LDS

[Janadele]

Pakeha,
Have you read my previous posts in response to questions regarding my conversion?

 

[John Jones]

Wiki cites from anti-Mormon propaganda and does not usually present the true facts regarding The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. Much of the information found at Wikipedia regarding the LDS Church is false and misleading.

Yes, yes. We know. It's all anti-Mormon propaganda unless it comes from the mouth, pen, or keyboard of a devout Mormon. We get that. Please take your seat.

 

[John Jones]

The Lord has given all the evidence he needs to give. [...].

So there won't be any more revelations from Mormon prophets?

 

[pakeha]

Pakeha,
Have you read my previous posts in response to questions regarding my conversion?

Hi, Janadele, thanks for pointing me to your previous posts:
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=8876874&postcount=202
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=8877043&postcount=228

Still, Sezme brought up some points that also interest me:
" How old were you when the missionaries first visited you? Was there only one visit?
Did you grow up in a religious household? Did you ever try various other sects?
Was your conversion immediate or did you ruminate on the matter for a while. If the latter, how long did the transition take?
Was the personal transition difficult or did the decision seem clear and unambiguous?
Was the public (not a good word; I mean outward) transition easy or difficult? I'm thinking of spouse, kids, extended family, previous church, etc.
Was any training involved during the transition? Or classes?
After you completed becoming a Mormon, did you ever have second thoughts?
You seem to be knowledgeable about sources of information about Mormonism. How long have you been a member of the church? Many Christian churches have ongoing bible studies. Does your church do that? Do you participate?
Etc."

 

[Janadele]

http://www.jefflindsay.com/LDSFAQ/FQ_Abraham2.shtml

There are many LDS Scholars who have researched and written on the Book of Abraham... Such as Jeff in the above link. They are their own opinions, but are interesting for those who intrigued by the subject.

Personally, I accept the Scriptures, Doctrine and teachings as received by the Prophets of God and which have been canonised as official LDS Scripture, and have no personal need for further elaboration or research. The Lord has given us more than enough for us to study, understand and abide by... there is little time for more in all the days of our mortal life.

Hi, Janadele.
My question is to ask why the Book of Abraham says Egyptus is derived from the Chaldean when we know the word's origin is Greek.

I realise my question is just a detail, especially in light of the on-going discussion of the BOM, so I can be patient about a response there.

I'm also genuinely interested in the questions about your conversion to Mormonism, if you feel comfortable about discussing that here.

 

[SezMe]

... If you choose to reject this guidance and the Scriptures revealed through His messengers, and will not listen to His Prophets, including Thomas S. Monson who is the Lord's Living Prophet on the earth today... then it is tough luck and you take the consequences of your choices.

I don't know how to interpret the big green smilie. Surely it does not mean that you are happy that a non-believer will tortured for all eternity. So what is its intended meaning and implication?

 

[pakeha]

Hi, Janadele.
Thanks for the link; it contains a lot of material which is really thought-provoking.
Still, unless I'm very mistaken, the author doesn't mention the Egyptus origin confusion.

 

[Jack by the hedge]

The Lord has given all the evidence he needs to give. Every opportunity has been given to mankind to be able to progress through the eternities.

So God's content that 99.8% of the human race have not been convinced by the evidence He's provided to lead them to the LDS church.

Each individual is responsible for their own salvation. Ignore the Gospel of Jesus Christ at your peril, and spend the eternities regretting the decisions made in mortality.

That reminds me - I never saw an answer to my question of why, if it's possible for spirits to contact the living as you claimed, there aren't billions of spirits constantly pestering their descendents and clamouring to be baptised.

Do you have any explanation for the absence of this phenomenon?

 

[dafydd]

http://www.jefflindsay.com/LDSFAQ/FQ_Abraham2.shtml

There are many LDS Scholars

''Scholars'' is pitching it a bit strong.

 

[Pup]

Obviously there was something in the water in the New England area at that time. Yes, that's when they started to fluoridate the water.

Seriously, when you look at how many new religions were coming out of that area in, say, a 50-year span: You had the Fox sisters and spiritualism, William Miller and the Millerites, the Transcendentalists who spawned things like Brook Farm, the Shakers who strictly speaking didn't start there but got their first strong foothold there...

If you want to stretch it to the late 19th century, there's even Christian Science.

And when they weren't busy doing all that, they were agitating for the abolishment of slavery and women's rights.

Fun times.

