Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I don't see this thread as having a purpose to prove or disprove Mormonism.
I just see it as an opportunity to learn more about a religion that most of us don't know much about.
My favorite Mormon story: About 15 years ago I was traveling out west and spent a couple of days in Salt Lake City. Being from Palmyra, I wanted to visit Temple Square, and particularly to visit the two (at the time) Mormon museums there. I went into the main museum and asked at the desk if they had much on Palmyra. The lady explained that the adjoining room had (as I recall) a mock-up of the "store" in my hometown which was, in the 1830s (?) a print shop where they printed the first Mormon bible...but that there was not much else about Palmyra. So I began wandering through the very nice museum, and every few minutes someone would come up to me and ask me I was the guy from Palmyra. When I said I was, they'd usually ask me a few questions about what was Palmyra really like, and then I'd move along. I was just getting ready to leave when this older man came up to me and asked, "Are you the young feller from Palmyra?" I wasn't that young...I guess about 50 then...but I said yes. He went on to say, "I grew up in Palmyra! I wonder if you know any the people I used to know. Like did you ever know a woman named Hilda Schultz?" I was shocked and replied, "Is this a joke?" "What do you mean?" "Hilda Schulz is my mother!" He started laughing and said, "I used to date her", and he wanted to know all about what had happened to her. He gave me his name and telephone number, and when I got back to the hotel I called my mother (she was still alive at the time...obviously) and told her about my encounter. "Oh! I went on one date with him. It was the worst date of my life. But he wasn't a Mormon back then". Talk about small world!
Are you asking me or telling me? It appears you are already convinced that you've got the right answer.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TRANSPONDER
Telling you what we have and asking what counters the LDS apologists have. We can of course go to their (many) apologetics videos rather than bother you, my dear Katz. if you have had your fill of it.
Transponder, I was responding to one specific claim that normstad had made. I was not, as you may have assumed, making a general statement regarding the many claims that have been made in this thread. Normstad asked me a direct question and then proceeded to answer it for me. That kind of dialogue is not particularly productive.
By the way, I've had discussions of this sort enough times that I wouldn't have even started this thread if I would "have my fill of it" this early on. I started it because some inaccurate statements were made about Mormon beliefs and I wanted to correct them. My one brief correction and my request that the discussion be moved to a new thread were interpreted as my trying to hijack the original thread. But, as I have learned over time, any invitation to discuss Mormonism usually end up resulting in a less than cordial interaction.
I don't see this thread as having a purpose to prove or disprove Mormonism.
I just see it as an opportunity to learn more about a religion that most of us don't know much about.
Well, that's what I'd like it to be, but I don't really see it as heading in that direction.
Quote:
My favorite Mormon story: About 15 years ago I was traveling out west and spent a couple of days in Salt Lake City. Being from Palmyra, I wanted to visit Temple Square, and particularly to visit the two (at the time) Mormon museums there. I went into the main museum and asked at the desk if they had much on Palmyra. The lady explained that the adjoining room had (as I recall) a mock-up of the "store" in my hometown which was, in the 1830s (?) a print shop where they printed the first Mormon bible...but that there was not much else about Palmyra. So I began wandering through the very nice museum, and every few minutes someone would come up to me and ask me I was the guy from Palmyra. When I said I was, they'd usually ask me a few questions about what was Palmyra really like, and then I'd move along. I was just getting ready to leave when this older man came up to me and asked, "Are you the young feller from Palmyra?" I wasn't that young...I guess about 50 then...but I said yes. He went on to say, "I grew up in Palmyra! I wonder if you know any the people I used to know. Like did you ever know a woman named Hilda Schultz?" I was shocked and replied, "Is this a joke?" "What do you mean?" "Hilda Schulz is my mother!" He started laughing and said, "I used to date her", and he wanted to know all about what had happened to her. He gave me his name and telephone number, and when I got back to the hotel I called my mother (she was still alive at the time...obviously) and told her about my encounter. "Oh! I went on one date with him. It was the worst date of my life. But he wasn't a Mormon back then". Talk about small world!
Transponder, I was responding to one specific claim that normstad had made. I was not, as you may have assumed, making a general statement regarding the many claims that have been made in this thread. Normstad asked me a direct question and then proceeded to answer it for me. That kind of dialogue is not particularly productive.
