LDS

[Ray Agostini]

Hi, Ray.
From your link
"It should be remembered that the Book of Mormon is a translation of an ancient Nephite text. The English word "Christian" is not the word that was originally on the Nephite record, but is the English word that Joseph Smith used when translating the original Nephite word. The word "Christian" simply means "Christ-believer" in common use and in the Book of Mormon. We don't know what the original Nephite word was for "Christian", but it signified something like "Christ-believer." The word "Christ" is a Greek word that means the same thing as the Hebrew word "Messiah." The concept of a future Messiah was taught in ancient Israel, and anyone who believed those prophecies would have been a "Messiah-believer". Therefore, all pre-Christian era Israelites who believed in the coming Messiah/Christ were Christians in this sense. This is the sense we find in the Book of Mormon.

Lehi and his family left the Old World carrying with them the plates of brass that they obtained from Laban (1 Nephi 4). These plates contained "the prophecies of the holy prophets, from the beginning, even down to the commencement of the reign of Zedekiah; and also many prophecies which have been spoken by the mouth of Jeremiah." (1 Nephi 5:13). Therefore, the Nephites knew about the ancient prophecies of the future Messiah/Christ. Furthermore, the Book of Mormon records many more prophecies by New World prophets of the coming Messiah/Christ. All those who believed these prophecies were "Messiah-believers" or, equivalently, "Christ-believers." The English word that Joseph Smith used to convey this meaning was "Christian." "

Do you really take this seriously?

I don't have the time to answer all of the questions thrown at me here, but I'll try to summarise by answering this.

My journey through Mormonism has been a long and complex one, which began in 1975. After some five years of studying "alternative history", which in those days was called "The New Mormon History", the "cognitive dissonance" mentioned by RandFan hit me like the proverbial ton of bricks. For a couple of years I tried to stay, but I experienced increasing conflicts with members and leaders over "doctrinal matters", and I had a completely different view of Mormon history than the "average member". It didn't take long for the "heretic" label to stick, so in August 1987 I walked away. From 1990 to 2000, I tried several times to return, but this always ended up like Ground Hog Day.

From about 1994 on I adopted the "inspired but not literal history" approach to the Book of Mormon, which is still a minority view among LDS, but it does appear to be growing. That view is not acceptable to "TBMs", or True Believing Mormons". Thus I've always been between a rock and a hard place, basically thumped by "TBMs" on the one hand, and ex-Mormons/critics on the other. I do believe that the Book of Mormon is a "modern expansion of an ancient source". It was not written for people in the time of Moses, or Christ, but for our day. Thus it was "modernised" so we could better understand it. In my experience, many Christian concepts in the Bible are made much clearer in the Book of Mormon. Sorry, but I don't have the time, nor energy, to write out all of this now (I've been on Mormon-related boards for 13 years now, and that is like Ground Hog Day), and have been asked to do this more times than I can count.

The point here, and this was mentioned by Janadele, is that I received a very powerful "witness" to the truthfulness of the Book of Mormon. While I left the Church, I never left the Book of Mormon. Part of my reasoning and justification for that is found in 3 Nephi 27:

8 And how be it my church save it be called in my name? For if a church be called in Moses’ name then it be Moses’ church; or if it be called in the name of a man then it be the church of a man; but if it be called in my name then it is my church, if it so be that they are built upon my gospel.

9 Verily I say unto you, that ye are built upon my gospel; therefore ye shall call whatsoever things ye do call, in my name; therefore if ye call upon the Father, for the church, if it be in my name the Father will hear you;

10 And if it so be that the church is built upon my gospel then will the Father show forth his own works in it.

I'm going to leave it there. I'm constantly getting logged out of this forum every several minutes, and I'm tired of moderators intervening. I'm used to posting on a much more liberal and tolerant board, and I don't want to waste any more of my time writing out posts while wondering what I'll be admonished for next.

I wish you all well. To the believers, may God be with you. To the unbelievers, peace to you.

 

[deaman]

Mr. Agostini -

You wrote:
In my experience, many Christian concepts in the Bible are made much clearer in the Book of Mormon.

I don't see how any so called scripture (Bible or Book of Mormon) can be called clear. If it was "clear" there would be no doubt in anybody's mind as too the meaning of any one passage. There certainly would be no mistakes.

There are so many different sects. Why?

Why doesn't the Holy Spirit give one definitive explanation for all? (Answer: Because there is no such being.)

By the way,You too, seem like a nice guy.

 

[Nay_Sayer]

I'd think by the time anyone got up to the bit where Joe reads gold plates via his magic dirty old hat they'd put the book down and ask whose the wise guy that gave them a joke book.

 

[pakeha]

...I'm going to leave it there. I'm constantly getting logged out of this forum every several minutes, and I'm tired of moderators intervening. I'm used to posting on a much more liberal and tolerant board, and I don't want to waste any more of my time writing out posts while wondering what I'll be admonished for next.

I wish you all well. To the believers, may God be with you. To the unbelievers, peace to you.

Moderators intervening?
What's going on here?