 

[Pup]

When I left the church, I had no problem with Mormons. Like most people, they are nice and fun loving, and the community has a supportive feel to it (as long as it doesn't get into the religious part, where weird ideas arise). I've not thought about the church or had any contact with it in all the years since, apart from a 2 month period after I had some sort of psychotic experience in my early 20s, and went to the church to work through the possibility that I had been under attack spiritually. As described in a recent post above, some of the leaders were arrogant and callous, but the membership were nice enough. Still, I found the mormon church irrelevant at that point. I recovered, not through the church, but through doing volunteer work at Friends of the Earth.

I haven't bothered thinking about Mormonism for decades. I live and let live, generally. But since you started this thread, and treated me as you have, I have grown to detest your lying, hypocritical church.

Keep it up! Good work!

That really is the problem when people go beyond explaining their views, to trying to convert and/or emotionally attack. I've always made it crystal clear to members that I have no intention of joining the church, and in general get along fine. I had the missionary discussions and attended investigators class for a while, and asked questions purely because I was interested and got friendly, useful answers.

But I expect it would have been different if they'd thought there was an honest chance of converting me, or that I was wavering.

And I'm seeing the same use of emotional manipulation sometimes, from both sides. There are non-believers who do stick to evidence-based claims and questions, and then there are those who are just in it for the attack. Like, for example, calling Joseph Smith a pedophile.

Let's say, for the sake of argument, that being a pedophile was a good thing and the church was trying to prove he was. Would skeptics truly be convinced by the evidence?

The vast majority of women he was interested in were in their late teens or older, after puberty had hit even in the delayed-puberty days of the 19th century. The very youngest was 14. Scroll down the anti-Mormons' best cases here. Ages 16-19 dominate. Some were already married.

We know a lot about the psychological condition of pedophilia, and being interested in girls after they've gone through puberty is not it. I'm not even sure there's a name for it. Ephebophilia would fit, except it's usually applied to men interested in late-teenage males rather than females.

However, there's also the legal definition, which means an interest in anyone below the legal age of consent, and under that technicality, a 25-year-old today with a 17-year-old girlfriend is a pedophile, just like a guy who peed in the bushes and got caught is a sex offender same as if he was flashing women on the subway.

And that's how Joseph Smith can be made to fit the label. Now, adults going after late-teenage women is certainly frowned on by society, but it's not on the same level of horribleness as a 25-year-old going after 8-year-olds, for example, but because "pedophile" legally includes that category as well, it makes a nice insult because it's technically true, while implying he was doing far worse things.

But seriously, in an alternate universe where pedophilia was good, if the church was making that argument, pulling out lawbooks to prove Smith was technically a pedophile so he was exactly like those wonderful Catholic priests going after pre-pubescent altar boys, or that nice Mr. Baden-Powell out scouting for boys, would you buy it?

I wouldn't. It would be a propaganda use of the word, to knowingly imply something more than the evidence supported, when a more precise label would let people make up their own minds about his behavior. Personally, I see him psychologically more as a Bill Clinton than a Jerry Sandusky--not that I approve of either one, but there are different degrees of yuck.

So one has to watch out for distortion and propaganda on both sides, and keep insisting on evidence and trying to look in an unbiased way for the way things really were or are.

 

[Lukraak_Sisser]

Then you have not read my posts

If you were responding to me, you'd be wrong. I have read your posts.

You dismiss factual historical evidence about JS's fraudelent convictions PRIOR to his creation of the mormon faith as well as known scientific evidence that contradicts claims made in the BoM as anti-mormon propaganda without even attempting to explain why this would be so.
Your 'refutations' are all sites written by mormons for mormons essentially saying 'we are right and everyone else is wrong!' but they lack any form of in depth analysis of their claims.

You claim that anything said by the so-called prophets of the church is true, binding and god-given without offering a shred of evidence that they are anything else but humans proferring their own opionions while *claiming* to have spoken to a higher power.
You accept the fact that they are true prophets because they say they are true prophets.

And you (repeatedly) claim that we must accept all of this or your god will punish us for excersizing our free will and reasoning abilities in some nebulous, but horrible way for all eternity.

Blind.
Unquestioning.
Fearful obedience.

 

[Pup]

Apparently, too, actual belief is not the key, just the pretense. You may recall Pup being chastised for not adopting the Mormon faith just to please Mrs. Pup.

The above is in reference to this post.

My wife still hasn't got her confirmation email to join the forum, but one thing that she (and I) wanted to point out, is that Janadele has left the wrong impression of official church doctrine. One thing the church really does emphasize is personal testimony, and not just going through the steps of joining for superficial reasons.

Here are the church's official instructions for preparation for Baptism and confirmation:

http://www.lds.org/manual/preach-my...firmation?lang=eng&query="baptismal+interview

In fact, they even discourage baptising other family members if the husband isn't personally ready, and even respect his wishes if he doesn't want other members baptised.