By the way, I've had discussions of this sort enough times that I wouldn't have even started this thread if I would "have my fill of it" this early on. I started it because some inaccurate statements were made about Mormon beliefs and I wanted to correct them. My one brief correction and my request that the discussion be moved to a new thread were interpreted as my trying to hijack the original thread. But, as I have learned over time, any invitation to discuss Mormonism usually end up resulting in a less than cordial interaction.
Katzpur, you may have discussed the situation about racism in the Mormon church many times, but I asked you an honest question as to how you reconcile it, and you avoided it like the plague. You and I have not discussed the issue, and I thought you started this thread to discuss what the church really believes in.
Your scripture says one thing, your current dogma, another. Since your dogma is subject to change, depending on what 'revelations' your top prophet says. So, how do you reconcile your scripture and your dogma? What reflects a current culture of society and what does not?
By avoiding these difficult issues, one wonders why?
And strangely enough, even after having been either excommunicated or having voluntarily left the Church, none of them ever retracted their signed statements that they saw and handled the plates. That's the first thing most people would have done if they truly believed themselves to have been conned. Rather, all eleven of them went to their graves having people think they were just a bunch of fools for having believed Joseph Smith. How easily they could have set the record straight and further slandered him.
At any rate, since you apparently have no questions for me and simply want to see your vitriol in print, I'd say we're through talking. You're "Tired of the Nonsense." We're all tired of something; for me it's rude people.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Katzpur
And strangely enough, even after having been either excommunicated or having voluntarily left the Church, none of them ever retracted their signed statements that they saw and handled the plates. That's the first thing most people would have done if they truly believed themselves to have been conned. Rather, all eleven of them went to their graves having people think they were just a bunch of fools for having believed Joseph Smith. How easily they could have set the record straight and further slandered him.
Wikipedia
Martin Harris (Latter Day Saints)
Witness to the golden plates
In the words of David Whitmer, one of the other two witnesses, "It was in the latter part of June, 1829... Joseph, Oliver Cowdery and myself were together, and the angel showed them [the plates] to us.... [We were] sitting on a log when we were overshadowed by a light more glorious than that of the sun. In the midst of this light, but a few feet from us, appeared a table upon which were many golden plates, also the sword of Laban and the directors. I saw them as plain as I see you now, and distinctly heard the voice of the Lord declaiming that the records of the plates of the Book of Mormon were translated by the gift and power of God."[21]
Joseph Smith and Martin Harris had a similar experience, and as the manuscript was prepared for printing, Cowdery, Whitmer, and Harris signed a joint statement that has been included in each of the more than 120 million copies of the Book of Mormon printed since then. It reads in part:
"And we declare with words of soberness, than an angel of God came down from heaven, and he brought and laid before our eyes, that we beheld and saw the plates, and the engravings thereon; and we know that it is by the grace of God the Father, and our Lord Jesus Christ, that we beheld and bear record that these things are true.[22]
In 1839, Smith indicated that Harris's experience in seeing the plates occurred separately from that of Whitmer and Cowdery. The Three Witnesses's attestation was printed with the book, and it has been included in nearly every subsequent edition.
Split with Joseph Smith
In 1837, dissension arose in Kirtland over the failure of the church's Kirtland Safety Society bank. Harris called it a "fraud" and was among the dissenters who broke with Smith and attempted to reorganize the church. Led by Warren Parrish, the reformers excommunicated Smith and Rigdon, who relocated to Far West, Missouri. In December 1837, Smith and the Kirtland High Council excommunicated 28 individuals, Harris among them.[28]
In 1838, Smith called the Three Witnesses Cowdery, Harris, and Whitmer "too mean to mention; and we had liked to have forgotten them."[31] Parrish's church in Kirtland took control of the temple and became known as The Church of Christ. In its 1838 articles of incorporation, Harris was named one of the church's three trustees.
In 1838, Harris is said to have told "he never saw the plates with his natural eyes, only in vision or imagination."[32] A neighbor of Harris in Kirtland, Ohio, said that Harris "never claimed to have seen [the plates] with his natural eyes, only spiritual vision."
In March 1838, disillusioned church members said that Harris had publicly denied that any of the Witnesses to the Book of Mormon had ever seen or handled the golden plates. Harris's statement reportedly induced five influential members, including three apostles, to leave the church.
