not true. And I could be wrong, but I really think that you would not seriously investigate the church spiritually even without these circumstances. The way we see it, not everyone is ready. But some people do, and they concern themselves more with whether God is going to indicate that this is the truth, than whether it can be proved or disproved by historical evidence.

 

[ironduck]

I'm not saying that it's an obvious fraud. I'm saying that if we play by the assumptions that I outlined earlier, then that would make me more likely to assume it was an obvious frad. And that would make me less likely to investigate spiritually.

Therefore, to me it seems illogical that god would do such a thing that you suggest that he may have done.

To answer your question - no I have no intentions at the moment to investigate mormonism seriously, or any other christian branch for that matter. I'm not really spiritually interested in religions with their frameworks. I go another route.

But that wasn't the issue here, I was asking logical questions about tangible things such as papyruses and golden plates.

 

[Eran of Arcadia]

To deal with your first part, yes, you would be less likely to look into Mormonism, but then the real issue is that you don't feel a spiritual attraction to organized Christianity. Others are different.

Per your second remark, I was answering your question in part - you wondered why God would do things a certain way if it made people less likely to investigate the church, and I said it wouldn't really. But if you have another question, I'd be glad to answer.

 

[ironduck]

Our conclusions are simply different. There are a lot of religions out there competing for followers. If god wants one religion to get many followers (which I assume mormons think he does with mormonism), I'm sure he can throw up some fireworks to make even people like me investigate it seriously. When there's a big logical brouhaha right away it makes a lot of people less likely to investigate.

 

[Eran of Arcadia]

Like I said, it makes you less likely to investigate. I assure you, there is no shortage of people who want to find out what we're all about. And anyways, simply having everyone convert to Mormonism now isn't God's plan. I don't know why, but for some reason He has given access to the fulness of His truth to only a few million out of billions.

And yes, our conclusions are different, but I suspect that has to do with our assumptions being different. That's fine, it's part of human nature and I'm not trying to convert anyone on this thread.

 

[Sir Bugsy]

@Sir Bugsy: I'm a little saddened by the fact that recently you have gone from asking questions in honest curiosity to a clear and obvious attempt to 'disprove' my faith. It's amazing that you can be so black and white critical of a different religion while the beliefs of your own religion have some (IMHO) unresolved issues: You state that our works are irrelevant. In the bible it tells us that Faith without Works are dead and useless. Now, I could go online and find websites that nit-pick your church (there are many people out there who dedicate themselves to tearing things down, instead of building things up), but I don't subscribe to that kind of behavior. <Sigh...> I guess in your heart you feel that you are just trying to protect people from the "Evils of Mormanism" though, so you can just keep at it as your conscience demands.

Just as you are professing your faith. I am professing my faith. My faith is based on the Bible. Yours is based on additional items that I find clash with the Bible. I am just trying to point out the differences for those readers that my not understand the Mormonn church.

I have never had an "honest curiosity" concerning the LDS church. All my questions have been asked to point out the differences between traditional Christianity and the LDS church. When the proselytizing seemed to go overboard, I went on the offensive. I have found that if people have access to the facts surrounding the early LDS church and can see through the spin. They are less likely to adopt Mormonism.

 

[Sir Bugsy]

But, my point was that Smith made some prophecies, and it appears that some of them are testable. Now, either he made the prophecies, and they're true or not, or he didn't. It's all very confusing.

Actually, if you look at these things logically, they make perfect sense. The Book of Abraham is a forgery.

Two Mormon missionaries asked once to read the Book of Mormon and to pray how I felt about it. As I was reading it, it seemed highly unlikely to me to be the truth. Having taken a course in anthropology in college, I knew that horses and the wheel were not introduced in the Americas until after 1492. To me it seemed that Joseph Smith had taken what he knew about life in the early 1800's and projected it back in time. When the two Mormon lads came back two weeks later, I pointed out all these things. They had an answer for everything. But they refused to admit they the archelogical record was in conflict with the BoM. I think they go through a training course on how to spin all these inconsistancies. I think our Mormon friends here at CFC have probably been through those courses. When they asked me if I prayed about it and how I felt about it. I told them it didn't matter how I felt. The good Lord gave me a brain, and I wasn't going to stop using just because I had read an interesting novel that was proported to be an historical document.

I tried to tell them about my faith, but of course they didn't want to stick around very long after that. Those Mormon boys have never returned.