 

[Agatha]

A derail about atheism was split to AAH. Shocking, huh? As for the logging out, I suppose he might have thought to tick the "remember me" box.

 

[jsfisher]

@Ray Agostini,

Can you share with use your views on the Book of Abraham. Most of us here see it as a complete fabrication of what was written in an Egyptian funeral scroll.

 

[tsig]

I don't have the time to answer all of the questions thrown at me here, but I'll try to summarise by answering this.

My journey through Mormonism has been a long and complex one, which began in 1975. After some five years of studying "alternative history", which in those days was called "The New Mormon History", the "cognitive dissonance" mentioned by RandFan hit me like the proverbial ton of bricks. For a couple of years I tried to stay, but I experienced increasing conflicts with members and leaders over "doctrinal matters", and I had a completely different view of Mormon history than the "average member". It didn't take long for the "heretic" label to stick, so in August 1987 I walked away. From 1990 to 2000, I tried several times to return, but this always ended up like Ground Hog Day.

From about 1994 on I adopted the "inspired but not literal history" approach to the Book of Mormon, which is still a minority view among LDS, but it does appear to be growing. That view is not acceptable to "TBMs", or True Believing Mormons". Thus I've always been between a rock and a hard place, basically thumped by "TBMs" on the one hand, and ex-Mormons/critics on the other. I do believe that the Book of Mormon is a "modern expansion of an ancient source". It was not written for people in the time of Moses, or Christ, but for our day. Thus it was "modernised" so we could better understand it. In my experience, many Christian concepts in the Bible are made much clearer in the Book of Mormon. Sorry, but I don't have the time, nor energy, to write out all of this now (I've been on Mormon-related boards for 13 years now, and that is like Ground Hog Day), and have been asked to do this more times than I can count.

The point here, and this was mentioned by Janadele, is that I received a very powerful "witness" to the truthfulness of the Book of Mormon. While I left the Church, I never left the Book of Mormon. Part of my reasoning and justification for that is found in 3 Nephi 27:



I'm going to leave it there. I'm constantly getting logged out of this forum every several minutes, and I'm tired of moderators intervening. I'm used to posting on a much more liberal and tolerant board, and I don't want to waste any more of my time writing out posts while wondering what I'll be admonished for next.

I wish you all well. To the believers, may God be with you. To the unbelievers, peace to you.

He posted, he was questioned, he left.



Guess I'll never find out how those golden plates got to a Hill Cumorah.

 

[bruto]

And I guess I'll never be able to find out how passing the buck on who created the stuff Joe Smith wrote down makes it any better.

 

[Slowvehicle]

And I guess I'll never be able to find out how passing the buck on who created the stuff Joe Smith wrote down makes it any better.

...and I'm still waiting for that practical, empirical, real-world evidence, attested to by neutral scholars, of a horse culture in the pre-Colombian Americas (not to mention barley, wheat, cows, steel, et al.)

 

[tsig]

...and I'm still waiting for that practical, empirical, real-world evidence, attested to by neutral scholars, of a horse culture in the pre-Colombian Americas (not to mention barley, wheat, cows, steel, et al.)

It's simple, the infallible prophet just translated the words wrong.

 

[deaman]

The "most perfect" book.

Lol.

 

[Craig4]

That's not a "belief", it's a fact!

Prove sin exists.

 

[deaman]

I don't believe in sin.

I do believe you can go against your conscience and thus be uneasy about your own actions. To me, that's the closest concept I exercise, analogous to sin.

 

[Apology]

Maybe we're being too harsh on the Mormons about the horse thing. After all, they have a history from the beginning of calling one animal by the name of another. From an account of the 1838 Mormon revolt in Davies County, Missouri, in the footnotes of No Man Knows My History:

...the Saints began to rob and burn houses...took honey, which they called sweet oil, and hogs which they called bear, and cattle which they called buffalo.

There are also contemporary accounts by non-Mormons who said that their houses were destroyed and their livestock were stolen by the Mormons.

So you see, Mormons are historically confused about the names of animals, mistaking hogs for bear and cattle for buffalo

 

[RandFan]

horses were never used in battle in the Book of Mormon...

I just noticed this. So, let's set some premises.

• There is an unseen entity called god.
• This god is all knowing and the most intelligent entity in the universe.
• This unseen entity speaks with Mormon prophets so they can best direct the Mormon Church.

Fair enough?

Now, given those premises and Ray's claim, can anyone explain the following image from the BOM. The image depicts Helaman, riding on a horse, leading the 2000 stripling warriors into battle. Let me concede that this is simply a depiction as imagined by the artist, Arnold Friberg.

My question: Why would god allow that image in the BOM?

Why did the BoM introductory page that asserted that the BoM is a history of the Native Americans need to be changed AFTER DNA tests determined that Native Americans have few if any Hebrew markers in their DNA?

Then there is the Salamander Letter controversy. Why didn't god tell the prophet at the time that the letter as well as the other documents purportedly found by Mark Hoffman were a fraud? Why would church leaders meet behind closed doors with a forger? Why would they ask members to purchase the documents?