Testimony to the Book of Mormon
Although he was estranged from Mormon leaders for most of his life, Harris continued to testify to the truth of the Book of Mormon. Nevertheless, at least during the early years, Harris "seems to have repeatedly admitted the internal, subjective nature of his visionary experience." The foreman in the Palmyra printing office that produced the first Book of Mormon said that Harris "used to practice a good deal of his characteristic jargon and 'seeing with the spiritual eye,' and the like." John H. Gilbert, the typesetter for most of the book, said that he had asked Harris, "Martin, did you see those plates with your naked eyes?" According to Gilbert, Harris "looked down for an instant, raised his eyes up, and said, 'No, I saw them with a spiritual eye.'" Two other Palmyra residents said that Harris told them that he had seen the plates with "the eye of faith" or "spiritual eyes." In 1838, Harris is said to have told an Ohio congregation that "he never saw the plates with his natural eyes, only in vision or imagination." A neighbor of Harris in Kirtland, Ohio, said that Harris "never claimed to have seen [the plates] with his natural eyes, only spiritual vision." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martin...)#cite_note-44
Wikipedia
Oliver Cowdery
1838 split with Smith
On April 12, 1838, a church court excommunicated Cowdery after he failed to appear at a hearing on his membership and sent a letter resigning from the church instead.[21] David Whitmer was also excommunicated from the church at the same time and apostle Lyman E. Johnson was disfellowshipped;[22] John Whitmer and Phelps had been excommunicated for similar reasons a month earlier.[23]
Cowdery and the Whitmers became known as "the dissenters," but they continued to live in and around Far West, where they owned a great deal of property. On June 17, 1838, Sidney Rigdon announced to a large congregation that the dissenters were "as salt that had lost its savor" and that it was the duty of the faithful to cast them out "to be trodden beneath the feet of men." The Salt Sermon was seen as a threat against their lives and as an implicit instruction to the Danites, a secret vigilante group.
Danite Manifesto
The Danite Manifesto was a letter addressed to Cowdery and the other dissenters which was signed by some 84 Mormons (but not Joseph Smith[24]). It warned
you shall have three days after you receive this communication to you, including twenty-four hours in each day, for you to depart with your families peaceably; which you may do undisturbed by any person; but in that time, if you do not depart, we will use the means in our power to cause you to depart.[25]
Cowdery and the dissenters fled the county. Reports about their treatment circulated in nearby non-Mormon communities and increased the tension that led to the 1838 Mormon War. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oliver_Cowdery
Wikipedia
John Whitmer
Whitmer's excommunication
Problems at church headquarters in Kirtland relating to the Kirtland Safety Society bank caused Smith and Sidney Rigdon to relocate to Far West in early 1838. A brief leadership struggle ensued, which led to the excommunication of the entire Whitmer family as well as Oliver Cowdery, Phelps, and others. These men continued to live in Far West for a time and became known as the "dissenters". Sidney Rigdon, in his "Salt Sermon", warned the dissenters to leave the county and his words were soon followed up by perceived threats from the newly formed Mormon confraternity known as the Danites.
The Whitmer family moved to Richmond in neighboring Ray County, Missouri. Their complaints and those of the other dissenters are sometimes cited as one of the causes of the 1838 Mormon War. This conflict between Latter Day Saints and their neighbors in northwestern Missouri ended with the expulsion of the former, who eventually relocated to a new headquarters at Nauvoo, Illinois. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Whitmer
It was very dangerous to cross the LDS church.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Katzpur
At any rate, since you apparently have no questions for me and simply want to see your vitriol in print, I'd say we're through talking. You're "Tired of the Nonsense." We're all tired of something; for me it's rude people.
This is an odd twist, since you started this topic to counter an off the hand comment I made about Mormonism. And your opinion on being "rude" seems to include anyone who does not toe the line with your Mormon indoctrination. I have never been "rude." But then, I am not a Mormon. So apparently that makes me "rude" by definition.
Last edited by Tired of the Nonsense; 09-03-2018 at 04:16 PM..
Katzpur, how do you reconcile the original teachings, and the current phraseology of 2 Nephi 5:21-23?
"5:21 And he had caused the cursing to come upon them, yea, even a sore cursing, because of their iniquity. For behold, they had hardened their hearts against him, that they had become like unto a flint; wherefore, as they were white, and exceedingly fair and delightsome, that they might not be enticing unto my people the Lord God did cause a skin of blackness to come upon them.
5:22 And thus saith the Lord God: I will cause that they shall be loathsome unto thy people, save they shall repent of their iniquities.