If the father in a family is not ready for baptism, should I baptize the family or wait until the father is ready?

If the father of a family is not ready for baptism and confirmation but other family members are, you may tell the father you prefer not to baptize the family without him because the Church respects the head of the home and because family members will progress in the gospel best as a family unit. If the father continues to decline, you may baptize and confirm other family members with his consent.

 

[asydhouse]

Is Janadele saying people will go to hell?!

I haven't read the whole thread, I find the anodyne quoting of bland religious "bible speak" language too opaque and boring to read. But one thing the missionaries stressed was that there is no hell. Heaven is being in the presence of god, then the second class heaven is where the unfavoured but righteous dwell, visited by angels or what have you, so they get a bit of the "fire glow" effect of second-hand god vibes, and then there is this world, the lowest.

Sure can look like hell down here, but also can be heaven, in our own terms.

Unless I've remembered that wrong, and this earth is the middle one, and the other is worse than here.

But they did make it a n important point that no one would be "punished for eternity" in hell, or what have you.

I can see Janadele hinting that you'll regret not joining god's crowd, but is she really saying people go to hell?

If so, then those missionaries were even more duplicitous than I know!

Shameful. They came into my home and told me lies, ruined my youth, and for what? (It wasn't so bad, I had a lot of good times... but some unnecessary trauma, and a lot of wasted time and effort).

If I could, I would sue.

 

[Foster Zygote]

Personally, I accept the Scriptures, Doctrine and teachings as received by the Prophets of God and which have been canonised as official LDS Scripture, and have no personal need for further elaboration or research. The Lord has given us more than enough for us to study, understand and abide by... there is little time for more in all the days of our mortal life.

And when those scriptures, doctrines and teachings are further changed, you will no doubt accept the revisions with no personal need for further elaboration or research. Why trouble yourself with questions about the legitimacy of plural marriage, or why church leaders would drop a racially discriminatory restriction after Brigham Young had declared that he knew it to be true in the name of Jesus Christ.

 

[Janadele]

The descendants would need to be worthy, receptive, and be listening... and the particular Spirit would also need to be worthy to be allowed this privilege.

There are those who have... but it is not normally broadcast to the world. Though incidents such as the following are on record:

Here is a segment from Ezra Taft Bensons beautiful testimony regarding the spiritual encounter of President Woodruff:

"Shortly after Spencer W. Kimball became president of the Church, we met together in one of out weekly meetings. We spoke of the sacred records that are in the vaults of the various temples of the Church. As I was soon to fill a conference assignment to St. George, President Kimball asked if I would go into the vault at the temple and check the early records. In so doing, I realised the fulfilment of a dream I had had ever since learning of the visit of the Founding Fathers to this sacred place. I saw with my own eyes the records of the work that was done for the Founding Fathers of this great nation, beginning with George Washington. I was deeply moved on that occasion to realise that these great men returned to this promised land by permission of the Lord and had their ordinance work done for them. If they had not been faithful men, if they had not been God-fearing men, would they have come to the elders of Israel to seek their temple blessings? I think not. The Lord raised them up, sanctioned their work, and proclaimed them “wise men.” Moreover, a president of the Church declared them to be the “best spirits the God of heaven could find on the face of the earth,” and testified that they were “choice spirits” and “inspired of the Lord.”

The temple work for the fifty-six signers of the Declaration of Independence and other Founding Fathers has been done. All these appeared to Wilford Woodruff when he was President of the St. George Temple. President George Washington was ordained a high priest at that time. You will also be interested to know that according to Wilford Woodruff’s journal, John Wesley, Benjamin Franklin, and Christopher Columbus were also ordained high priests at that time. When one casts doubt about the character of these noble sons of God, I believe he or she will have to answer to the God of heaven for it."

http://www.lds.org/ensign/1992/10/columbus-and-the-hand-of-god?lang=eng

http://www.josephsmithacademy.org/wiki/eminent-spirits-appear-to-wilford-woodruff/

http://www.ldsmag.com/article/1/9216

... my question of why, if it's possible for spirits to contact the living as you claimed, there aren't billions of spirits constantly pestering their descendants and clamouring to be baptised.

Do you have any explanation for the absence of this phenomenon?

 

[Pup]

But they did make it a n important point that no one would be "punished for eternity" in hell, or what have you.

I can see Janadele hinting that you'll regret not joining god's crowd, but is she really saying people go to hell?

If so, then those missionaries were even more duplicitous than I know!

Shameful. They came into my home and told me lies, ruined my youth, and for what? (It wasn't so bad, I had a lot of good times... but some unnecessary trauma, and a lot of wasted time and effort).

If I could, I would sue.