 

[Merzbow]

Actually, if you look at these things logically, they make perfect sense. The Book of Abraham is a forgery.

Two Mormon missionaries asked once to read the Book of Mormon and to pray how I felt about it. As I was reading it, it seemed highly unlikely to me to be the truth. Having taken a course in anthropology in college, I knew that horses and the wheel were not introduced in the Americas until after 1492. To me it seemed that Joseph Smith had taken what he knew about life in the early 1800's and projected it back in time. When the two Mormon lads came back two weeks later, I pointed out all these things. They had an answer for everything. But they refused to admit they the archelogical record was in conflict with the BoM. I think they go through a training course on how to spin all these inconsistancies. I think our Mormon friends here at CFC have probably been through those courses. When they asked me if I prayed about it and how I felt about it. I told them it didn't matter how I felt. The good Lord gave me a brain, and I wasn't going to stop using just because I had read an interesting novel that was proported to be an historical document.

I tried to tell them about my faith, but of course they didn't want to stick around very long after that. Those Mormon boys have never returned.

Regarding supposed animal anachronisms:

http://www.fairlds.org/apol/ai201.html

So you have faith in the Bible if I'm not mistaken. You have no trouble accepting that Noah placed millions of species of animals on some gigantic ark, but you would reject an entire religion because of competing claims about when and if horses and elephants were present on some continent? And if you don't take the Genesis story literally (I certainly don't, the Bible is full of obvious allegory, which I don't think takes away from its importance), then why the problem with the supposed BoM anachronisms? Seriously now.

 

[Methos]

After all, the things parents do often don't make sense to their children, not because the parents are wrong but because the children are not capable of understanding the way parents do.

So either you&#8217;re a parent or you&#8217;re old enough to realize the errors of childhood. Edit: This is in good humor btw.

People on these forums who say they're christians say that god arranged for them to miraculously receive money when they needed it the most.

I find this both hilarious and odd. In my understanding of the Bible we must work for what we want, and don&#8217;t expect it to be handed to us. I have trouble believing that God would &#8216;hand&#8217; someone cash for nothing, without some sort of higher purpose.

Like I said, it makes you less likely to investigate.

I would have to agree with Ironduck here. After reading several things on Mormon &#8216;errors&#8217; I hesitate to further look into it as well. And what research I would do is merely to look into other &#8216;errors&#8217; of Mormonism.

I&#8217;d have to agree that there are way too many inconsistencies in Mormonism to take it seriously. Note I wouldn&#8217;t mind reading the BoM just to get a better perspective of Mormonism, but I&#8217;ll be honest in the fact that I have no desire to convert.

 

[ironduck]

I find this both hilarious and odd. In my understanding of the Bible we must work for what we want, and don’t expect it to be handed to us. I have trouble believing that God would ‘hand’ someone cash for nothing, without some sort of higher purpose.

Well, if the parents need it to support their children, for instance, that's a noble purpose even if it doesn't qualify as 'higher' (whatever that is). Christians have very different approaches to christianity, I was simply mentioning this example because the Joseph Smith prophecy to me sounds very similar to the 'hard cash in the mailbox' example. And given that Joseph Smith was supposedly visited by an angel who gave him artifacts of various kinds and he was supposed to spread mormonism it only makes sense that god would make arrangements to aid that.

If we go by the god that is not the interfering type, he wouldn't have delivered (and picked up) the golden plates in the first place I would think.

 

[El_Machinae]

I have trouble believing that God would &#8216;hand&#8217; someone cash for nothing, without some sort of higher purpose.

Didn't an apostle pull a coin out of a fish, just to pay a debt?

Although, the instance where someone was 'handed cash' hasn't been morally examined very well, but that's another topic-drift.

 

[Merzbow]

So either you’re a parent or you’re old enough to realize the errors of childhood. Edit: This is in good humor btw.



I find this both hilarious and odd. In my understanding of the Bible we must work for what we want, and don’t expect it to be handed to us. I have trouble believing that God would ‘hand’ someone cash for nothing, without some sort of higher purpose.



I would have to agree with Ironduck here. After reading several things on Mormon ‘errors’ I hesitate to further look into it as well. And what research I would do is merely to look into other ‘errors’ of Mormonism.

I’d have to agree that there are way too many inconsistencies in Mormonism to take it seriously. Note I wouldn’t mind reading the BoM just to get a better perspective of Mormonism, but I’ll be honest in the fact that I have no desire to convert.