5:23 And cursed shall be the seed of him that mixeth with their seed; for they shall be cursed even with the same cursing. And the Lord spake it, and it was done."
The words "pure" and "white" were frequently used interchangeably back in 1830. 2 Nephi 5:21 uses the phrase "white, and exceedingly fair and delightsome." 2 Nephi 30:6 says, "And then shall they rejoice; for they shall know that it is a blessing unto them from the hand of God; and their scales of darkness shall begin to fall from their eyes; and many generations shall not pass away among them, save they shall be a pure and delightsome people."
In the original 1830 edition of The Book of Mormon, 2 Nephi 30:6 was rendered: "white and delightsome" but this was changed as early as 1840, more than likely by Joseph Smith himself. However, the 1837 edition was used as the basis for the 1879 and 1920 editions and the changed Joseph Smith had made was inadvertently dropped. It remained as "white and delightsome" until the 1981 edition when Joseph Smith's change from 1830 was restored.
To answer your question about how I reconcile the "original teachings" to the current ones, may I remind you of another "original teaching" as it has appeared in The Book of Mormon ever since 1830. It is found in 2 Nephi 26:33, which states: "For none of these iniquities come of the Lord; for he doeth that which is good among the children of men; and he doeth nothing save it be plain unto the children of men; and he inviteth them all to come unto him and partake of his goodness; and he denieth none that come unto him, black and white, bond and free, male and female; and he remembereth the heathen; and all are alike unto God, both Jew and Gentile."For me personally, this passage depicts the God I have always believed in.
Quote:
First of all, a segment of human beings, that previously delighted your god because the were white, are now cursed by that god by "causing a skin of blackness" to them. He then further denigrates these people by not allowing intermarriage.
That goes against any viewpoint a rational humanist could possibly take, and is repulsive to the vast majority of citizens today.
It goes against my view as well. I'm afraid, though, that I cannot agree with you about what the "vast majority of citizens today" find repulsive. I'm afraid people are still much too racist for my tastes.
Quote:
Now, the LDS church changed its teachings on this back in 1978. What does that tell us?
It tells us that just like the bible writings were written by humans describing the culture at the time, the same thing with Smith, and perpetuated by Young. This was no "divine revelation", but forces in society that changed the LDS teaching. Regardless, 2 Nephi has not changed (a how can any "holy" book change), and it is clear in printed text what the actual teachings were. Soft pedalling it now only reflects on the need to adjust to societal pressures, not the basic teachings.
So here we get to where you ask me a question and then proceed to answer it. On the off chance that you may actually want to know what I think, I'm going to tell you. I agree that, "just like the Bible... was written by humans describing the culture at the time," so was The Book of Mormon. I have actually read enough about Joseph Smith to have come to the conclusion that he was not, in fact, the racist you have portrayed him to be. Unfortunately, I can't say the same thing about his successor. That said, I'm not perfect myself; I'll try to withhold judgment of Brigham Young and leave that up to God.
Concerning your claim that a "holy book " cannot be changed, that's utter nonsense. Holy books (the Bible is a perfect example) have been changed countless times over the past two thousand years. Every time a human being touches a holy book, it is likely that some sort of change will occur in it, either intentionally or not.
In 1978, LDS Church leaders announced a "revelation" which you dispute. The crux of that revelation was that from that time forward, the Church's lay priesthood would be available to all worthy men, regardless of race. Actually, under Joseph Smith, Black men had held the priesthood. He had even personally ordained one Black man. It was under Brigham Young that this changed. It's impossible to say precisely when Brigham Young's edict was put into practice because there literally was no revelation commanding Brigham Young or anyone else to withhold the priesthood from men of African descent. It was a practice that never was official doctrine, but which had become so ingrained in the minds of most Latter-day Saints that the Church leadership apparently felt it necessary to seek the Lord's directive to rescind it. My belief is that they did, in fact, approach Him in sincere prayer, having come to the realization that this kind of discrimination and marginalization was not His will, and that He answered, confirming this in their minds. The "priesthood ban" was, in my opinion, never God's will. Revoking it came much too late, but at least it did come. I am old enough to remember that day very, very clearly, and the memory of that announcement just before lunchtime that day will remain with me forever. To say that it was one of the happiest days I can remember is an understatement.