Naw, the missionaries had the doctrine correct (I mean, they were correctly reporting doctrine, not that I think it's correct correct, if you know what I mean.)

http://www.lds.org/ensign/2005/04/m...covenants-the-three-degrees-of-glory?lang=eng

Scroll down to the terrestial kingdom to see what most decent folks will get. "Were honorable people who allowed themselves to be blinded by the craftiness of men," is the get-out-of-jail free card, to explain the cognitive dissonance over why nice honest decent people just can't get that burning in the bosom to join the church.

The really bad guys will get the telestial kingdom, but of course if a Mormon gets angry at somebody and doesn't want to be charitable, he or she will put them in that category and gloat about it, but even it isn't really like the stereotypical hell, with fire and pitchforks.

The fire-and-pitchforks place would be outer darkness (scroll down to find it here), but only Mormons can go there. Lends a whole 'nuther aspect to Pascal's wager. If you want to guarantee that you'll never go to outer darkness, don't become a Mormon.

 

[Resume]

Here is a segment from Ezra Taft Bensons beautiful testimony regarding the spiritual encounter of President Woodruff.

"Shortly after Spencer W. Kimball became president of the Church, we met together in one of out weekly meetings. We spoke of the sacred records that are in the vaults of the various temples of the Church. As I was soon to fill a conference assignment to St. George, President Kimball asked if I would go into the vault at the temple and check the early records. In so doing, I realised the fulfilment of a dream I had had ever since learning of the visit of the Founding Fathers to this sacred place. I saw with my own eyes the records of the work that was done for the Founding Fathers of this great nation, beginning with George Washington. I was deeply moved on that occasion to realise that these great men returned to this promised land by permission of the Lord and had their ordinance work done for them. If they had not been faithful men, if they had not been God-fearing men, would they have come to the elders of Israel to seek their temple blessings? I think not. The Lord raised them up, sanctioned their work, and proclaimed them “wise men.” Moreover, a president of the Church declared them to be the “best spirits the God of heaven could find on the face of the earth,” and testified that they were “choice spirits” and “inspired of the Lord.”

The temple work for the fifty-six signers of the Declaration of Independence and other Founding Fathers has been done. All these appeared to Wilford Woodruff when he was President of the St. George Temple. President George Washington was ordained a high priest at that time. You will also be interested to know that according to Wilford Woodruff’s journal, John Wesley, Benjamin Franklin, and Christopher Columbus were also ordained high priests at that time. When one casts doubt about the character of these noble sons of God, I believe he or she will have to answer to the God of heaven for it."

Woodruff be trippin'.

 

[skyrider44]

It is not character assassination when it is the truth. Joseph Smith, founder of the Mormon Church, was arrested and convicted of "glass looking". That makes him a con-artist, a crook, a charlatan.

You make a reckless, unsupportable charge--one that has been dear to the hearts of critics for generations. I will deal with it in a separate post.

The folly of what you state in the remainder of this post (and in previous ones) is readily exposed and dispatched, as follows:

1. You believe that the terminal sentence in the introduction (original version) refers exclusively to the Book of Ether, which consists of circa 30 pages. By your lights only that book is susceptible to error, and the 487 pages encompassed by the first paragraph are not. That makes no sense, yet it's your position.

2. You fail to understand that the purpose of an introduction is to introduce readers to the entire contents of a book, or at a minimum to give them an overview of it. But the introduction you endorse--to reiterate-- addresses about 30 pages and ignores 487 pages.

3. You do not realize that "fault" in the original introduction functions as a collective noun, thus it is applicable not only to both paragraphs but to the Book of Mormon in its entirety.

4. You haven't examined the headnotes at the beginning of each chapter in the BoM. Do you see any paragraphing in them? What do you see instead? You see em dashes, even though the subject matter changes (sometimes dramatically).

5. You apparently believe--with a league of critics--that circa 3,000 changes have been made in the BoM text. What you don't seem to understand is that those changes (whatever the number) deal almost exclusively with punctuation, capitalization, and spelling, which fall into the very issue we have been discussing.

6. Apparently, you do not accept amendments to the U.S. Constitution. If you did, you would understand that while Article 8 makes no reference to errors in the BoM, Joseph Smith admitted that the book was not pristine--on at least two occasions. In other words, he clarified/amended Article 8.

In short, your position isn't credible. The concluding sentence refers to the Book of Mormon in its entirety, and the notion that it refers only to the people of Jared is ludicrous.

 

[Jack by the hedge]

The descendants would need to be worthy, receptive, and be listening... and the particular Spirit would also need to be worthy to be allowed this privilege.

So not billions then. Perhaps only millions. Is that a more reasonable figure? Like the rest of us, Mormons have lots of ancestors.