But how do you define what is an acceptable inconsistency? Is not the obvious allegory of the Genesis creation story such? How about the two conflicting versions of Genesis? How about the evolving instructions from God to us via the prophets on how to best serve Him that change over time from the OT to the NT (supporting Mormonism's claim that God gives prophets for 'our time')?

At the root of it, I just don't see a valid argument that the Bible is any more or less consistent than the BoM, or the holy books for any major religion for that matter.

 

[Sir Bugsy]

Regarding supposed animal anachronisms:

http://www.fairlds.org/apol/ai201.html

So you have faith in the Bible if I'm not mistaken. You have no trouble accepting that Noah placed millions of species of animals on some gigantic ark, but you would reject an entire religion because of competing claims about when and if horses and elephants were present on some continent? And if you don't take the Genesis story literally (I certainly don't, the Bible is full of obvious allegory, which I don't think takes away from its importance), then why the problem with the supposed BoM anachronisms? Seriously now.

I love it when you guys help me make my point. If you had read one of my previous posts, I stated that I did not believe in the creation story. Science has proven it to be in error. Likewise I do not believe most of what was written regarding the great flood. There have been archeological findings of a large flood in the Tigris - Euphrates area. In 1920 Woodley found evidence near Ur. However, there has not been widespread evidence of a global flood. The logistical nightmare of feeding and caring for all those animals is impossible. In addition, how did Noah get species from the Americas, Asia and Australia? How did he keep the predators from eating the other animals? Were they all vegetarians for six months? How about all the bugs? How about all the birds? How did he keep the bugs from eating the bugs? And what about the excrement? And what about the unicorns? ( a nod to Shel Silverstein.) Then there is the nightmare of building a vessel over 450 feet long. Where did the lumber come from? How was it constructed in the pre-metalurgy age? The Babylonian civilization hadn't researched iron working yet. They didn't have the beaker production. And Ur didn't have the shield production. ( Sorry, had to throw those in for some humor.)

Therefore, I believe there may have been a large, localized, catastrophic flood, but it certainly wasn't global.

Getting back to the horse and the wheel in the Book of Mormon. Remember Smith said that the Book of Mormon was the most correct book ever written. Was he a braggart? Was he correct? Or was he wrong? I think the latter.

So what do I believe regarding the Bible? I believe the Old Testament is the history of God and his people as seen through the eyes of His people. These are documents written by man. Therefore they are subject to error. The majority of it is verifiable through outside sources. The places named still exist. You can go there and find much archeological evidence, and much has been found.

I believe the New Testament is the story and theology of Yeshua of Nazareth. (Jesus is Greek for Yeshua.) Once again these are documents written by man. There are inconsistencies, but much of it is verifiable through outside sources. There are the Gospels of Thomas and Phillip, the Dead Sea scrolls, and the writings of Josephus and Philo. Additionally, there is archeological evidence that supports the writings.

 

[Merzbow]

Getting back to the horse and the wheel in the Book of Mormon. Remember Smith said that the Book of Mormon was the most correct book ever written. Was he a braggart? Was he correct? Or was he wrong? I think the latter.

So what do I believe regarding the Bible? I believe the Old Testament is the history of God and his people as seen through the eyes of His people. These are documents written by man. Therefore they are subject to error. The majority of it is verifiable through outside sources. The places named still exist. You can go there and find much archeological evidence, and much has been found.

I believe the New Testament is the story and theology of Yeshua of Nazareth. (Jesus is Greek for Yeshua.) Once again these are documents written by man. There are inconsistencies, but much of it is verifiable through outside sources. There are the Gospels of Thomas and Phillip, the Dead Sea scrolls, and the writings of Josephus and Philo. Additionally, there is archeological evidence that supports the writings.

So you accept that the Bible can be taken allegoricaly in places and is not inerrant. Good. Why the mental block for the BoM then? And not every single word a prophet speaks is to be taken as God's word - guess what, there are gradations of importance here also, as there is in the Bible (as you've already agreed).

And you're missing the forest for the trees. There is much else to consider when evaluating a religion than the quality of the history in its scriptures - its theology, practices, adherents, and so on, and I pointed out a few posts back. If you want to claim the BoM as an obvious forgery, fine, you won't get past that. But I don't think a reasonable examination of the evidence can get close to such a conclusion. I find it EXTREMELY hard to believe the historicity of the BoM is your only reason for your negative opinion of Mormonism.