Transponder, I was responding to one specific claim that normstad had made. I was not, as you may have assumed, making a general statement regarding the many claims that have been made in this thread. Normstad asked me a direct question and then proceeded to answer it for me. That kind of dialogue is not particularly productive.
By the way, I've had discussions of this sort enough times that I wouldn't have even started this thread if I would "have my fill of it" this early on. I started it because some inaccurate statements were made about Mormon beliefs and I wanted to correct them. My one brief correction and my request that the discussion be moved to a new thread were interpreted as my trying to hijack the original thread. But, as I have learned over time, any invitation to discuss Mormonism usually end up resulting in a less than cordial interaction.
Ok It was just that the Shortness of your responses suggested to me that you were not too enthusiastic about continuing and I was pushing the door open should you wish to use it. If not, that is splendid.
I have to say that I do have a very bad habit of responsing to all kinds of posts that interest me, whether they are addressed to me or not. I regret that I am too old and sedentary a leopard to change those particular spots.
However, if I may address myself to all posters, browsers and lurkers, I think i may have stumbled acriss Cris. Hitchens on J. Smith, the Book of Mormon and the LDS.
Katzpur, you may have discussed the situation about racism in the Mormon church many times, but I asked you an honest question as to how you reconcile it, and you avoided it like the plague.
I did? Perhaps you haven't yet read my post #36 in which I discussed it at length.
Quote:
You and I have not discussed the issue, and I thought you started this thread to discuss what the church really believes in.
I did, and I do. Please try to keep in mind that I'm trying to field questions from three or four people at once. I'm just one person and I can't answer everybody's questions at once.
Quote:
Your scripture says one thing, your current dogma, another. Since your dogma is subject to change, depending on what 'revelations' your top prophet says. So, how do you reconcile your scripture and your dogma? What reflects a current culture of society and what does not?
Well, for starters, I look at all of what my scripture says and try not to focus exclusively one one verse. I'm afraid that I don't really know what you mean when you say that my dogma is subject to change. Certainly interpretations change over time. That's the case in pretty much every religion. Doctrine (i.e. dogma) does not change, but policies, practices and procedures most definitely do. Doctrine represents eternal truths, but human beings, unfortunately, can be slow in coming to an understanding of what these truths actually are. The Bible says that we "all see through a glass darkly," and that's definitely the case.
Quote:
By avoiding these difficult issues, one wonders why?
Yeah, but I haven't avoided anything. I just haven't been able to get to every question as quickly as you'd like me to. I still have to get back to Transponder on a question he asked before you asked yours.
Your opinion on being "rude" seems to include anyone who does not toe the line with your Mormon indoctrination. I have never been "rude." But then, I am not a Mormon. So apparently that makes me "rude" by definition.
If you're going to tell me what my opinion is, please at least have the decency to quote me. I have answered several posters questions and haven't thought any of them to be rude, even though they clearly take issue with much of what my religion teaches. Hardly a soul on this forum believes as I do and most of them aren't rude at all. I know "rude" when I see it and it makes so sense to me to even try to have a dialogue with someone who states that I am "indoctrinated" when I simply believe differently than they do.
Ok It was just that the Shortness of your responses suggested to me that you were not too enthusiastic about continuing and I was pushing the door open should you wish to use it. If not, that is splendid.
I have to say that I do have a very bad habit of responsing to all kinds of posts that interest me, whether they are addressed to me or not. I regret that I am too old and sedentary a leopard to change those particular spots.
Judging from your profile picture, we're probably close to the same age.
Quote:
However, if I may address myself to all posters, browsers and lurkers, I think i may have stumbled acriss Cris. Hitchens on J. Smith, the Book of Mormon and the LDS.
Christopher Hitchens on Mormonism? Yeah, that's got to be a balanced and objective perspective. If I want satire, I'll watch an episode of Southpark. Excuse me if I don't bother with this particular video. I mean when someone starts out by labeling what he acknowledges to be one of the world's fastest growing religions as a "ridiculous cult," it doesn't exactly entice me to want to listen to it. That said, if he makes any specific statements that you'd like to discuss further, let me know.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
It was just that the Shortness of your responses suggested to me that you were not too enthusiastic about continuing and I was pushing the door open should you wish to use it. If not, that is splendid.
I mean when someone starts out by labeling what he acknowledges to be one of the world's fastest growing religions as a "ridiculous cult," it doesn't exactly entice me to want to listen to it. That said, if he makes any specific statements that you'd like to discuss further, let me know.