Dodging the questions with the old standard (mistakes of men and not god) makes god out to be an incompetent leader of HIS church. That image by Fridberg was in the BoM for decades. A leader that allows his followers to make mistakes that would hinder missionary work is incompetent. Period.

 

[halleyscomet]

Maybe we're being too harsh on the Mormons about the horse thing. After all, they have a history from the beginning of calling one animal by the name of another. From an account of the 1838 Mormon revolt in Davies County, Missouri, in the footnotes of No Man Knows My History:



There are also contemporary accounts by non-Mormons who said that their houses were destroyed and their livestock were stolen by the Mormons.

So you see, Mormons are historically confused about the names of animals, mistaking hogs for bear and cattle for buffalo

Perhaps the Book of Mormon is actually set in China:

Zoo In China Swaps Lion For Dog, Hopes No One Notices

It makes sense. A boat trip to China is more plausible given the state of boat technology at the time. There's genetic correlation between Native Americans and some Asian populations. China HAD horses during the right time period. As further evidence, we have people calling an animal by a completely wrong name, something Smith era Mormons have been documented doing.

 

[RandFan]

I believe that FAIR and FAIRwiki have done substantial apologetic work. Not all of it I agree with, but I don't share the contempt that most exmos have for them, often expressed in derisive sloganeering.

I don't have contempt for those working at FAIR, FAIRwiki or FARMS. However, I do find many of their responses to be ad hoc and compelling only to Mormons.

To be sure, there is a lot of unfair criticism of the Church and I'm glad that there is an organization to respond to that. What I find troubling is the lack of objective reasoning when it comes to some of the more difficult to answer questions. The Church has painted itself into a corner by proclaiming it to be the only Church to receive direct communication from god.

Anything can be rationalized. There are explanations for most if not all claims that Skeptics find difficult to believe. Leprechauns, Big Foot, Alien Abductions, Crop Circles.

The Mormon Church, if it were directed by god, would have done well to tell a single coherent story. That things continue to change makes it look like the work of different mortal leaders like Brigham Young rather than a deity. Why didn't god tell Brigham Young that if he didn't stop saying racist nonsense he would kill him? God purportedly told Joseph Smith that if he, Smith, didn't have more wives that god would kill Smith. With a flaming sword no less. No, I didn't make that up.

So, racist rhetoric from prophets and other Mormon leaders that would cause serious harm to many of god's children no big deal. But, doing what many men want to do, have sex with lots of women, why god was going to make damn sure that **** was going to happen.

IMO: Smith's claim that, "god made me do it", is transparently self serving and paints god out to be insane. Why didn't god tell Smith about germs? It's claimed that god gave Smith a "word of wisdom" to keep the saints healthy. Had god told them about germs, or simply to boil their water before drinking it, many saints would not have died from water born diseases. Particularly on their trek to Utah. Nothing in the word of wisdom, that I can see, was information new to humans. God apparently told them conventional wisdom of the time. Some of it nonsense. There is little evidence that hot drinks pose any serious health risk. On the contrary, hot drinks are far less likely to have harmful germs. And note that the word of wisdom changed when it came to "hot drinks".

Mormonism And The Word Of Wisdom

[FONT=sans-serif, Verdana, Arial]On April 7, 1868, the Mormon Apostle George Q. Cannon stated that chocolate drinks and hot soups were forbidden: "We are told, and very plainly too, that hot drinks--tea, coffee, chocolate, cocoa and all drinks of this kind are not good for man....we must feed our children properly.... We must not permit them to drink liquor or hot drinks, or hot soups or to use tobacco or other articles that are injurious." (Journal of Discourses, Vol. 12, pp. 221 & 223) [/FONT]

The following appeared on the Editorial Page of the Church Section in the Deseret News: "One of the latest efforts to justify drinking coffee is the current propaganda that drinking cocoa or chocolate is against the Word of Wisdom and that cocoa is supposed to contain even more caffeine than does coffee. "It is difficult to understand why some individuals seem to enjoy shocking people with extreme statements, or why they enjoy being the center of attraction so much that they are willing to set forth untruths as though they were facts.... the facts then completely dispel any notion that cocoa or chocolate is as harmful as coffee. Persons who say that those drinking hot chocolate are breaking the Word of Wisdom as effectively as if they drank coffee do not state the truth....

 

[carlitos]

A boat trip to China is more plausible given the state of boat technology at the time.

 

[halleyscomet]

Christian Pastor: ‘The Book of Mormon’s Written by Satan’

How to Become Whiter according to Mormons (LDS)

 

[deaman]

You know, it's funny.

In a thread dedicated to truth, and constantly talking about god, prophets, god's word, the truth of the matter, etc....you'd think god would have showed up, filled with incredible wisdon, unity and love......but, all you actually find is divisiveness, disagreement and dissension.

Just more of the ************ that all religion seems to cause.

In fact, without divisiveness, of what need, or use, is religion?

You practically need the one in order for the other to thrive.